HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 04, 1996 Budget and FinanceRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
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, SEPTEMBER 4, 1996
1:3O P.M.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL_OF MINUTES
3. PUBLIC COM FM NT5_
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
5. ADMINI
5A. Investment Report for ()curter Fnding March .41_ 1.996
Overview
For review is the Investment Portfolio Report for quarter ending June 30, 1996. This item
is for receive and file.
5B. Monthly Cast& 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. Fir -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 July 31, 1996. Due to
vacation schedules, the Quarterly Reports will be presented in October. This item is for
receive and file.
Page 2
Agenda - Budget/Finance Committee
September 4, 1996
6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
6A. Award of the Construction Contract for the Nnrthmeor Noise Wall Project_
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Approve award of the construction
contract to the lowest qualified bidder identified by the bid evaluation team; and, 2)
establish a 10% contingency fund for the project for change order work to be exercised
with the written authorization of the Executive Director.
6B. Approval of Amendment No 4 to Agreement No RO 91-(1 with Greiner, Inc to Compete
Design and Prepare the PS&F_for the Route .91 NnIse Well Project
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission approve Amendment No. 4 to the Consultant
Service Agreement RO 91-01 with Greiner, Inc. for the completion of the design,
preparation of the PS&E in the amount of $320,000 for a revised contract base amount
not to exceed $1,872,936.67. Extra Work for this amendment will remain at $78,688.40.
All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement (No. RO 91-01) and the previous
Amendments will remain in effect.
6C. Avia d of the Construction Contaact for the Route 79/I amb Canyon Rnckfall Mitigation
project
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Approve award of the construction
contract to the lowest qualified bidder identified by the bid evaluation team; and, 2)
establish a 10% contingency fund for the project for change order work to be exercised
with the written authorization of the Executive Director.
6D. Approval of Amendment .'3 to the Agreement R0-.9522 with the _County of Riverside to
Perform Survey and Material Testing_Services for the Route 79 Lamb Canyon and Gilman
5nr�nas Grade Seoaratmrr Prniar_t
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize approval of Amendment 3 for an
amount of $56,300 to Agreement RO-9522 to increase the total contract amount to
$864,997. The existing 820,000 currently in extra work will remain available to address
any future project needs relating to survey and material testing. A standard contract
amendment will be used for this contract change.
7. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
96-08
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
August 7, 1996
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice -Chairperson Bob Buster called the meeting of the Budget/Finance Committee to order at 1:31
p.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100,
Riverside, California 92501.
Memhers Present
Bob Buster
Michael Barry
Kay Ceniceros
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S/C to approve the meeting minutes of July 3, 1996.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions/deletions.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS,
5A. Northwest Area Deficiency Plan.
M/S/C 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.
Page 2
Minutes - Budget/Finance Committee
August 7, 1996
5B. Audit of Planning Fund Recipients_
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer stated that staff received comments from CVAG
regarding staff's proposal. Corky Larson, CVAG Executive Director, noted that since
CVAG has already in place RCTC LTF audit as well as its independent audit, the
Commission should build upon those two instead of adding another audit to be performed.
M/S/C 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) meet with affected agencies to discuss options
for implementation of the policy.
5C. Commuter Assistance 7,994/95 Audit_
M/S/C that the Commission receive and file.
5D. Grant Close -Out Prnress for Transit Operators
M/S/C that the Commission approve the Operating and Capital Grants process and
direct staff to include this new policy in the next revision to the Program and Funding
Guide.
5E. Monthly Cnsr & Schpdulp Reports.
M/S/C that the Commission receive and file.
6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
6A. AppraveLof Amendment No 1 for Greiner, inn_ for Conducting Construction Support
Services for the Yuma Drive/Interstate 15 Interchange Project (Agreement Nn. RO 94-281.
M/S/C 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 for a revised contract base amount not to exceed
$1,259,764. 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 7 to the MO[1 with Cathedral City for Improvements to Fast Pa/rn
C=anyon Drive (previously Highway 1111_
M/S/C that the Commission approve Amendment 2 (the Implementation plan) to the
MOU with Cathedral City for the improvements to East Palm Canyon Drive (previously
Highway 111) between Cathedral Canyon Drive and Date Palm Drive subject to: 1)
Deletion of -the -video -controlled -signal system identified in the -Project Description -
Exhibit A-1; 2) Exhibit H-1 as revised by staff and Legal Counsel; 3) final review by
Legal Counsel.
6C. Measure A Streets and Roans Funding Compliance Issues.
M/S/C that the Commission approve staff recommendations 1 through 3 "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
Page 3
Minutes - Budget/Finance Committee
August 7, 1996
project status reports will be used by staff in formulating recommendations to the
Committee" with the additional recommendation that staff develop definitive courses
of action available to Budget and Finance for recommendation to the Commission and
bring that back for consideration.
6D. Measure "A" Five Year_Capital imprnvement Program. fnr LLaraf ,Street' 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 cities of Beaumont, Blythe, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley,
Perris, and San Jacinto as submitted.
6E. Amenrdrnenr to FY 1996-2000 Measure "A" Five Year Papital lmprn.vemenr Plan for the
City of Hemet
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 Hemet as submitted.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business to come before the Budget/Finance Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
:Jw
spectfully submitted,
1
y K nhave
CI k o e Cam sion
AGENDA ITEM #5A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 4, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Investment Report for Quarter Ending June 30, 1996
Attached for your review is the Investment Portfolio Report for quarter ending
June 30, 1996. --
STAFF BECDMMENDATION:
That the Commission receive and file.
:jw
Attachment
Riverside county Transp ortation Commissi on
Investm ent Portfoli o Report
Period Ending Ju ne 30, 1996
Cash with County Tre asurer
Bank of Ame rica
Operating Account
Imprest Account
Special Events Account
To tal Bank of America O perating
AMBAC Investment Agreement
Pacific Ho rizo ns(First Tru st Ban k as trustee)
CAM P
MBIA Investment Agreement
Federal Natio nal Mortgage Asso ciatio n
Medium Term No te due 12/8/97
FGIC
preprintldalagendasA strepin
$3,715,460.70
$11,492.36
$992 .91
Operati ng
Fu nds
$3,727,945.97
Po oled
Fu nds
$47,542,585 .70
$5,260,167.95
Bo nd Pr oject
Fu nds
$36,241,851 .63
$1,029,166.00
$2,074,461 .80
F unds Reserved
F or Debt
$2,099,076 .80
$487,453 .25
$12,549,440.00
$7,978,717.19
F unds Held
In Trust Total
$4,852,348.28 $52,394,933 .98
$3,727,945 .97
$36,241,851.63
$3,128,242.80
$2,561,915.05
$12,549,440.00
$7,978,717.19
$5,260,167.95
$3,727,945. 97 $52,802,753. 65 $39,345,479.43 $23,114,687.24 $4,852,348.28 $123,843,214.57
Cash with County Treas urer: A c opy of the In vestme nt P ortfoli o Report for the County of Riverside Treasury prepared by
Wayne Watts, County Treasurer is attached for re view. (Note: Local transportation funds represent the funds held in tr ust) . The
County's annualized i nvestment return for the quarter was 4.66%.
Bank of America Day to day operating funds of the Commission are held in an interest bearing demand deposit acco unt with Bank
of America. Funds are wire transferred from the County as needed, but no less than m onthly .
AMBAC: Project fu nds from the 1993 Series A bond issue are on deposit with AMBAt, a AA A rated(by both Sta ndard & Poors
and Moo dys) bond insurance company. The investment agreement pro vides for an annual rate of interest of 6 .99% a nd it expires in
January 1997. The Commissio n's funds held by AMB AC are f ully collateralized by direct obligations of the U.S . government. The
collateral is held by an independent third party, and is regularly marked to market. An additional protecti on included are downgrade
provisio ns(i. e., if rating drops to single A status, additi onal collateral will be p osted or the f unds can be returned).
Pacific Horizons Money market account provided by First Trust Bank( the successor trustee to Bank of America) used to hold
fu nds in transition between the Commission's vario us bond funds and to acc umulate monies for the payme nt of semi-annual and ann ual
debt service. Interest earn ings averaged approximately4.75% for the quarter.
FG IC U.S. Treasu ry Money Market Fund Triple AAA rated(by Standard & Poors and Moody's) money market fund
provided by Finan cial Guaran tee Insurance Corporation. The fu nd i nvests in short term U .S . g uaranteed obligations. The acco unt
manager for the Commission funds is To m Courbat, former Fi nance Director for the County of Riverside. The County of Riverside
Treasu ry also invests a portion of its fun ds with FG IC. The rate of interest on the fund varies daily, but the e ffective 7 -day yield for
week ending Jun e 28, 1996 was 5. 17%.
California Arbitrage Management Program(CAMP) A pooled fund established by a joint powers authority of Califor nia
municipalities fo rmed solely for the purpose of inve stin g mu nicipal bond proceeds . The fund is managed by Public Financial
Management and pays a market sensitiv e rate of intere st that v aries on a daily basis. Most of the Commission's funds held by CAMP are
held in a segregated pool co nsisting of bonds issu ed by the Cou nty of Orange. The a nnualized yield as of J une 30, 1996 was 5 .32%.
(Note: These funds were released by CAMP on August 1, 1996).
MBIA Investmen t Agreement: The Commission 's debt reserve funds for the 1993 Series A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds are held by
MBIA, a AAA rated(by both Standard & Poors and Mo odys) bond insurance company. The investment agreement earns 6.87% and
matures January 1, 2000, an d pays an interest rate of 6. 87%. Collateralization and downgrade pro visions are consistent with AMB AC.
FNMA Medium Term Note: Debt reser ve fu nds for the 1991 Series A bonds ha ve been placed in an agency note backed by the
U.S. go vernment . The age ncy note matures December 8; 1997 and pays interest semi-ann ually at a rate of 6 .45%.
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
MONTHLY DISCLOSURE REPORT
ON INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
June 30, 1996
R. WAYNE WATTS
MEASURER -TAX COLLECTOR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Portfolio Composition, Risk Ranking, Market Value 1
2. Structured Notes 2
3. Bank Custodian/Security Lending 2
4. Liquidity Position of Portfolio 2, 3
5. Cash Flow Summary for the Next Twelve Months 4 5
6. Liquidity Structure of the Portfolio 6
7. Earnings Performance of the Portfolio 6
8. Specific Portfolio Practices Identified 7
9. Appendix 1: Structured Notes in the Portfolio as of June 30, 1996
10. Appendix 2: GAASB Risk Rankings as of June 30, 1996 -
11. Appendix 3: Portfolio Holdings as of June 30, 1996
12. Chart Depicting Various Aspects of the Portfolio
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR
Disclosure Report on Pooled Fund Investment Portfolio
June 30, 1996
Purpose: The following report will be provided monthly by the County Treasurer to the
members of the Board of Supervisors, County Administrative Officer, County Auditor -
Controller, County Superintendent of Schools and to any member of the public interested
in the information.
The report will consider three essential areas involving the Treasurer's management of
the portfolio; namely (1) the preservation of principal in the funds invested, the cost
(i.e., book value) vs. the current market value of the securities in the portfolio, (2)
the liquidity position of the portfolio, and (3) the current yield on the portfolio as
of the report date.
