HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 27, 2000 Budget & Implementation052824
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
•
•
•
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 2:30 p.m.
DATE: Monday, November 27, 2000
RECORDS
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 - Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
...COMMITTEE MEMBERS...
Ron Roberts, Chairman / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
John Hunt, Vice Chair / Michael Bracken, City of Banning
Gregory S. Pettis / Sarah DeGrandi, City of Cathedral City
Juan DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella
Jeffrey Bennett / Andrea Puga, City of Corona
Mike Wilson / Marcos Lopez, City of Indio
John Pena / Ron Perkins, City of La Quinta
Kevin Pape / Robert Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore
Frank West / Bill Batey, City of Moreno Valley
Phil Stack / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage
Ameal Moore % City of Riverside
John Tavaglione / District Two i County of Riverside
Jim Venable / District Three / County of Riverside
Patrick Williams Chris Carlson-Buydos / Jim Ayres City of San Jacinto
... STAFF ...
Eric•Haley, Executive Director
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
... AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY...
Annual Budget Development and Oversight
Countywide Strategic Plan
Legislation
Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs
Public Communications and Outreach Programs
Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement
and SB 821 -Bicycle & Pedestrian
Property Management
SAFE Freeway Service Patrol
and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission
Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the
Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board.
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
http://www.rctc.org
3560 University Ave - Riverside, CA 92501 - Conference Room A
PARK IN THE PARKING GARAGE
ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2000 - 2:30 P.M.
AGENDA.
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
City of La Quinta City Hall (Video Conference Location)
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253 - Session Room
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (October 23, 2000)
5. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will
be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests
separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the
Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the
agenda.
5A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT - P. 01
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule
Report for the month ending October 31, 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
•
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee
November 27, 2000
Page 2
5B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT - P. 05
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report
for the months of September and October 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
5C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT - P. 07
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Investment Report for the quarter
ending September 30, 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
5D. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - P. 19
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Financial Statements for the
quarter ending September 30, 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
5E. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE - P. 25
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the operational statistics for the
Riverside County Motorist Aid CaII Box System for the
quarter ending September 30, 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee
November 27, 2000
Page 3
6 AUTHORIZE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-9861
TO SUPPORT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROUTE 91,
MAGNOLIA AVENUE TO MARY STREET AUXILIARY LANE
PROJECT, AND PHASE II SOUND WALL #36 - P. 34
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Recommend the approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract
No. RO-9861, with URS Corporation, for additional
engineering design services and construction support
services required to support design and construction of the
Route 91, Magnolia Avenue to Mary Street Auxiliary Lane
Project, and the new Phase 11 Sound Wall #36, for an
additional Base Work of $383,728 and additional Extra
Work of $ 41,272 for a total Amendment value of $
425,000;
2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the amendment on
behalf of the Commission, pursuant to Legal Counsel
review, using the standard amendment format; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. APPROVE CALTRANS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE
FINAL PS&E DESIGN OF THE ROUTE 91 AUXILIARY LANE
PROJECT FROM TYLER STREET TO JANE STREET - P. 67
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Recommend the approval of Cooperative Agreement with
Caltrans for RCTC to provide the final PS&E Design for the
Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project from Tyler Street to Jane
Street in the City of Riverside;
Budget and Implementation Committee
November 27, 2000
Page 4
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review,
to execute the Cooperative Agreement on behalf of the
Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. AUTHORIZATION TO BID LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION
PACKAGE FOR SOUND WALLS NO. 110, 121, AND 161 - P. 85
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids for
landscaping of Sound Walls No. 110, 1 21 , and 161 on
Route 91 from Jackson Street to Jefferson Street in the
City of Riverside; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. AUTHORIZATION TO BID VEGETATION REMOVAL
CONSTRUCTION PACKAGE FOR STATE ROUTE 74
REALIGNMENT - P. 87
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids to remove
vegetation along State Route 74; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
10. APPROVE CALTRANS' PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENTS NO. M006 FOR THE PEDLEY METROLINK
STATION CCTV SYSTEM AND M007 FOR THE SANTA FE
DEPOT RESTORATION PROJECT - P. 89
Budget and Implementation Committee
November 27, 2000
Page 5
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Approve Caltrans' Program Supplement No's. M006 for the
Construction of Security Enhancements for the Pedley
Station and M007 for the Santa Fe Depot Restoration
Project to Agency -State Agreement No. 08-6054; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-2027 FOR THE
PROPOSED NEW METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL STATION IN
DOWNTOWN CORONA NEAR MAIN STREET AND ROUTE 91 -
P. 95
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Concur with the station concept and staging plan for the
proposed new Metrolink Commuter Rail Station in
Downtown Corona near Main Street and Route 91;
2) Recommend the approval of Amendment #1 to Contract No.
RO-2027 to Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM)
to provide final Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E)
Design Services, and environmental clearance for the
proposed new Metrolink Commuter Rail Station, for a base
amount of $625,000, with an extra work contingency of
$75,000, for a total not to exceed Contract value of
$700,000;
3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review,
to execute the Contract on behalf of the Commission; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee
November 27, 2000
Page 6
12. APPROVE SELECTION PROCESS TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE IN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF RIVERSIDE AND
PERRIS - P. 108
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Approve the results of the selection process to provide the
Commission Engineering Services Related to the San Jacinto
Branch Line between the Cities of Riverside and Perris;
2) Direct staff to negotiate the scope, schedule and cost with
the top ranked firm to perform the required services (if
negotiations fail with the top ranked firm, staff is authorized
to go to the next firm on the list to negotiate a contract to
perform the services);
3) Direct staff to bring back an authorization to award a
contract to the firm with which negotiations are successful;
and
4) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
13. CALL BOX UPGRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND COMARCO
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES - P. 110
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Enter into an agreement between the Riverside County
Transportation Commission and Comarco Wireless
Technologies to upgrade the call box system in Riverside
County;
•
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee
November 27, 2000
Page 7
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review,
to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Accept Comarco's offer to reduce the first year
maintenance costs by $30,341.25 and direct staff to
incorporate the cost savings in the Comarco System
Upgrade Agreement; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. ADJOURNMENT - The next meeting is scheduled to be held at
2:30 p.m. on Monday, January 22, 2001 at the RCTC offices.
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
Monday, October 23, 2000
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order at 2:34 p.m.,
by Chairman Ron Roberts at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission,
3560 University, Suite 100, Riverside, California, 92501 and at the video conference location
at the City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253.
2. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Members Absent:
411
Juan DeLara *
John Hunt
Ameal Moore
Kevin Pape
John Pena *
Andrea Puga
Ron Roberts
Phil Stack
John Tavaglione
Jim Venable * *
Patrick Williams *
Mike Wilson *
Frank West
**
Attended meeting via video conference
* Arrived after start of meeting
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were_no comments from the public.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Gregory S. Pettis
M/S/C (Puga/Stack) to approve the minutes of the September 25, 2000 meeting as
presented.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S/C (Stack/Puga) to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
5A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT
Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending
September 30, 2000.
Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
October 23, 2000
Page 2
6. ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF LAND FOR THE CORONA MAIN STREET METROLINK
STATION
M/S/C (Puga/Tavaglione) that the Commission authorize staff to negotiate an
agreement with the City of Corona for the transfer of land for the Corona Main Street
Metrolink Station.
7. RCTC LICENSE AGREEMENTS POLICIES
In response to Commissioner Ameal Moore's question when renovation on the Santa Fe
Downtown Depot would begin, Eric Haley, Executive Director, replied that $500,000 has been
committed to the project, and RCTC is about two to three months away from executing that
contract. This would include roofing, some structural and plumbing, however, some of the
cosmetic work would not be done. He has requested authorization from the Committee to
fund immediate cosmetic work, boarding up windows, cleaning up debris and basic gardening
for the building. Afterwards, the long term structural problems of the building would be
addressed.
M/S/C (Moore/Tavaglione) that the Commission: 1) Restructure lease agreements and
enhancing lease revenues to fund the maintenance and support of Commission owned
properties.
8. CITY OF HEMET PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
Eric Haley advised the Committee that this is not an effort to increase the cost of the project,
rather it is to accommodate Hemet's needs at this time.
M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) recommend the Commission to: 1) Transfer the title of 2.3
acres in downtown Hemet in two parts: Phase 1 — 1.34 acres, valued at $ 175,000
and Phase II - .965 acres, valued at $ 125,000.
9. METROLINK STATIONS) ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
M/S/C (Hunt/Tavaglione) recommend the Commission: 1) Select Otis Elevator Company
to maintain the elevators at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station and, once
completed, the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona Stations for a 3 -year period with
two -one year extension options at an amount not to exceed $18,000/year; and
2) Authorize RCTC's Chairman to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission,
pursuant to Legal Counsel review.
