HomeMy Public PortalAbout08 August 07, 1996 Budget & Financer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIO
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
(COMMISSIONERS MICHAEL BARRY, BOB BUSTER,
KAY CENICEROS, WILLIAM KLEINDIENST)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1996
.......................
........................
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES,
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS,
5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS
5A. Northwest Area Deficiency Plan_
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Approve the concept of a Northwest Area
Congestion Management Program Deficiency Plan either as an RCTC independent study
or as an augmentation to the joint RCTC/SANBAG studies related to Routes 71/91; 2)
authorize administrative amendment to SCAG's Regional Transportation Improvement
Program to reprogram $ 150,000 of federal funds and $ 19,000 of matching funds from the
Southwest Area, Congestion Management Program, Deficiency Plan study to this study
effort; 3) authorize Riverside County members of the Route 71/91 Project Development
Team to determine if San Bernardino County members would be willing to integrate this
study into the work to be performed by HDR and, if so, expedite study efforts through
temporal use of demonstration funds to be replaced with the augmentation funds; and,
4) following such determination, select which option (i.e., independent RCTC study or joint
RCTC/SANBAG study effort linked to Route 71/91 work) would be most appropriate for
RCTC to proceed with this study.
5B. Audit of Planning Fund Recipients_
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Adopt a policy requiring audits of
recipients of Article 3 planning funds. Instruct staff to include the policy in the next
revision of the Program and Funding Guide; and, 2) authorize the Executive Director to
revise the contract with Ernst & Young to include funding for audits of recipients of Article
3 planning funds.
Page 2
Agenda - Budget/Finance Committee
August 7, 1996
5C. Commuter Assistance 1994/95 Audit.
Overview
Ernst & Young has just completed an audit of the Commission's Commuter Assistance
Incentive Programs. A copy of the report outlining the agreed upon procedures and
results is included for your review. This item is for receive and file.
5D. Grant Close -Out Process for Transit Operators.
Overview
This item presents the proposed Operating and Capital Grants Process for Transit
Operators and is in response to a Management Letter comment included in the
Commission's 1995 audit. Staff has reviewed the proposed process with the transit
operators and recommends approval.
5E. Monthly Cost & Schedule Reports.
Overview
Presented are material that depicts the current costs 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 with status for the month ending June 30, 1996. This item
is for receive and file.
6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
6A. Approval of Amendment No. 1 for Greiner, Inc. for Conducting Construction Support
Services for the Yuma Drive/Interstate 15 Interchange Prnject (Agreement Nn RO 94-2R1
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission approve Amendment No. 1 to the Consultant
Service Agreement RO 94-28 with Greiner, Inc. for additional construction support
services in the amount of $72,386.24 for a revised contract base amount of
$1,272,386.24 All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement (No. RO 94-28)
and the four (4) approved Extra Work Authorizations would remain in effect.
6B. Approval of Amendment ? to the MOU with Cathedral City for Improvements to Fast Palm
Canyon Drive !previously Highway 1111
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission approve Amendment 2, the MOU with
Cathedral City for the improvements to East Palm Canyon Drive (previously Highway 11 1)
between Cathedral Canyon Drive and Date Palm Drive.
Page 3
Agenda - Budget/Finance Committee
August 7, 1996
6C. Measure A Streets and Roads Funding Compliance Issues.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt as policy: 1) A requirement that
uncompleted projects continue to be listed on the 5 year CIP until completed; 2) a project
status report be included with the annual submission of the 5 year CIPs; 3) any Measure
A balances in excess of the equivalent of three years revenues will be reviewed by the
Commission Budget and Finance Committee. The project status reports will be used by
staff in formulating recommendations to the Committee; and, 4) direct staff to include
these policy changes in the next revision to the Program and Funding Guide.
6D. Measure A" Five Year Capital Improvement Program for Local Streets and Roads for FY
1997-2001.
Overview
The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to
annually provide to the Commission a five year plan of how those funds are to be
expended in order to receive disbursements for local streets and roads. Any subsequent
additions, deletions, or substitutions to the approved Plan must also be approved by the
Commission.
6E. Amendment to FY 1996-2000 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the
City of Hemet.
Overview
The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to
annually provide to the Commission a five year plan of how those funds are to be
expended in order to receive disbursements for local streets and roads. Any subsequent
additions, deletions, or substitutions to the approved Plan must also be approved by the
Commission. The City of Hemet is requesting Commission approval to amend their
previously approved FY 1996-2000 Plan.
7. ADJOURNMENT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
96-07
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
July 3, 1996
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice -Chairperson Bob Buster called the meeting of the Budget/Finance Committee to order at
11:45 a.m. at the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, 4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor,
Riverside, California 92501.
Members Present
Bob Buster
Michael Barry
Kay Ceniceros
William Kleindienst
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S/C to approve the meeting minutes of June 5, 1996.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions/revisions.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS
5A. Management Letter Comments on RTA.
5B.
Cathy Bechtel noted that RTA Budget Committee met and made some process changes
which were outlined in the staff memorandum. Staff will continue to attend the meetings.
M/S/C that the Commission receive and file Riverside Transit Agency's Management
Letter.
M/S/C that the Commission add the Rail -Volution 96 Conference to the list of
conferences for FY 96-97 and approve attendance of up to two (2) Commissioners.
Page 2
Minutes - Budget/Finance Committee
July 3, 1996
5C. Monthly Cost & Schedule Reports_
M/S/C that the Commission receive and file.
6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
6A. Measure "A" Five Year Capita/ Improvement Program for Local Streets and Roads for FY
1997-2001.
M/S/C that the Commission approve the FY 1997-2001 Measure "A" Five Year Capital
Improvement Plans for the above mentioned agencies as submitted.
6B. Amendment to FY 1996-2000 Measure "A" Five Year Capita/ Improvement Plan for the
City of Palm Springs.
M/S/C that the Commission approve an amendment to the FY 1996-2000 Measure
"A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Palm Springs as submitted.
6C. Amendment to FY 1995-1999 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the
City of Palm Springs.
M/S/C that the Commission approve an amendment to the FY 1995-1999 Measure
"A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Palm Springs as submitted.
6D. Rock Fall Mitigation for Lamb Canyon Route 79 Project and Resolution of Cut Slope C-2
and other Miscellaneous Slope Clean-up Issues; also, Modify the fo/lowing Consultant
Agreements to Support the Rock Fall Mitigation Ffforts: 1) Approval of Contract
Amendment No 2 for O'Brien Kreitzberg & Associates (OAK) to Perform Additional
Construction Management Services for the Route 79 Lamb Canyon Project (RCTC
Agreement No. 94-23); 2) Approval of Amendment 6 to Agreement RO-93-06 with
Converse Consultant for Geotechnical Fngineering Services for the Route 79, Gilman
Springs Roar] to First Street Highway Widening Project; and, 3) Approval of Amendment
No. 3 (Scope Change #10) for Greiner, Inc. for Engineering and Design Services, and the
Preparation of Revised Grading Plans for the Route 79 Lamb Canyon Project (Agreement
No. 93-021
M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Direct staff to proceed with the preparation of the
plans, specifications, and estimates for the rock fall mitigation effort as directed at the
May 8, 1996 Commission meeting; and, 2) modify the existing consultant agreements
with Converse Consultants, Greiner, and O'Brien Kreitzberg to assist in the preparation
of the plans, specifications and estimate as follows: a) approve Amendment 2 to
Agreement RO 94-23 with O'Brien Kreitzberg for "Construction Management Services
for Route 79 Gilman Springs Road to First Street" in the amount of $71,950 for a
revised contract amount of $1,580,859 and keep $10,000 available for possible
future extra work; b) approve Amendment 6 to Agreement RO 93-06 with Converse
Consultants for "Geotechnical Services for Route 79 Gilman Springs Road to First
Street Measure A Highway Widening Project" in the amount of $17,890 for a revised
contract amount of $488,141 and have $5,000 authorized for possible future extra
work, and c) approve Amendment No. 3 to the Consultant Service Agreement 93-02
with Greiner, Inc. for additional engineering services in the amount of 830,968.41 for
a revised contract base amount of $2,905,403. All other terms and conditions of the
original Agreement (No. RO 93-02) and Amendments 1 &2 would remain in effect
including the existing $25,556 remaining in extra work.
Page 3
Minutes - Budget/Finance Committee
July 3, 1996
6E. Approval of Amendment No. 1 for Harris & Associates (Agreement No. RO 96-31)
M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Authorize Amendment No. 1 to the Construction
Management Service (No. RO 96-31) with Harris & Associates (HA) to cover the
additional services necessary to construct the Northmoor Noise Wall Project for a
period of approximately three months (3) from August 1, 1996 to October 31, 1996
for an amount not -to -exceed $47,002.46. The total HA contract amount would
increase from $838,789.56 to $885,792.02. There will be no change in the
contingency amount associated with Amendment No. 1; and, 2) authorize that Harris
& Associates (HA) use the two (2) Ford Explorers presently owned by RCTC. All other
terms and conditions of the original agreement (Agreement No. RO 96-31) would
remain in effect.
7. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/PARK-N-RIDE/BICYCLE
7A. FY 1997 FTA Section 5307 Program of Projects.
M/S/C that the Commission approve the proposed FY 1997 FTA Section 5307
Program of Projects for Riverside County.
7B. FY 1.996-97 Local Transportation Fund Allocations for Transit
M/S/C that the Commission approve the FY 1996-97 LTF Allocations for Transit in
Riverside County as shown on the table.
7C. Request from RTA to RPprograra Local Transportation Funds.
M/S/C that the Commission approve the request from Riverside Transit Agency to
reprogram $87,496 in local transportation capital funds to the four capital projects
listed above.
7D. FY 1997 FTA Section 5311 Rural Transportation Program.
M/S/C that the Commission approve the proposed FY 1996-97 FTA Section 5311
Program of Projects for Riverside County.
7E. Grant Close -Out Process for Transit Operators.
M/S/C that the Commission authorize staff to delay capital disbursements until the
issue of capital grants close-out has been resolved.
7F. FY 1996-97 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Recommended Funding
Allocations.
Commissioner Ceniceros suggested that the applicants for SB 821 funds, as well as the
Commissioners,be better informed on the process and point system, and criteria used for
ranking and prioritizing the projects.
M/S/C that following a presentation of analysis of the impact that the new criteria
may have had on the ratings of projects, the Commission discuss the criteria, and
consider approval of funding in FY 1996/97, Projects 1-20 on Table II, as proposed
by the SB 821 Committee.
Page 4
Minutes - Budget/Finance Committee
July 3, 1996
8. COMMUTER RAIL
8A. Approval of Amendment 1 to Agreement RD 93-23 for Resolution of Request for
Additional Design Fees for Huitt7ollars' work on the Final Design of the West Corona
Commuter Rail Station.
M/S/C that the Commission authorize approval of Amendment 1 to Agreement No. RO
93-23 between RCTC and Huitt-Zollars. The total contract amount would be
increased by $15,000.00 to an amount not to exceed $375,724.20. This amendment
will represent the final action necessary by the Commission to closeout the agreement
(Agreement No. RO 93-23) with Huitt-Zollars.
8B. RCTC Beach Trains Report and Special Trains Augmentation.
M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Authorize the use of existing "Beach Train" revenues
above costs, and accept any necessary cost guarantees, to operate and market one
or more additional trains to San Clemente this summer; 2) direct staff to plan Beach
Train service for 1997.
9. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Budget/Finance Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 12:45 p.m.
R pectfully submitted,
_6
Nat fthav�
Clerk of the Commission
:jw
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 7, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Northwest Area Deficiency Plan
During the Commission's consideration of the Surface Transportation
Program/Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (i.e., STP/CMAQ) program for FY 1994-95,
a $ 169,000 project to prepare a Congestion Management Program Deficiency Plan
for the Southwest Area was approved. However, we have not moved forward with
obtaining authorization for federal funding or selection of a consultant for that study.
One reason was that pending of AB 2419 (Bowler) would make the state mandated
Congestion Management Program optional. Another reason is that staff of the
affected local agencies (i.e., Riverside County, Transportation and Land Management
Agency, City of Temecula, and City of Murrieta saw little need for an independent
study in light of work that their consultants are conducting in the area. However, the
available funding could be put to good use to study system deficiencies and potential
solutions in the Northwest Area.
Route 91 between 1-15 and Route 71 is at level "F" service and our Draft Strategic
Plan indicates that insufficient Measure A and State Transportation Improvement
Program funding exists to commit to adding the second lane in each direction that
was anticipated by the voter approved plan. It is possible that auxiliary lanes may
address part of the needs in some locations. However, consideration of system
deficiencies, including system management approaches, toll road options, and
potential new corridors is needed.
It is possible that some options may relate to the joint SANBAG/RCTC sponsored
studies regarding Route 71/91. Staff and RCTC participants on that study Project
Development Team should investigate the potential of adding the $ 169,000 for
additional focused work which might be performed by the selected consultant - HDR
Engineering; this might expedite the study effort to provide more timely input to the
Route 71/91 study. Another option might be to -seek Caltrans and federal
authorization of funding for a separate study, which would require a competitive
process for consultant selection. Although this approach would provide more direct
control of the study effort with RCTC, the additional time for consultant selection
might delay the schedule for the Route 71/91 resolution, assuming consideration of
corridor options might influence selection of an Route 71/91 interchange design.
Page 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission:
1) Approve the concept of a Northwest Area Congestion Management Program
Deficiency Plan either as an RCTC independent study or as an augmentation
to the joint RCTC/SANBAG studies related to Routes 71/91;
2) Authorize administrative amendment to SCAG's Regional Transportation
Improvement Program to reprogram $150,000 of federal funds and $19,000
of matching funds from the Southwest Area, Congestion Management
Program, Deficiency Plan study to this study effort;
3) Authorize Riverside County members of the Route 71/91 Project Development
Team to determine if San Bernardino County members would be willing to
integrate this study into the work to be performed by HDR and, if so, expedite
study efforts through temporal use of demonstration funds to be replaced with
the augmentation funds; and,
4) Following such determination, select which option (i.e., independent RCTC
study or joint RCTC/SANBAG study effort linked to Route 71/91 work) would
be most appropriate for RCTC to proceed with this study.