Portfolio: The following is the composition of the portfolio ranked in accordance with
the perceived market risk of the securities within the portfolio. Also displayed is the
book and current market value of the securities in the portfolio reported by Fund
Services Associates Inc.
Risk
- TYPE
COST
MARKET
%
1.0
U. S. Treasury Bills
74,200,500
74,381,676
6.4%
1.0
U. S. Treasury Notes
361,898,484
353,746,915
31.4%
1.1
Federal Agency Securities
137,831,542
136,629,472
12.0%
1.1
Repurchase Agreements (Govt Coil)
73,000,000
73,000,000
6.3%
1.1
Money Market Fund (Govt Coll)5
55,000,000
55,000,000
4.8%
1.1
Collateralized Cert of Deposit
10,000,000
10,000,000
0.9%
1.2
Municipal Notes (Co Teeter Notes)
83,485,126
83,485,126
7.2%
1.2
Commercial Paper (A -1/P-1)
269,107,809
269,086,617
23.4%
1.3
Bankers Acceptances
41,204,663
41,260,802
3.6%
1.4
Medium Term Notes (US Corp)
45,823,730
45,379,537
4.0%
2.0
Reverse Repurhase Agreements
0
_ 0
0.0%
Totals
1,151,551,853
1,141,970,144
100.0%
Paper Loss
9,581,709
0.8%
Grand Total
1,151,551,853
Footnotes:
Generally, the level of risk takes into account two major components; the default or credit risk and the
market risk associated with the probability that the security will be affected by market changes in short-
term interest rates. Risk rankings have been assigned with 1.0 being the lowest level of risk and 2.0
being the highest. U.S. and Federal -Agency Securities di-ectly backed by the United States Treasury are
considered the safest. Next in order of safety are those Federal Agency securities that have an implied
guarantee of the United States Treasury. The third category are those securities that have some form of
government collateral backing (i.e., Repurchase Agreements, Honey Market Funds, and Collateralized
Certificates of Deposit). The fourth are those that have local government collateral backing (i.e.,
Riverside County's Teeter Notes). The fifth category constitutes an evaluation of the credit worthiness,
capitalization and the time duration of the investment in U. S. Corporate securities. The sixth category
reflects the risks associated with the County having loaned securities to a brokerage firm in meeting
temporary cash flow needs by way of Reverse -Repurchase Agreements and the fact that the County could be
subject to margin calls should the collateral have a reduced market value. Margin calls can affect the
liquidity position of the Treasury in meeting current expenditure requirements.
While the above table denotes a current market value loss (i.e., a paper loss)on the
portfolio, nonetheless, it is the Treasurer's policy to avoid actual losses in
investment principal by holding securities to their maturity. The paper loss for Mai
31, 1995 was $10,607,114 whereas the reported paper loss for June 30, 1996 is
$9,581,709. The liquidity position of the portfolio is such that there is nc
contemplation or need to sell securities prior to their maturity.
Structured Notes (aka Derivatives): The table notes $137,831,542 in Federal Agency
Securities. Within this amount are two Federal Home Loan Bank bonds classified as
"derivatives" totaling $15,000,000 that carry an inverse -floating interest rate equation
that resets quarterly or semi-annually. Both securities were purchased in October and
November, 1993 and mature November 10th and December 16, 1998 respectively. Inverse
floaters were the type of derivative product most commonly identified with the Orange
County bankruptcy, and so the undersigned identified and disclosed our portfolio
holdings in these securities in our monthly disclosure reports to the Board. Since then
the County Treasurer has received the March 28, 1995 Audit Report on Orange County
issued by the California State Auditor in which there is an expansion and broader
-definition as to what constitutes derivatives. Page 18 of this report states that
"Derivative securities generally are described as financial instruments whose value is
based on, or derived from, some underlying asset, reference rate, or index." The audit
report further defined derivatives as being any inverse floater, floating or variable
rate security, step-up notes or range notes that have a structured formula in deriving
interest income.
Under this broader definition, the County Treasury did hold in the June 30th portfolio
the following structured notes, (see appendix 1 for a more detailed description of
derivative securities) for the following classifications:
TYPE OF STRUCTURED NOTES
Inverse Floaters
County's Teeter Notes (Variable Rate)
(The County is contemplating
substituting these notes for fixed notes
during 1995-96).
Total
BOOK VALUE
$15,000,000
$83,485,126
$98,485,126
% -OF PORTFOLIO
1.30%
7.25%
8.55%
Bank Custodian/Security Lending: As of March 27, 1995, the Bank of New York was hired
to be the County's custodial bank for that portion of the portfolio formerly serviced
by Swiss Bank. Swiss Bank had served as the County's security clearance agent from July
13, 1994 to December 13, 1994, with the understanding that the County would participate
in a security lending agreement as part of our banking relationship. Since The County
Treasurer no- longer believes this contractual arrangement to be in the best interest
of the County, the contract was terminated on December 13, 1994 and the securities
switched back to The Bank of New York. The County Treasurer has no intention of again
entering into a security lending agreement with any bank for the foreseeable future.
Liquidity Position: Although acknowledged to be excessive, the Treasurer's investment
policy guidelines dated December 4, 1995, established the following liquidity target:
That 50% of the securities in the portfolio have a maturity less than one year while the
remaining 50% of the securities have a maturity of two to three years from the current
calendar date. The Treasurer's analysis indicates that it will take until August, 1996
for this objective to be fully achieved. The Treasurer's policy statement has also
limited future maturities to a maximum of three years.
-2-
Should they exist, the following factors could affect the liquidity position of the
Treasury in meeting daily expenditure requirements: 1. The Treasury's susceptibility to
margin calls on reverse repurchase agreements. 2. The Treasury serving as a depository
for governmental entities outside the County. 3. The Treasury serving as a depository
for incorporated cities within the County. 4. The Treasury having leveraged the
portfolio by buying securities from taxable tax and revenue anticipation note bond
proceeds intended solely to enhance portfolio yield. None of these fectcxs are cre5ent
n the Tr as rer-Tax ollector's nor folio. The Trea�ury is not_ u ceDtib1
calls, There are no reverse repurchase agreements. The Treasury does not solicit funds
npr act as a depository for other Governmental entities outside the County. Nor does
it act as a depository for the incornaratekj cities within the County. Nor has the
County ever entered into a Taxable TRANS note borrowing whereby the portfolio is
leveraged. Nor does the County Treasurer depuit funds for investment with any other
county treasurer.
An analysis of the actual cash receipts and expenditures for calendar years 1992, 1993
and 1994 indicate that there are sufficient revenues generated from the December and
April property tax receipts together with monies received monthly from the State and
Federal Government to meet all the expenditure requirements for the calendar year
without having to require that securities be sold prior to their maturity. Therefore,
it is intended that the property tax receipts and revenues coming from the State and
Federal Government be invested in short-term securities with maturities anywhere from
1 to 120 days. In -addition, the Treasurer's analysis has concluded that total cash
receipts have exceeded total cash disbursements during the so called "dry periods"
(i.e., between the April and December property tax collection periods) of the calendar
year, thereby enabling the portfolio, even at its lowest point, to have grown in size
during each of the past three calendar years. On November 10, 1992 the securities in
the portfolio totaled $911,496,631, on November 16, 1993 the portfolio totaled
$966,310,212 and on November 21, 1994 the total portfolio was $973,007,611. It has been
determined that the liquidity position of the Treasury is sustainable if the portfolio
contains -20 to 26% in short-term securities at all times. The present position of
securities maturing within a year is 67.4%. The following schedule summarizes the
Treasurer's ability to meet projected cash -flow requirements in the aggregate for the
next twelve months.
-3
$215.41
($292.2)
$444.9
$160.21
$62.81
($167.5)
($20.4)
SUMMARY CASH FLOW STATEMENT
JULY 1996 THROUGH JUNE 1997
JULY BEGINNING CHECKING ACCOUNT BAL
JULY ESTIMATED REVENUE
JULY ESTIMATED WARRANTS
JULY MATURING INVESTMENTS
82.51
96/97 COUNTY TANS ISSUE
96/97 SCHOOL TANS ISSUE
PAY BACK OF CO TRANS 07-01-96
PAY BACK OF SCH TANS 07-05-96
TOTAL $485.7
AUGUST ESTIMATED REVENUE $267.4
AUGUST ESTIMATED WARRANTS I ($253.6)
$179.01
$192.81 $678.5
$201.61
AUGUST MATURING INVESTMENTS
TOTAL
SEPTEMBER ESTIMATED REVENUE
SEPTEMBER ESTIMATED WARRANTS
SEPTEMBER MATURING INVESTMENTS
TOTAL
OCTOBER ESTIMATED REVENUE
OCTOBER ESTIMATED WARRANTS
OCTOBER MATURING INVESTMENTS
[TOTAL
NOVEMBER ESTIMATED REVENUE
NOVEMBER ESTIMATED WARRANTS
NOVEMBER MATURING INVESTMENTS
LTOTAL
' DECEMBER ESTIMATE❑ REVENUE
$485.7
($249.9)
$106.91
$58.61 $737.1
$261.51
($280.8)
$7.61
($11.7) $725.4
$260.51
($242.4)
$5.01
$23.11 $748.5
$586.0
DECEMBER ESTIMATED WARRANTS j ($344.6)
DECEMBER MATURING INVESTMENTS $29.8
TOTAL
$271.2 - $1,019.7
JANUARY ESTIMATED REVENUE I $259.3
JANUARY ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($487.6)
JANUARY MATURING INVESTMENTS
$0.0
TOTAL ($228.3) $791.4
FEBRUARY ESTIMATED REVENUE
FEBRUARY ESTIMATED WARRANTS
FEBRUARY MATURING INVESTMENTS
TOTAL ($123.1) $668.3
$241.1
($367.2)
$3.01
-4-
MARCH ESTIMATED REVENUE
$216.6
MARCH ESTIMATED WARRANTS
($295.0'
MARCH MATURING INVESTMENTS
$0.01
TOTAL
($78.4) $589.9
APRIL ESTIMATED REVENUE $618.21
APRIL ESTIMATED WARRANTS 1 ($293.3)
APRIL MATURING INVESTMENTS
$0.0
TOTAL
$324.9
$914.8
MAY ESTIMATED REVENUE
$214.1
I
MAY ESTIMATED WARRANTS
($488.0};
PAYMENT OF SCHOOL TRANS PLEDGE
$0.0
MAY MATURING INVESTMENTS
$0.0
TOTAL ($273.9)
$640.9
JUNE ESTIMATED REVENUE
$243.5
JUNE ESTIMATED WARRANTS
($279.8)
JUNE MATURING INVESTMENTS
$0.0'
PAY BACK OF COUNTY TRANS
($167.5;
PAY BACK OF SCHOOL TANS
($12.5)
TOTAL
($216.3)
$424.6
-5-
As of June 30, 1996 the liquidity position of the portfolio was:
' MATURITIES LESS THAN 1 YEAR 776,389,890 1
67.4%
MATURITIES 1 TO 2 YEARS
44,073,9171
3.8%
MATURITIES 2 TO 3 YEARS
247,602,921 1
21.5%
MATURITIES 3 TO 4 YEARS
0
0.0%
MATURITIES 4 TO 5 YEARS
0
0.0%
MATURITIES GREATER THAN 5 YEARS
83,485,1261
7.2%
WEIGHTED AVG MAT (390 DAYS) TOTAL 1,151,551,853
100.0%
Foob'ote The Treasurers Investment Guidelines dated December 4, 1995 require that future maturities be limited toe maximum of three years.