10. CALL BOX UPGRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION AND COMARCO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager informed the Committee that most of the call boxes in the
system are over 10 years -old, and that when they were implemented in April 1990, it was
estimated that the boxes would last approximately 10 years. The first maintenance agreement
with GTE Net was set for that specific 10 -year period. In April 2000, when discussion began
on the renewal of the maintenance contract with Comarco they in fact encouraged RCTC to
upgrade the system as there are certain components that are obsolete and are no longer being
manufactured. This proposal would do exactly that, and of the 1.149 boxes it is estimated that
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
October 23, 2000
Page 3
930 need to be upgraded at $850 each. Comarco estimates that this upgrade would extend
the life of the system an additional 10 years. An estimated 157 boxes need to be replaced
annually, and although there would be a large one-time cost if it were done all at once, it would
save approximately $465,000. Realizing that Comarco is the only provider of this service in
the state, RCTC had their consultant, Tele Tran Tek Services, independently review Comarco's
proposal and their data. Tele Tran Tek found that their data appears to be correct and felt that
the assumptions used in the proposal are reasonable. .
Commissioner Jim Venable asked if the County had a current contract with Comarco, and if
so what are they being paid and he stated his concerns about the cost of the overall program
and asked if it would be less expensive to just re -negotiate the original contract.. Jerry Rivera
replied that the County does have a current contract with Comarco for maintenance at $290
per box per year.
In response to Commissioner Phil Stack's question where funds would be derived for this
program came from. Eric Haley, responded that it comes from a fee paid yearly by licensed
drivers. At this time there is enough money in the programs reserve to cover the costs of the
current contract.
Commissioner Stack requested that the financial aspect of this be studied and be brought back
to the Committee.
M/S/C (Hunt/Stack) to bring this item back, including a financial report, to the
Committee in thirty days.
11. CALL BOX ANSWERING SERVICES
Jerry Rivera said that due to recent legislation, SAFE's can now contract with private call
answering centers. This has been handled by the California Highway Patrol in the past. San
Diego and MTC have already done so, and as a result they are experiencing savings of 30%
to 50%. This would equate in savings of $75,000 to $100,000 for Riverside County. Should
Riverside County and San Bernardino County jointl-y contract a private call answering center
the savings are estimated at $200,000 to $220,000. This was_approved by SanBAG's Plans
& Programs Committee last week.
M/S/C (Pena/Stack) that the Commission direct staff to develop a joint Riverside
County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments
(SanBAG) Request for Proposal for calf box answering services.
12. AMENDMENT TO CITY OF PALM DESERT'S FY 2001 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
M/S/C (Stack/Pena) recommend the Commission approve the amendment to FY 2001
Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the City of
Palm Desert, as submitted.
•
Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
October 23, 2000
Page 4
Eric Haley stated that CETAP, Measure "A" Reauthorization Committee and the Toll Road Ad
Hoc Committee are all moving forward. At 2:00 p.m. on November 1, 2000, the Riverside/San
Bernardino, north/south corridor meeting will be held in San Bernardino. The second meeting
for the Toll Road Ad Hoc Committee is scheduled for November 9, 2000 at 8:00 a.m., also
held on that date, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will be the Sales Tax Ad Hoc Committee.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation
Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:31 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be
held on Monday, November 27, 2000 at 2:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci R. McGinley
Deputy Clerk of the Board
•
AGENDA ITEM 5A
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager
Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director _
SUBJECT:
Contracts Cost and Schedule Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month
ending October 31, 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
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 October 31, 2000.
Attachments
000001
RCTC ME ASURE 'A" HIG1Tl�AY/RAIL PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY R OUTE
C OMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED
PR OJECT AUTHORIZED C OMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH.
DESCRIPTION ALL OCATION TO DATE
ALLOCATION
ROUTE 60 PR OJECTS
Final Design HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd . (2042)
SUBTO TAL ROUTE 60
ROUTE 74 PR OJECTS
Engin ee ring/Env iron /ROW (R02041 9954,9966)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74
ROUTE 79 PROJECTS
Engineering/En viron. /ROW
(R09961) Realignment study, Right tu rn lanes
SUBTO TAL ROUTE 79
ROUTE 111 PROJECTS
(R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538)
9635,9743,9849-9851,9857
SUB'1~i�'CAL RbiJ'1'S 111 .
ROUTE 91 PROJECTS
So undwall design and constructio n
(R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043)
(2058)
Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hoo k Ramp (R09535)
Sndwall Landscaping (R09933,9946,9945)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE S3
I-215 PROJECTS
Prelimina ry Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018)
SUBTO TAL (215
$2 ,229,00(
$7,958,900
$7,958 ,900
$ 740,000
$ 740,000
$ 15,933,909
$16,933,909
$10,632,800
$2,300,000
S883,450
$13,816.250
46,726,504
96.728 Rhd.
S2 ,006,100
$7,563,700
$7,563,700
4630,000
$830,000
415,933,909
$15 ,933.909
89,872,324
$2, 300,000
$798,291
Si 2,970; 61 5'
S5,878,173
35,8713;173;
90.0%
95.0%
9�: Q 7ix
85.1%
100 .0%
90 .4%
87.4%
EXPENDITURE F OR
MONTH ENDE D
10/31/00
$43,334
874,916
74.9:1
$13,802
$117,699
$17,923
•
% EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE
583,318
52,199,646
#99:
$42,560
$9,300,192
$6,490,332
$1,797,708
$ 634 ,048
$5,704,897
Page 1 of 3
$S: a4 89
4 .2%
92 .8%
$321,041
65 .7%
78 .2%
79.4%
97.1 %
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHW AY PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
COMMISSI ON CONTRACTURAL % C OMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. M ONTH EN DED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
DES CRIPTION ALL OCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 10/31/00 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE
INTERCHANG E IMPROV . PR OGRAM
Yuma IC Lan dscaping (R09926,9946)
SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE
PROJECT & CO NSTR. MGMT SERV.
(RO 2100)
SUBTOTAL BECHTEL
PRO GRA M PLA N & SERVICES
No rth/South Corridor stu dy (R09936)
SUBTO TAL PROG RAM PLAN & SVCS.
PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PRO GRA M
(R0 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (99171
SUBTOTAL PARK -N -RIDE
CO MMUTER RAIL
Studies/Engineering
(RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956,2028)
R02031,2027,2120
Statio n/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Co sts
(0000,2026,2056,9929,9845,9953,9957,9932,9972)
SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL
CD
CD
CD
CD
CA.)
•
T'OTALS„.
8440,000
$440,000
S1,750,000
41, 750,000
• $125 ,000
$126,000
$2,293,911
52,293,911
S2,688,600
S13,190,402
316,879,00 2:
$68:663,476,
$400,000
8400,000
51,715,104
$1 ,715,104
8125,000
$125,000
S2,293,911
$2,293,911
82,645,600
812, 810, 402
$18,4$6,002:
562, 960141.4::.
Page 2 of 3
•
90 .9%
;S1i99f�:
98 .0%
90 .0%
100.0%
100.08
100.0%
liprt# fl91xti
98 .4%
97 .1%
86,123
5186,316
823,999
8400,944
9424 .943
8312,481
$1
S1,332,778
866,260
51,515,140
$1,935,415
410,944,678
78.1%
77.7%
53 .0%
68 .1%
73,2%
- 85.4%
•
RCTC ME ASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PR OJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT
PROJECT
DESCRIPTIO N
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements
SUBTOTAL CANYON LA KE LOAN
CITY OF CORONA
Smith, Maple & Lincoln Inte rchanges & (1)
Sto rm drainage structure
SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA
CITY OF PERRIS
Loca l streets & road improvements
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Local streets & road improvemen ts
CITY OF TEM ECULA
Local streets & road improv ements
CITY OF N ORCO
Yu ma I/C & Loca l stree ts and roa d Imprmts
APPROVED
COMMITMENT
S 1,600,000
$1,600 ,000
S5,212,623
$5,212,623
$ 1,936,419
81,324,500
55,094,027
S2,139,067
EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL
MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A"
10/31/00 ADVANCES
*0
$0
TOTALS $17,306,636 $0::;
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchan ge improvement programs.
All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
$1 ,600,000
*1.60,000:
$5,212,623
6,212 633;
81,936 ,419
81, 324, 500
55,094 ,027
$2,139,067
17.306,636
OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE
LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST
BALANCE COMMIT MENT APPROVED CO MMIT.
81,184,485
81,1
84>485:
83 ,605,878
73,65878'
S1,493,799
$ 1,021,750
$3,929,650
$1,650,126
$12+88L808
80
S0
$0
$0
80
74.0%
69 .2%
77 .1%
77 .1 %
77.1%
77.1%
Page 3 of 3
CD
CD
CD
CD
U
4 -=a
St atu s as o1: 10/31/70
AGENDA ITEM 5B
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Single Signature Authority Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months
ending September and October 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The attached report details all contracts which have been executed for the months of
September and October under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive
Director by the Commission. The remaining unused capacity is $464,520.82.
Attachment
000005
•
CONSULTANT
SANBAG
Smith & Kempto n
LSA Associates, Inc.
AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2000
AMOUNT USED
AMOUNT REMAINING THROUGH June 30, 2001
Pre pared by
vat
f:luse rslpreprintldplsinsig0l
SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTH ORITY
AS OF OCTOBER 31, 2000
•
•
ORIGINAL REMAININ G
DESCRIPTION C ONTR ACT CONTRACT EXPENDED REMAINING
OF SERVICES AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT BALANCE
Co -manage study of growth In demand
f or alr carg o and other freight mov ement
In relati on to Inland Empire Empl oyment
and population gr owth.