:jw
AGENDA ITEM #5B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 7, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Audit of Planning Fund Recipients
Issue:
The Commission disburses Article 3 planning funds to local jurisdictions for funding
planning studies and activities. Historically, those funds have been allocated to
CVAG and WRCOG. Those planning fund allocations have not been audited by an
independent auditor to ensure they are spent consistent with state guidelines and the
overall work plans submitted to the Commission for approval. Since both the
Commission itself and all jurisdictions receiving funding from the Commission are
audited, it would seem reasonable that even Article 3 planning fund recipients should
also be audited.
Background:
State regulations require that all recipients of TDA funding be audited. The
Commission has ensured annually that this regulation is complied with by retaining
an audit firm to conduct audits on all Article 3 (pedestrian), Article 4 (transit), and
Article 8 (streets and roads) claimants. The Commission, itself a recipient of LTF
planning and administrative funds as well as Article 4 funds, is audited annually by
an independent accounting firm.
The Commission has a policy that requires all Measure A recipients to be audited on
an annual basis to ensure fiscal accountability and compliance with Measure A
guidelines and policy. As with TDA, all of the Commission's Measure A funds are
audited in addition to all other recipients. Even consultants and vendors have been
audited by the Commission on a test -basis.
A part of TDA funding provides 3% off the top for planning activities. Half of that
three percent is made available to fund planning studies in the Coachella Valley and
in Western County. CVAG has received approximately 30% of the available funding,
with the remaining amount going to WRCOG (with the exception of $125,000 in
96/97 which was held by the Commission to be used to fund a Route 71
demonstration project).
Page 2
Conclusion:
The Commission has not audited any of the planning funds that have been disbursed.
Staff believes it to be inconsistent and fiscally imprudent to disburse any funds
without subsequently auditing that the funds have been spent for authorized
purposes. Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt as policy a requirement
that Article 3 planning fund recipients should receive annual audits performed by the
Commission's independent auditors.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission:
1) Adopt a policy requiring audits of recipients of Article 3 planning funds.
Instruct staff to include the policy in the next revision of the Program and
Funding Guide; and,
2) Authorize the Executive Director to revise the contract with Ernst & Young to
include funding for audits of recipients of Article 3 planning funds.
:jw
Aug;07-96 11:30A CoachellaValleyAssocofGov 619-340-5949-
P.05
0
S H E E T
To: Supervisor Buster
Subject: Budget and Finance Committee Agenda Item 5B
Date: August 7, 1996
Pages: 1, including this cover sheet.
COMMENTS:
FAX
CVAG is dark in the month of August, hence many staff members schedule vacations at this time.
Since no one is available to attend your meeting, I am using this method to make a recommendation
in regard to Agenda item 5B.
Background: CVAG and WRCOG are required by law to have audits. Under the Single Audit
Act, multiple grant audits of the past were replaced by "single" audit specifically designed to meet
the need of all federal grantor agencies. Individual grantors still have the right to have additional
audit work performed; however, any additional audit work must build upon the Single Audit.
CVAG recommends as follows on 5B:
1) RCTC develop audit guidelines that will build upon the independent audits already being
conducted by local agencies The purpose of these guidelines would be to:
a) Ensure fiscal accountability and compliance with Measure A guidelines and policy; and
b) Ensure fiscal accountability and compliance with Article 3 Planning Funds guidelines
and policy, and
c) Avoid duplication of effort, multiple audits and save taxpayer dollars by increasing
efficiency of staff time and reducing expenditures.
2) Develop a budget to pay for this additional audit, reimbursable to local agencies upon completion
of their annual independent audit.
From the desk of...
CORKY LARSON
CVAG
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200
Palm Desert, Ca 92260
619-346-1127
Fax: 619-340-5949
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 7, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Commuter Assistance 1994/95 Audit
Ernst & Young has just completed an audit of the Commission's Commuter
Assistance Incentive Programs. There were no findings or exceptions noted in the
1994/95 fiscal year. A copy of the report outlining the agreed upon procedures and
results is included for your review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission receive and file.
:jw
El ERNST &YOUNG L L P
Board of Commissioners
Riverside County Transportation Commission
■ Suite 600
3750 University Avenue
P.O. Box 1270
Riverside, California 92502
■ Phone: 909 276 7200
Fax: 909 787 8184
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC or the Commission) disburses 2.5%
of the revenues generated under Measure A for Commuter Assistance Programs (Program)
designed to encourage single occupant vehicle drivers to carpool, vanpool, buspool, walk,
bicycle, telecommute or use public transit to and from work to reduce congestion during peak
rush hour periods. The Commission has entered into an agreement with Inland Transportation
Services (Contractor) to administer the Program.
At your request, we have applied certain agreed -upon procedures, as described below, to the
financial records of the Program and the internal control structure maintained by the Contractor
for the year ended June 30, 1995. We focused our procedures on the internal controls over
inventory held by the Contractor and the recipient's eligibility.
Our procedures were as follows:
1. We obtained an understanding of the Administration of the Measure A Commuter
Assistance Program by reading Resolution No. 94-014, "Resolution of the RCTC
Establishing Guidelines for the Administration of its Measure A Commuter
Assistance Program."
2. We read the agreement between the Commission and the Contractor, including
Amendment 3.
3. We obtained 'and documented an understanding of the Contractor's registration
process with the employer or the employee through discussions with the Program
Administrator.
4. We obtained a listing of all disbursements recorded by the Commission to vendors
for the purchase of gift certificate or coupon incentives for the year and judgmentally
selected a sample of ten items for the -year for selected testing (see -Exhibit 1). Our
procedures and findings related to Exhibit 1 were as follows:
a. We agreed the amount recorded as disbursed by the Commission to canceled
checks or warrants without exception.
b. We agreed the amount recorded as disbursed to the Contractor's check request
without exception.
Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
JERNST&YOUNG LLP
Page 2
c. We agreed the amount recorded and the payee to the log of requested gift
certificates maintained by the Contractor without exception.
5. We obtained the Incentive Payment Reports which listed recorded disbursements
made to recipients by the Contractor for the period and judgmentally selected 10
disbursements for the year for selected testing (see Exhibit 2). Our procedures and
findings related to Exhibit 2 were as follows:
Column A
We determined that the employer was registered as follows:
Coding Descriptions
1. The employer was registered with the Contractor as a participant in the
commuter assistance program by reviewing the Employer Information
Form and Statement of Participation (SOP) without exception.
Column B
We determined that the employee was registered as follows:
Coding Description
1. The employee was registered with the Contractor as a participant in the
commuter assistance program by reviewing the Employee Enrollment
Form without exception.
Column C
We agreed the Contractor disbursement to the employee claim form as follows:
Coding Descriptions
1. We agreed the disbursement to the employee to the monthly incentive
claim form noting the employer transportation coordinator's approval
without exception.
J ERNST &YOUNG L L P
Page 3
Column D
We clerically tested the monthly claim form as follows:
Coding Descriptions
1. We recalculated the number of days the employee participated in each
rideshare mode and the incentive earned for each rideshare mode and
agreed those totals to the amounts listed on the monthly incentive claim
form without exception.
2. This procedure is not applicable as a monthly claim form is not used in
conjunction with the discount toward a monthly rail pass.
Column E
We agreed the incentive amount to the approved incentive amount as follows:
Coding Descriptions
1. We agreed the daily amount per mode of transportation to the amount
approved in the SOP without exception.
2. We agreed the amount per monthly rail pass to Resolution No. 94-014
without exception.
Column F
We agreed the recorded disbursement to the employee to the employer transmittal
letter as follows:
Coding Descriptions
1. We agreed the recorded disbursement per the Incentive Payment Report to
the employer transmittal letter without exception.
6. We compared the Contractor's total gift certificate inventory rollforward balance as
of April 22, 1996 to actual gift certificates on hand, noting that the amount of actual
gift certificates on hand equaled the amount per the inventory rollforward without
exception.
JERNST&YOUNG LLP
Page 4
Because the procedures described above do not constitute an audit made in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards, we do not express an opinion on the Commuter
Assistance Program's purchase of gift certificates and incentives or payment of incentives to
eligible recipients. Had we performed additional procedures or had we audited the financial
statements of the Contractor in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, other
matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report
relates only to items referred to in the above section and does not extend to any financial
statements of the Contractor taken as a whole.
This report is provided solely for your information and that of the management of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission and Inland Transportation Services and should not be used
for any other purpose.
April 26, 1996
yawritLLP
Exhibit 1
Schedule of Selected Purchases of
Gift Certificates and Coupons by the Contractor
Voucher Check/
Contract # Vendor Date Amount Warrant #
R09517 Unocal 2/15/95 $ 5,000 5059264
R09517 Harris Department Store 11/28/94 5,000 5993006
R09516 Hams Department Store 11/28/94 5,000 5993008
R09516 Stater Bros. Markets 2/15/95 5,000 5059211
R09501 Unocal 7/21/94 10,000 5889029
R09501 VPSI 1/13/95 2,500 5037271
R09502 Galleria at Tyler 10/31/94 5,000 5976668
R09502 Lucky's 5/1/95 5,000 5113465
R09502 Hemet Valley Mall 1/24/95 1,000 5043751
R09502 VPSI 7/21/94 400 5889040
Exhibit 2
Schedule of Selected Employee Incentive Payments
made by the Contractor
Employer
Beckman Instrument -Fullerton
County of San Bernardino
Broadway
Carpenter Co.
County of Riverside
Jurupa Unified School District
Baldwin Park Unified School District
Rohr Inc.
Colton High School
Bio-Clinic
Employee
Incenti ve
Type
Joan M. McVicker Unocal
Dan Jackson Galleria
Dianna Manley Galleria
Andy Alcarax Galleria
Altha Faruq Lucky's
Richard Ziemke Galleria
James Berryman Trainbucks
Chetan Channaveeraia Stater Bros. Carpool
Robbie Felix
Lynda Halsey
Commute
Mode
Carpool
Vanpool
Transit
Walking
Vanpool
Bicycling
Rail
Stater Bros. Bicycling
Unocal Carpool
Procedures
ABCD E F
Date Amount
4/3/95 $45 1 1 1 1 1 1
11/17/94 $36 1 1 1 1 1 1
5/10/95 $24 1 1 1 1 1 1
10/21/94 $42 1 1 1 1 1 1
2/28/95 $18 1 1 1 1 1 1
7/12/94 $38 1 1 1 1 1 1
5/19/95 $44 1 1 1 2 2 1
7/14/94 $44 1 1 1 1 1 1
12/27/94 $28 1 1 1 1 1 1
6/12/95 $30 1 1 1 1 1 1
Procedure numbers refer to steps performed as listed at procedure number 5 in the attached report dated April 26, 1996.
AGENDA ITEM #5D
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
TO:
FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager
August 7, 1996
Budget and Finance Committee
SUBJECT: Grant Close -Out Process for Transit Operators
At last month's meeting, staff reported that we were working on addressing a Management
Letter comment made by Ernst & Young and would bring a proposed policy before the
Commission at the August meeting. The Ernst & Young recommendation was as follows:
We have observed that transit operators usually receive Transportation
Development Act (TDA) capital grant funds in advance of actual expenditures
and that recipients are not required to report on the status of the grants. As a
result, we have noted amounts that have expired or have been used for other
capital projects, requiring subsequent approval from the Commission. We
recommend that the Commission review its TDA capital grant process to
determine whether funds should be disbursed on a reimbursement basis and to
establish a periodic grant reporting and close-out process. The Commission
should consider using the funding and reporting process established by the
Federal Transit Administration. Implementation of such procedures would ensure
that funds are spent as intended and are available for priority projects.
Staff reviewed our current practice and talked with staff from San Bernardino Associated
Governments and Ventura County Transportation Commission to learn how they handle
disbursement of local grant funds. We also received comments from Ernst & Young on the
proposed process. Attached for your consideration is the proposed operating and capital grants
process we have developed.
This proposed process was discussed with transit operators during its development and at a
meeting on July 31. The transit operators are supportive of the proposed process and
understand that the process may need to be refined once the policy is put in practice. They
did request approval to have the ability to move money among previously approved capital
projects (per adopted SRTP) in a situation where one project comes in at a higher cost than
projected and another project can be scaled down. Staff agrees that this transfer ability
between approved projects is reasonable since exact prices of capital items are unknown at the
time the SRTP is prepared. We would recommend that up to 10% of the approved capital
allocation by fund be eligible for transfer among approved line items without additional RCTC
approval. If the transfers between line items exceeds the allowable 10%, a SRTP amendment
is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION•
That the Commission approved the attached Operating and Capital Grants Process.
:jw
OPERATING & CAPITAL GRANTS PROCESS
Claims for funds administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, including
Local Transportation, State Transit Assistance and Measure A Specialized Transit funds, may be
claimed subsequent to approval of the allocation by the Commission. The allocation of funds will
be based on the transit services and capital projects specified in an approved Short Range Transit
Plan. It is the operators responsibility to notify RCTC of any changes in project funding which
affect the allocations made by the Commission (e.g. alternate revenue source for local match).
Operating funds will be disbursed over a fiscal year. Equal payments of 90 % of the allocation
will be disbursed upon receipt of a claim form with the balance paid in June, if revenues have
come in as projected. Ten percent of the allocation will be held for payment until the end of the
fiscal year since the allocations are based on estimated revenues. The Commission receives Local
Transportation and Measure A funds monthly, based on the State's estimates. These revenues
are adjusted quarterly based on actual receipts. State Transit Assistance funds are received by the
Commission on a quarterly basis, in arrears, therefore operating allocations will be disbursed in
up to four quarterly payments.
Capital funds will be disbursed on an "as needed" basis. As has been done in the past, the
operators will specify on the claim form when the capital funds are required. RCTC will disburse
a check at the time indicated by the operator on the claim form. If a disbursement is requested,
it is expected that the operator will spend these funds soon after receipt.