California law limits mat unaes within the portfolio to a maximum of five years unless espress approval has been granted by the Baird of
Supervisors to exceed the five year limitation The secunbes denoted having maturities greater than five years in the table above, constitute
the Treasurers purchase of the County's Teeter notes alter having first secured the approval of the Eoard of Supervisors (i e , $83,485,126)
Earnings Performance of the Portfolio:
The County Treasurer compares the earnings performance of the portfolio against that of the State
Treasurer's LAIF fund. The following depicts the average annual earnings performance of the
Treasury Pooled _Investment Fund for the past six fiscal years to that of the LAIF fund.
FISCAL YEAR
COUNTY
STATE LAIF
1988-89
8.06
8.66
1989-90 . 8.76
8.64
1990-91
6.42
8.00
1991-92
6.64
6.21
1992-93
4.15
4.70
1993-94
3.64
4.38
1994-95
4.60
5.52
AVERAGE ANNUAL EARNINGS:
6.04
6.59
The average weighted yield of the pooled fund portfolio as of the last business day of the month
during calendar year 1994, 1995 and 1996 was:
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
AVERAGE YTD:
1994 1995 1
1996
4.02
5.26
5.09
4.20
5.28
5.03
4.42
5.40
5.00 -
4.35
5.48
5.06
4.49
5.47
5.04
4.68
5.35
5.02
4.91
5.30
.
- 4.93
5.26
4.95
5.25
5.01
5.23
5.08
5.23
5.43
5.24
4.71
5.31
-6-
Specifio Portfolio Practices: Responses to questions pertain to the activities in the
portfolio that occurred during the report month of June 30, 1996.
Yes No Questions:
1. Did the Treasurer contract or utilize the services of any outside,
private investment manager?.
2. Did the Treasurer contract or utilize the services of any investment
advisor? (Yes to compile various portfolio reports and compliance
audit) .
3. Are there any investment agreement contracts outstanding affecting the
portfolio?
iL
z
z
4. Are any securities held in bank custody subject to a bank "Security
Lending Agreement"?
5. Are any securities on loan to a brokerage firm as a result of reverse -
repurchase agreements made by the Treasurer?
6. Is the Treasury susceptible to possible margin calls on loaned
securities?
7. Did the Treasurer sell any securities prior to maturity in order to
meet cash flow needs?
8. Did the Treasurer sell any security at a principal loss?
9. Did the Treasury buy or does it hol. -ny security that carries an
inverse floating interest equation (i.e., a derivative)?
10. Did the Treasurer buy any CMO's
obligation)?
i.e.,
collateralized mortgage
11. Did the Treasurer buy any shares in a mutual bond fund where the
underlying value of the securities in the portfolio are subject to
daily market value adjustments?
12. Did the Treasurer enter into any "covered call" or "put option
contract"?
13. Did the Treasury establish any new account and/or accept deposits from
any governmental entity not now a participant of the Treasury
investment pool?
14. Has the County entered into any taxable TRANs for the purpose of
further enhancing portfolio yield?
Under penalty of perjury, I certify that the above information is true 'and correct as
of the report date.
R. Wayne atts
Treasurer -Tax Collector
rept3
-7-
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE .
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR
STRUCTU RED NOTES IN THE P ORTFOLI O
JUNE 30, 1996
APPENDIX 1
TRANS: : CUSIP
• -NO:
SEC TYPE
11393 313389278
FHLS
11440: 313389669:
FHLB
DERIVATIVE
TYRE -
INV . FLT R.
: INV. FLTR.
TOTAL
MATURITY INTEREST FOR MULA CURRENT BOOK VALUE • MARKET VALUE & OF
DATE .. . - . .
INT. RATE .... PORT
41-10.98 .10Y PMT -1-3%-6M LIB OR 3 .300%
12-16-98 8 %-3M LIBOR
.13368 .. .... CNTTRIVITEETER:. VAR1AI3LE . ...8-15-02
: GRA ND TOTA L:
1Y 713+35BP
10,000,000.00
9.387.500.00
. :3,188%.
. 5.489%
5 000 000:00
4 640 100.00
15,000,000
• 14,027;800 ::: •' 1.30%
- : 83,485,125.:
'834185,128:!- 7.25%
08
485,126
87i512,7s6
8.55%
PORTFOLIO COM POSITION
TYPE
F MAYL 31, 1998
JUNE 30. 1998
I CH ANG E
T -BILL
69,330,934
74,200,500
4,869,567
T -NOTE
358,904,109
361,898,484
2,994,375
FED
117,887,106
137,831,542
19,944,436
CP
278,186,571
289,107,809
(7,078,7621
BA
54,589,058
41,204,663
(13,384,3951
REPO
86,100,000
73,000,000
(13,100,0001
MMF
110,000,000
55,000,000
(55,000,0001
CCD
10,000,000
10,000,000
0
MUNI
83,485,126
83,485,128
0
MTN
45,823,730
45,823,730
0
REVERSE REPO
0
0
0
BOOK VALUE
1,212.306,633
1,151,551,853
(60.754,780;
MV -LOSS
(10,607,11i'
(9.581,709i
1.025.405
MARKET VALUE
1.201. 699.519
1.141.970,144
(59,729,3751
50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-150
CHANGE 1N PORTFOLIO CDMPOSiT1019
1211. F® N REPO 111' cc0 IIA P /1111RE MISE REPO
1-00111 or
2000
TOTAL FOOL FUND INVESTMENT PORTFO LIO
JULY *97510 JUNG 1954
1500
0 -
0 -
AAM MOO 1s% 1111
M-150 11 0105 an1N
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER -TM COLLECTOR
MONTHLY REPORT ON PO OLED FUND INVESTMENT PORTFOLI O
JUNE 30, 1996 I I
P ORTFOLI O MIX OF SECURITIES
AS OF JUNE 30 . 1998
1J I .�Is InenSURY NOTES
14.0%1 MED TER M NOTES11
I3.�%1 COMM PAPER -
1 13 6%) BANKERS A CCEPT ANCES
IS 4 %1 TREASURY BILLS
700
800
500
400
51 300
200
100
112.0%1 REPO I M MF
17.2%1 TEETER 112.0%) FED AGENCY
y11 FEB 1411
Si7E s1,1S1,551,e53
T OTAL CASH RECEIPTS
1995 VS 1996
Nov
0 .1111 e l. VIII
Dec
AMI
C
OCT
TOTAL CA SH DISBURSMEN TS
1995 VS 1996
p _lit
7
� 2 2
2
0 -
iY 1 f� 50 11 A111 WY fN ZL Nq SS Oci 000 OK
r 1999 1998
1!111 M AN 11 9
LI QUIDITY POSITION OF THE PORTF OLI O
AS OF JUNE 30 . 1998
10 2115
110/111
11 01 111
EARNINGS PERFORMA NCE
S.L {. JBw 8 X71► 4
{ 8 { 8 S 8
JAN FEB MAR APR M AY JUN
n 1995 r 1996
41011 "
0/11 A11/111.116 11/I1. A1A
APPENDIX 2
GAASB RISK RANKINGS
TREASURER'S POOLED FUND INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
AS OF JUNE 30, 1996
TYPE
CATEGORY #1 CATEGORY #2 CATEGORY #3
OFFICE CASH
REVOLVING FUND
CHECKING ACCOUNTS
50,906
U.S. TREASURY BILLS 74,200,500
U.S. TREASURY NOTES 361,898,484
FEDERAL AGENCY SECURITIES 137,831,542
REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS (GOVT COLL) 73,000,000
MONEY MARKET FUND (GOVT COLL)
COLLATERALIZED CERT OF DEPOSIT
MUNICIPAL NOTES (CO TEETER NOTES) 83,485,126
COMMERCIAL PAPER (A -1/P-1) 269,107,809
1,407,874
99,910,441
55,000,000
10,000,000
BANKERS ACCEPTANCES 41,204,663
MEDIUM TERM NOTES (US CORP) 45,823,730
TOTALS 1,086,602,759 101,318,315 65,000,000
GRAND TOTAL 1,252,921,074
ACCOUNT: ALL - ALL ACCOUNTS REPORTING
INVESTMENT
HOLDINGS
IHLJL
i
SEC ID
13493
13604
13566
13577
13656
13683
13504
13513
13514
13570
13571
13572
1357. 5
13625
13626
13627
13640
13641
1.647
13652
13653
13658
13659
13660
13681
[3685
L3686
DESCRIPTION
BA. - BANKERS ACCEPTANCE
======mach==============a== a=Ga
BA FIRST CHICAGO CORP
BA CHEMICAL DANK '
BA FIRST CHICAGO' •
BA FIRST'CHICAGO
BA CHASE MANHATTAN BANK
BA FIRST CHICAGO
SUBTOTAL
CF'D - COMMERCIAL PAPER - DISCOUNT
CF'D 0 E CAPITAL C T 61B
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
CF'D
CF'D
CPD
CPD EXXON ASSET MGMT C T 618
CPD BELL SO TELECOM C T 618
CPD BELL SO TELECOMMUN INC
CF'D INT NEDERLANDEN C T 618
CPD MERRILL LYNCH C T 618
CPD MERRILL LYNCH & CO INC
MERRILL LYNCH C T 618
MERRILL LYNCH &, CO INC
DRESSER INDUST C T 610
AT&T CORP C T 618
LUCENT TECHNOLOO C T 618
ANHEUSER-BUSH CO C T 610
AT&T CORP C T 6j. 8
AT&T CORP S T 19010
AT&T CORP
CARGILL FIN SERV C T 610
UNITED PARCEL C T 618
RAYTHEON CO
AT&T CORP. 19010
AT&T CORP.