Phase I Riverside County Transp Expenditur e
Plan pursuant to SCA-3 which may be
on the March 2002 General Election .
Envir onmental services Apache Trail &
1-10 Improvement pr oject.
Reviewed by
r Oda
15,000.00 7,500.00
10,000 .00
15,760 .00
$ 500,000 .00
0.00
7,979.18
7,500 .00 7,500.00
10,000 .00 0 .00
7,780.82
7,979.18
500,000.00 $ 25,280 .82 $ 15,479 .18
35,479.18
$ 464,520 .82
AGENDA ITEM 5C
•
•
•
RIVERS/DE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Investment Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Investment Report for quarter ending September 30,
2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law
and Commission policy. The County's Investment Report for the month ending
September 30, 2000 is also attached for your review.
Attachments
00nrw.7
•
Description
REVENUES
Sales Tax Reven ues Measure A
Other Sales Tax Revenues
Fed State Local 8 Other Gover n
Interest In come
Othe r Rev enu es
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
ADMINISTRATION
Salaries 8 Benefits
General Legal Service s
Pro f Services (Excludes Legal)
office Lea se/Utilities
Gen eral Admin Expenses
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
Salaries & Benefits
General Le gal Serv ices
Prof Services (Excludes Legal)
General Projects
Highway Enginee ring
Highway Co nstruction
Highways ROW
Special Stu dies
Rail Engineering
Rail Construction
Rail ROW
Commuter Assistance
Regional Arterial
Streets & Roads
Special Transportion\Transit
Project Operation s/Maintenance
Project Towin g
STA Distributions
TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
DEBT SERVICE
Principal
Intere st
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
Intern govern Distribution
CD
O
CD
O
co
4111 rside Cou nty Transportati on Com missi on
BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-1st Otr
For Period E nding: 09/30/00
11/03/00
REMAINING PERCENT
BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION
80,500,000 .00
6,523,491.00
24,831,958.00
4,033,000 .00
6,327,756 .00
21,449,783.26
3,670,389 .00
1,651.07
1,074,431.50
494,023.84
122,216,205.00 26,690,278.67
1,046,315.00 245,939.52
76,500.00 9,172 .46
1,186,494 .00 207,295.98
210,000.00 64,852 .20
780,476 .00 62,829 .48
3,299,785 .00 590,089.64
59,050,216.74
2,853,102.00
24,830,306 .93
2,958,568.50
5,833,732.16
26.64
56 .26
0.00
26.64
7.80
95,525,926.33 21.83
800,375.48
67,327.54
979,198.02
145,147.80
717,646.52
23.50
11.99
17.47
30.88
8.05
2,709,695.36 17 .88
1,293,355.00 325,498.77 967,856.23
493,000.00 24,877 .07 468,122.93
506,500.00. 69,692 .86 436,807.14
1,798,150.00 113,142 .56 1,685,007.44
4,804,972.00 225,464.87 4,579,507.13
9,552,000.00 435,752 .50 9,116,247.50
14,358,556. 00 (4,250.00) 14,362,806.00
1,573,000.00 78.00 1,572,922.00
2,990,000. 00 4,129.47 2,985,870.53
11,541,000.00 137,701.00 11,403,299.00
1,023,000.00 5,588.25 1,017,411.75
2,128,175. 00 72,677.34 2,055,497.66
8,356,000. 00 1,450,394.73 6,905,605.27
33,095,000.00 8,273,905. 80 24,821,094.20
7,663,400.00 1,444,233.75 6,219,166 .25
1,928,035.00 310,545. 13 1,617,489.87
1,037,000.00 121,209.58 915,790.42
3,315,500. 00 79,000. 00 3,236,500.00
107,456,643.00 13,089,641. 68 94,367,001.32
22,633,844.00 0.00 22,633,844.00
12,743,938. 26 0.00 12,743,938.26
35,377,782.26 0.00 35,377,782.26
620,000. 00 561,022.00 58,978.00
25.16
5.04
13 .75
6.29
4 .69
4.56
(0.02)
0.00
0.13
1 .19
0 .54
3.41
17.35
25.00
18.84
16.10
11 .68
2.38
12 .18
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.48
OOOTA�
De scription
Capital Outlay
Riverside County Transportatio n Commission
BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-lst Otr
For Period E nding: 09/30/00
11/03/00
REMAINING PERCENT
BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION
46,500.00 1,057 .20 45,442 .80 2.27
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,800,710.26
Other Financing So urces/Uses
Operating Transfer In 35,526,025 .00
Operating Tran sfer Ou t 35,526,025 .00
Bond Proceeds 34,500,000.00
Total Other Fin an cin g Sources 34,500,000 .00
/Uses
Excess(Deficiency)of Rev en ues
And Other Financing Sources
Over(Under)Expenditure And
Other Financing Uses
Fund Balance July 1, 2000
Fund Balan ce Se pt 30, 2000
•
14,241,810.52 132,558,899.74
12,732,445.28 22,793,579.72
12,733,767.53 22,792,257.47
35,501,000.70 (1,001,000.70)
35,499,678 .45 (999,678.45)
9,915,494.74 47,948,146.60
112,562,790.69 112,562,790 .69
122,478,285.43 160,510,937.29
9.70
35.83
35 .84
102.90
102 .89
(38,032,651.86) 483 .56
0 .00 100.00
(38,032,651.86) 131 .05
OOOTA
OPERATING FUNDS
r,1 n ;(Jr'SrS .°,P,1lit
Bank of Amen ,a
548'4 ,'.7 10 AA1/AA
Crash with County Treasu rer 547 489 676 80 AAA MR1'AAAf 41/AAA v1 •
Financ,al In ve sto rs Trust (FIT) 55 097 574 42 AAA/AAA
63hmark M one y Ma rke t (US Treasury Ob F und) $8 370 31
AAA/AAA
AgencylTreasury Securities.
Fe d Nat'l Mtge As soc 54 999 150 00
AAA/AAA $5 000 000 00 04/07/00 03/30/01 Fed Horne Ln Banks 6 65% $4,999,750.00 $5,001,582 .50 $1,812 .50
$3 778 510 75 AAA/AAA 53.175 000 00 06/16/00
Fed Ho me L n Mtg 06/14/01 6 90 % $3,778,510 .75 $3,785,617.19
51 994 600 00 AAA/AAA 57,106.44
$2 000 OOo Oo 06/14/99 06/15/01 5 .89%
Fed H ome Ln Banks 52 528 747 80 51,994,600.00 $1,988,125.00 ($6,475 .00)
44 41444
Fed rJatl Mtg Assn Medw52 297 843 75 m Te rm (Callable/ $2 .54000000 11/01/99 09/17/01 6.12% $2,528,747.80 $2,523,331.25 ($5,416.55)
AAA/AAA Fe d Nat'l M tge Ass oc $2.300 000 00 02/23/99
02/25/02 5.65 % 52,297,843.75 $2,270,182.80
$2 000 000 00 444/444 52 000 000 00 03/09/99 ($27,660 .95)
Fed Nat'l M tge Assoc 03/08/02 5.88% $2,000,000.00 $1,979,792.00
5696 919 50 AAA/AAA 5720 000 00 ($20,208.00)
06/13/00 12/07/00 6.74 % $696,919.20
Fed Nat'l M tge Assoc 5276 570 70 AAA/AAA5711,264.24 574,345.04
Fed Home Ln Mtg 5280 000 00 09/29/00 12/07/00
6 47 % $276,570.70 $276,602.76 53206
51 961 2 00 00 AAA/AAA 5200000000 06/14/99
Sub -Tota l 571 611 '0 07/15/03 6 29% $1,961,200.00
0 27 51,95(3,250.00 (54,950.00)
520 615 000 00
•
PI HASF MATURITY
YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED
CAI "( 1141E DATE MARKET
PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS)
FUNDS HELD IN TRUST
Cas h with County
Local Tra ns portation Fu nd $15.029 849 21 AAA-MR1/AAAf.81JAAAv 1
•
First American Treasury 52 887. 527 87 AAA/AAA
Sub -Total
$17 917 377 08
CO MM ISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE
M ilesto ne Funds $9 000,304 35
AAA/AAA
First Ame rican Tre asury $45 822,036 88
AAA/AAA
U S Treasury No tes $15.926. 000 00
AAA/AAA
MBIA Investment Agreement 5000
Sub -Total $70.748,341 23
TO TAL
5162,277,508. 53
$20,534,142.20 520,492,727.74 (541,414 .48)
SUMMARIZED INVEST MENT TYPE
Banks 5482,826 .19
Cash with County
562,518,726.01
Mutual Funds:
Financial In vestors Trust 55,097,574,42
Highmark 58,370 .31
First American Tr easury 52,887,527.87
Mil eston e 59,000,304.35
Sub -T otal Mut ual Funds • 516,993,776 .95
Federal Agency Notes 520,534,14220
U.S. Treasury Notes $61,748,038.88
Inve stment Agreements $0.00
T OTAL $162,277,508 .23
0 to 90 Days
43%
$71,271,595
Portfolio Maturity
Over 3 Yrs
44%
$72.709.541
1 to 3 Yrs
8%
$12 599.702
Less than 1 Yr.