In order to track progress on the capital program (for the current year as well as prior fiscal
years), a quarterly report must be submitted to the Commission indicating progress on each
project. Quarterly reports are due within 30 days after the end of each quarter. The following
information must be provided:
1) Project name and allocation number for each approved project, by fiscal year (a
listing of the approved capital projects, funding level, and project allocation
number will be provided to operator upon approval of the fund allocation).
2) The amount spent on each project to date.
3) Copies of invoices for project purchases (identified by allocation #).
4) Indication of whether project is completed, and if not, expected completion date.
The Commission reserves the right to address issues of disbursed funds not being spent in a
timely manner, in which case the operator may be placed on an immediate payment basis
requiring submittal of a vendor/supplier invoice. Should an operator desire to change the date of
their disbursement to an earlier or later date, a revised claim should be submitted. Up to 10% of
the approved fund allocation may be transferred to another approved capital project without prior
RCTC approval. If a project requires more than a 10% increase in the fund allocation, a request for
an additional allocation must come before the Commission. A change in the scope, amount or
purpose of an approved capital program requires a SRTP amendment.
Any funds leftover after the completion of a project will revert back to an apportioned,
unallocated fund status to the specific transit mode (bus or rail). Future capital disbursements
will be reduced by the leftover fund amount. In the case that there are no capital funds allocated
in the subsequent year, the operating allocation will be reduced by the leftover fund amount.
Transit Agency
Operator Fills Out.
(A) (8) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G)
Total Amt . Rec'd Spent Spent Balance Outstanding
Allocation # Project Description Pr oject Cost Allocation To Date This Qtr . To Date w/ Operator All ocation
FY 1995 Capital Program
95L-TA01 Paratransit Vans (4R) $200,000 $40,000 $40,000 $0 $38,533 $1,467 $0
95L-TA02 Shop Equipment $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $49,000 $1,000 $0
95S-TA03 Facility Improvements $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $0 $40,000 $0 $0
95A-TA04 ADA Audio Equipment $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $95,321 $4,679 $0
FY 1995 TOTAL $390,000 $230,000 $230,000 $0 $222,854 $7,146 $0
FY 1996 Capital Program
96L-TA01 Transit Coaches (2R) $600,000 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
96A-TA02 Wheelchair Lifts (2R) $40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
96L-TA03 Maintenance Spare Parts $100,000 $20,000 $20,000 $9,368 $19,368 $632
96S-TA04 Computer Equipment $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $30,000 $20,000
FY 1996 TOTAL $790,000 $230,000 $70,000 $9,368 $49,368 $20,632
FY 1997 Capital Pro gram
97L-TA01 Paratransit Vans (6R)
97L-TA02 Service Support Vehicles (4R)
97L-TA03 Operation Supplies
97S-TA04 Bus Stop Amenities
97S-TA05 Shop Tools & Equipment
FY 1997 TOTAL
Date Submitted: October 14, 1996
Activity for Quarter:
Project
Status
Closed
Cl osed
Cl osed
Closed
2nd 3rd 4th
$120,000 Equip was ordered on Aug 11, 1995 . Expect delivery in Dec 1996.
$40,000 Equip was ordered on Aug 11, 1995. Expect d elivery in Dec 1996.
$0 Closed. Invoices attached .
$0 Last piece of equip was ordered 7/26/96. Expect rec eipt in Oct 1996 .
$160,000
$300,000 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000
$96,000 $19,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,200
$40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000
$50,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
$60,000 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000
$546,000 $189,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $189,200
Example of 10% transfer ability:
Up to $18,920 can be mov ed from one line item to another at operator's di screti on.
If a line item requires more than an $18,920 change, a SRTP amendment is required .
Notes:
Amt. Rec'd To Date= Amoun t of specific fund allocation received to date, not total of a ll fund s ources for the project .
Spent To Date= Amount of fund allocation spent on the project.
Balance w/ Operator (C -E)= Funds remaining fo r the project which have already been disbursed to the operator.
Outstanding Allocation(B-C)= Balance remaining for the project which are held at RCTC.
Pro ject Status= If project is co mpleted, state closed. If still active , indicate anticipated completion date and progress completed to date .
Reminder: Copies of invoic es fo r monies spent this quarter or fo r clo sed projects which have not yet been audited must be attached to this report.
- - - SAMPLE QUARTERLY REPORT- - -
AGENDA ITEM #5E
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
August 7, 1996
Budget and Finance Committee
William Hughes, Measure A Project Manager
Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports
The attached material depicts the current costs 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 with status for the month ending June 30, 1996.
Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and cooperative agreements
is available from Bechtel staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION*
That the Commission receive and file.
:jw
Attachments
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
CO MMISSION
PROJECT AUTHORIZED
DESCRIPTI ON ALLOCATI ON
ROUTE 74 PR OJECTS
Cooperative Agre ement - City of Perris
Construction & ROW (R09012)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74
ROUTE 79 PROJECTS
Engineering/Environ./R O W
(R09111,9301,9302, 9306,9337)
Lambs Canyon Proj. (R09423,9429,9522)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79
ROUTE 86 PROJECTS
Construction & Mitigation
(R09213)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 86
RO UTE 111 PRO JECTS
(R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538)
9635
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111
ROUTE 91 PROJECTS
Magnolia to M ary HOV & Serfas club Sndwls
(R0 9101, 9308, 9415, 9524)
McKinley Undercrossing (R09326)
Van Buren Blvd. Fry Hook Ramp (R09535)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91
$8,183,914
$8,183,914
38,961,366
$22,073,703
$31,035,069
320,115,078
$20,115,078
$6,700,115
$6,700,115
$10,812,508
$1,614,951
$2,300,000
$14,727,459
C ONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED
COMMIT MENTS A GAINST A UTH.
TO DATE ALLOCATION
$8,183,914
58,183,914
$8,747,964
$22,073,703
$30,821,667'
$16,182,436
$16,182,436
$6,438,616
$6,438,616
310,530,460
$1,614,951
$2,300,000
$14,445,411
Page 1 of 3
100 .0%
100.0%
97 .6 %
100.0%
99 .3%
80.4 %
80.4%
96.1%
97.4 %
100.0%
100. 0%
98.1%
EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
June 30, 1996 TO DATE CO MMIT MNTS TO DATE
$0
$56,813
$650,653
$707,466
*0
$2,647
$2,647
$9,685
$1,626
$659,159
$670,470
$7,482,777
$7,482,777
$8,506,488
$21,633,800
$30,140,288
$15,927,436
$15,927,436
$2,095,375
32,095,376
$8,346,022
$1,397,528
$659,159
$10,402,709
91.4 %
91.4%
97.2 %
98 .0 %
97.8%
98.4 %
98.4%
32.5 %
32 .6%
79 .3%
86.5 %
28 .7 %
72.0%
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY R OUTE
CO MMISSION CONTRACTURAL % C OMMITTED EXPENDITURE F OR % EXPENDITURES
PROJECT AUTHORIZED CO MMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. M ONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE A GAINST
DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALL OCATION June 30, 1996 TO DATE C OMMIT MNTS TO DATE
1-215 PR OJECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R 09008, 9018)
$6,726,504
$5,878,173
87 .4%
$9,854
$5,541,709
94 .3%
CECERT (R09627)
$50,000
$50,000
100.0%
$7,527
$7,527
15.1%
Right -of -Way (RO 9004,9009)
$32,554,995
$32,554,995
100 .0%
$30,705,836
94 .3 %
SUBTOTAL I-215
$39,331,499
$38,483,168
91.8%
$17,381
$36,255,072
94 .2%
INTERCHANG E IMPRO V. PROGRAM
Yuma IC Final Design (PS&E) (R09428)
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
100.0 %
$101,448
$1,113,515
92 .8 %
Yuma IC Constr. Mgmt (R09631)
$1,023,500
$890,000
87.0%
$6,314
$6,314
0.7 %
Yuma IC Construction (R09636)
$6,000,175
$6,000,175
100 .0%
SUBTO TAL INTERCHANGE
$8,223,675
$8,090,175
98 .4%
$107,762
$1,119,829
13.8%
BECHTEL PROJECT MGM T SERV.
(RO 8900 thru R09700)
$12,329,736
$12,031,436
97 .6%
$67,884
$10,346,766
86.0 %
SUBTOTAL BECHTEL
$12,329,736
$12,031,436
97.6%
$67,884
$10,346,766
86.0%
PROG RAM PLAN & SERVICES
Program Studies
$5,275,161
$5,275,161
100.0%
$3,201,593
60.7 %
(R09006,9119, 9307)
M apping Control/QA (R09007)
$2,683,729
$2,683,729
100.0%
$1,255
$2,637,420
98.3%
SUBTOTAL PROGRAM PLAN & SVCS.
$7,958,890
$7,958,890
100.0%
$1,255
$5,839,013
73 .4%
PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM
$6,729,966
$6,729,966
100.0%
$185,575
$5,772,417
85 .8%
(RO 9418, 9526, 9528, 9601 - 9613, Impress)
SUBTO TAL PARK -N -RIDE
$6,729,966
$6,729,966
100 .0%
$185,675
$5,772,417
85.8%
COMM UTER RAIL
Studies/Engineering
$4,864,413
$4,864,413
100.0 %
$4,658,084
95.8 %
(RO 9323, 9324, 9420)
Station/Site Acq/OP Costs
$92,776,388
$92,548,805
99.8%
$31,906
$89,792,572
97.0%
(R09209, 9424, 9521,9527,9531,9532,9620,9626)
SUBTOTAL COMMUTER, RAIL i
$97,640,801
$97,413,218
99.8%
$31,906
$94,450,656
97.0%
TO TALS
$262,976,202
$246,778,897
97.6%
$1,792,346
$219,832,338
89 .1%
Page 2 of 3
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & R OADS PR OJECTS
BUD GET REPORT BY PROJECT
PROJECT APPROVED
DESCRIPTION COMMIT MENT
CITY OF MURRIETA
Loan Agreement 1-15/1-215
Interchange improvements (R09334)
SUBTOTAL MURRIETA LOAN
(1)
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Final Design and Construction of
Railro ad Canyon Rd Improvements (R09422)
SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN
CITY OF CORONA
Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges &
Storm drainage structure
SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA
(1)
$17,000,000
$17,000,000
$1,600,000
51,600,000
$5,212,623
*5,212,623
TOTALS 123,812,623
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs.
All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
EXPENDITURE F OR T OTAL
MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES LOAN
June 30, 1996 TO DATE BALANCE
10
$o
10
Page 3of3
$
$2,379,711
$2,379,711
$1,600,000
11,600,000
$5,212,623
$5,212,623
$9,192,334
10
$1,500,869
$1,500,869
$5,212,623
$6,212,623
$6,713,492
% EXPENDITURES
OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST
C OMMIT MENT APPROVED C OM MIT .
$15,859,513
115,859,513
10
10
10
10
$16,859,513
14.0 %
14.0%
100 .0%
100 .0%
100.0%
100.0%
38 .6%
Stat us Mo. Ending 06/30/96
P
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 7, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Mike Davis, Environmental Manager
THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment No. 1 for Greiner, Inc. for Conducting
Construction Support Services for the Yuma Drive/Interstate 15
Interchange Project (Agreement No. RO 94-28)
Staff is recommending that Greiner, Inc. conduct additional construction support
services for the Yuma Drive/Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange Project. These services
include construction meetings, site reviews, requests for information, as -built plans
for structures and revision to plans and shop drawings for the ongoing construction
project. These services are described in detail as Extra Work Request No. 7 -
Milestone 16, dated July 25,1996 (attached) and are estimated to cost $105,658.00.
The original Greiner, Inc. contract amount including all four (4) approved Extra Work
Authorizations (Extra Work Requests Nos. 5 & 6 were not approved) is presently
$1,200,000.00 with $12,622.00 remaining in extra work. There is a $33,271.76
balance remaining in the Design and Engineering Services Contract which will be
rolled over into the Construction Support Services Amendment No. 1 and decrease
the total Greiner, Inc. request dated July 25, 1996 to $72,386.24 ($105,658.00 -
$33,271.76). With this action the total Greiner contract amount will increase from
the $1,200,000.00 to $1,272,386.24. The extra work amount will remain at
$12,622.00. A standard contract amendment will be used to amend Agreement RO
94-28.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve Amendment No. 1 to the Consultant Service
Agreement RO 94-28 with Greiner, Inc. for additional construction support services
in the amount of $72,386.24 for a revised contract base amount of $1,272,386.24
All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement (No. RO 94-28) and the four
(4) approved Extra Work Authorizations would remain in effect.
:jw
Attachment
Greiner
cireiner, Inc.
1241 East Dyer Road, Suite 250
P.O. Box 1948
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 556-9260
FAX: (714) 979-7928
July 25, 1996 P.N. H10013516
Mr. Mike Davis
Project Coordinator
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Subject: I-15/Yuma Drive Interchange
Extra Work Request No. 7 (Submittal No. 2)
Dear Mike:
08-Riv-15-K.P. 683/70.4
I-15/Yuma Drive Interchange
Category 010.02
In accordance with Karl Sauer's request, we have prepared the attached work scope and
level of effort estimate to provide engineering support services during construction of the
I-15/Yuma Drive interchange project. The specifications allow the Contractor 300 days to
complete the project (approximately 60 weeks) and we have based our level of effort
estimate on this proposed construction schedule. We have deleted 72 hours of Project
Manager time per Bill Hughes request.
The level of effort required for the types of engineering services necessary during
construction is difficult to determine. Our estimate is based on previous experience on
similar projects, particularly the State Route 79 - Lamb Canyon/Gilman Springs interchange
project completed for RCTC in 1994/95. Because the services are essentially `on call, we
will closely monitor the level of effort fluctuations and keep RCTC informed of apparent
trends.
We are prepared to begin work immediately upon receiving your notice to proceed for the
engineering construction support services phase of the project. The following are attached
to this Extra Work Request #7 submittal.