3
x
FACE
RATE
POSITION REPORT
AS OF 06/20/96
MATURITY LAST SET PURCHASE
DATE DATE YIELD
0.0000 07/18/96
0.0000 07/24/96
0.0000 08/12/96
0.0000 08/12/96
0.0000 08/12/96
0.0000 09/23/96
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
07/01/96
04/22/96 5.3079
06/27/96 5.3514
05/14/96 5.3302
05/15/96 5.3298
06/17/96 5.3753
06/27/96 5.4315
04/25/96
04/26/96
04/26/96
05/15/96
05/15/96
05/15/96
05/15/96
06/04/96
06/04/96
06/04/96
06/12/96
06/12/96
06/12/96
06/14/96
06/14/96
06/18/96
06/18/96
06/18/96
06/27/96
06/27/96
06/27/96
5.3021
5.3440
5.3440
5.3069
5.2467
5.2664
5.2664
5.2405
5 .2405
5.2405
5.2344
5.2646
5.2646
5.2020
5.2028
5.2399
5.2299
5.2299
5.4032
5.3532
5.3532
PAR
5,000,000.00
8,150,000.00
11,000,000.0 0
4,500,0 00.00
5,00p,000.00
8,000,000.00
41,650,000.00
20,000,000.00
448,465.90
551,534.10
10,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
4,649,311.59
751,258.18
599,430.23
20,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
4.335,779.63
8,564,220.37
20,000,000.00
300,186.45
4,699,013.55
4,500,000.00
15,746,791.51
253,208.49
SECURITY TYPE SEQUENCE
COST
4,936,683.33
8,117,420.37
10, 855,350.00
4,441,482.50
4,958,544.44
7,895,182.22
41,204,662.86
19,804,583.33
444,116.53
546,185.14
9,931,197.22
4,965,990.28
9,931,719.44
19,863,438.89
4,631,109.54
748,317.00
597,083.46
19,944,900.00
19,944, ;83.31'33
19,944,583.33
434,711.61
8,54 3,230.89
19,962,227.78
299,620.60
4,690,954.40
4,497,300.00
15,737,430.92
253,057.97
ACCRUED
INTEREST
48,761.11
1,206.65
72,325.00
28,950.00
8,143.06
1,191.11
160,556.93
186,666.67
4,151.67
5,105.83
64,411.11
31,838.89
63,922.23
127,844.44
16,179.60
2,614.338
2,086.02
46,400.00
46,666.67
46,666.67
879.55
17,285.45
29,055.55
476.27
6,814.73
675.00
2,340.15
37.63
ACCOUNT: AL - ALI_ ACCOUNTS REPORTING
1.UU141 I UI I\1V L.1'..l UI_
I N V E S T M E N" HOLDINGS
SEC ID
DESCRIPTION
13590 CPD FORD MOTOR CRED CO.13010
13591 CPD FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO.
13604 CPD SMITH BARNEY S T 13010
13605 CPD SMITH BARNEY S T 15210
13606 CPD SMITH BARNEY S T 18810
13607 CF'D SMITH BARNEY INC
13661 CPD FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO
13696 CPD PEPS I CO INC
13676 CPD CHEVRON OIL FINANCE CO
13600 CPD COCA-COLA CO S T 19910
13609 CPD COCA-COLA CO S T 19010
13610 CPD COCA-COLA CO
13669 CPD TEMPLE-INLAND INC
13414
1.33415
13530
13531
15532
SUBTOTAL
FFCB - FED FARM CREDIT BANK
FED
FED
FED
FED
FED
FARM CREDIT
FARM CREDIT
FARM CREDIT
FARM CREDIT
FARM CREDIT
BANK
BANK
BANK
BANK
BANK
SUBTOTAL
FHLB - FED HOME LOAN BANK
11393 FHLB-IF(10Y CMT+3Z-6M LIBOR)
11490 FHLB INV-VAR (9%-3M LIBOR)
SUBTOTAL
FHLC - FHLB - MOTTO. CERT
neanamwas ========mat
POSITIV,. REPORT
AS OF 06/28/96
FACE MATURITY LAST SET PURCHASE
RATE DATE DATE YIELD
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.000 0
07/05/96
07/05/96
07/05/96
07/05/96
07/05/96
07/05/96
07/05/96
07/08/96
07/11/96
07/18/96
07 /18/96
07/18/96
07/25/96
5.2600 07/01/96
5.2600 07/01/96
5.3000 08/01/96
5.3000 00/01/96
5.3000 08/01/96
05/20/96
05/20/96
05/29/96
05/ '29/96
05/29/96
05/29/96
06/10/96
06/20/96
06/26/96
05/29/96
05/29/96
05/29/96
06/24/96
5.2455
5.2455
5.2583
5.2583
5.2503
5.2583
5.3334
5.3279
5.3519
5.2204
3.2204
5.2'X•14
5 .3949
04/01/96 5.2600
04/01/96 5.2600
05/01/96 5.3000
05/01/96 5.3000
05/01/96 5.3000
3.3000 11/10/98 05/10/96 3.3000
3.1800 12/16/90 06/17/96 3.1800
PAR •
10,240,922.53
759,077.47
309 ,316.06
22,123.20
10,004,142.95
4,504,417.79
6,700,000.00
20, 00,0, 000.00
20,000,000.00
1,428.45
3,304, 983.03
1,693,588.52
6,000, 000.00
270,200,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
30,000,000.00
F'" 2
SECURITY TYrE S`IQUENC'E
COST
10,172,746.44
754,024.12
387,223.38
22,004.28
10,029,937.88
4,480,205.29
6,683,168.11
19,970,444.44
19,955,500.00
1,418.15
'33,281,159.61
1,601,380.57
5,972,255.00
269,107,008.93
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
30,000,000.00
10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00
5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00
15,000,000.00 • 15,000,000.00
ACCRUED
INTEREST
---------------
57,801.47
4,284.36
1,696.77
96.42
43,950.06
19,631.76
9,901.11
0.00
5,933.33
6.18
14,294.05
7,324.77
:.,500.00
870,577.79
63,558.33
63,558.33
41,958.33
41,958.33
8:;,916.67
294,949.99
44,000.00
4,870.56
48,870.56
ACCOUNT: ALL - ALL ACCOUNTS REPORTING
INVESTMENT HO LD I N G S
PAGE:
5
SEC ID
DESCRIPTION
11671 FHLB - MORTO. CERT.
SUBTOTAL
FHLD - FED HOME LOAN DISCOUNT
13642 FED HOME LOAN DISC C T 618
13643 FED HOME LOAN DISC C T 618
13644 FED HOME LOAN DISC C T 101
13645 FED HO ME LOAN DISC C T 618
13646 FED HO ME LOAN DISCOUNT
13602 FED HOME LOAN DISCOUNT
SUBTOTAL
FNMA - FED NAT MORTO ASSOC.
=======---,== ==========1..== •
13569 FED NAT MORTO ASSOC.
13649 FED NAT MORTO ASSOC.
SUBTOTAL
FNMD - FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES .
__________________________
13655 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES
SUBTOTAL
POSITION REPORT
AS OF 06/28/96
FACE MATURITY LAST SET PURCHASE
RATE DATE DATE YIELD
PAR
4.7 000 02/10/97 02/10/96 4.7000 ' 3,000,000.00
0.0000 07/01/96 06/12/96 5.2344
0.0000 07/01/96 06/12/96 5.2344
0.0000 07/01/96 06/12/96 5.2344
0.0000 07 /01/96 06/12/96 5.2344
0.0000 07/01/96 06/12/96 5.2344
0.0000 07/03/96 06/27/96 5.2346
5.4600 11/15/96 05/15/96 5.4600
5.6300 12/19/96 06/13/96 5.6300
3,000,000.00 •
lo,ogo,000.00
5,6g9,240.99
435, 288.93
3,330,339 .01
515,1 31.07
20,000,000.00
40,000,000.00
SECURITY TYPE SEQUENCE
COST.'
3,000,000.00;
3,000,000.00
9,972,450.00'
5,653,622.23
483,951.96
3,521,163.93
51 5,711.88
19,982,566.67
39,927,466.67
5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00 3,000,000.00
10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00
0.0000 07/02/96 06/17/96 5.2515 10,000,000.00
FRMC - FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORO CORP DISC
13695 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORO CORP
SUBTOTAL
MTNO - MED TERM NOTES
=======================_========
10,000,000.00
0.0000 07/15/96 06/28/96 5.2429 30,000,000.00
30,000,000.00
9,978,166.67
9,978,166.67
29,925,908.33
29,925,908.33:
ACCRUED
INTEREST
54,970.00
54,970.00
•
23,200.00
13,152.64
1,125.87
7,726.38
1,195.11
2,905.55
49,305.55
32,608.33
11,729.17
44,337.50
16,011.11
16,011.11
0.00
0.00
INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PA':cs 4
ACCOU NT: ALI
- ALL ACCOUNTS REPORTING
SEC ID
DESCRIPTION'
10949
11330
0955
11462
11514
11376
11377
11578
MTNO
MTNO
MTNO
MTNO
MTNO
MTNO
MTNO
MTNO
ASSOC CORPS AA-/Aa3
WASTE MANAGEMENT AA -/A1
O E CAPITAL AAA/Aaa
CAROLINA POWR 8x LT A/A2
MERRILL LYNCH Al/A±
ONTARIO HYDRO AA-/Aa3
ONTARIO HYDRO AA-/Aa3
ONTARIO HYDRO AA-/Aa3
SUBTOTAL
MULT - MUTUAL FUND'
=a=e3a=33x33=======
13608 MILESTONE TREAS OBLIG AAA
13689 DREYFUS MONEY MARKET FD AAA
13690 AIM S -T INVMTS TR TREAS AAA
13691 FEDERATED INV GOVT FUND AAA
13692 MERRILL LYNCH GOVT FUND AAA
13693 FIDELITY US TREASY FUND AAA
13694 FDIC U S TREASURY MMF AAA
SUBTOTAL
MUNI - MUNICIPAL BONDS
aaa=======v=========3==a03a==aa=
13368 MUNICIPAL BONDS 95-96 TEETER
11114
11175
11179
SUBTOTAL
' NOTE - U.S. TREASURY NOTES
==================== 1=========aaa
U.S. TREASURY NOTES
U.S. TREASURY NOTES
U.S. TREASURY NOTES
F'OSIT1. i:EPORT
AS OF .06/28/96
FACE MATURITY LAST SET PURCHASE
RATE DATE DATE YIELD
4.7500
7.8750
7.2400
4.8500
5.0000
5.8000
5 .8000
5.8000
00/01/96
00/15/96
10/25/96
12/02/96
12/15/96
03/31/98
03/31/90
03/31/98
5.0000 09/30/96
5.0000 09/30/96
5.0000 09/30/96
5.0000 09/30/96
5.0000 09/30/96
5.0000 09/30/96
5.0000 09/30/96
02/05/96 4.8621
02/15/96 4.5209
03/15/96 5.7004
05/01/96 4.8900
06/15/96 5.0680
05/31/96 5.1816
03/31/96 5.1610
03/31/96 5.0988
06/28/96 5.017 .33
06/28/96 5.0173
06/20/96 5.0173
06/28/96 5.0173
06/28/96 5.0173
06/20/96 5.0173
06/28/96 5.0173
5.4690 08/15/02 04/01/96
4.3750 08/15/96 02/15/96
4.375 0 08 /15 /96 02/15/96
4.3750 08/ 15/96 02/15/96
PAR
10,00 0,000.00
5,000,000.00
2,50 0, 00 0.00
10,000,000.00
10, 000,000.00
2,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
5,00 0,000.00
SECURITY T. . SEQUENCE
COST
9,909,200.00
3,076,682.02
2,568,116.77
9,989,900.00
10,000,000.00
2,039,042.20
3,060,295.81
5,100,495.0.33
45,500,000.00 45,823,729.91
15,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
15,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
55,000,000.00
15,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
15,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
5.,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
55,000,000.00
5.4690 83,405,125.91 83,485,125.91
3.9930
4.1265
4.1255
ACCRUED'
INTEREST
190,000.00
87,937.50
52,791.67
78, 138.89
18,055.56
28,677.78
43,016.67
71,694.44
570,312.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,130,284.25
83,485,125.91 83,485,125.91 1,130,284.25
10,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
10,000,0 00.00
10,034,811.14
10,067,187.50
10,067,187.50
161,057.69
161, 057.69
161,057.69
ACCOUNT: ALL
SEC ID
- ALL ACCOUNTS REPORTING
DESCRIPTION
11182 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11208 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11211 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11338 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11.745 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
13402 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
13449 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
13438 U. S. TREASURY NOTES
13459 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
13637 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
1'35;5 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
13535 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
13579 U.S. TREA SURY NO TES
13619 U.S. TREASURY N OTES
13620 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11241 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11240 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11249 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11500 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11317 U.S. TREASURY NO' T' ES