5%
$5,696,669
Statement of Compliance
All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ending September 30,
2000 were 111 full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on November 12,
1998
The Commission has adequate cash floes for six months of operations.
Signed h\
Chief Finacial Officer
00.0011
Monthly Master Account Statement
October 1, 2000
ACCOUNT 330072823-00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
3560 UNIVERSITY PLACE
RIVERSIDE CA 92501
Fund Performance as of 10/1/00
7 DAY EFFECTIVE YIELD
6.36%
FINANCIAL
INVESTORS
TRUST
U.S. TREASURY MONEY MARKET (AM)
SEC 7 DAY YIELD
6.17%
SUBACCOUNT
OPENING
MONTHLY
BALANCE TOTAL CREDITS TOTAL DEBITS DIVIDENDS
REINVESTED
ENDING
MONTHLY
BALANCE
U.S. TREASURY MONEY MARKET (AM)
00 5,070,977.42 0.00 0.00 26,596.99 $5,097,574.41
5,070,977.42
0.00 0.00 26,596.99 $5,097,574.41
Total FIT Funds Investment
5,070,977.42
0.00 0.00
26,596.99 5,097,574.41
Notes:
Mutual Funds Serv,ces
Sponsor and Distributor
GE Investments
The Investment Management Arm of GE
Investment Advisor
000012
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund
Compliance Analysis and Investment Report
(www.county1i asurer org)
September 30, 2000
PAUL McDONNELL
TREASURER/TAX
COLLECTOR
KENNETH C. KIRIN
ASSISTANT
TREASURER
DONALD R. KENT
CHIEF DEPUTY
TREASURER
(909) 955 - 3908
Treasurer's Commentary
"From the Sidelines to the Bench?"
For the month of September, investors looking to the economic indicators had to look pretty hard to find strong evidence
of inflation. The economic reports throughout the month continued to support our belief that the FED will have to move
'from the sidelines to the bench,' at least until the elections have passed, and, the impact of the energy crisis works its
way through the economy. Many market observers believe the FED will be quiet until possibly the first quarter of 2001.
The economic indicators that came in weaker than expected during September were the unemployment rate and nonfarm
payrolls, construction spending, National Association of Purchasing Managers (NAPM) index and unit labor costs. These
indicators continue to support that the FED's desired soft landing is taking place.
However, that is not to say we didn't have the potential for future inflation as the price of crude oil rocketed to a 10 year,
post Persian Gulf War high at over $36 per barrel. Reports by the American Petroleum institute (API) and the
Department of Energy (DOE) about low supplies in oil stocks helped to drive prices higher, and, prompted President
Clinton to release 30 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Also, the electric utility industry
had it share of newsprint this month as lingering concems about shortages in the electric power markets dunng the
summer prompted federal relief measures in certain portions of Southem Califomia. A booming housing market and the
lack of new electric facilities coming on line were to blame.
The financial markets, once again, showed renewed volatility with triple digit moves in equity indices in the midst of the
continuing energy pressures, heightened tensions in the Middle East and especially 3rd quarter eamings wamings. As far
as the bond markets were concemed, longer term U.S. Treasury yields continued to decline, partly due to a strong dollar
and a flight to quality.
At month's end, the ovemight rate was 6.68% (down 7 bps. from August), the 2 -year T -Note was 5.98% (down 18 bps.),
while the 30 year T -Bond was 5.88% (up 21 bps.). For September, the Pool experienced an 11 bps. increase in the
month end yield, due to higher reinvestment opportunities. We expect to see a limited increase in the Pool yield as some
of our older securities mature and we reinvest at the current markets higher rates.
Paul McDonnell
Treasurer -Tax Collector
Month -End Book Value
Month -End Market Value*
Paper Gain or (Loss)
Percent of Paper Gain or Loss
Yield Based Upon Book Value
Weighted Average Maturity (Years)
Effective Duration
• Market value does not Include accrued Interest
PORTFOLIO STATISTICS
SEPTEMBER AUGUST JULY JUNE MAY APRIL
S 1,505,484,434 S
S 1,494,584,737 $
S (10,899,698) S
-0.73%
6.30%
0.70
0.54
1,490,290,189 S 1,474,752,647 $ 1,518,022,591 S 1,514,875,822 $ 1,770,794,345
1,478,296,388 S 1,462,680,142 S 1,505,182,395 $ 1,502,322,136 S 1,758,229,415
(11,993,801) S (12,072,505) S (12,840,196) S (12,553,686) S (12,564,930)
-0.81% -0.83% -0.85% -0.84% -0.71%
6.19% 6.17% 6.21% 6.10% 5.95%
0.81 0.81 0.84 0.85 0.79
0.62 0.63 0.65 0.68 0.63
THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED:
AAA/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES
AAA/V1+BY FITCH IBCA
•
•
•
000013
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Pooled Investment Fund — Portfolio Clutracteristics
Maturity Market Value
Days or Less 539,476,466.94
- 90 Days 277,970,200.00
90 Days - 1 Year 133,494,400.00
1 - 2 Years 391,328,750.00
2 - 3 Years 152,314,920.00
Over 3 Years
Total: S1,494,584,736.94
uali Market Value
U.S. Treasury 20,097,747.50
Federal Agency 713,346,472.50
AAA 5,995,350.00
A-1 and/or P-1 740,645,166.94 •
AA
A
N/R 14,500,000.00 ••
Total: S1,494,584,736.94
Sector Market Value
U.S. Treasury 20,097,747.50
Federal Agency 713,346,472.50
Cash F,quiv. & MMF's 133,500,000.00
Commercial Paper 588,448,278.05
ilie
edium Term Notes 4,995,350.00
gotiable CD's 10,000,000.00
Banters Acceptances 9,696,888.89
Certificates of Deposit 8,000,000.00
Local Agency Obligations 6,500,000.00
Total:
S1,494,584,736.94
• :nc: u• -4r1 kern, -• Coll•Ieru,ad Time Deoomo & BAN,
RIVERSIDE PORTFOLIO SIMULATION
Interest Rate Stress Analysis
1
I Interest rate stress analysis is used to show the effect on
market value, given a dramatic change in interest rates. The
table to the nght shows the change in market value for both an
Instantaneous change in rates (takes place in one day) and a
(change in rates that takes place over six months. Interest rates
lare assumed to move up or down 300 basis points (bp) in 50
!bp increments Next to the change in market value is the
Igainfloss column for each scenano. The gain or loss is
calculated by subtracting acquisition cost from market value.
There are other factors, but the major difference in the two
scenarios is interest eamed. If the change takes place over six
months there is an additional six months interest income, plus
interest on cash flows assumed to be reinvested at 6.93%. In
laddrtion, the portfolio would be six months shorter.
Yield
Acquisition Change
Cost (bp)
$1,505,484 -300
$1,505,484 -250
$1,505,484 -200
$1,505,484 -150
51,505,484 -100
$1,505,484 -60
$1,505,484 0
$1,505,484 50
$1,505,484 100
S1,505,484 150
$1,505,484 200
$1,505,484 250
$1,505,484 300
Interest Rate Changes Take Place:
Instantaneous lOiier Six Months
Market Value
Gain/Loss
Market Value
Gain/Loss
$1,509,889
$4,404
$1,543,814
$38,329
$1,508,766
$3,281
$1,545,302
$39,817
$1,507,344
$1,859
$1,546,589
$41,104
$1,505,031
4454
$1,547,576
$42,091
$1,502,046
43,439
$1,548,039
$42,554
$1,498,534
46,951
$1,548,013
$42,528
$1,494,585
410,900
$1,547,583
$42.098
$1,490,270
415,215
$1,546,779
$41,294
$1,485,725
419,760
$1,545,750
$40,265
$1,481,092
424,393
$1,544,640
$39,155
$1,476,445
429,040
$1,543,513
$38,028
$1,471,831
-$33,654
$1,542,403
$36,918
$1,467,241
438,244
$1,541,306
$35,821
This analysis demonstrates that sharp moves of interest rates either up or down by 3% will not have a significant effect on this portfolio.