• Scope of Services
* Cost Proposal
* Level of Effort Estimate for Labor
We look forward to providing continued service to RCTC on the I-15/Yuma Drive
interchange project. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this submittal, we
are available to meet with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
GREINER, INC. PACIFIC
Jeffs G. Cha•',i an, P E
Proj Manager
JGC/L09147ti
cc: Frank Castro Greiner
Chris Kries, U3 reiner
Gteiner
MILESTONE 16
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
SCOPE OF SERVICES
16.0 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
The Greiner Team will provide engineering support during the construction phase of the
I-15/Yuma Drive interchange project. The construction phase is assumed to commence with the
award of the construction contract and end with the contractor's notice of completion and is
estimated, for purposes of this proposal, to have a duration of fifteen months.
16.1 ENGINEERING SUPPORT DURING CONSTRUCTION
16.1.1 Construction Initiation
16.1.1.1 Pre -Construction Meeting
Greiner's Project Manager will attend the Pre -Construction meeting to be held at RCTC. The
structural design manager will also attend the Pre -Construction Meeting. Issues that may arise
during construction will be discussed. The Greiner Team will be prepared to answer questions
with respect to the plans and specifications for the project. Sets of construction drawings and
specifications will be delivered to the Construction Manager and the Contractor at the meeting.
Products: Full -Size Plans, Vellums - Contractor (2 assumed)
Full -Size Plans, Bluelines - Construction Manager (2 assumed)
Half -Size Plans, Bluelines - Construction Manager (24 assumed)
Technical Specifications - Construction Manager (12 assumed)
16.1.1.2 Partnering Meeting
Greiner's Project Manager will attend the Partnering Meeting to be conducted by RCTC. The
meeting will be held off -site with arrangements handled by RCTC and the Construction Manager.
Minimal follow-up to the day -long meeting is expected.
I-15/YUMA DRIVE INTERCHANGE - CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 1
16.1.2 Requests for Information
Consultation with the Construction Manager for interpretations of the design drawings and
technical specifications will be provided. The Greiner Team will review Requests for Information
(RFIs) submitted by the Construction Manager/Contractor, as needed. Responses to RFIs will
be returned to the Construction Manager within ten working days after receipt of the RFI. Up
to 30 RFIs are assumed for the level of effort estimate.
16.1.3 Construction Meetings
Construction meetings. will be attended by the Greiner Team, when requested, to provide input
into construction issues or progress related to the design. Six construction meetings are assumed.
16.1.4 Site Reviews
The Greiner Tearn will also perform up to six site reviews at the project. Site reviews are
intended to observe the general progress of construction and do not include detailed review of
the Contractor's construction procedures or inspection of the Contractor's work. Any issues noted
in the field will be brought to the attention of the Construction Manager for resolution by RCTC
and/or the Resident Engineer.
16.2 SIGN ORDER FORMS
Sign order forms will be completed for each nonstandard sign panel required for permanent
roadside and overhead installation on the project. Sign order forms will be prepared on Caltrans
standard forms and submitted to the Construction Manager. The Construction Manager will
coordinate with Caltrans for processing the sign panel orders and arranging for delivery to the
site.
16.3 SHOP DRAWINGS
Shop drawings for the widening of the Yuma Drive overcrossing and Second Street undercrossing
will be reviewed and comments provided for the Construction Manager/ Contractor. Shop
drawings are assumed to be provided in complete, packaged submittals. The review, with
comments, will be returned to the Resident Engineer within twenty working days of receipt. This
task includes in-house review/comment efforts only and does not include meeting time, change
order preparation, field review time, review of nonstandard materials or materials not specified.
I-I5/YUMA DRIVE INTERCHANGE - CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 2
The level of effort for this task assumes review of shop drawings for the following items:
• Prestressing Details
• Falsework and Temporary Support Plans
• Other Details Required by Technical Specifications
• Retaining Wall Details
16.4 AS -BUILT PLANS (BRIDGES)
Prepare one set of reproducible as -built plans from the design drawings for the widening of the
Yuma Drive overcrossing and Second Street undercrossing structures only, based upon a legible,
red -lined set of design drawings provided by the Construction Manager/Contractor. This task is
limited to transferring the as -built information provided by the Construction Manager/Contractor
to the design bridge drawings in CARD. The as -built information to be placed on the design
bridge drawings includes only applicable bridge items.
The accuracy of the as -built information provided by the Construction Manager/Contractor shall
be certified by the Contractor's licensed land surveyor or professional engineer providing the
information. This task excludes providing any site review or field survey of the as -built
conditions.
16.5 GEOTECHNICAL SITE REVIEWS
The Greiner Team will perform site reviews, as requested by the Construction Manager, to
observe site conditions and/or excavations. Field memoranda and follow-up memoranda from
the office will be issued as necessary. The level of effort assumes a total of ten site reviews for
geotechnical review purposes.
16.6 PROGRESS REPORTS
The Greiner Team will prepare fifteen monthly progress reports. The progress reports will
summarize the Team's engineering construction support services provided during the previous
month. The progress reports will be submitted in conjunction with each invoice to facilitate
cross-referencing to the billing of the associated month.
16.7 PROJECT FILES
The project files established and maintained throughout the project development, design and
bidding phases of the project will continue to be maintained throughout the construction phase.
I-15/YUMA DRIVE INTERCHANGE - CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 3
EWR #7 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
DIRECT LABOR
NAME
F. CASTRO
J. CHAPMAN
FUNCTION
PRINCIPAL
PROJECT MANAGER
SR. PROJECT ENGINEER
PROJECT ENGINEER
ENGINEER
TECHNICIAN/CADD
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR
CLERICAL
TOTAL HOURS
FRINGE BENEFITS
OTHER COSTS
TRAVEL COSTS
REPRODUCTION
CADD/COMPUTER
MISC COSTS
SUBCONSULTANTS
GTC
W.K00
DKS
MIG
MFA
SUBCONSULTANT FEE
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD & GENERAL
FEE
TOTAL COST
fn_conbudl .WK3
HOURS HOURLY TOTAL,
O $65.00 $0.00
o *50.00 $0.00
350 *35.00 $12,250.00
O $31.50 $0.00
206 *22.00 $4,532.00
18 $18.00 $324.00
156 $13.00 $2,028.00
16 $17.00 $ 272.00
746
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS
RATE TOTAL
37.84% $7,343.23
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
*500.00
$5,200.00
58,300.00
$ 600.00
SUBTOTAL $14,600.00
$22,360.00
$11,484.00
*0.00
$0.00
$0.00
SUBTOTAL *33,844.00
RATE
5.00%
TOTAL
*1,692.20
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
RATE TOTAL
121.08% *23,496.78
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
RATE
10.50%
MILESTONE #16
$19,406.00
$7,343.23
$50,136.20
$23,496.78
$5,275.83
$105,658
PRINT DATE :25 -Jul -96
1-15 - EWR #7 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
I1-15/YUMA DRIVE INTERCHANGE
LEVEL OF EFFORT ESTIMATE
TASK
NO.
TASK DESCRIPTION
M ILESTONE 16
116.1.1.,Attend Pre -Constructi on Meeti ng
.16.1.1. Attend Partn ering Meeting
Requests for In formation (RFIs)
16.1.3 Con struction Meetin gs
16.1. 4 Site Re views
16,2 Sign Order Fo rms
16,3 Sho p Drawing Revie w
16.4 As -Built Plan s (Bridges)
16.5 Geotechnical Site Rev iews
16.1. 2
16.6 Progress Re ports
16,7 Proje ct Files
I16.8 Project Close -Out
16.9 Mileston e Management
TOTAL MILESTONE 16 HO URS
WORK
PACKAGE
RESP
20 1 G
20 G
10
20
20
30
40
40 G/KOO
50
XA
XA
XA
XA
G
G
G
G
G/KOO
G/G TC
G
G
G
0 j
TOTAL HOURS ALL M ILESTONES
GREINER - HIGHW AY
PRIN
PM
SPE
PE
ENGR
of
0
PROJ
TECH ADMIN
CLERCL
SUB
TOTAL
4
2
6
v, v
z
0
12'
0
0
120. 0
120
0
30
0
270
0
0
24
0
24
0
0
4
52
0
0
24
0
24
0
0
4
52
0
0
8
0
10
10
0
8
36
0
0
16
0
20
0
8
0
44
0
0
8
0
0
0
2
0
10
0
0
8
0
0
0
2
0
10
0
0
20
0, 0
0
40
0
60
0
0
20
0
0
0
20. 0
40
n
n
n
..
-
20I 0 44'
30 0. 110i
L
o' 0!
3501
01 2061 18
1561 161 746`
fn conbu d1.WK3
PRINT DATE :25 -J ul -96
1-15 - EWR #7 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
TASK
NO.
1-15/YUMA DRIVE INTERCHANGE
LEVEL OF EFFORT ESTI MATE
TASK DESCRIPTION
WORK
PACKAGE; RESP
MILESTON E 16
16.1.1.1 A ttend Pre -Construction Me eting
20
G
16. 1.1. Atten d Partn ering Meeting
20
G
16.1.2
Requests fo r Information (RFIs)
10
G
16. 1.3
Construction M ee tings
20
G
16. 1.4
Site Reviews •
20
G
16. 2
A gri Order Forms
30
G
16. 3
Sho p Drawing Review 40
G/KOO
16.4
As -Built Plans (Bridges)
40
G/KOO
16.5
Geo te chn ical Site Revie ws
50
G/ GTC
16.6
Progre ss Re po rts
XA
G
16. 7
Protect Files
XA
G
16.8 Projec t Close -Out
XA . G
16.9 Milestone Man agement
XA j G
TOTAL MILESTONE 16 HOURS
TOTAL HOURS ALL MILESTONES
W. 1(00 & ASSOCI ATES HOURS
PRIM
PM
SE
TECH!
PE AE CADD
PROJ
SUPP
SUB-
TOTAL
0)
4
0
0
0
0
0: 0
4
0 0
0
0
0
0
0` 0
0
0 14
0
28
0
0
0' 0
42
0: 6
0
12
0
0
0 0
18
0
6
0
8
0
0
0 0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
6
0
60
0
0
0
0
66
0
1
0
4
0
10
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0' 0
0
0
0
0
0;
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0! 0
0
0:
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
37
0
112
0
10
0
0
159
01 371 of 112' of 101 of 01 1591
fn c ontwdl.WK3
PRINT DATE :25 -Jul -96
1-15 - EWR #7 C
--- -
----—--•- vft. ■ a W ■VI_V
I-15/YUMA DRIVE INTERCHANGE
LEVEL OF EFFORT ESTIMATE
TASK WORK
N0. TASK DESCRIPTION PACKAGE RESP
MILESTONE 16
16. 1. 1 Attend Pre -Constructio n Me eting
16.1.1.
16.1.2
16.1.2
16. 1.4
16.2
16.3
16.4 As -Built Plans (Bridges'
16.5 Geotechn ical Site Rev ie
Attend Partnering Meeting
Requests fo r In formation (RFIs)
Constructio n Meetings
Site Revie ws
Sign Order Forms
Shop Drawing Review
20 I a
20 . G
10 0
20
20
30
40
40
0
G
G
G/KOO
G/KOO
16.6 Progress Re ports - au
xA
Ci/GT C
G
16.7
Pro jec t Fifes
XA
G
I 16.8
Pro ject Close -Out
I )(AG
16. 9
Mile stone Management
XA
G
E 16 HOURS
TOTAL HOURS ALL MILESTONES
GEOTECHNIC AL CONSULTA NTS, INC HOURS
ASSOC
ENGR
PM
PROJ
GEOL
STAFF
ENGR
FIELD CONT
GEOL ADMN
W .P./
DRAFT
SUB-
TOTAL
0=. 0
01 0
0
o
0
0, 0
o 0
O 0
0
0
0
0
0.
40
0
20
20
0
0
12
0
92-
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O' 0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0;
0
0
0
O
0
0: 0
0
0.
20
0
20
0
80
0 10
0
130.
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
o
0.
0
0
. 0
0: 0
0
01
0
0
O
0
0
0`
0
0
0
0
0
16
O
0
0
16
0
32
601 01 661
20 B01
Oi 381
0l
254
60
0
58
20
BO
0 38J 01 254
1n_conbudl . WK3
PRINT DATE :25 -Jul -96
1-15 - EWR #7 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
£t'd 1ti101
TASK
NO,
I-15/YUMA DRIVE INTERC HANGE
LEVEL OF EFFORT ESTIM ATE
TASK DESCRIPTION
MILESTONE 16
16.1.1. Attend Pre -Constructi on Meeting
16.1.1. A ttend Partnering Meeting
16.1. Requests for lnformetion (RFIs
1 Meetings
1
16.3 Shop Drawing Review
16.4 As -Built Plans (Bridges)
16.6 Geo techn i
W ORK
. PACKAGE RESP
20
20
10 G
20
20
30
40
40 6/1(00
G
G
G
G
G
G11(0 0
16.6
Progress Reports
XA
G
16.7
Project Files
XA
G
16.8
Project Close -Out
XA
G
L 16.9 Milesto ne Man agement
1
XA ' G
TOTAL M ILESTONE 16 HOURS
I TOTA L HOURS ALL MILESTONES
PROJECT TOTALS
GREINER 1
HWY i
KOO
GTC
SUBCONSULTANTS
DKS T MFA
MIG TOTAL
614
0
0
01 0
10'
12 0
0
0
0
0
12
270
42
92' 0
0
0
404
52
18
. 0
0
0
0
70
52
14
0
0
0
0 66
36
0
0
0
0
0
36
44
66
0
0
0
0
110
10
15
0
0
0
0
26
10
0
130
0.
0'
0
140
60
0
0
0
0
0
60
40
0
0
0
0
0
40
44
0
0
0
0
0
44
110
0
32
0
0
0
142
746; 1591 2154.