11320 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11331 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11332 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11335 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11336 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
113337 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12558 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12561 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12562 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12563 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12567 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12568 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12569 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12583 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12504 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11350 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11351 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
POSITION REPORT
AS OF 06/28/96
FACE MATURITY
RATE DATE
LAST SET PURCHASE
DATE YIELD
4.3750 00/15/96 02/15/96 4.1770
4.3750 08/15/96 02/15/96 4.0660
4.3750 00/15/96 02/15/96 4.0620
4. 3750 08/15/96 02/15/96 4.1824
4.3750 00/15/96 02/15/96 4.2145
5.1250 02/28/98 03/20/96 5.7047
5.1250 02/28/98 04/11/96 6.0503
6.1250 03/31/98 04/10/96 5.7961
6.1250 03/31/98 04/10/96 5.7664
6.1250 03/31/90 06/10/96 6.2316
5.0750 04/30/90 05/ 01/96 6.0549
5.0750 04/.0/90 05/02/96 5.9943
5.8750 04/30/90 05/16/96 5.9546
6.000 0 0 5/31/98 05/31/96 6.164:
6.0000 05/31/913 05/51/96 6.1930
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/96 4.6791
4.7500 09/50/90 03/31/96 4.7606
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/96 4.7606
4.7500 09/30/90 03/51/96 4.6320
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/96 4.5925
4.7500 09/30/913 03/31/96 4.5602
4.7500 09/30/99 03/31/96 4.6902
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/96 4.6848
03/31/96 4.7133
03/31/96 4.7169
03/31/96 4.7169
03/31/96 4.8140
03/31/96 4.7997
05/31/96 4.7997
03/31/96 4.8140
03/31/96 4.5292
03/31/96 4.5925
03/51/96 4.5925
03/31/96 4.6121
0:./:x1/96 4.6121
04/30/96 4.6924
04/30/96 4.7300
09/30/98
09/30/93
09/30/98
09/50/90
09/30/93
09/30/90
09/30/98
09/30/90
09/30/98
09/30/98
09/30/98
09/30/98
10/31/98
10/31/9(3
PAR
10,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
15,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
10,00 0,000.0 0
3,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
3, 000, 000.00
3,00 0,000.00
3,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
519,246.59
4130, 753.41
25,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
10,000,000 .00
20,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
10,000,000 .00
10,852,510.07
147,481.93
4,981,980.57
9, 985, 543.38
14,456.62
5,018,019.43
25,000,000.00
9,101,489.76
898,510.24
1,500,294.72
.x,491,705.28
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
PAGE: 5
SECURITY TYPE SEQUENCE
COST
10,053,125.00
10,082,812.0
15,041,695.43
20,033,252.42
10,041,406.25
2,968,593.75
4,918,3359.38
3,018,210. 00
3,019,860.00
2,994,373.00
4,905,156.25
2,995,906.25
2,995,546.80
2,990,859.30
2,989,218.75
10,031,250.00
519,003.19
480,528.06
25,099,066.84
10,068,750.00
10,082,012.50
20,051,562.50
10,028,125.00
10,015,625.00
10,867,779.42
147,689.33
4,967,968.75
9,963,700.00
14,425.00
5,003,906.25
25,106,125.58
9,164,062.50
904,687.50
1,517,368.06
3,512,710.07
5,012,700.00
5,004,400.00
ACCRUED
INTEREST
161, 057.69
'161,0 57.69
241,506.54
322,115.38
161,057.69
50,135.87
83,559.78
39,661.89
39,661.89
39,661.89
47,095 .79
28,257.47
20,257.47
13,770.49
13,770.49
115,505.46
5,997.50
5,552.96
200,763.66
115,505.46
115,505.46
231,010.93
115,505.46
115,505.46
125,352.51
1,70.33.50
57,544.60
115,338.48
166.98
57,960.87
288,763.66
105,127.18
10,378.28
17,421.63
40,331.10
58,077.45
38,077.45
ACCOUNT: AL'
- ALI_ ACCOUN TS REPO RTING
VL'LJI'l I 1 lei
INVESTMENT
HOLDINGS
PP` 6
•
SEC ID
DESCRIPTION
11352
11353
11354
11355
11356
11357
11382
12510
12519
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U .S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
TREASURY NOTES
TREASURY NOTES
TREASURY NOTES
TREASURY NOTES
TREASURY NOTES
TREASURY NOTES
TREASURY NOTES
TR EASURY NOTES
TREASURY NOTES
SUBTOTAL
REPO - REPURCHASE AGREEMENT
13697 REPURCHASE AGREEMENT
13311
13312
13313
13314
13315
1:x316
13614
13615
3353
R53
13354
13366
13383
1:x631
SUBTOTAL
TBIL - U.S. TREASURY BILLS
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
TREASURY BILLS 331
TREASURY BILLS 334
TREASURY BILLS
TREASURY BILLS
TREASURY BILLS
TREASURY BILLS
TREASURY BILLS FUND
TREASURY BILLS
TREASURY BILLS
TREASURY BILLS
TREASURY BILLS
TREASURY BILLS
TREASURY BILLS
TCD - TIME DEPOSITS
F'OSITI, REPORT
AS OF '06/28/96
FACE MATURITY LAST SET' PURCHASE
RATE DATE DATE YIELD
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
4.7500
10/31/90
10/31/90
10/31/98
10/31/98
10/ 31/98
10/31/98
10/31/90
10/31/98
10/31/98
04/30/96 4.7051
04/30/96 4.7675
04/30/96 4.7650
04/30/96 4.7900
04/30/96 4.7900
04/30/96 4.7250
04/30/96 4.8140
04/30/96 4.7951
04/30/96 4.7 951
5.1000 07/01/96 06/23/96
0.0000 08/22/96
0.0000 00/22/96
0.0000 08/22/96
0. 0000 08/22/96
0.0000 08/22/96
0.0000 08/22/96
117 0.0000 08/29/96
0.0000 00/29/96
0.0000 09/05/96
0.0000 09/05/96
0.0000 09/12/96
0.0000 09/19/96
0.0000 12/05/96
SUBTOTAL
PAR
110,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
4,950,646.24
41, 353.76
361,000,000.00
5.1000 73,000,000.00
02/22/96 4.9539
02/22/96 4.9539
02/22/96 4.9539
02/22/96 4.8650
02/22/96 4.8650
02/22/96 4.8756
05/30/96 5.0648
05/30/96 5.0640
03/07/96 4.9504
03/07/96 4.9296
03/14/96 4.9655
03/21/96 5.0933
06/06/96 5.2980
73,000,000.00
1,640,047.22
820,023.61
5 .339,929.17
3,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
1,012,000.67
3,987,199.33
10,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
76,000,000.00
SECURITY TV- SEQUENCE
COST
10,019,000.00
9,992,300.00
4,996,700.00
4,991,200.00
4,991,2 00.00
5,005,500.00
9,971,875.00
4,948,828.12
41,271.08
361,890,403.93
73,000,000.00
73,000,000.00
ACCRUED
INTEREST
76,154.89
76,154.89
38,077.45
38,077.45
30,077.45
38,077.45
76,154.89
37,762.52
314.93
4,337,029.13
0.00
0.00
1,600,000.00 27,945.04
800,000.00 13,972.52
526,745.00 9,199.94
2,928,185.83 50,112.0?
9,760,619.44 167,040.28
9,760,113.89 167,393.05
1,000,000.00 4,079.33
3,936,805. 56 16,059.55
9,756,322.22 151,294.45
9,757,586.11 150,509.72
9,755,563.89 142,363.89
9,748,991.67 136,537.50
4,869,566.67 15,766.67
74, 200, 500.28 1, 052, 274.03
1LL — ALL ACCOUNTS REPORTING
INVESTMENT HOLDIN
POSITION REPORT
0
S
PAGE: .1
SEC URITY TYPE SEQUENCE
AVERAGE WEIGHTED YIELD
AVERAGE WEIGHTED DAYS TO MATURITY
SEC ID
DESCRIPTION
12884 TCD CHINO VALLEY DANK
12918 TCD CHINO VALL EY •BANK ,
c
• ! � : r_.,':�s,:f: ..� .. . ...-..� ..1Ut+TOTAL
AS OF 06/28/96
FACE MATURITY LAST SET PURCHASE
RATE DATE DATE YIELD
5.6000 09/24/96 06/20/96 5.7346
5.6000 10/11/96 03/;1/96 5.7 57 8
ACCOUNT SUBTOTAL:
5.02
390.70
PAR
5,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
1 0,000,000.00
COST
5,000,000.00
• 5,000,000.00
T1.
ACCRUED
INTEREST
0.00
69,222.22
.:` ,10, 000 000.00.
rr.�.I .l J •i� �.�JI. . i1.%
1153,835,125„91 1151;551,853.49
===== .7”111:111 2.111116:1,1=1 .111M)==6. OSQIL-90---�f3
f1
• 69,222.22
8,699,501.57
• 1 p • .
AGENDA ITEM #5B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 4, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: 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 July 31, 1996.
Due to vacation schedules the Quarterly reports will be presented in October.
Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and cooperative agreements
is available from Bechtel staff.
STAEE REC(DMMENDATION•
That the Commission receive and file.
:jw
Attachments
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY R OUTE
PR OJECT
DESCRIPTION
ROUTE 74 PROJECTS
Cooperative Agreement - City of Perris
Construction & ROW (R09012)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74
ROUTE 79 PROJECTS
Engineering/Environ./ROW
(R09111,9301,9302, 9306,9337)
Lambs Canyon Proj. (R09423,9429,9522)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79
ROUTE 86 PROJECTS
Construction & Mitigation
(R09213)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 813
ROUTE 111 PROJECTS
(R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538)
9635
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111
ROUTE 91 PROJECTS
Magnolia to M ary HOV & Serfas club Sndwls
(R09101, 9308, 9415, 9524)
McKinley Undercrossing (R09326)
Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535)
SUBTO TAL RO UTE 91
CO MMISSION
AUTHORIZED
ALL OCATION
$8,183,914
$8,183,814
$8,992,366
$22,073,703
$31,066,069
$20,115,078
$ 20,115,078
$6,700,115
$6,700,115
$10,812,508
$1,614,951
$2,300,000
$14,727,459
C ONTRACTURAL % C OMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR
COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH . MONTH ENDED
TO DATE ALLOCATION Ju]y 31. 1996
$8,183,914
$8,183,914
$8.992,366
$22,073,703
$31,068,069
$16,182,436
$18,182,436
$6,438,516
$6,438,816
$10,530,460
$1,614,951
$2,300,000
$14,445,411
Page 1 of 3
100 .0 %
100 .0%
100.0 %
100 .0 %
100.4%
80.4 %
80.4%
96.1%
96 .1%
97 .4 %
100.0%
100.0%
98. 1%
$3,759
$3,759
$371,513
$100,575
$472,088
$p
$55,055
$65,065
% EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE
$7,486,536
$7,486;536
$8,878,001
$21,734,375
$30,612,376
$15,927,436
15,927,436
$2,150,430
$2,159,430
$8,346,022
$1,397,528
$659,159
$10,402,709
91 .5%
91.6%
98.7 %
98 .5 %
98.6%
98.4 %
98.4%
33 .4%
33.4%
79 .3 %
86.5%
28 .7%
72.0%
RCT C MEASURE A HI GHWAY PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
PR OJECT
DESCRIPTION
1-215 PROJECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018)
CECERT (R09627)
Right -of -Way (RO 9004,9009 )
suaioTAL 1=215
INTERCHANGE IM PROV.PROGRAM
Yuma IC Final Design (PS&E) (R09428)
Yuma IC Constr. Mgmt (R09631)
Yuma IC Construction (R09636)
SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE
BECHTEL PROJECT MGMT SERV.
