Loading...
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