0 l
0 01
1.1591
746
159
254
0
0
0
1.159
1n con budl.WK3
PRINT DATE :25 -Jul -96
6.1. Construction
6.1. Site Reviews
16.2 Sign Order Forms
AGENDA ITEM #6B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 7, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment 2 to the MOU with Cathedral City for
Improvements to East Palm Canyon Drive (previously Highway 111)
At the May 10, 1995 meeting of RCTC, the Commission approved a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with Cathedral City to provide $4,596,000 of funding for
three Measure A projects: Date Palm Drive intersection with SR -111, Cathedral
Canyon intersection with SR -111, and the segment of SR -111 between these two
intersections. The approved MOU stipulated that the Measure A project funding
would be approved by RCTC in phases. The first phase was for design and was
approved for execution with the original MOU. Cathedral City has been moving
forward with the design aspects of the project and now desires to obtain approval of
the implementation phase of the project as directed in section 3.3 of the MOU.
Amendment 1 to the MOU with Cathedral City was approved at the January 10,
1996 Commission meeting to allow for early acquisition of right-of-way to assist the
City in their efforts to protect the necessary right-of-way at the least cost to the
project. A second agreement (approved by RCTC on July 12, 1995) between RCTC,
CVAG and Cathedral City advances the remaining $4,740,000 from CVAG required
to fully fund the $9,336,000 required for the three projects.
Attached for Commission review and approval is the proposed language of
Amendment 2 to the existing MOU. Included with the Amendment is the proposed
scope, schedule and cost for the completion of the project. The proposed budget
indicates that the project will require the entire $9,336,000 that has been authorized
for the project and the schedule indicates that the project will start demolition in
August 1996, start construction in March 1997 and be completed in October 1997.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve Amendment 2 the MOU with Cathedral City for the
improvements to East Palm Canyon Drive (previously Highway 111) between
Cathedral Canyon Drive and Date Palm Drive.
:jw
DRAFT
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT
DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS
BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY
1. Parties and Date
1.1 This Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding
for Funding and Joint Development of State Highway 111 Improvements
is executed and entered into this day of June, 1996, by and
between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (hereinafter
referred to as "RCTC") and the CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY (hereinafter
referred to as the "CITY").
2. Recitals
2.1 WHEREAS, the Parties on or about August 9, 1995
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for Funding and Joint
Development of State Highway 111 Improvements (the "Agreement"),
including widening and other improvements of portions of State
Highway 111 located within the City (the "Project");
2.2 WHEREAS, the Parties on or about January 20, 1996
entered into Amendment No.1 to the Agreement to allow the City to
acquire nine (9) "full take" parcels, subject to review and
approval by RCTC, prior to the Implementation Phase of the Project;
2.3 WHEREAS, Section 3.3 of the Agreement provides that
the Parties shall negotiate and execute an amendment to the
Agreement to provide for the following: (a) the adoption of a
budget for the Project; (b) the adoption of a coordinated schedule
for acquiring the needed property and undertaking construction of
the improvements; (c) the adoption of a sharing arrangement for the
Project Costs; (d) an agreement regarding fund disbursements from
RCTC; and (e) a clearer understanding of the respective roles and
responsibilities of the Parties in completing the Project along the
concepts and components contained in Exhibit "B" of the Agreement.
2.4 WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to enter in this
Amendment to effectuate the purposes of Section 3.3 of the
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in ._consideration for the promises set
forth herein, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
BBK\DRD\311040
3. Terms
The Agreement shall be amended as follows:
3.1 Amendment of Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "A" shall be amended as set forth in Exhibit "Al"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3.2 Amendment of Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "B" shall be amended as set forth in Exhibit "Bl"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3.3 Amendment of Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "C" shall be amended as set forth in Exhibit "Cl"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3.4 Project Budget
The general budget overview for the Project is attached
hereto as Exhibit "D1" and incorporated herein by reference. This
budget overview provides a general description of the financial
obligations of the Project, but does not provide a detailed, item -
by -item breakdown.
3.5 Project Schedule
The general schedule for the completion of the Project
shall be the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "El" and
incorporated herein by reference.
3.6 Property Acquisition Chart
The general outline of the parcels to be acquired for the
Project is included in the chart attached hereto as Exhibit "F1"
and incorporated herein by reference. This chart also describes
those parcels which may result in "remnant parcels" not needed for
the Project.
3.7 Site Plan
The site plan for the Project is included as Exhibit "Gl"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3.8 All Other Provisions Remain in Effect_
Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of
the Agreement, including without limitation the Indemnity and
Insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and
shall govern the actions of the Parties under this Amendment.
DRD311040
-2-
3.9 Defined Terms.
All initially capitalized terms in this Amendment shall
have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this
Amendment on the date first hereinabove written.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By:
Alex Clifford, Chair
By:
Title:
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
FOR APPROVAL
By: By:
Jack Reagan Community Development
Executive Director Director
REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: APPROVED AS TO FORM
By:
By:
Dean Martin, Controller Special Counsel
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
DRD311040
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Counsel to the Riverside
County Transportation
Commission
-3-
EXHIBIT "Al"
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Design and construction of improvements on East Palm Canyon Drive at the
intersections of Cathedral Canyon and Date Palm Drives, and widening of East Palm
Canyon Drive between Cathedral Canyon and Date Palm Drives, as illustrated in
Exhibit G-1. In general, these improvements will include: new paving, sidewalks,
gutters, sub -surface drainage, landscaping and lighting, medians, striping, and an
integrated video -controlled signal system to improve traffic flow and safety. The
anticipated configuration of the project areas are as follows:
1. Cathedral Canyon Drive Intersection
a. East -Bound Approach
i. Convert existing exclusive right turn lane to through lane with right turn
movements permitted.
ii. Retain dedicated left turn lane.
iii. Provide two through lanes and retain median separating east and west-
bound traffic.
b. West -Bound Approach
i. Relocate dedicated right turn lane and install a median to separate from
through traffic.
ii. Provide three through lanes.
iii. Retain dedicated left turn lane (installation of a median separating east and
west -bound traffic under study).
c. North/South-Bound Approaches
The City has commissioned a study to analyze traffic movement at this
intersection. This study will help determine the final configuration of all four
intersection approaches at Cathedral Canyon. The City does not anticipate any
additional right-of-way needs (beyond that already shown at the northeast
corner) to complete improvements at this intersection.
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "Al" Page A-1
2. Widen East Palm Canyon Between Cathedral Canyon and Date Palm Drives
a. Reconstruct the four lane facility between the Cathedral Canyon and Date Palm
Drive intersection approaches and provide appropriate intersection tapers.
b. Restrict access at mid -block locations by closing many driveways and cross -
street connections.
c. Add a frontage road system on the north side of East Palm Canyon between
Cathedral Canyon and Van Fleet Avenue.
d. Provide medians separating right turn pockets at east and west -bound
approaches to all intersections.
3. Date Palm Drive Intersection
a. East -Bound Approach
i. Provide dual dedicated left turn lanes.
ii. Provide three through lanes with right turns permitted from the curbside lane.
iii. Install a median separating east and west -bound traffic.
b. West -Bound Approach
i. Provide a dedicated right turn lane with maximum allowance for continuous
movement.
ii. Provide three through lanes.
iii. Add a dedicated left turn lane with a median separating east and west -bound
traffic.
iv. Widen the bridge (to the south) over Cathedral Canyon wash to
accommodate additional lanes and approaches.
c. North -Bound Approach
i. One north -bound through lane with left turns permitted.
ii. One north -bound through lane with right turns permitted.
iii. One south -bound lane.
d. South -Bound Approach
i. Two dedicated left turn lanes.
ii. One south -bound through lane with left terns permitted.
iii. One dedicated -right turn lane.
iv. Upgrade median separating north and south -bound traffic.
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "Al" Page A-2
EXHIBIT "B1"
RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES
1. As stated in the Agreement, the City, with funds provided by
RCTC, will contract for the completion of the Project design.
2. The City, on behalf of itself and the Redevelopment Agency,
and RCTC will prcparc thc amcndmcnt of thc agrccmcnthave 4repared
this .mendment to the Agreement which will defines their respective
roles in completing the Project along the following lines:
2.1 The City and RCTC will agree on a budget for the Project,
a coordinated schedule for acquisition, construction, fund
disbursement, mutually agreeable arrangements to assure that the
cash flow requirements of the construction schedule will coincide
with the availability of RCTC funds, and a sharing of the Project
Costs.
2.2 "Project Costs" will consist of all the relevant direct
costs in implementing the Project which are incurred or paid to
third parties, and shall include:
2.2.1 "Acquisition Costs" shall be determined for
each property whose acquisition is undertaken, including (i)
the funds necessary for to inspect, evaluate, study, negotiate
and acquire any of the right of way or any other property for
the Project by negotiation and/or eminent domain, including
but not limited to: compensation for the taking or threatened
taking of property interests (including, but not limited to,
land, buildings, leasehold rights, if any, goodwill, fixtures,
equipment and improvements); eminent domain awards; payment of
any awards for damages or compensation based on claims of
inverse condemnation or other pre -acquisition claims; costs
and damages awarded as a result of the abandonment of any
condemnation proceeding, deposits necessary to obtain court
orders for immediate possession and satisfaction of judgment;
court costs and other awards and judgments arising out of any
acquisition proceedings; attorney's fees; filing fees; expert
and other witness fees; appraisal fees; engineers', economists
and other consultant fees; title services; escrow fees;
prorated taxes, rents and other similar expenses; (ii) costs
of contracts with acquisition consultants; (iii) all
relocations costs and expenses including contracts with
relocation consultants and costs and -expenses paid to
displaced persons pursuant to the applicable relocation laws;
and (iv) remediation costs (v) other reasonable and necessary
related costs and expenses.
2.2.2 "Construction Costs" for the Project, including
design costs, plan preparation, grading and site preparation,
B-1
consultants, financing costs, building fees and permits
(except those required by City), architect and engineering
fees, construction contracts, costs for labor and materials,
change orders and other related costs caused by the
construction or incorporated into the Project or arising out
of disputes, litigation, arbitration or contract enforcement
and other reasonable and necessary related costs and expenses
(including attorneys' fees). Construction and Construction
Costs relating to cross streets made necessary by the widening
or other improvements to the traffic carrying capacity of
Highway 111, including normal hardscaping and landscaping
typical of such a highway project in the Coachella Valley
shall be determined in the future. Construction costs at
cross streets shall be shared by RCTC only to the extent
defined by the final determination of the Cost/Funding
Allocation Percentage cost sharing formula, as provided in
paragraph 3 and related subparagraphs.
2.2.3 Costs of preparing reports, studies and
documentation to comply with the requirements of CEQA.
2.2.4 Costs related to the bidding, advertisement and
award of construction contracts.
2.2.5 Project Costs shall include direct on -site
costs of management of the construction portion of the
Project, but not including the costs to either party of
coordinating with the other or fulfilling their respective
obligations under this Agreement. The direct cost of the
services of an employee of City who is managing or supervising
the design or construction of the Project (time charges,
fringe benefits, etc.) shall be a Project Cost, but Project
Costs shall not otherwise include any general overhead or
administrative costs or expenses of the City or RCTC for the
services of their own employees or the use of their own
facilities, including:
2.2.5.1 Management and supervision of Project
coordination and construction (provided, the cost of
management and supervision paid to a construction
management or project management company shall be
included as Project Costs).
2.2.5.2 City or RCTC staff costs for Project
coordination.
2.2.5.3 City or.. RCTC , costs for __.preparation of
invoices, billings, payments or other disbursements.
2.2.5.4 Any City or RCTC fees for Project
processing.
B-2
2.2.5.5 The costs and expenses (e.g., attorney's
fees) to either party for the drafting of this Agreement
or any amendment to this Agreement.
2.2.6 Attorney's fees and costs relating to the
Project not otherwise included in the foregoing costs, except
for attorney's fees for drafting of this Agreement as provided
in subparagraph 2.2.5.5.
2.3 The Project Costs in addition to the costs for the
Design Phase will be shared as provided in Article 3 below.
2.4 Independent of any final agreement between the City and
RCTC, the Agency has already acquired properties for its
redevelopment purposes and may acquire additional property, and one
or more of these properties may be parcels that will be partially
or entirely within the highway right of way for the Project. In the
event that City- or Agency -owned property is needed for the
Project, the Acquisition Costs for that property shall be included
as Acquisition Costs for the Project, and the City shall receive
reimbursement or credit for its Acquisition Costs related to that
property.
2.5 In some instances, as part of the acquisition program for
the Project, an entire parcel of property may be acquired by the
City (or already owned by the City or the Redevelopment Agency),
but only a portion of the parcel will actually be incorporated into
the highway right of way, leaving a remnant not needed for the
highway widening purposes. RCTC and the City will consult and
cooperate in identifying specific acquisitions where remnants of
the parcel to be acquired will not to be used in the highway right
of way, but is to be acquired by the City or the Agency for
redevelopment purposes. Prior to thc fir3t ouch acquisition, tho
City and RCTC Shall ncgotiatc a cost sharing formula for ouch
ir..
a c u i o i t i on o . < :> : : 1<'>:;: it >
..............
...............
3. The haring of thc Project Costs 0 between RCTC
and the City for the _ following segments of the ` ProTect will be
agrccd to in thc Amcndmcnt b :
3.1 Projcct Costa for thc Datc
oouthcrn cxtcn3ion) portion of thc Projcct
xndre er061.
I\alm
intcrocction (and
B-3
Highway 111 between
3.2
3.3 Projcct Co3t3 for thc widening o
intcrocction3;
3.4 The final determination of the Cos Funding Allocation
Percentage cost sharing formula to be ;< s<<kee<incorporated
into thcOr Amendment will bcZ een made b the City's
Y Y
Representative and RCTC's Representative using the guidelines set
forth and attached hereto as Exhibit "C", and incorporated herein
by reference. The determination of thc Coot/Funding Allocation
Percentage Shall be made after thc Dcoign Phaoc review proccoo hao
tcrminatcd, but prior to thc award of thc Projcct for public
contracting ur ooc3 .A d t: : :::>:: < ;:::`:; ::::°:t 3 ` : :: :' ` t t_;>F n.
arm,
en m
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
3.5 Any SB 300 (Streets & Highways Code Section 2600)
reimbursements received from the State for the Project shall be
split proportionally according to the Cost/Funding Allocation
Percentage, and credited towards each party's funding of the
Project Cost.