(R08900 thru R09700)
SUBTOTAL BECHTEL
PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES
Progr am Studies
(R09006,9119, 9307)
Mapping Control/QA (R0 9007)
SUBTOTAL PRO GRAM PLAN & SVCS.
PARK-N-RIDERNCENT. PROGRAM
(RO 9418, 9526, 9528, 9601 - 9613, Impress)
SUBTOTAL PARK -N -RIDE
COMMUTER RAIL
Studies/Engineering
(RO 9323, 9324, 9420)
Station/Site Acq/OP Costs
(R09209, 9424, 9521,9527,9531,9532,9620,9626)
SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL
TOTALS
C OMMISSION CONTRACTUR AL
AUTHORIZED COM MITMENTS
ALL OCATION TO DATE
$6,726,504
$50,000
$32,554,995
$39,331,499
$1,200,000
$1,023,500
$6,000,175
$8,223,615
$12,329,736
$ 12,329,736
$5,275,161
$2,683,729
$7,958,890
$6,729,966
$6,729,966
$4,864,413
$92,776,388
$97,640,901
$253,007,202
$5,878,173
$50,000
$32,554,995
$38,483,168
$1,200,000
$890,000
$6,000,175
$8,090,176
$12,031,436
$12,031,435
$5,275,161
$2,683,729
$7,95$,890
$6,729,966
$6,729,966
$4,864,413
$92,548,805
$97,413,218
5247,023,299
Page 2 of 3
% COMMITTED
AGAINST AUTH.
ALL OCATION
87.4%
100.0 %
100.0 %
97 .8%
100 .0%
87 .0 %
100.0 %
98.4%
97.6%
97.0%
100 .0 %
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99. 8%
99.8%
97.6%
EXPENDITURE FOR
M ONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES
July 31. 1996 TO DATE
$6,726
$11,987
$18,713
$19,039
$4,689
$23,728
$75,509
$75,609
$0
$173,086
$173,086
$279,253
$279,253
$1.101.191
$5,548,435
$19,514
$30,705,836
$36,273,785
$1,132,554
$11,003
$1,143,667
$10,422,275
$10,422,275
$3,201,593
$2,637,420
$5,839,013
$5,945,503
$5,945,503
$4,658,084
$90,071,1325
$94,729,909
$220,933,629
% EXPENDITURES
TO -DATE A GAINST
C ON TA!TMNTS TO DATE
94 .4 %
39 .0 %
94 .3%
94.3%
94.4 %
1.2%
14.1%
86.6 %
86.6%
60.7%
98.3 %
73.4 %
8B .3 %
88.3%
95.8%
97.3%
97.2%
69.4%
{
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT
PROJECT APPROVED
DESCRIPTION C OMMITMENT
CITY OF MURRIETA
Loan Agreement 1-15/1-215
Interchange improvements (R09334)
SUBTOTAL MURRIETA LO AN
(1)
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Final Design and Construction of
Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements (R09422)
SUBTO TAL CA NYON LAKE LOAN
CITY OF CORONA
Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1)
Storm drainage structure
SUBTOTAL
$17,000,000
$17,000,000
$1,600,000
31,000,000
$5,212,623
$5.212,823
EXPENDITURE F OR TOTAL
M ONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES LOAN
July 31, 1996 TO D ATE BALANCE
$0
50
$2,379,711
$2,379,711
$1,600,000
$1, .00 .0;000
$5,212,623
$5,212,523
TOTALS $23,812.823 $0 $8,192,334
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs
All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
Page 3 of 3
$0
$0
$1,500,869
$1,600,569
$5,212,623
$5,212,623
$5;713,492
% EXPENDITURES
OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST
C OMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT
$15 .859,513
$16,859,513
$0
50
$0
$0
$15,859,513
14 .0%
14 .0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100 .0%
38 .6%
Status Mo Ere . 07l3rr9tf
AGENDA ITEM #6A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 4, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Mike Davis, Bechtel Project Coordinator
THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: Award of the Construction Contract for the Northmoor Noise Wall
Project
Since the completion of the construction of the new High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
lanes and associated noise walls on State Route 91 (SR -91) the Riverside County
Transportation Commission has received several complaints relating to a "Boom
Effect" that impacts the Northmoor neighborhood adjacent to SR -91 at Serfas Club
Drive.
In May 1993, at the request of RCTC, LSA Associates completed a Technical Noise
Study which documented that there was a significant noise problem (Boom Effect) at
the Northmoor neighborhood that could be corrected by extending the existing noise
wall an additional 820 feet along the northbound Serfas Club Drive off -ramp with SR -
91.
In response to the neighborhoods concern, RCTC staff requested that Mark Thomas
& Company prepare Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) for the design and
construction of a noise wall along the northbound SR -91 edge of shoulder and the
Serfas Club Drive northbound off ramp edge of shoulder. The proposed noise wall
will be approximately 820 -feet long and connect to the existing noise wall near the
Serfas Club Drive northbound off ramp that was constructed when the HOV-lanes
were constructed between Orange County and Magnolia Avenue. No additional right-
of-way is required.
Mark Thomas & Company has completed the PS&E for the construction of the noise
wall. The PS&E has also -received -final approval by Caltrans. At -the April 10, 1996
Commission meeting RCTC approved the funding for the project. Construction is
anticipated to begin in October 1996 and be completed by January 1997. The
Engineers Estimate for the project prepared by Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. to
complete the construction of the noise wall is $408,000 which includes a 10%
contingency.
Page 2
Staff advertised the project locally, in the Press Enterprise, starting on July 8, 1996.
A pre -bid meeting was held on August 22, 1996, at which details of the project were
discussed and questions from the prospective bidders were addressed. The bids for
the project were opened on Friday, August 30, 1996 at 1:00 pm. The initial bid
summary is shown in the following table:
Bidder Name
Location
Bid Amount at
Opening
0
Engineers Estimate
$408,000.00
1
Brutoco Engineering &
Construction, Inc.
General Consolidated
Constructors
Fontana
Corona
$0.00
$0.00
2
3
Heritage Engineering
Construction, Inc.
Ontario
$0.00
4
L. Johnson Construction, Inc.
Hawthorne
$0.00
5
Peterson - Chase
Irvine
$0.00
6
R. Fox Construction
Anaheim
$0.00
7
Sean Malek Engineering &
Construction
Perris
$0.00
A bid evaluation team has been established and they will perform a complete review
of all bids received. The bid evaluation team consists of Bill Hughes (Bechtel Project
Manager), Mike Davis (Bechtel Project Coordinator), Steve DeBaun (Attorney, Best,
Best & Krieger), Jim Costantini (PS&E Manager, Mark Thomas & Co.), and Dave Tiberi
(Construction Manager, Harris & Associates). The bid evaluation team will identify
the lowest qualified bidder of the seven bids received. The results of the bid
evaluation will be presented at the September 11, 1996 Commission Meeting.
Staff suggests that a 10% contingency fund be established for the construction of
the project. The contingency fund will cover change orders and would be exercised
with the written approval of the Executive Director.
Attached is a copy of the Standard Construction Contract prepared by Best, Best &
Krieger that will be entered into for construction of the project. This contract was
included with the bid documents provided to each bidder.
Notice to proceed will be issued to the successful contractor as soon as possible. The
construction contract calls for completion of work within 60 working days which is
approximately 3 months. This would equate to a construction completion date
sometime near the beginning of 1997. The contractor will be assessed liquidated
Page 3
damages in the amount of $750.00 per day for each day beyond the approved
completion date.
RCTC will be contributing 100% of the Northmoor Noise Wall construction funds up
to a maximum of $425,000, from its' Highway Interchange Local Circulation
Improvement Program under Measure A.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission:
1) Approve award of the construction contract to the lowest qualified bidder
identified by the bid evaluation team; and,
2) Establish a 10% contingency fund for the project for change order work to be
exercised with the written authorization of the Executive Director.
:jw
Attachment
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
NORTHMOOR NOISE WALL PROJECT
(ROUTE 91/SERFAS CLUB DRIVE)
**************
CONTRACT
**************
BETWEEN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AND
CONTRACT FOR THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
NORTHMOOR NOISE WALL PROJECT
(ROUTE 91/SERFAS CLUB DRIVE)
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Contract is made and entered into this day of , 1996, by and
between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ( hereinafter called the
"Commission") and (hereinafter called the "Contractor").
This Contract is for that Work described in the Contract Documents entitled "Northmoor Noise
Wall Project (Route 91/Serfas Club Drive)."
2. RECITALS.
2.1 The Commission is a County Transportation Commission organized under the
provisions of Sections 130000, et seq., of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California,
with power to contract for services necessary to achieving its purpose;
2.2 Contractor, in response to a Invitation for Bids issued by Commission on July 29,
1996, has submitted a bid proposal for construction of the Northmoor Noise Wall Project (Route
91/Serfas Club Drive).
2.3 Commission has duly opened and considered the Contractor's bid proposal, and
duly awarded the bid to Contractor in accordance with the Notice Inviting Bids and other Bid
Documents and has given written notice to Contractor on
2.4 Contractor has obtained, and delivers concurrently herewith, Performance and
Payment Bonds and evidences of insurance coverage as required by the Contract Documents.
3. TERMS.
3.1 Incorporation of Documents.
This Contract includes and hereby incorporates in full by reference this Contract and the
following Contract Documents provided with the above referenced Notice Inviting Bids,
including all exhibits, drawings, specifications and documents therein, and attachments thereto,
all of which, including all addendum thereto, are by this reference incorporated herein and made
a part of this Contract:
a. NOTICE INVITING BIDS
b. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
RCTC Northmoor Noise
Wall Project (7/29/96)
DRD311730
CONTRACT -1
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
CONTRACT BID FORMS
PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND FORMS
ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY DEPOSITS (optional)
CONTRACT APPENDIX
PART "A" -
PART "B" -
PART "C" -
PART "D" -
PART "E" -
Specifications/Technical Provisions
General Conditions
Special Provisions
Contract Drawings (under separate cover)
Permits
ADDENDUM NO.
dated
3.2 Contractor's Basic Obligation.
Contractor promises and agrees, at his own cost and expense, to furnish to the
Commission all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work
for the construction of the Northmoor Noise Wall Project (Route 91/Serfas Club Drive),
including all structures and facilities described in the above referenced Contract Documents (the
"Work") for a total of DOLLARS AND
CENTS ($ ), as specified in the bid proposal and pricing
schedules submitted by the Contractor in response to the above referenced Notice Inviting Bids.