000011
COMPLIANCE
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE & COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY
AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
Crseamimmtamil
CasmiLimismirthiliet
it amts Maai,m n talvacizotIfe Csalim
Limit SrtElila tti
M33c
Inc
e>ahaf d
Limit
Quito
$itp/Mooev's/Fjh
Actual
Riverside
53601(a)
LOCAL AGY BONDS
5 YEARS
NO L IM'
3 YEARS
15% / S150mm
A/A2/A
0.00%
53601(b)
,
U. S. TREASURY
5 YEARS
NO LOUT
3 YEARS
100%
N/A
1.34%
53601(d)
CALIFORNIA LOCAL
AGENCY DEBT
5 YEARS
NO LIMIT
3 YEARS
2.5%
Investment Grade
0.43%
53601(e)
FEDERAL AGENCIES
5 YEARS
NO LIMIT
3 YEARS
100%
N/A
47.73%
53601(f)
BILLS OF EXCHANGE
270 DAYS
40%'
1S0 DAYS
30%
A1/P1/F1
0.65%
53601(g)
COMM. PAPER
ISO DAYS
40%
Al/PI _
IS0 DAYS
40%
AUP1/Fl
3937%
53601(h)
CERTIFICATE & TIME
DEPOSITS
5 YEARS
30%
1 YEAR
20% mix
A1/PI/FI
0.67%
53601(1)
REPOS
1 YEAR
NO LIMIT
31 DAYS
20% mac
AI/PVFI
11.117%
53601(1)
REVERSE REPOS
92 DAYS
20%
60 DAYS
10% mot
N/A
0.00%
53601(j)
MED. TERM NOTES
5 YEARS
30%
A
2 YEARS
10%nun
AA/Aa2/AA
0.33%
53601(k)
MUTUAL FUNDS
90 DAYS 2
20%
AAA/Asa'
IMMEDIATE
15% / S1S0mm
AAA by 2 of 3 Rating
Agencies
0.07%
53601(m)
SECURED DEPOSITS
(BANK DEPOSITS)
5 YEARS
NO LIMIT
1 YEAR
2% max
0.54%
53601(n)
MORTGAGE PASS-
THROUGH SECURITY
5 YEARS
20%
AA -SECURITY
A -ISSUER
N/A
N/A
0.00%
16429 (12,3)
LOCAL AGENCY
INVESTMENT FUNDS
N/A
NO LIMIT
3 YEARS
0% max
0.00%
No more than 30% of this category may be inverted with any one commercial bunk
' Mutual Funds =aunty may be nmerpretad as weighted average maturity rote weeding 90 days.
' Or must have an Inveumem Advisor with not less than 5 yeas experience and with amen tinder management of 5500.000,000.
100.00%
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND TREASURER'S POLICY
The County Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy is more stringent than the California
Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually and presented to the County's Investment
Oversight Committee and the County Board of Supervisors. As of this month end the
County's Pooled Investment Fund was in compliance with this more restrictive policy.
Although we have been diligent in the preparation of this report, we have relied upon numerous
pricing and analytical sources including Bloomberg Market Database and Capital Management
Sciences. Inc.
Fl•ND SERVICES ADVISORS. INC.
(310) 119-9170
Los Angeles - San Francisco - New York
R e c i s t e r e d I n' e s t m e n t A d ‘ i s o r c
FSA
•
•
000015
dal a 3! N a 7 d I! 55de2ad223 daad22d0000dodd a :1 C dal:1 3 g
2,1 5 3 d N5 12 1! 5daed3a2e1d2eeddd232dd:In 3 1! 2521 d M
: 9 19 9 9 M a 99!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5!!!!9 :159 9 i
Q8
K
•
1
I
1
11110111111111111111111/
_
111 11 *11181.==8188£g
11110111111111111111111i
1
1
8
:9999
gagv
v_
8 8 8888W
i! a
0 I
8
0
111118555555555S!S!!11Q4?
a
0000 0 0000000000dod000000 9
o d d d d d d d d d d o d d d d o d d d d o 0 0 iQ
1
W
8888888888888888888888888 8 8
3
4111
PPPP
§;o§ § §
91
•
CD
CD
0
• •
5tIn eo ldselde2ad2!!!4444444RCi"9"egAARRARARA4n:lgt4R;4$4RRggR444$!!!n!!!!!!!! mt4 !
pb�dtd 515555g53d5131J1d3I4$40p444442- ?-��AAARAR4 48�4>1844;4p*v4wisi=4�4�421104A,4.114 i�4R1148$ 141 a
1 111111.1 i in11111_ 1111.11111111111111111111==1111 !!!!!!!U! # !!E_ _ . 1 1
11 8 BB 8 8 B 68 8 8 88 8R8888$8888888 8888 8 88 88$8 $8 8 8
fiv
e�fiR tR'$R�[Q■�sjC�,6�lR�k���i01�$6ga8�e� �isi�
i n 1 i 1 1 1 i d i i 1 o d o i i d d d d- d ' 1 1 o 0 0♦- 1 i o 1 d o B 1 d i d! !
1!
11 1111 1111 1115:111CICMIC%CC000C1000C1CGCClRCCRCCOQCCCCCC!!!51151 = 1 lI $1$ I8881
Ia iiillllllllilillll1lllellillllliilllillllflllllllllllii911li1i1131311islllllllilliillllll! 1
1!!S!d!!a!!l!!!!!1119l!!9!!!9!!!!!!1!!!!9!$!!!!!!!!!! LI P mEly§§ W P 10§§§ 01111 11§§1
3 i�g355 111 �335��33�'3�33i�333�53�'�'�333�'�3��g353ii�i33�,�'�3i�i5i53333i3i333ii3iii3333i3ii�
E 5 15 55115151115111 1555111551555 55t 0 5
ae s §e ease a aeeeesea$ se8 888888888888888 .88888888888888888888888888888888 8
1 111 11111111111111111111111111-111111g1111111111iiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaii §S
i d d g d d d d d o 6
ARRAARRAAf1xARlE
w-nt, flfl iw iiwwnw i+
V. 1'\1#4••11 VV
FROJECTION OF FUTURE CASH FLOW
The Pooled laveatmmt Fond cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month Maoriai ash flow model The Tteaso,er stases thee based upon
projected cash receipts and maturing investments them are sufficient funds b meet flame cash flow disbursement requirements over the nays 12 months.
MONTH MONTHLY
)RECEIPTS
0/01
10/2000
11t2000
12/2000
1/2001
22001
3/2001
4/2001
5/2001
6/2001
7/2001
8/2001
09/2001
Totals:
404.7
372.2
726.6
290.9
378.7
302.1
678.9
353.9
349.4
312.2
467.6
373.7
5,010.9
MONTHLY
PISBMNTS
395.2
340.8
346.5
586.9
341.8
433.9
350.0
580.4
404.5
392.7
419.6
353.1
4945.4
REQUIRED
DIFFERENCE MAT. INVEST
9.5
31.4
380.1
-296.0
36.9
-131.8
328.9
-226.5
-55.1
-80.5
48.0
20.6
65.5
ACTUAL INV. AVAIL. TO
BALANCE MATURITIES INVEST >1 YR.
26.1
0.0 35.6
0.0 67.0
0.0 447.1
0.0 151.1
0.0 188.0
0.0 56.2
0.0 385.1
0.0 158.6
0.0 103.5
0.0 23.0
0.0 71.0
0.0 91.6
0.0
0.00%
554.4
227.3
41.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
`20.0
0.0
50.0
952.7 1505.0
63.30%
100.00%
•
24 Month Gross Yield Trends
The yield history represents gross yields; administrative costs have not been deducted. Actual earnings on fund balances will be credited by the
Auditor -Controller based upon County Treasurer calculations. Portfolio yield generally lags current trends in short-term interest rates. Yields fluctuate
with changing markets and past performance is not an indication of future results.
Gross Yield Trends
6.75
6.50
8.25
6.00
5.75
5.50
5 25
500
4 75
450
1 1 I #
Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep -
98 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0.30
0.25
0 20 +
0.15 t •
0.10 '
0.05
0.00
-0.05 +
-0.10
-0.15+
-0.20 4
-0.25 4
-0.30 '
-0.35
-0.40
-0.45 -
--PORTFOUO YIELD -0-ALL TAXABLE AVERAGE
24 Month Yield Spread (Pool Yield vs. All Taxable Average)
Average Spread = +2 BPs
Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- r-
98 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 AP May- Jun Ju! Aug Sep -
00 00 00 00 00 00
The Money Fund Report^'/ All Taxable Average is compiled and reported by iMoneyNet, Inc (formerly IBC Financial Data, Inc.) iMoneyNet, Inc. is a leading
provider of independent analyses and information to the financial services industry, with a particular area of focus in money market mutual funds. The All -Taxable
•
hose funds on a monthly basis. For more information on the iMoneyNet, Inc. Index see wwwibcrleta.convindex.htnl
000013
AGENDA ITEM 5D
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Financial Statements
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Financial Statements for the quarter ending
September 30, 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During the first three months of the fiscal year, Staff has monitored the revenues and
expenditures of the Commission. The first quarter of the year is primarily directed
toward completing end of the year activities. Staff expects most of the categories to
present a better outlook by the end of the second and beginning of the third quarters.
The Sales Tax and Interest revenues were 1 .64% higher than projected. At this point,
it is too early to project the significance over the entire year, however, Staff believes
• that the year end revenues will be higher than projected. At mid year, Staff will
evaluate the Sales Tax revenues and make appropriate adjustments. Other Sales Tax
revenues were significantly higher at this point of the year than in past years. This
was due to withdrawals on the Planning/Programming and Administration yearly
revenues. These revenues will balance out as the year progresses. Staff fully expects
to be right at the projected revenue at the end of the year. Federal, State and Local
Government reimbursements and Other revenues are on a reimbursement basis and the
Commission will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and billed.
During this quarter, the Commission issued $35,501,000 in bonds for the construction
of Route 79 and other Western County projects and the revenue is shown as Bond
Proceeds.
000013
Most of the expenditure categories are right where they should be for the quarter or
below targets. The only exception is the Office Lease/Utilities category as some of
these expenditures are prepaid. Staff will continue to monitor this category and make
adjustments as necessary. Salaries and Benefits and Streets and Roads categories
are right at target. Highway Right of Way shows a negative expenditure as a check
issued last fiscal year was returned and was voided. The vendor is to be paid in the
future upon completion of the right of way transaction. Intergovernmental Distribution
is at 90%. This is due to the one-time LTF Administration payments made to CVAG
and WRCOG.
Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and notify the
Commission of any unusual events. Attached is a report from Bechtel Corporation
outlining the Budget Variance Explanations for the Highway and Rail programs.
Attachments
0O00 0
•
Description
FVENUES
Sales Tax Reven ues Measure A
Other Sales Tax Revenues
Fed State Local 8 Other Gover n
Interest In come
Other Revenues
TOTAL REVENUES
xPENDITURES
ADMINISTRATION
Salaries B Benefits
Gen eral Legal Services
Prof Services (Excludes Legal)
Office Lease/Utilities
Gen eral Admin Expen ses
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
Salaries 8 Ben efits
Gen eral Legal Serv ices
Prof Serv ices (Excludes Le gal)
Gen eral Projects
Highway Engineering
Highw ay Construction
Highways ROW
Special Stu dies
Rail Engin ee ring
Rail Constructio n
Rail ROW
Com muter Assistanc e
Regional Arterial
Streets 6 Roads
Special Tra nsportion \Tran sit
Project Operation s/Mainten ance
Project Towin g
STA Distributions
TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
DEBT SERVICE
Principal
Interest
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
Interngove rn Distribu tion
C.)
•
GFNFRAI
FUND
ISP/SAIF
R',er,Ide C ou nsp o, t at i en Comnissi on
ACIBr FUND 9/30/00
for Period Ending, 09/30/00
11/03/00
41 511RN
C01/NI Y
F ASTERN
COUNTY
750,000.00 0.00 14,815,153.65 5,884,629 .61
3,670,389.00 0 .00 0.00
1,418.05 78.70 0.00
154.32 0.00
18,397.23 25,837 .53 182,520.98 49,828 .16
129 ,698.23 363,325.61 1,000.00
0.00
4,569,902.51 389,241.84 ,14 ,998,878.95 5,934,457.77
231,176 .81 14,762.71 0.00 0.00
8,622.12 550 .34 0.00 0 .00
195,165.63 3,760 .35 0.00
60,961.08 3,891.12' 0.00
0.00 0.00
59,053.56 3,775.92 0.00
0.00
554,979.20 26,740 .44 0.00 0.00
0008F
STATE WESTERN WESTERN COUNTY
TRANSIT CVAG COUNTY COMMERCIAL
ASSISTANCE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION PAPER
0.00
0.00
0 .00
20,337.67
0.00
20,337.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
225,630.51 15,560 .85 84,057 .51 249 .90
4,018. 30 111.00 20,747 .77 0.00
57,641.84 12,001 .45 0 .00 0.00
3,508. 07 55. 9.32 0.00
0.00 105,855.17 3,779 .32 0 .00
0. 00 0 .00 225,464.87
0.00 0.00 435,752 .50 0.00 0 .00
0 .00 0.00
78.00 (4,zs0'.00) 0.00 0 .00.o
0.00 0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00 4,129.47 0.00 0.00
0. 00 0. 00 137,701.00 0 .00
0. 00 0 .00
0.00 5,588.25 0.00
0.00 0.00 72,677.34 0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00 0.00
0.00 0.00 1,450,394 .73 0 .00
0.00 0.00 6,076,114 .19 2,197,791.61
851,178.00 0.00 222,055 .75 371,000.00 0 .00
183,372. 21 127,172.92 0.00 0.00
0.00 121,209.58 0.00 0.00
0. 00 0.00 0 .00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 79,000.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00 0.00
0 .00 0.00
18,304.01 612,602 .81
0.00 0.00
18,304.01 612,602 .81
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00.
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
1,325,426.93 276,055.80 7,385,943.39 4,023,215.56 79,000.00
0.00 0 .00
0. 00 0.00 0. 00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
•
DEBT SERVICE
0 .00 0.00
0 .00 0.00
0.00 0.00
551.09 146,052.02
0.00 0 .00
551 .09 146,052 .02
COMBINING
TOTAL
21,449,783 .26
3,670,389.00
1 ,651.07
1,074,431.50
494,023 .84
26,690,278 .67
0.00 0.00 0 .00 245,939 .52
0.00 0.00 0 .00 9,172 .46
0.00 0.00 8,370 .00 207,295.98
0.00 0 .00 0.00 64,852 .20
0.00 0 .00 0 .00 62,829.48
0.00 0.00 8,370.00 590,089 .64
0. 00 0.00, 0.00
0.00 0.00
561,022. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00 325,498.77
0.00 0 .00 24,877.07
0.00 0.00 69,692.86
0 .00 0 .00 113,142.56
0 .00 0 .00 225,464.87
0 .00 0 .00 435,752.50
0 .00 0 .00 (4,250.00)
0 .00 0 .00 78 .00
0.00 0 .00 4,129.47
0 .00 0 .00 137,701 .00
0.00 0 .00 5,588 .25
0.00 0 .00 72,677.34
0 .00 0.00 1,450,394.73
0.00 0.00 8,273,905.80
0.00 0 .00 1,444,233 .75
0.00 0.00 310,545 .13
0 .00 0.00 121,209.58
0 .00 0 .00 79,000.00
0 .00 0.00 13,089,641.68
0 .00 0 .00 0 .00
0 .00 0 .00 0.00
0.00 0 .00 0.00
0.00 0.00 561,022 .00
Description
Capital Outlay
TOTAL EXPEND(TURFS
ether Fin ancin g Sources/Uses
Operating Transfer In
Opera ting Transfer Out
Bond Proceeds
Total Other Financing Source s
/Uses
xcess(Deflciency)of Reve nues
And Other Financin g Sources
Over(Under)Expen diture And
Other Fina ncing Uses
Fund Bala nce July 1, 2000
Fund Balan ce Sept 30, 2000
R'.er.rde county Tra nsp ortati on Commissi on
ArtuAIS Br FUND 9/30/00
/or Peri od Fndi ng: 09/30/00
11/03/00
0008F
STATE WESTERN WESTERN COUNTY
GENERA( 6ES1ERN EASTERN TRANSIT CVAG COUNTY COMMERCIAL COMBINING
FU4O FSP/SAFF CO UNTY COUNTY ASSISTANCE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION PAPER DEBT SERVICE TOTAL
993.77 63.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 . 1,057.20
2,442,421.90 302,859 .67 7,385,943.39 4,023,215.56
920 .20 213,050.82 4,055,967.82 0 .00
1,979.66 213,079.52 6,675,352 .79 1,787,510.67
0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00
(1,059 .46) (28.50) (2,619,384.97) (1,787,510.67)
2,126,421.15
86,353.67
4,119,843. 22 2,604,003.41
6,246,264.37 2,690,357 .08
4,993,500.59 123,731.54
35,465,719 .34 13,083,217.43
40,459,219 .93 13,206,948 .97
79,000 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 8,370 .00 14,241,810.52
0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 8,462,506 .44 12,732,445.28
0.00 0.00 2,255,919 .02 1,799,926 .07 0 .00 12,733,767 .53
0.00 0 .00 35,501,000.70 0 .00 0 .00 35,501,000.70
0.00 0.00 33,245,081 .68 ' (1,799,926 .07) 8,462,506 .44 35,499,678,45
(58,662.33) 18,304.01 33,857,684.49 (1,799,374 .98) 8,600,188.46 47,948,146.60
222 :
4,688,899.87 8,359,031.13 34,131,796.56 1,890 ,456.06 8,219,823.67 112,562,790 .69
2222 22222 2.222 22 2 2.22
4,630,237 .54 8,377,335 .14 67,989,481 .05 91,081.08 16,820,012.13 160,510,937 .29
•
s
Budget Variance Explanations
1' Quarter ending 9/30/00
•
•
Highway Engineering
•
Route 74 - Final design activities have slowed down quite a bit due to delays for
environmental issues and related studies having to be performed for the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife. This has resulted in scope changes and increase requirement for right of way
acquisition estimates which impact design. Consultant recently submitted remaining
invoice for FY 2000. Activities will pick up in the 2°d quarter.
Route 79 - The allocated budget to cover the cost of performing environmental review of
the landscaping for the Lamb Canyon project is still awaiting formalization from the Fish
and Wildlife to complete the mitigation requirement to close out the project.
Although design has commenced on the realignment project, progress has been slowed
due to resource agency requirements of the environmental investigation.
Route 60 - HOV 60/I-215 to Redlands Blvd project just recently started and expect
design activity to accelerate in the 2' quarter.
Route 1 1 1 - Design activities for the Palm Desert projects have been delayed due to
awaiting decision on the feasibility of the City assuming Hwy 1 11 design responsibilities
from the State for all projects.
Highway Construction
Route 74 - Due to the on -going design and environmental issued, ROW acquisition has
just recently started and has delayed the start of construction work until spring of 2001.
Route 79 - County of Riverside has not made a decision on proceeding with constructing
of right turn lanes on Gilman Springs Road.