4. Allocation of Responsibilities of the Implementation Phase of
the Project.
4.1 The City will be responsible for the following
activities:
4.1.1 The City will be the Lead Agency to complete
all environmental studies necessary to comply with CEQA
requirements. The City will review the existing EIR and other
related environmental documents to determine whether an
existing EIR is adequate, or whether a new EIR, a supplemental
EIR, a negative declaration or other determination needs to be
certified and approved. The preparation costs for the CEQA
compliance, such as the cost of consultants, specialists,
engineers and .the likeshallbe .part of the Project Costs and
shall be reimbursed or credited to the City to the extent of
the agreed -to cost sharing split.
4.1.2 The City will plan and implement the
acquisition for the rights of way and other property interests
as required by the final design and construction requirements,
B-4
will prepare and implement the relocation programs, schedule
the acquisition and relocation efforts to coordinate with the
project construction schedule, and assume the sole
responsibility for any eminent domain condemnation procedures.
4.1.3 Act as the construction supervisor and manager
to administer, monitor and inspect the completion of the
construction and disbursement of funds in accordance with the
plans and construction contracts, and provide completion
certifications.
4.1.4 The City will consult with RCTC as requested
for review and approval of the construction plans and
contracts, enter into the construction contracts and review
and approve any change orders. Prior to the award of any
construction contracts, the parties shall arrive at
appropriate funding allocations for the overall Project.
4.1.5 The City shall pay for its share of the
Implementation Phase costs in accordance with the Amendment.
4.2 The RCTC shall make itself available for consultation,
negotiation and review of the necessary documentation, shall
process and pay for all Design Phase costs as they are incurred and
invoiced, and shall pay for its portion of the Implementation Phase
costs in accordance with the Amendment. The City shall be required
to share a portion of the Design Phase costs.
B-5
EXHIBIT "Cl"
IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY FOR COST SHARING
ON THE CATHEDRAL CITY/ROUTE 111 PROJECT
Project Description
The Project consists of design and construction of improvements on
State Route 111 at the intersection of Cathedral Canyon Drive and
Date Palm Drive, and the widening of State Route 111 between
Cathedral Canyon Drive and Date Palm Drive.
Route 111 Costs
Measure A Highway funds will be used to pay for any and all
improvements that occur as a result of the widening of Route 111 at
the intersections of Cathedral Canyon Drive and Date Palm Drive.
For the purposes of determining cost sharing percentages, the
limits of work at these intersections is defined as
n en all work within
the Routc 111 right of way cxtcnding from the cginning to thc cnd
of acccicration and dcccicration lancs associatcd with thc3c
intcr3cction im .
Measure A Highway funds will be used to pay for fifty -percent (50%)
of the cost of improvements between the t oeaer es c n rr e
:;r' eA wit in the Routc 111 right of way bctwccn the
imitd of workfor thc Cathcdral Canyon Drivc and Datc Palm Drivc
intcr=eet-io.
Cross Street Costs
The City will be responsible for funding any and all cross street
improvements. The cross street improvements would include, but not
be limited to, additional through lanes, turn lanes, acceleration
tapers, deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, utility relocations,
street lighting, necessary landscaping, traffic signal
installations and modifications, and necessary right-of-way
acquisition and services.
The dividing line between Route 111 and the cross street is defined
as the projection of the Route 111 right-of-way line across the
cross street. In the event of an unclear definition of right of
way points, a line connecting the cross street beginning and end of
curbs will be drawn. If the parties disagree on a clear right of
way line projection the curb return limit will be used. The lines
will be used as a guide for the design engineer preparing the
C-1
estimate to calculate appropriate Route 111 quantities and costs,
and appropriate cross street quantities and costs.
Costs for the traffic signal that controls Route 111 and the cross
street will be paid entirely with Measure A Highway funds
regardless of pole locations in the Route 111 or cross street
defined boundaries. Intersection signalization for other
intersections on Route 111 will be paid by Measure A Highway funds,
and intersection signalization for other intersections on the cross
street will be paid by Local funds.
tAfid
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Landscaping will be in accordance with State and City standards and
be included in the cost sharing in the appropriate Route 111 or
cross street areas. Excessive landscaping will not be paid for
with the Measure A Highway funds. Excessive landscaping is a
subjective measure, but the intent is not to use Measure A Highway
funds to pay for landscaping in excess of what is appropriate for
a typical highway project in the Coachella Valley.
Rrh
of
Right of Way would be paid for by the appropriate funds dependent
upon the area of the take, as described ` E Y y to 1 above.
C-2
EXHIBIT "D1"
PROJECT BUDGET
[SEE ATTACHED PAGES D-2 THROUGH D-271
D-1
EXHIBIT "D1"
PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Cathedral City
RCTC
Other
Total
Income
Total City Sources
$5,455,482
$5,455,482
Total Measure A Funds
$9,336,000
$9,336,000
Total Property Sales Income
$904,400
$904,400
Total Project Income
$5,455,482
$9,336,000
$904,400
$15,695,882
Expense
Design and Engineering
$417,114
$635,441
$1,052,555
Appraisal Services
$36,182
$104,112
$140,294
Right of Way Expenses
$1,716,011
$3,843,894
$5,559,905
Relocation Expenses
$313,448
$971,602
$1,285,050
Program Management Expenses
120,079
-$276,507
$396,586
Other Project -Related Expenses
$15,095
$53,521
$68,616
Construction Management Services
$22,000
$78,000
$100,000
Infrastructure/Utilities
$673,307
$185,825
$859,132
Street & Improvements Construction
Segment 1: Cathedral Canyon to Glenn
Traffic Control
$30,000
$30,000
Demolition, Removal & Disposal
$23,500
$23,500
Site Drainage
$65,500
$65,500
Traffic Striping & Markings
$14,000
$14,000
Paving & Surfacing
$244,500
$244,500
Irrigation System
$85,000
$85,000
Site Furnishings
$48,000
$48,000
RCTC Landscaping
$44,100
$44,100
City Landscaping
$74,400
$74,400
Electrical Demolition
$500
$500
Street Lighting - RCTC
$100,000
$100,000
Supplemental Lighting - City
$83,500
$83,500
Traffic Signal Lights & Control
$155,000
$155,000
Segment 2: Glenn to Allen
Traffic Control
$30,000
$30,000
$60,000
Demolition, Removal & Disposal
$23,250
$23,250
$46,500
Site Drainage
$129,500
$129,500
Traffic Striping & Markings
$8,000
$8,000
$16,000
Paving & Surfacing
$232,750
$232,750
$465,500
Irrigation System
$82,250
$82,250
$164,500
Site Furnishings
$57,500
$57,500
RCTC Landscaping
$49,700
$49,700
$99,400
City Landscaping
- $163;600
$163,600
Electrical Demolition
$250
$250
$500
Street Lighting - RCTC
$75,000
$75,000
$150,000
Supplemental Lighting - City
$203,000
$203,000
Traffic Signal Lights & Control
$80,000 !
$80,000
$160,000
Bell Tower
$465,000
$465,000
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "D1"
Page D-1
EXHIBIT "D1"
PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Segment 3: Allen to Date Palm & Bridge
Traffic Control
$30,000
$30,000
Demolition, Removal & Disposal
$54,500
$54,500
Site Drainage
$44,500
$44,500
Traffic Striping & Markings
$26,000
$26,000
Paving & Surfacing
$379,000
$379,000
Irrigation System
$79,500
$79,500
Site Furnishings
$11,000
$11,000
RCTC Landscaping
$46,500
$46,500
City Landscaping
$72,000
$72,000
Electrical Demolition
$500
$500
Street Lighting - RCTC
$80,000
$80,000
Supplemental Lighting - City
$76,500
$76,500
Traffic Signal Lights & Control
$100,000
$100,000
Bridge Expansion
$662,500
$662,500
25% Construction Contingency
$87,177
$211,298
$904,400
$1,202,875
Reserves & Contingencies
$219,369
$219,369
Total Expenses
$5,455,482
$9,336,000
$904,400
$15,695,882
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "D1" Page D-2
EXHIBIT "E1"
PROJECT SCHEDULE
[SEE ATTACHED PAGE E-2]
E-1
EXHIBIT "El"
PROJECT SCHEDULE OVERVIEW
1995
1996
1997
Task Name
Begin
End
2095
3Q95
4095
1096
2096
3096 4096
1097
2097 3097
4097
1098 2098
Funding
713/95
12/31/97
7/3/95
12/31/97
City
7/3/95
12/31/97
7/3/95
II IIIIIIIIII1T1II11X
II1I1I[IJIIII.IIi1IIIIII
IIIXIIIIIIII I/ .11Illll
111111111
L11Mll 1111111111111
12/31/97
RCTC
8/9/95
2/28/97
8/9/95
'11 I I (1
11
�yi
2/28/97
CVAG Advance
3/3/97
12/31/97
3/3/97
12/31/97
Design
819/95
1/17/97
8/9/95
1/17197
RCTC ROW Approval
8/9/95
5/8/96
8/9/95
j;; 5/8/96
60% Submittal
5/9/96
8/15/96
5/9/96
111111110)
8/15/96
95% Submittal
8/30/96
12/13/96
8/30/96
12/13/96
100% Submittal .
1/3/97
1/17/97
1/3/97 lHl
1/17/97
Pro perty Acquisition
5/8196
2/28/97
5/8/96
2/28/97
Full -Takes
5/8/96
2/28/97
5/8/96
IIIIT(TITITTT
2/28/97
Partial -Takes
7/1/96
2/28/97
7/1/96 111=111
I
I I I I 11111
I I ►III
2/28/97
Business Relo cations
9/22/95
10/31/96
9/22/95
IMMEnTIEWEETIMM UM
10/31/96
Demo lition & Construction
8/15/96
10/1/97
8/15/96
griffilaiRI NNRIMINIMIONIN,
10/1/97
Demolition & Site Clearance
8/15/96
3/17/97
8/15/96
III 111111111I) I I I I I I
3/17/97
Construction Bidding Process
1/6/97
3/17/97
1/6/97 1
3/17/97
Construction
3/18/97
10/1/97
3/18/97
IJ 11111111 IIIIhIIII,' - 10/1/97
Project: East Palm Canyon Drive Improvements 7/30/96
Summary Task 11111111 J I W
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "El" Page E-1
EXHIBIT "F1"
PROPERTY ACQUISITION CHART
[SEE ATTACHED PAGES F-2 THROUGH F-71
7-)
S0-c7Ak ck,5
F-1
EXHIBIT "F1"
PROPERTY ACQUISITION CHART
MAP
LOCATOR
NUMBER
APN & OWNER
USE & ADDRESS
TAKING
APPROX.
AREA
SEGMENT 1: CATHEDRAL CANYON TO GLENN
100 Percent RCTC Reimbursement
USABLE
REMNANT,
(SEE HI)
1
687-191-019 & 020
Cathedral City RDA
Vacant Land
68508 — 530 EPC
Part
8,400 sf
N/A
2
3
687-191-005 & 006
Richmond Estate
687-191-007
Cathedral City RDA
Auto Buyers
68544 EPC
Vacant Land
68556 EPC
Full
Part
N/A
TBD
No
N/A
687-191-018
Ed Sullivan
4
Covers for Lovers,
Tony's Sports
Connection, Ms.
Charlene's, Crafter's
Paradise
68570 — 80 EPC
Full
N/A No
687-191-015 — 017
Mr.&Mrs. Greneveld
5
Best Cleaners
(vacant), Cathedral
Hair Dresser,
Continental Barber
Shop & Ben Rivers's
Hub Caps
68600 -- 624 EPC
Fix -It Commercial
Services
36911 Glenn Ave.
Full
N/A
No
22
687-193-011 Jack -in -the -Box Part
Connie Sillen 68350 EPC
TBD
N/A
23
687-193-010
Whitten Trust
777
Liquor Store,
Headhunters, Juice
Head
68619 EPC
Full
N/A TBD
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "F1" Page F-1
MAP
LOCATOR
NUMBER
APN & OWNER
USE &ADDRESS
TAKING
APPROX.
AREA
USABLE
REMNANT
_ (SEE H1)
SEGMENT 2: GLENN TO ALLEN
50 Percent RCTC Reimbursement
6
687-194-001 & 002
Cobb Trust, et al.
,68630
Chevron Service
Station
EPC
Full
N/A
Yes
7
687-194-003 & 004
Malini/Fisher
Estate Gallery &
Parking
68670 1st Street
Part
3,695 sf
N/A
8
687-194-005
Rutberg/Goodman
First Gallery
68686 EPC
Part
526 sf
N/A
9
687-194-017
Charles Norwood
Vacant Retail
68700 EPC
Full
N/A
No
10
687-194-016
Luis Jofre
Denim X -Change
68716 EPC
Full
N/A
No
11
687-194-012 -- 015
Louis Wolf
Zu Zu Zoo (vacant),
Trading Post & Parking
68700 — 742 EPC
Full
N/A
Yes
12
687-203-017
Robert Hillery
Univ. Tax (vacant)
68762 EPC
Full
N/A
Yes
13
687-203-002
Dill Lumber Co.
Vacant Retail (Bldg. 1)
68766 EPC
Cathedral City Postal
Co., Haircuts by
Carmen (Bldg. 2)
68762 1st Street
Full
N/A
Yes
14
687-203-018
Robert Hillery
Retail
68770 EPC
Part
74 sf
N/A
15
687-205-001
Stagg Inv. Co.
Mag Gas
168830 EPC
TBD
TBD
TBD
16
687-205-002,003
Stagg Inv. Co.
Statuary Store
68864. EPC
Part
937 sf
N/A
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "F1"
Page F-2
MAP
LOCATOR
NUMBER
APN & OWNER
USE & ADDRESS
TAKING
APPROX.