Such amount shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with the applicable terms of this
Contract. All Work shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with the above referenced
Contract Documents.
3.3 Period of Performance.
Contractor shall perform and complete all Work under this Contract within sixty five (65)
Working Days, and in accordance with any completion schedule developed pursuant to
provisions of the Contract Documents.
Contractor agrees that if such Work is not completed within the aforementioned period,
liquidated damages will apply as provided by the applicable provisions of the General
Conditions, found in Part "B" of the Contract Appendix.
3.4 Commission's Basic Obligation.
Commission agrees to engage and does hereby engage Contractor as an independent
contractor to furnish all materials and to perform all Work according to the terms and conditions
herein contained for the sum set forth above. Except as otherwise provided in the Contract
Documents, the Commission shall pay to Contractor, as full consideration for the satisfactory
performance by the Contractor of services and obligation required by this Contract, the above
ETC Northmoor Noise
Wall Project (7/29/96)
DRD311730
CONTRACT -2
referenced compensation in accordance with Compensation Provisions set forth in the Contract
Documents.
3.5 Contractor's Labor Certification.
Contractor maintains that he is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor
Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation
or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work.
3.6 Attorneys' Fees.
If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection
with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover
from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit.
3.7 Successors.
The parties do for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and
assigns agree to the full performance of all of the provisions contained in this Contract.
Contractor may not either voluntarily or by action of law, assign any obligation assumed by
Contractor hereunder without the prior written consent of Commission.
CONTRACTOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: By:
Name Alex Clifford
Chairperson
Title RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
Tax I.D. Number: By:
Jack Reagan
Executive Director
REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT
By:
Dean Martin
Chief Financial Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Counsel, RCTC
RCTC Northmoor Noise
Wall Project (7/29/96)
DRD311730
CONTRACT -3
AGENDA ITEM #6B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 4, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Mike Davis, Project Coordinator
THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. RO 91-01 with
Greiner, Inc. to Compete Design and Prepare the PS&E for the Route 91
Noise Wall Project
In April and May of this year, both the City of Riverside and the Riverside County
Transportation Commission approved the selection of the noise walls that would be
included in Phase I of the construction between Magnolia Avenue and Arlington
Avenue in the City of Riverside on Route 91. Due to funding constraints, the
remainder of the identified noise walls that will be required and the proposed auxiliary
lanes will be constructed in a later phase. Staff is now recommending that Greiner,
Inc. complete the final design and prepare the Plans, Specifications and Estimates
(PS&E) for Phase I of the Route 91 Noise Wall Project . The Scope -of -Work, Schedule
and proposed budget ($320,000) are described in a letter from Greiner dated August
28, 1996 (attached). The Table below shows the previous actions taken regarding
Agreement RO 91-01 and the impacts of the new proposed Amendment 4.
Item
Amount
1
Base Amount for Route 91 HOV PS&E between Magnolia
and Mary Streets
$788,989.00
2
Amendment 1- change in project scope
$463,726.00
3
Amendment 2 - change in project scope and establish
new contract base amount
$1,303,091.15
4
Amendment 3 - include fiber optic cable design
$225,260.92
5
Extra work - to approve Change orders 2 and 3
($9,615.01 + $ 14,969.59)
$24,584.60
Current Contract Value
$1,552,936.67
6
proposed new Amendment 4 - for final design and PS&E
for Phase I noise walls on Route 91
$320,000.00
New project Total
$1,872,936.67
Page 2
There is $78,688.40 currently remaining in contingency for Extra Work , however;
this amount is inadequate to complete the new Phase I sound wall design and
prepare the PS&E. With the approval of Amendment No. 4, the total Greiner contract
amount will increase from the present $1,552,936.67 to $1,872,936.67. The extra
work amount will remain at $78,688.40. A standard contract amendment will be
used to amend Agreement RO 91-01.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION•
That the Commission approve Amendment No. 4 to the Consultant Service
Agreement RO 91-01 with Greiner, Inc. for the completion of the design, preparation
of the PS&E in the amount of $320,000 for a revised contract base amount not to
exceed $1,872,936.67. Extra Work for this amendment will remain at $78,688.40.
All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement (No. RO 91-01) and the
previous Amendments will remain in effect.
:jw
Greiner
1141 Cast Uyer PLOW. SURE 1.50
P.O. Box 1948
Santa Ana. California 92705
(714) 556-9260
FAX: (714) 979.7928
August 28, 1996 P.N. H10019501
Mr. Bill Hughes
RCM
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Subject State Route 91 "Priority" Sound Walls
Cost Proposal
Dear Bill:
Enclosed is a summary of the hours, rates and direct costs to provide Plans, Specifications
and Estimate for the SR91 "priority" sound walls. The "priority' sound walls are wall nos.
35, 77, 78, 148 and 221. We have also included sound wall no. 183 at your request
A list of tasks is also attached that can be expanded into more detail if necessary.
Please call me or Jeff Chapman if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
GREYNER, INC. PACIFIC
raniu Lturi
Frank G. Castro, P.E.
Project Manager
FGC/t1/tL)9937
xc: Jeff Chapman
Don Graul
" 1 r � i r n I V r l I I O V U I V U V V / i . L 0
S U M M A R Y
2 b - A u g - 9 E
D I R E C T L A B O R
H O U R L Y
N A M E F U N C T I O N H O U R S R A T E T O T A L
F . C A S T R O P R O J E C T P R I N C I P A L 2 0 5 5 6 . 0 0 $ 1 , 1 2 0 . 0 0
J . C H A P M A N P R O J E C T M A N A G E R 1 7 3 $ 3 5 . 0 0 $ 6 , 0 5 5 . 0 0
R . C H A P M A N S R . P R O J E C T E N G I N E E R 1 8 5 $ 2 8 . 0 0 $ 5 , 1 8 0 . 0 0
P R O J E C T E N G I N E E R 2 1 8 $ 2 6 . 0 0 $ 5 , 6 6 8 . 0 0
E N G I N E E R 7 0 0 $ 2 2 . 0 0 $ 1 5 , 4 0 0 . 0 0
T E C H N I C I A N / C A D D 1 0 7 5 $ 1 8 . 0 0 $ 1 9 , 3 5 0 . 0 0
P R O J E C T A D M I N I S T R A T O R 2 3 5 $ 1 9 . 0 0 $ 4 , 4 6 5 . 0 0
C L E R I C A L 1 6 0 $ 1 7 . 0 0 $ 2 , 7 2 0 . 0 0
T O T A L H O U R S
F R I N G E B E N E F I T S
2 , 7 6 6
S U B T O T A L S 5 9 , 9 5 2
C O L A 0 . 0 0 %
T O T A L D I R E C T L A B O R C O S T S $ 5 9 , 9 5 5 2
R A T E T O T A L
4 8 . 1 2 % $ 2 8 . 8 5 1 . 7 9
T O T A L F R I N G E B E N E F I T S
O T H E R C O S T S
T R A V E L C O S T S $ 5 6 0 . 0 0
R E P R O D U C T I O N $ 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
C A D D / C O M P U T E R $ 2 0 , 8 0 0 . 0 0
M I S C C O S T S ( F E D E C , E X H I B I T S , A D S , E T C . ) $ 2 , 4 0 0 . 0 0
S U B T O T A L $ 2 8 , 7 6 0 . 0 0
S U B C O N S U L T A N T S
G R E I N E R - S U R V E Y $ 3 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
G E O T E C H N I C A L C O N S U L T A N T S . I N C $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
M A R U M & A S S O C I A T E S $ 5 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
$ 2 8 , 8 5 2
S U B T O T A L $ 1 1 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
S U B C O N S U L T A N T F E E R A T E T O T A j ,
5 . 0 0 % $ 3 , 9 0 0 . 0 0
T O T A L D I R E C T C O S T S $ 1 4 5 , 6 6 0
I N D I R E C T C O S T S R A T E T O T A L
O V E R H E A D & G E N E R A L 1 1 4 . 5 1 % $ 8 8 , 6 6 7 . 9 1
F E E
T O T A L C O S T
N : \ D O C I N \ S W A X B U D 3 . W K 3
T O T A L I N D I R E C T C O S T S $ 6 8 , 6 5 8
R A M
1 0 . 6 0 % $ 1 6 , 5 3 4
$ 3 1 9 , 6 6 2
P R I N T D A T E : 2 8 - A u g - 9
AGENDA ITEM #6C
IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 4, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: Award of the Construction Contract for the Route 79/Lamb Canyon
Rockfall Mitigation Project
During the final phases of construction for the Route 79/Lamb Canyon widening and
improvement project Caltrans recommended that Rockfall Mitigation devices should
be erected adjacent to areas with high and steep slopes to provide an additional
margin of safety for the travelling public. Rockfall Mitigation could include barriers,
fences, and gabian-type structures that would impede or prevent rock falling from
high and steep slopes adjacent to Route 79 within Lamb Canyon onto the newly
improved roadway.
After careful consideration of this issue staff has agreed to implement the Rockfall
Mitigation and has requested that Greiner, Inc. prepare a suitable design for
construction within Lamb Canyon. The Rockfall Mitigation design was completed by
Greiner, Inc. on August 23, 1996. Staff advertised the project locally, in the Press
Enterprise, starting on August 26, 1996. A pre -bid meeting will be held on September
3, 1996, at which details of the project will be discussed and questions from the
prospective bidders will be addressed. The bids for the project will be opened on
Monday, September 9, 1996 at 1:00 pm. The initial bid summary is shown in the
following table:
Bidder Name
Location
Bid Amount at
Opening
0
1
2
3
4
5
Engineers Estimate
Rasmussen, Inc.
Corona
$746,831.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Page 2
A bid evaluation team has been established and they will perform a complete review
of all bids received. The bid evaluation team consists of Bill Hughes (Bechtel Project
Manager), Steve DeBaun (Attorney, Best, Best & Krieger), Ross Lew(Project Manager,
Greiner), and Joe Siino (Construction Manager, O'Brien-Krietzberg, Inc.). The bid
evaluation team will identify the lowest qualified bidder of the five bids received. The
results of the bid evaluation will be presented at the September 11, 1996 Commission
Meeting.
Staff suggests that a 10% contingency fund be established for the construction of
the project. The contingency fund will cover change orders and would be exercised
with the written approval of the Executive Director.
Notice to proceed. will be issued to the successful contractor as soon as possible. The
construction contract calls for completion of work within 60 working days which is
approximately 3 months. This would equate to a construction completion date
sometime at the beginning of 1997. The contractor will be assessed liquidated
damages in the amount of $1,000 per day for each day beyond the approved
completion date.
RCTC will be contributing 100% of the construction funds up to a maximum of
$800,000, from its' Highway Interchange Local Circulation Improvement Program
under Measure A.
STAFF RECOMMI=NDATION•
That the Commission:
1) Approve award of the construction contract to the lowest qualified bidder
identified by the bid evaluation team; and,
2) establish a 10% contingency fund for the project for change order work to be
exercised with the written authorization of the Executive Director.
:jw
CONTRACT FOR THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
LAMB CANYON ROCK FALL MITIGATION PROJECT
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Contract is made and entered into this day of , 1996, by and
between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ( hereinafter called the
"Commission") and (hereinafter called the "Contractor").