Route 1 1 1 - Although the Gene Autry Trail project in the City of Palm Springs and the
Monroe to Rubidoux project in the City of Indio are near completion receipt of invoices
for incurred expenditures are still pending. Cities have elected to submit at completion of
the project
000023
Rail Engineering
Pedley Station - Determining communications requirement and the economical feasibility
for the station to link to the Downtown Station for monitoring continues. Once an option
is selected design can then proceed.
Santa Fe Depot - Design has just commence and expenditures will be included in the 2"d
quarter.
San Jacinto Line - A design consultant has just been selected and would anticipate
incurred expenditures late 2nd quarter.
Tier II stations - The consultants were behind in their submittal of invoices for FY 2000
which were recently received. Invoices for the 1" quarter were received in late October.
Rail Construction
Rail construction for the Pedley station security system and emergency platform, the Santa
Fe Depot, the San Jacinto branchline have not started due to the engineering issues
mentioned above.
Special Studies
Expenditures for the CETAP program are expected to be received in the 2nd quarter.
CETAP has a budget of $1.3 Million. The remaining budget covers RT71/91 and the
North/South corridor studies with invoices received late October. These actuals will be
included as part of the 2nd quarter financial report.
General Note: The first quarter of the year is primarily directed toward completing end of the
year activities. Most vendors do not even began to bill us for current year activities until the
month of September. Therefore, first half of the year numbers typically are considerably under
budget. Most of the categories will begin to reflect more accurately in relation to the budget by
third quarter of the fiscal year.
•
•
000021
AGENDA ITEM 5E
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn, Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Call Box Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the operational statistics for the Riverside County
Motorist Aid Call Box System for the quarter ending September 30,
2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Attached are the operational statistics for the call box system for the quarter ending
September 30, 2000. There were a total of 14,172 calls during the quarter; 8,634
to Inland CHP and 5,538 to Indio CHP dispatch offices. This represents an increase
of 238 calls (+ 1 .7%) in call box activity over the quarter ending June 30, 2000.
The average calls per day were 154 for the current quarter versus 153 for the previous
quarter. In comparing the quarter ending September, 2000 to September, 1999 call
• volumes, there has been a decrease of 2,529 calls (-15.1 %) from last year to this
year. All call box programs throughout the state have been experiencing a similar
decrease in usage.
Attachments
000025
•{
& g,��y awit gYo %4.. a- ,k..,../...
Average Call Lengths
Average Call Lengths
3rd Quarter
3:46
Jul -99
3:59
Aug -99
3:43
Sep -99
3:38
3rd Quarter
3:46
Jul -00
3:49
Aug -00
3:40
Sep -00
3:51
ti :.
'The amount of time each call box is authorized to use in one month without an additional charge from the cellular vendor
1,117 CaII boxes
117,285 Minutes
1,110 Call boxes
116,550 Minutes
Call Box Cellular Minutes
Call Box Cellular Minutes
Allocated 116,550 minutes
Allocated 117,285 minutes
Us t0Ca1t ' aGHP 6 k.d � 4c Gt iP
e o �' 3 • ' �/a� x
*� Mint 8
{' 7
Maintenance 1 0 i n
Ofhm �
er Numbers 0'
Cellular time used 75,722 65% ®
Cellular time used 68,238 59% ORD
Remaining 48,312 41% (---)
Remaining 41,563 35% (.—)
Cell Time used 60%
T•,t -
Cell Time used 66%
s
Maint .,1
Maint
%
410 /o Remaining time
'
o;
350/0
Other y�
cell
Remaining cell time
1999 CHP Close up�3rd
QTR) ��
2000 CH,P ,Close 3rd Q ;.R
;��;. .,_ ... �_.�P { _ � �._�� )�..
Call Length Number
of calls Percent
Call Length Number of calls Percent
0 to 1 min 3,775
23%
0 to 1 min 3,035 21%
1 to 3 min 4,287
30%
1 to 3 min 4,727
28%
3 to 5 min 2,998
` .-
21%
3,579
3 to 5 min
21%
5 to 7 min 1,601 =
11%
5 to 7 min 1,967
12%
7 to 9 min 1,187
7%
7 to 9 min 1,027
7%
over 9 min 1,224 "'>
9%
over 9 min 1,466
9%
Total 16,701
calls 100%
Total 14,172 calls 100%
1999 Maintenance.Calls_(3rd
QTR) .`=• �..
2000"Maintenance alls`{3rd.QTR) t .,
Calls '
ice.
� ►�MP"
.4Pir.
4% »WOO
�
Calls
ka
Expected` ,r 33,300
Expected' Q7 33,510
' .. '
Actual
_n34„7.89
Actual
39,170
_,14'x _
Too Many= 1,489
Too Many 5,660
�-����� � _�,r
'Call boxes are scheduled to Call Maintenance every 3 days (10 times/month)
90 epiSJeAJ
OOOZ aaJeno pa€
•
•
•
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 2
Data Source: AT&T Wireless
000027
•
20
15
-
• 1999
• 2000
D
m
w
CO
m 1 00 _
_
_T
A)
cn
c- 5
-
_
_
-
r
o
x
r--,
0 b 0 0 b 0 0 0 0
o N - a a d a a - o
u v u w
3rd QTR 1999
3rd QTR 2000
Call Calls to Avg
Highway Boxes CHP Calls/Box
CaII Calls to Avg
Highway Boxes CHP Calls/Box
RV -010 397 5,031 12.7
RV -010 398 4,333 10.9
0
RV -015 200 4,271 21.4
RV -015 201 3,610 18.0
RV -031 5 31 6.2
RV -031 5 37 7.4
RV -033 2 15 7.5
RV -033 2 33 16.5
RV -060 75 1,186 15.8
RV -060 72 945 13.1
RV -062 26 275 10.6
RV -062 26 272 10.5
RV -071 N/A 0 0.0
RV -071 N/A 0 0.0
RV -074 30 354 11.8
RV -074 28 234 8.4
RV -078 7 10 1.4
RV -078 7 8 1.1
RV -079 30 253 8.4
RV -079 29 201 6.9
RV -086 11 59 5.4
RV -086 10 39 3.9
RV -86S 14 76 5.4
RV -86S 14 72 5.1
RV -091 161 2,803 17.4
RV -091 155 2,434 15.7
RV -095 7 25 3.6
RV -095 7 22 3.1
RV -111 13 114 8.8
RV -111 13 77 5.9
RV -177 26 64 2.5
RV -177 26 55 2.1
RV -215 87 1,885 21.7
RV -215 88 1,597 18.1
RV -243 14 169 12.1
RV -243 14 104 7.4
RV -371 12 80 6.7
RV -371 12 54 4.5
unassigned
0 0 0.0
unassigned 3 0 0.0
TOTALS 1,117 16,701 15.0
0
TOTALS 1,110 14,127 12.7
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 3
Riverside CaII Box Statistics by Highway
000z aaiieno pie
Data Source: AT&T Wireless
000023
(
6am - 7am
7am - 8am
8am - 9am
9am - 10am
10am - 1 1 am
1 1 am - 12pm
12pm - 1 pm
1 pm - 2pm
TOTAL
539
667
736
684
750
856
986
1,017
482
543
513
608
615
788
821
930
6,235 5,300
8
7
12
10
2
4
9
3
8
8
15
6
22
7
12
20
88
65
5.9
5.3
7.3
8.1
7.5
8.2
9.4
10.8
11.1
68.3
6.0
5.6
6.7
6.7
8.6
9.0
10.2
58.1
(
(
2pm - 3pm
3pm - 4pm
4pm - 5pm
5pm - 6pm
6om - 7pm
7pm - 8pm
8pm - 9pm
9pm - 10pm
TOTAL
1,204
1,136
1,256
1,065
985
1,004
1,189
921
1,104
898
627
623
882
723
582
502
8,037
6,664
14 11
26 14
22 7
26 9
13 23
19 14
10 21
12 6
142 105
RCTC TOTAL
(
(
(
1
RCTC TOTAL
16.701
14,172
259
189
183.0
155.3
0000 aaieno laic
•
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 4
Data Source: AT&T Wireless
00062
THIS REPORT COVERS THE INLAND DISPATCH CENTER ONLY
A "lost call" occurs when a call box caller hangs up
or "redials" before reaching a CHP operator.
Note: "redialing", or pressing the call button a second
time, disconnects the caller and reconnects them at
the end of the queue (calls are answered by CHP in
the order they are received.)
sllea luaalad
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2°0
0
Au '99 - CHP changed from the SR1000 ACD to the Meridian ACD.
[Data
was
not
provide by CHP
from
Aug - Dec
1999.]
i
0
in
z
t
0
co
D (n
C
D
CO
8
D (n
8 8
Oct -98
7%
Nov -98
6%
Dec -98
Jan -99
5%
Feb -99
7%
Mar -99
6%
Apr -99
7%
May -99
6%
Jun -99
8%
Jul -99
9%
Aug -99
Sep -99 al
Oct -99 o z
Nov -99 o
Dec -99 Z
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Jan -00
9%
Feb -00
16%
Mar -00
11%
Apr -00
9°/0
May -00
12%
Jun -00
14%
Jul -00
12%
Aug -00
12%
Sep -00
13%
The length of time (in minutes) a motorist waited before hanging up or "redialing" CHP.