AREA
USABLE
REMNANT
(SEE H1)
SEGMENT 2 CONTINUED
17
687-205-004
Berlin Trust
Dea's Furniture
68870 EPC
Part
665 sf
N/A
24
687-196-001
WBC Properties
Beep Beep Lube &
Tune
68635 EPC
Part
298 sf
N/A
25
687-198-025
Berlin Trust
NAPA Auto Parts
68733 EPC
Part
1,350 sf
N/A
26
687-207-001
Martin Sousa
Elite Tire & Auto
8759 EPC
Part
512 sf
N/A
27
687-221-011 — 013
World Oil Marketing
Swift Stop Gas,
Convenience Store .&
acant Land
Part
1,153 sf
N/A
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "F1" Page F-3
MAP
LOCATOR
NUMBER
APN & OWNER
USE & ADDRESS
TAKING
APPROX.
AREA
USABLE
REMNANT
(SEE H1)
SEGMENT 3: ALLEN EASTWARD
100 Percent RCTC Reimbursement
18
687-208-001
Berlin Trust
Desert Clothes & More,
Catering by Sharon
68900 EPC
Full
N/A
No
19
687-208-002
Russell Baker
Vacant House/Storage
68906 EPC
Full
N/A
No
20
687-208-020 & 021
Collins Trust
KFC & Parking
68930 EPC
Part
2,946 sf
N/A
21
687-208-017
John Wessman
Judy's Donuts
68950 EPC
Part
TBD
N/A
28
687-222-003
Joseph Pearlman
Auto Shine, Valley
Smog & Auto Repair &
Vacant Retail
68885 EPC
Part
1,857 sf
N/A
29
687-224-006
Alan Wallock
Mobile Home Park
68915 EPC
Part
One Space(
N/A
30
687-224-007
Carman Mottesheard
Sonora Restaurant
8961 EPC
Part
3,000 sf
N/A
31
687-224-008
Markley Trust
Vacant Land
68977 EPC
Part
9,156 sf
N/A
32
687-224-009
Cathedral City
Friend's (vacant)
68981 EPC
Full 1
N/A
Yes
33
674-500-007
Desert Outdoor
Advertising, Inc.
Removed Billboard
Full
N/A
No
34
674-500-023 -- 027
USA/BIA
674-500-028
NJF Palm Springs Co.
Cathedral Canyon
Channel & adjacent
land for bridge
widening
Days Inn
Varies
30,000 sf
N/A
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "F1"
Page F-4
TOTAL P.05
EXHIBIT "G1"
SITE PLAN
[SEE ATTACHED PAGE G -2J
G-1
EXHIBIT "H1"
DISPOSITION OF REMNANT PROPERTIES
As contemplated in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Memorandum of Understanding for the
Funding and Joint Development of State Highway 111 Improvements (as amended), an
Agreement between the Parties concerning the disposition of property remnants
associated with full -take acquisitions is required. The Parties therefore agree on the
following provisions for remnant disposition.
General Provisions
Remnants are Defined as Project Assets
The remnant is defined as that portion of a full -take property not required as a
right-of-way dedication for the agreed Highway 111 improvements. The remnant
portions of properties that the City has or will acquire in their entirety for Highway
improvements are considered Project assets. The proceeds of any remnant sales will
accrue to the Project for credit to the City and RCTC in proportion to each Party's share
of acquisition costs. Such proceeds will be available for Project expenses through
completion and reconciliation of Project accounts.
Appraisal will Determine Remnant Value
The City will retain a licensed real estate appraiser to establish the value of remnant
parcels. The remnant appraiser shall consider the value of each remnant parcel
independently of adjacent parcels unless the remnant appraiser determines an
individual remnant is not developable. In such cases, the appraisershallassess the
value of the remnant as assembled with the smallest of any adjacent undevelopable
Project remnant parcel(s). If assembly of such remnants does not yield a developable
parcel (under the City's Downtown Precise Plan), RCTC agrees to grant free and clear
title of the remnant to the City.
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "H-1" Page H-1
Rights to Acquire Remnant Parcels
The City shall have first right of refusal to acquire any remnant parcel. The City shall
have twelve (12) months following final acquisition of each Project parcel to arrange for
Redevelopment Agency or City purchase of remnant parcels. Thereafter, remnants
shall be available for purchase by the general public in accordance with the City/RDA's
redevelopment objectives, guidelines, and development requirements. The Project
value of remnants disposed through public sale shall equal the actual sale price.
Disposition of Likely Developable Parcel Remnants
APN 687-191-005 & 006
Richmond Estate
Auto Buyers
Construction of the Highway improvements requires demolition of the structure and
relocation of the business occupying the building on this parcel. The City's
Redevelopment Agency is purchasing these parcels for redevelopment purposes.
RCTC will in turn purchase from the Agency the portions of this property needed for
Highway widening for the appraised value. RCTC will also reimburse or credit the City
for its share (100 percent) of business relocation, demolition and other acquisition costs
pursuant to the MOU.
APN 687-194-001 & 002
Cobb Family Trust et al.
Chevron Service Station
The Redevelopment Agency plans to purchase this remnant from the Project for the
appraised value.
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "H-1" Page H-2
APN 687-194-003, 004 & 005
Malini/Fisher
Estate Gallery and Parking Lot &
Rutberg and Goodman
First Street Gallery
Construction of the Highway improvements requires demolition of the structure and
relocation of the business occupying the building on this parcel. The City/RDA will
acquire the property and building, relocate the businesses and demolish the structure
(as part of the Highway Project), and plans to ultimately sell the remnant. RCTC will
reimburse the City for its share (50 percent) of relocation and demolition expenses, and
for acquisition of that portion of the property required for Highway improvements.
APN 687-194-012, 013. 014
Louis Wolf
The Trading Post
The size and shape of these parcel remnants will determine their value and potential for.
development. Substantial underground utility equipment in First Street north of these
properties may preclude assembling additional property to the north. RCTC and City
staff agree to evaluate valuation and disposition issues once the City acquires this
property.
APN 687-203-017 & 002
Robert Hillery
Universal Tax Group &
Dill Lumber Company
Cathedral City Postal Service, etc.
These remnants are not developable individually. Once the City acquires both
properties for the Project, it plans to assemble the two remnants for disposition in
accordance with the general provisions of this Exhibit.
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "H-1" Page H-3
APN 687-500-009
City of Cathedral City
(formerly: Friend's Night Club)
The City purchased this parcel for the Project in May 1996 and will retain title to the
remnant. Therefore, in accordance with the MOU, the City will credit RCTC for the
appraised value of the remnant.
APN 687-208-001 & 002
Berlin Trust
Desert Clothes and More and Catering by Sharon &
Russell Baker
Vacant House
Neither of these remnants will be developable individually. However, if assembled,
these parcels could provide replacement parking for spaces lost at the adjacent
business (KFC -- APN 687-208-017; Collins Trust, property owner) due to the widening
program. The City anticipates that an exchange of these remnants for the required
right-of-way at KFC will offset severance damages and ultimately reduce overall
acquisition costs.
APN 687-193-010
Whitten Trust
777 Liquor Store
Construction of the Highway improvements requires demolition of the structure and
relocation of the business occupying the building on this parcel. The City anticipates
that the Project will sell this remnant in accordance with the general provisions of this
Exhibit.
Cathedral City/RCTC MOU Amendment 2: Exhibit "H-1" Page H-4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 7, 1996
TO:
FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
Budget and Finance Committee
SUBJECT: Measure A Streets & Roads Funding Compliance Issues
Five Year Capital Improvement Plans:
One of the audit recommendations from Ernst & Young related to how jurisdictions
are accounting for projects on the 5 Year CIPs. At issue were projects for which
funds have been expended by the jurisdictions in a year subsequent to their original
submission on a 5 year plan. The auditors have taken the position that if the item is
not on the approved plan for the year in which the funds are expended, then it is an
unauthorized expenditure. To allay the audit concern, staff is recommending that
jurisdictions continue to include any uncompleted projects previously approved in the
most current CIP until the project is completed.
Excess Measure A Streets & Roads Revenues:
The Commission currently has a policy which states that any jurisdiction with excess
revenues will have funds held in reserve until such time as those funds have been
reduced to a level supporting existing project requirements. The TAC has
recommended that excess be defined as revenues on hand in excess of three years
allocation. TAC further recommended that any jurisdiction which has three or more
years should be brought to the attention of Budget and Finance, allowing the
jurisdiction the opportunity to explain or justify the level of revenues on hand.
Staff conceptually concurs with this recommendation. To assist staff with
formulating recommendations to Budget and Finance, staff proposes that all
jurisdictions along with their five year plans submit brief narrative descriptions of the
status of each project -and their expectations for the coming year. This will enable
staff to stay current with project completion progress as it relates to expenditures or
accumulation of excess funds.
Staff met with the members of the Technical Advisory Committee, and the TAC
members unanimously approved the above recommendations. They have requested
that staff draft specific administrative procedures to accomplish the policy objectives
and forward those written procedures to all jurisdictions.
Page 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission adopt as policy:
1) A requirement that uncompleted projects continue to be listed on the 5 year
CIP until completed;
2) A project status report be included with the annual submission of the 5 year
CIPs;
3) Any Measure A balances in excess of the equivalent of three years revenues
will be reviewed by the Commission Budget and Finance Committee. The
project status reports will be used by staff in formulating recommendations to
the Committee; and,
4) Direct staff to include these policy changes in the next revision to the Program
and Funding Guide.
:jw
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 7, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Program for Local Streets
and Roads for FY 1997-2001
The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to
annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be
expended in order to receive disbursements for local streets and roads. In addition,
the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County must be participating in CVAG's
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are also
required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
accompanied by documentation supporting the calculation.
At its July 10, 1996 meeting, the Commission approved the Plans of fourteen local
agencies (all but six cities). Staff has now received the required documents from the
six agencies, the cities of Beaumont, Blythe, Moreno Valley, Perris, and San Jacinto,
and recommends the Commission approve their respective Plans. Furthermore, the
City of Lake Elsinore has clarified a misunderstanding that they had pledged "gas tax"
money for their stadium debt when in fact they pledged "motor vehicle in lieu" money
which is a general fund source. Staff recommends the Commission approve their Plan
as submitted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve the FY 1997-2001 Measure "A" Five Year Capital
Improvement Plans for the cities of Beaumont, Blythe, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley,
Perris, and San Jacinto as submitted.
:jw
RIVE RSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATI ON COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FU NDS PR OGRAM
FY 1997 - 2001
Agen cy: City of Bea umo nt
Prepared by: Public W orks Department
Date: May 20, 1996
Page 1 of 1
ITEM
NO .
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
PROJECT TYPE
T OT AL C OST
MEASURE "A"
FUNDS
1
Pavement Management Plan (96 - 97)
Engineering
$60,000
$60,000
2
Beaumont Avenue Rehabilitation (96 - 97)
Road Rehabilitation
$210,500'
$194,500
3
Beau mont Avenue and Sixth Street(Signals 7)
Sig nalization Interconnect
$60,000
$60,000
4
Viele Avenue (96 - 97)
R oad Realig nment
$32,500
$32,500
5
Sixth Street (97 - 98)
Road Rehabilitation
$320,000
$160,000
6
Fourteenth Street (98 _ 99)
Road Rehabilitation
$173,000
$173,000
7
Elm A venue (99 - 00)
Road Rehabilitati on
$188,000
$188,000
8
Highlan d Springs Avenue (00 - 01)
Road Rehabilitation
$204,000
$204,000
'Exclu des $30,000 in engineering costs paid by Redev elopment Agency.
4
RIVERSIDE CO UNT Y TRANSPO RTATION CO MMISSION
ME AS URE "A " LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M
FY 1997 - 2001
Age ncy:
Pre pare d by:
Date :
City of Blythe
Patricia P. Stewart
S ept emb er 12, 1995
Page 1 Of 1
ITEM NO.
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
MEAS URE " A"
FUNDS ($1,000's)
** 1
97/02 Hobsonway r econstru ction/dr ain age improv em ents
Enginee ring only ($3,000,000 proje ct)
3,000.
2
96/97 Hobsonway RR XXing Improvem ent
55.
3
96/97 14th/Lovekin Signalization
45.
4
96/01 W hee l Chair Ramps (ADA) ($50,000/yr for 5 years)
250.
5
96/97 Brdwy Drainiage Imp/Chan slorway to Barnard
51.
6
96/97 Sidewalk Improvement s
25.
7
96/02 Alleyway Improvements
118.
** NOTE: City is acc umulating Me asure "A" proceeds to fund Item I; curr ently the proj ect is being
delaye d due the large numbe r of prope rties inc luded in th e hydro carbon cleanup lo cat ed on Hobsonw ay .
RIVERSIDE CO UNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FU NDS PROGRAM
FY 1997-2001
Agency:
Date:
Item #
1.
City of Lake Elsinore
May 31, 1996
Project N ame/Limits
Main Street/Sulphur St.
2. Casino D riv e/Diamond Dr.
3. C.I.P. Projects/City Street
Maintenance Administrative
Services: Various Locations/
Projects
4. Mission Trail: Diamond Dr. -
Malaga Road
5. Lakeshore Drive: Main St. -
Co untry Club Blvd. (Lakepoint
Park Entrance)
6. Spring Street: Graham Ave. -
Collier A venu e
7. Chaney Street: Lakeshore D r. -
Co llier A venue
Project Type
Decontamination
Traffic Signal
Mast -Arm Replacement
Public Works/
Engineering Admin ./
Construction Mgmt.