This Contract is for that Work described in the Contract Documents entitled "Lamb Canyon
Rock Fall Mitigation Project."
2. RECITALS.
2.1 The Commission is a County Transportation Commission organized under the
provisions of Sections 130000, et seq. of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California,
with power to contract for services necessary to achieving its purpose;
2.2 Contractor, in response to a Notice Inviting Bids issued by Commission on
August 26, 1996, has submitted a bid proposal for construction of the Lamb Canyon Rock Fall
Mitigation Project.
2.3 Commission has duly opened and considered the Contractor's bid proposal, and
duly awarded the bid to Contractor in accordance with the Notice Inviting Bids and other Bid
Documents and has given written notice to Contractor on
2.4 Contractor has obtained, and delivers concurrently herewith, Performance and
Payment Bonds and evidences of insurance coverage as required by the Contract Documents.
3. TERMS.
3.1 Incorporation of Documents.
This Contract includes and hereby incorporates in full by reference this Contract and the
following Contract Documents provided with the above referenced Notice Inviting Bids,
including all exhibits, drawings, specifications and documents therein, and attachments thereto,
all of which, including all addendum thereto, are by this reference incorporated herein and made
a part of this Contract:
a. NOTICE INVITING BIDS .
b. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
c. CONTRACT BID FORMS
RCuL Lamb Canyon Rock
Fall Mitigation Project (8/26/96)
DRD312207
CONTRACT -1
d.
e.
f.
g.
PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND FORMS
ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY DEPOSITS (optional)
CONTRACT APPENDIX
PART "A" -
PART "B" -
PART "C" -
PART "D" -
PART "E" -
Specifications/Technical Provisions
General Conditions
Special Provisions
Contract Drawings (under separate cover)
Permits
ADDENDUM NO. dated
3.2 Contractor's Basic Obligation.
Contractor "promises and agrees, at his own cost and expense, to furnish to the
Commission all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work
for the construction of the Lamb Canyon Rock Fall Mitigation Project, including all structures
and facilities described in the above referenced Contract Documents (the "Work") for a total of
DOLLARS AND CENTS
($ ), as specified in the bid proposal and pricing schedules submitted by the
Contractor in response to the above referenced Notice Inviting Bids. Such amount shall be
subject to adjustment in accordance with the applicable terms of this Contract. All Work shall
be subject to, and performed in accordance with the above referenced Contract Documents.
3.3 Period of Performance.
Contractor shall perform and complete all Work under this Contract within sixty (60)
Working Days of the effective date of the Notice to Proceed, and in accordance with any
completion schedule, construction schedule or project milestones developed pursuant to
provisions of the Contract Documents.
Contractor agrees thatif such Work is not completed within the aforementioned period,
liquidated damages will apply in the amount of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,D00.00) PER
DAY as provided by the applicable provisions of the General Conditions, found in Part "B" of
the Contract Appendix.
3.4 Commission's Basic Obligation.
Commission agrees to engage and does hereby engage Contractor as an independent
contractor to furnish all materials and to perform all Work according to the terms and conditions
herein contained for the sum set forth above. Except as otherwise provided in the Contract
Documents, the Commission shall pay to Contractor, as full consideration for the satisfactory
performance by the Contractor of services and obligation required by this Contract, the above
RCTC Lamb Canyon Rock
Fall Mitigation Project (8/26/96)
DRD312207
CONTRACT -2
referenced compensation in accordance with Compensation Provisions set forth in the Contract
Documents.
3.5 Contractor's Labor Certification.
Contractor maintains that he is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor
Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation
or to undertake self-insurance in accordance . with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work.
3.6 Attorneys' Fees.
If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection
with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover
from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit.
3.7 Successors.
The parties do for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and
assigns agree to the full performance of all of the provisions contained in this Contract.
Contractor may not either voluntarily or by action of law, assign any obligation assumed by
Contractor hereunder without the prior written consent of Commission.
3.8 Notices.
All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the
Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified
mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows:
Contractor Surety
Attn:
Commission
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
3560 University Ave., Ste. 100
Riverside, California 92501
Attn: Bill Hughes
Bechtel Project Manager, Lamb
Canyon Rock Fall Mitigation Project
Attn:
With Copies To:
O'Brien Kreitzberg, Inc.
2055 N. Sanderson Ave.
Suite B
San Jacinto, CA 92582
Attn: Joe Siino
Project Manager, Lamb Canyon
Rock Fall Mitigation Project
RCTC Lamb Canyon Rock
Fall Mitigation Project (8/26/96)
DRD312207
CONTRACT -3
Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after
deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to the party at the above address.
Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of
the method of service.
CONTRACTOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: By:
Name Alex Clifford
Chairperson
Title RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
Tax I.D. Number:-=_ By:
Jack Reagan
Executive Director
REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT
By:
Dean Martin
Chief Financial Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Counsel, RCTC
RCTC Lamb Canyon Rock
Fall Mitigation Project (8/26/96)
DRD312207
CONTRACT -4
AGENDA ITEM #6D
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 4, 1996
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment 3 to the Agreement RO-9522 with the County of
Riverside to Perform Survey and Material Testing Services for the Route 79 Lamb
Canyon and Gilman Springs Grade Separation Project
The Commission has previously approved Agreement RO-9522, along with Amendments 1 and
2, with the County of Riverside to perform survey and material testing services for the Route
79 Lamb Canyon and Gilman Springs Grade Separation Project. The current contract value is
$808,697 as shown in the table below.
Since the approval of Amendment 2 to this agreement, several new issues have developed that
will require additional survey services to be performed for the Lamb Canyon project. These
additional services can be broken down into three categories. First, an additional $32,900 is
required to complete the construction support activities. Second, Caltrans has requested
additional work be done to verify the monumentation that was used for the right of way maps
for Lamb Canyon. This work is presently estimated at $13, 650. Third, the Survey services
required to support the rock fall mitigation effort will be $9,750. The three letters from the
County of Riverside supporting these figures are attached for your information. The total of
these three items is $56,300. $20,000 currently remains in extra work and Staff recommends
that this money should remain available for future contingencies. Amendment 3 will increase
the contract value to $864,997.
Item
Amount
1
Base Contract
$623,635
2
Amendment 1 - for COR Engineering review and Scott Driveway
design
$50,000
3
Extra work authorization in conjunction with Amendment 2
$76,365
4
Amendment 2 - for misc. additional work related to slide removal
and centerline monumentation
$58,697
Subtotal of present contract value
$808,697
5
proposed Amendment 3 - to check right of way map
monumentation, perform support for rock fall mitigation efforts,
and misc. survey work to support previous construction activities.
$56,300
Total new contract value
$864,997
The appropriate changes to the agreement with the County of Riverside will be made using
standard contract amendment language and form, and will be identified as Amendment 3 to
Agreement RO-9522. The additional funds required by the County of Riverside to cover the
additional for work performed for construction of this project will be taken from the Western
County Area Measure A Highway Account as identified in the FY 95-96 budget adjustments
which were approved by the Commission at their April, 1996 meeting.
STAFF RFCOMMENDATION•
That the Commission authorize approval of Amendment 3 for an amount of $56,300 to
Agreement RO-9522 to increase the total contract amount to $864,997. The existing
$20,000 currently in extra work will remain available to address any future project needs
relating to survey and material testing. A standard contract amendment will be used for this
contract change.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department
August 19, 1996
Bill Hughes, Project Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
.Riverside, California 92501
Subject: Route 79 Lamb Canyon, Survey Costs
David E. Barnhart
Director of Transportation
RECEIVED
AUG 2 0 1996
BECHTEL CORP.
Riverside Office
Dear Mr. Hughes-
As per our discussion on August 2, 1996, following is a breakdown
and cost of additional survey work not addressed on the contract or
addendums to the contract. For all of the staking we have work
requests prepared and signed by the contractor and/or the project
inspector.
1) Restake centerline Sta. 485 to $ 3,793
505
2) Restake toe from Sta. 104+50
to 108 1,896
3) Restake from Sta. 66+50 to
77+50, Sta. 90+50 to 96+50
4) Correction stakes from Sta.
100+50 to Sta. 112
5) Staking request #153
6) Stake R/W on Ramp #4
7) Restake in slide area
8) Cross-section Sta. 69 to 76
9) Restake drainage system 61
10) Stake R/W Sta. 486 to 510
11) Stake ditch Sta. 485 to 509
4,350
4,350
1,896
3,793
1,896
2,438
1,375
3,793
3,320
TOTAL $32,900
If you have any questions please contact me at 275-6703.
ly y
Brian H. Hess
Senior Land Surveyor
4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 275-6740
P.O.. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 275-6721
Vrc.�1J�+
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department
August 19, 1996
David E. Barnhart
Director of Transportation
Bill Hughes, Project Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501
Subject: Route 79 Lamb Canyon, Additional Slope Work
Dear Mr. Hughes:
This letter is in regards to your request from our August 2, 1996
meeting at your office. As you may recall you suggested that I
meet with Joe Sieno and discuss the extent of work necessary on
various slopes. I discussed the work with Mr. Sieno and he relayed
to me additional survey work on the following areas:
1) Cut slope C-2, Sta. 536 to 539, change the slope to 1:1,
with 20' offsets.
2) Cross-section the area at NW quad. of the Gilman Springs
Road and Lamb Canyon Road interchange for disposal of the dirt
from slope C-2.
3) Stake fence from Sta. 249+50 to 254.
4) Stake the following stations for the location of fence
drapery.
a) Sta. 73 to 74+50
b) Sta. 101 to 102+50
c) Sta. 103 to 103+80
d) Sta. 106+75 to 109+75
Total cost to perform this work is $9,750. Please review the items
above for their completeness.
If you have any questions please coact me at 275-6703.
ely yo rs,
� F
Brian H. Hess
Senior Land Surveyor
RECEIVED
AUG 2 0 1996
BEC>•ITEL CORP.
Riverside Office
4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 275-6740
P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 275-6721
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT A GENC Y
Transportation Department
August 28, 1996
Bill Hughes, Project Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501
Subject: Route 79 Lamb Canyon
Dear Mr. Hughes.
David E. Barnhart
Director of Transportation
RECEIVED
AUG 2 9 1996
BECHTEL CORP.
Riverside Office
As you instructed at our meeting on August 20, 1996, following
the Scope of Services and cost estimate on what we discussed.
1) Riverside County Transportation Department, County
Division (County Survey) will review with survey staff
of California, Department of Transportation
discrepancies with the right of way map for Hwy. 79
survey field notes, and Robert Bein, William Frost and
survey analysis map.
is
Surveyor's
from State
(Caltrans)
, Caltrans
Associates
2) County Survey will perform office survey work which is to
include research beyond the Caltrans review (i.e. additional record
maps, County Survey field notes and worksheets), preparation of
field research plan, review and analysis of field retracement
survey.
3) County Survey will perform a field retracement survey to
include those monuments which appear to be in conflict with
subsequent surveys.
4) County Survey will coordinate with RCTC, and other firms as
deemed appropriate, a meeting to discuss the results of the survey.
Total cost to perform these services is $13,650.
If you have any questions p - = contact me at 275-6703.
ly yo
H.
Senior Land Surveyor
4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 275-6740
P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 275-6721