(PayroWSupplies)
Street Rehabilitation
Street Improvements/
Realignment
Pavement Overlay/
R esurfacing
Pavement O verlay/
Resurfacing
FY Total
($000's)
96/97 25
96/97 25
96/97 • 50
97/98 50 0
98/99 50
99/00 50
00/01 50
96/97 450
96/97 158
96/97 100
96/97 100
Measure A
Funds ($000'sl
25
25
50
50
50
50
50
55
32
100
100
8. Misc . Street Repairs/ Slurry Seal 96/97 50 50
Maint .: Various Locations 97/98 50 50
98/99 50 50
99/00 ' 50 50
00/01 50 50
9. Misc. Street Restoration Pavement Rehabilitation/ 96/97 100 100
Various Locations Overlay 97/98 100 100
99/00 100 100
00/01 100 100
10. Curb and Sidewalk New Curb & Gutter/ 96/97 30 30
Replacement Program: Sidewalk; R&R Existing 97/98 100 100
Vario us Locations Sidewalk 98/99 100 100
99/00 100 100
00/01 100 100
Collier Ave. : Chaney St. Pavement Rehab ./ 97/98 150 150
to Central St. Overlay
•
12. Lakeshore Drive: Terra Cotta Street Widening 97/98 250 50
R oad - Dryden Street 98/99 250 200
13. Lakeshore Driv e: Jernigan Street Widening 97/98 400 80
St. - 200' East of Machado St. 99/00 400 150
14. Graham Avenue: Main St. - Landscape/Irrigation 98/99 145 20
Mohr Street
15. Sumner Ave: Main St. to Pavement Rehab. / 99/00 50 50
Chaney St. Overlay 00/01 400 400
TOTALS: 96/97 567
97/98 580
98/99 520
99/00 500
00/01 600
Page 1 of 4 Pages
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPO RTATIO N COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS
FIVE YEA R P ROJECTIONS
FY 1996-2001
Agency:
Prepared by:
Date:
City of Moreno Valley
John T. Hogard, Senior Engineer
April 22, 1996
ITEM
NO.
PROJECT
FUNDING
YEAR(S)
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
PROJECT
TYPE
1
2
3
4
5
96/97
96/97
96/97
96/97
96/97
Perris Boulevard/Hemlock A venue to
Iron wood A venue
Perris Bou lev ard/Cactus Avenue to
Alessandro Boulevard
Perris Bou levard/Dracaea Avenue to
Webster Aven ue
Heacock Street/Cactus A venue to
Alessandro Boulevard
Indian Street/Fir Avenue to
Sunnymead Bo ulevard, Phase II
1 ISTEA funding approved $300,000, M easure A $60,000
Street
Wide ning/Impro veme
nts
Rehab
Rehab
Rehab/Widen
Rehab
TOTAL COST
(%000'S)
2 ISTEA funding a pproved$400,000, Measure A $395,000
s ISTEA funding approved $830,000; RCFC&WCO $315,000; MEASURE A $175,000 (ISTEA funding approved)
4 ISTEA funding appro ve d $500,000; CMAQ funding approved $90,000; Measure A $920,000
$360
s795
$1,320
$1,510
$344
MEASU RE "A"
FUNDS ($000'S)
$601
$395 2
$175'
$920'
$344
Page 2 of 4 Pages
PROJECT
ITEM
IPROJECT
FUNDING •
TOTAL COST
MEASURE "A"
NO.
YEA R(S)
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
TYPE
(%000'S)
FUNDS ($000'S)
6
96/97
Indian Street/Hemlock Ave nue to
Sidewalks
$37
$255
Ironwood Ave nue
7
96/98
Hemlock A venue/Westbound 60 exit
to David La ne, Phase II
Rehab
$500
$500
8
96/98
Iro nwood Avenue/Graham Street to
Rehab/Widen
$510
8140`
Heacock Street
9
96/98
Frederick Street/Centerpoint Drive
to Sunnymead Boulevard
Right tur n la ne/Widen
8170
5207
10
96/98
Iron wood/Morton Road to Day
Widen
8500
$608
Street
11
97/98
JFK Drive/H eacock Street to Perris
Rehab
$800
$100'
Bou lev ard
12
97/98
Heacock Street/H emlock Avenue to
Rehab
$300
S100t0
Gregory Lane
13
97/98
Graham Street/Cactu s Aven ue to
Rehab
$370
$4511
Alessandro Boulev ard
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SB821 $12,000; Measure A $25,000
ISTEA funding approved $200,000; RCFC&WCD $170,000; Measure A $140,000
ISTEA funding approved $150,000; Measure A $20,000
ISTEA future funding requested $440,000; Measure A $60,000
ISTEA future funding requested $700,000; Measure A $100,000
ISTEA funding approved $200,000; M easu re A $100,000
ISTEA future funding requested $325,000; Measure A $45,000
•
Page 3 of 4 Pages
PROJECT
ITEM
NO.
FUNDING
YE AR(S)
PROJECT
TOTAL COST
MEASURE "A"
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
TYPE
(%000'S)
FUN DS ($000'S)
14
96/98
Route 60/Pigeon Pass Road
Park n Ride Facilities
$340
$4012
15
97/99
Iro nwood Avenue/Lasselle Street to
Widen
$250
$15013
Steeplechase Street
16
96/99
Ironwood Avenue/Heacock Street to
Perris Boule vard, Phase I
Rehab/Reconstruction
$270
$270
Phase II
Rehab/Reconstructio n
$930
$1201'
17
97/99
R ou te 60/Perris Bo ulevard
PSR, Realignme nt of
westbound off ramp
$1,600
$2001s
18
97/01
Annual Pavement Resurf aci ng
Rehab/Overlay
$3,600
53,600
19
96/01
Slurry Seal Program
Resurface
S2,500
$2,500
20
97/98
Hemlock Avenue/Pigeon Pass Road
to Rte 60 Ex it
Widen
S300
$200"
21
96/98
Route 60/Nason
HOV Eastbound on
ramp
$400
55017
12
CMAQ future funding requested $300,000; M easure A 40,000
13 Developer $100,000; Measure A $150,000
14 ISTEA funding approved $710,000; Measure A $120,000
15 CMAQ future fundin
g requested $1,400,000; Measure A 200,000
16 Developer $100,000; Measure A $200,000
17 CMAQ funding approved $350,000; Measure A $50,000
Page 4 of 4 Pages
P ROJECT
ITEM
FUNDIN G
PROJECT
TOT AL COST
MEASURE " A"
NO.
YE AR(S)
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
TYPE
(%000'S)
FUNDS ($000'S)
22
97/98
Nason Street/E ucalyptus Avenue to
Sidewalks
$125
$25ta
Elder A venue
23
97/98
Locust A venue East of Redlands
Rehab
$100
$100
Boulevard
24
96/98
Route 60/More no Beach Drive
H OV Westbound
onramp wide ning
$400
$501
25
97/99
Redlands Boulevard Storm Drain
Wide n
$55
$55
Lin e F
26
97/01
Cen tral Moreno Valley
Rehab/Widen
83,200
55020
Improv emen ts; Indian
Street/Atwoo d Avenue/Myers
Aven ue & D racaea Avenue
27
97/98
Nason Street/A lessan dro Boulevard
to Rte 60
Rehab/Wide n
$850
$11021
28
96/01
Surface R ecycling
Rehab
$500
8500
29
97/01
Sidewalks
Sidewalks
$340
522022
TOTALS
823,151
1 $11,099
18
19
20
21
22
TEA funding approved $100,000; Measure A $25,000
CMAQ funding approved $350,000; M easure A $50,000
RDA/CDBG $3,150,000; Measure A $50,000
ISTEA future funding request $740,000; Measure A $110,000
SB821 $120,000; Measure A $220,000
A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATIO N COMMISSION
MEASURE " A" LOC AL FUNDS PROGRAM
FISC AL YEAR 1996 - 1997
Agency: City of P erris
Prepared by : City Engi neer
Date: May 10, 1995 - R evised July 1st, 1996
Page 1 of 5
ITEM NO.
PROJECT NA ME/LIMITS
PROJECT TYPE
TOT AL COST
** MEASURE
($000's)
"A" FUNDS
($000's)
1
*Ramona Ex pressway - I-215
to Rider Street.
Pavement Rehab.
120
250
2
Miscellane ous Pavement
Rehab. and Pothole Repair
New Pavement
100
30
3
Downtown Street Pavement
Ne w Pavement and
700
370
Rehab.
Rehab. of existing.
4
Nuevo R d. from Perris
Blvd. to Wilson Ave.
Pavement Rehab .
200
200
* The wo rk will pr ogress in stages.
** This column represents FY 95-96 &
96-97 Funds.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORT ATION COM MISSION
ME ASURE "A" LOC AL FUNDS PROGRAM
FISC AL YEAR 1997 - 1998
Agency: City of Perris
Prepared by: City Engineer
Date: May 10, 1995 - Revised July 1st, 1996
Page 2 of 5
ITEM NO.
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
PROJECT TYPE
TOTAL COST
($000's)
** MEASURE
"A " FUNDS
($000's)
1
*Ra mona Express way - I-215
to Ride r Stree t.
P avement Rehab.
950
0
2
"A" Stree t from Ellis to
Nuevo Rd.
Pavement Rehab .
500
250
3
Misc. Pave me nt Rehab. &
Pothole Repair.
New Pavement
150
30
4
Perris Blvd. from Nuevo to
I-215.
* The work will progres s in stage s.
Pavement Rehab.
100
250
RIVERSIDE COUNT Y TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M
FISCAL YE AR 1998 - 1999
Agency: City of Perris
Prepared by: City Engineer
Da te: May 10, 1995 - Revised July 1st, 1996
Pag e 3 of 5
ITEM NO.
PROJECT NA ME/LIMITS
PROJECT TYPE
TOT AL COST
($000'x)
** MEASURE
"A " FUNDS
($000'x)
1
2
3
*Ra mona Expressway - I-215
to Rider Stre et.
Enchanted Heights & Indian
Hills Area .
Misc. Pave ment Rehab. &
Po tho le Repair.
* The work will pro gress in stages.
Pav ement Reh ab . & New
Pavem ent
Pavement Rehab. & New
Pavement
Pave ment Rehab. & New
Pave ment
950
400
100
250
250
30
RI VERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION
MEASURE "A " LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M
FISCAL YE AR 1999 - 2000
Agency: City of Perris
Prepared by: City Engineer
Date: M ay 10, 1995 - Revised July 1st, 1996
Page 4 of 5
ITEM NO.
PROJECT NA ME/LIMITS
PROJECT TYPE
TOT AL COST
($000's)
** MEASURE
"A" FUNDS
($000's)
1
*Ramona Expressway - I-215
to Rider Stre et.
Pav ement Rehab.
700
200
2
Goetz Rd. from Case Rd. to
Ethanac Rd.
* The work will progr es s in s tage s.
Pavement Rehab .
800
400
RIVERSIDE COU NTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR 1999 - 2000
Agency: City of Perris
Prepared by: City Engi neer
Date: May 10, 1995 - Revised July lst, 1996
Page 5 of 5
ITEM NO.
PROJECT NA ME/LIMITS
PROJECT TYPE
TOTAL COST
($000's)
** MEASURE
"A" FUNDS
($000' s)
1
2
3
Case Road
Rider Street
Miscella neous Street
P av ement Reh ab.
Pavement Rehab .
Pothol e Repair
400
300
50
400
200
50
Al
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 1997 - 2001
Agency: City of San Jacinto
Prepared by: Brian McNabb
Date: June 24, 1996
Page 1 of 1
F. Y.
ITEM
NO.
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
PROJECT TYPE
TOTAL COST
($000's)
MEASURE "A"
FUNDS ($000's)
96-97
1
Ramona Express way: State Street to
Pave ment Rehabilitation
600
400
97-98
Lake Park Drive
96-97
2
Mountain Avenue: Esplanade Ave .
to Old Mountain
Pavement Widening
100
23
97-98
3
Warren Road: Co ttonwood Ave .,
South to City Limits
Remove old pave ment and
reconstruct tw o t welve foot
lanes with six foot paved
shoulders
600
600
98-99
4
Sanderson Avenue: Ram ona Exp .
to Cottonwood Avenue
Pavement Rehabilitation
250
250
98-99
5
Ramona Blvd: Chase Street to
Pavement Rehabilitation
100
100
Potter Rd.
99-00
6
Idyliwild Drive: State Street to
Pave ment Rehabilitation
75
75
San Jacinto Avenue
99-00
7
Lyo n Av enu e: Seventh Street to
Pavement R ehabilitation
100
100
Esplanade Avenue
A
AGENDA ITEM #6E
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 7, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to FY 1996-2000 Measure "A" Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan for the City of Hemet
The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to
annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be
expended in order to receive disbursements for local streets and roads. In addition,
the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County must be participating in CVAG's
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are also
required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
accompanied by documentation supporting the calculation.
The City of Hemet's Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan was approved
by the Commission at its July 12, 1995 meeting. Any subsequent additions,
deletions, or substitutions to the Plan must be submitted to the Commission for
approval. Therefore, the City is requesting an amendment to their Plan in order to
include three new projects for FY 1995-96, a reduction in the Measure "A" budget
for one previously approved project from FY 1991-92, and deletion of one project
from 1992-93.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve an amendment to the FY 1996-2000 Measure "A" Five
Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Hemet as submitted.
A gency: City of Hemet
Prepared by: Roland D. Trietsch
Date: June 26 , 1996
RI VE RSIDE CO UNTY TRA NSPO RTATION COMMISSION
MEAS URE "A" LOCAL FUN DS PROGRAM
FY 1995 - 1996
REVjSED
Page _1_ of _1_
ITEM
NO.
PROJECT N AME/LIMITS
P ROJECT TYPE
TOTAL C OST
($000'S)
ME ASURE A
FUNDS ($000)
1.
2.
3.
Pav ement Rehabilitation Project (City Wide)
Surface Seal Program (City wide)
H emet Street/Charlton Ave. Reconstruct
Signal Installation - State Street at Oakland Avenue
Signal In stallation - Sanderson Av e. at Menlo Ave.
Eastside R eservoir A ccess Study Widening
*Projects Added Ju ne 26, 1996
Street Overlay, Reconstruct
Street Maintenance - Surface Treatment
Intersection Reconstruction to alliviate
Floodi ng
Sig nal C onstructi on
Signal Construction
Joint Traffic Circulation Study with
RCTD & MWD
TOTAL 1995/96
$678
$250
$405
$100
$120
$ 25
$ 1578
$298
$250
$230
$ 39.5
$ 50
$ 7 .5
$ 875