On hold
Jul -00
Aug -00
Sep -00
AVG
< 30
21%
26%
23°0
23%
< 60
14%
10%
10%
12%
< 90
11%
9%
8%
9%
< 120
9%
6%
6%
7%
< 300
20%
21%
20%
20%
< 600
25%
28%
30%
28%
> 600
0° 0
0%
2%
1%
Delay
Jul -00
Aug -00
Sep -00
AVG
Average
194
206
227
209
30% -
25% -
20% -
15% -
10%
5%
0%
Average time on hold
before disconnecting
r
< 30 < 60 < 90 < 120 < 300 < 600 > 600
Seconds
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 6
sis�C��uy Ilea 1S01 ePISJOAH
0003Ja1rno pie
Data Source: CHP ACD
•
000u31
•
1
•
THIS REPORT COVERS THE INLAND DISPATCH CENTER ONLY
CHP considers a call to be "delayed" if the
call is not answered within 12 seconds.
A call must be answered for it to be
a delayed call, otherwise it is a lost call.
Oct -98
83%
66
Nov -98
80%
56
Dec -98
84%
77
Jan -99
79%
62
Feb -99
.79%
62
Mar -99
80%
60
90% L..
80% —
70% —
60% —
50% —
40°/
0
0
R '4
CD
1111
D R C
D � D
Apr -99
80%
65
�Y�`1V44�1
T D D
g R
8 •
8 8
8 8 8 8 8
May -99
80%
56
Jun -99
84%
83
Jul -99
83%
82
Aug -99 NA NA
ctr Sep -99 m NA NA
o Oct -99 z NA NA
z Nov -99 w NA NA
Dec -99 NA NA
Jan -00
Feb -00
42%
44
49%
70
Mar -00
48%
55
Apr -00
47%
57
May -00
Jun -00
53%
51%
71
67
Jul -00
45%
88
Answered in
On Time
46°-°
<12
9%
Delayed
5'0
5%
9%
<24
<36
<48
<60"
<120
Aug -00
Sep -00
20%
>120
Jul -00
45%
°
'5/0
40/0
3%
10%
26%
Aug -00
Sep -00
49°0
44%
11%
8/0
7%
5%
50/0
5%
5%
8%
8%
9%
15%
20%
AVG
46%
9%
6%
5%
5%
9%
20%
49%
44%
93
87
ACD Notes
Aug '99 - CHP changed from
the SR1000 ACD to the
Meridian ACD.
Criteria for the SR1000
% Delayed = call must be
answered within 5 secs.
Criteria for the Meridian
% Delayed = 12 secs.
Data not provide by CHP from
Aug - Dec 1999.
Note Aug & Seo data was averaged using historical trends due to incomplete CHP source data.
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 7
000 -Wen() pc
Data Source: CHP ACD
000032
•CVRS Counties
Sacramento
San Joaquin
Sutter
YuDa
Yoh)
San Diego
1,700
21%
9,969
33%
80,536
30%
5.9
47.4
'MTC Counties
Alameda
Contra Costa
Marin
Napa
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Sours
Sonoma
Riverside
1.110 14%
4,051 13%
39,544 15%
3.6 35.6
MTC
3,173 39%
10,570
35%
98,074 36%
3.3 30.9
Ventura
556 7%
1,362 4
0/0
13,383 5
0/0
2.4 24 1
CVRS
1,261 16%
3,770 12%
32,421 12%
3.0 25.7
Santa Barbara
329
4%
624
2%
6,238
2%
1.9
19.0
Total 8,129 100% 30,346 100% 270,196 100% 3.7 33.2
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 8
Data Source: Cellular Tapes
•
000033
AGENDA ITEM 6
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISS/ON
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Authorize Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. RO-9861 to Support
Design and Construction of the Route 91, Magnolia Avenue to Mary
Street Auxiliary Lane Project, and Phase II Sound Wall #36.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Recommend the approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. RO-
9861, with URS Corporation, for additional engineering design services
and construction support services required to support design and
construction of the Route 91, Magnolia Avenue to Mary Street Auxiliary
Lane Project, and the new Phase II Sound Wall #36, for an additional
Base Work of $383,728 and additional Extra Work of $ 41,272 for a
total Amendment value of $ 425,000;
2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the amendment on behalf of the
Commission, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, using the standard
amendment format; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On June 10, 1998, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-9861 to URS
Corporation for design of the Route 91, Mary Street to Magnolia Avenue Auxiliary Lane
Project and Phase II Sound Walls and Landscaping. The Design Contract was for a
Base amount of $1,029,436, with a contingency of up to $150, 000, for a total
contract amount of $1,179,436. At that time, the estimated constructed cost for the
Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project was $12.5 million and the estimated cost for the
Phase II Sound Walls and Landscaping was $3.5 million, for a total estimated
construction cost of approximately $16.0 million. The project scope and construction
costs were developed and based upon the original Project Report, approved in 1994.
000034
From June of 1998 to April of 2000, URS produced three Final PS&E Packages for all
the Route 91 Phase II Sound Walls and two Final PS&E Packages for Landscaping of
those sound walls.
Also, during that time period, URS updated the Project Report and Environmental
Document for the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. That update highlighted the need
for additional improvements to Route 91 to assure that it conformed to the future
cross section requirements with a minimum of throw away construction. These new
requirements increased the scope of the design and construction from what was
originally proposed. During this period URS requested and was authorized to proceed
with extra work that totaled $150,000.
On May 10, 2000, the Commission authorized Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. RO-
9861 for the additional engineering services required by and as stipulated in the
updated Project Report for the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. Amendment No. 1
increased the Base Work by $329,168, and increased the Extra Work by $30,832, for
a total contract amount of $1,539,436. The estimated construction cost for the Route
91 Auxiliary Project had increased from $12.5 million to $17.5 million. The Phase II
Sound Walls and Landscaping estimated construction cost remained at $3.5 million.
During the past 6 months, URS has completed the Final PS&E Design for the Route
91, Magnolia to Mary Auxiliary Lane Project. This project was expedited to meet the
proposed State Transportation Operation Strategy (TOPS) funding deadline, to deliver
the PS&E to Caltrans Headquarters by August 31, 2000. During that time period the
funding for the project switched from Measure "A" to "TOPS", then back to Measure
"A," after the TOPS funding was missed, and finally to State Highway Operations and
Projection Program ("SHOPP.") Caltrans required major revisions to the Project PS&E
to finalize the package to submit to Sacramento for final preparation to advertise the
project for construction. To meet the funding deadline RCTC agreed to comply with
Caltrans request to revise the PS&E and per a Single Signature authority, increased
URS's contract by $21 ,662, to allow URS to proceed with the revisions. URS's total
contract value is currently $1,561,098. The project is currently on schedule to be
advertised for construction bids, by Caltrans, at the first of the new year.
During the course of final design for the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project, even more
environmental and design revisions were required by Caltrans. These additional
requirements increased the estimated cost for the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project from
$17.5 million to the current estimated value of $21 .5 million. These additional
requirements also increased URS's design effort to deliver the project. It is also
anticipated that a greater than currently budgeted effort will be required by URS for
support of construction of the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project.
In addition to the above, in May of 2000, the Commission allocated $800,000 of
Measure "A" funds for the design and construction of Sound Wall #36, from Myers
Street to Harrison Street, in the City of Riverside. This new wall is required as
•
•
•
000035
•
•
•
mitigation for the impacts resulting from the construction of the auxiliary lane project.
URS has developed all the final design PS&E packages for every Route 91 Sound Wall
included in Phase I and Phase II. Because of the knowledge URS has developed
working on the Route 91 sound walls, their ability to start immediately, and the cost
effectiveness of using the same consultant to do similar work in the same general area,
staff is recommending that the Commission award the final PS&E design for Sound
Wall #36 to URS.
Staff has recently concluded negotiations with URS for the additional engineering
design services and construction support services required to support design and
construction of the Route 91, Magnolia Avenue to Mary Street Auxiliary Lane Project,
and the design of the new Phase II Sound Wall #36. Staff is recommending that the
Commission approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. RO-9861 for an additional
Base Work of $383,728 and additional Extra Work of $ 41,272 for a total Amendment
value of $425,000.
This action will increase the budget for the Route 91, Magnolia Avenue to Mary Street
Auxiliary Lane and Phase II Sound Walls from the currently authorized $6,000,000 to
$6,300,000.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Y& N Year: FY 2000-01
Source of Funds: Measure "A"
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Amount: $6,000,000 Budgeted
Budget Adjustment: Y for $300,000
Date: 11-20-00
000036
AMENDMENT NO. 2
SCOPE OF SERVICES
TASK 1 -PROJECT CONTROL
1.1 PROTECT CONTROL (AUXILIARY LANES PROJECT)
1.1.1 GEOMETRIC APPROVAL DRAWINGS •
Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD) were not includedin the original scope of work for the
project and was added as part of the Extra Work Request No. 2 (EWR No. 2). Draft GAD and
final GAD submittals were provided for Caltrans review and approval process since November
:999. In EWR No. 2, we anticipated that the GAD approval would be obtained by the end of
April 2000. Caltrans required that the roadway geometrics be changed several times after the
rai ?S&E submittal. The original geometry reflected a mainline widening for the auxiliary
lane Pei 1itions and was revised to include ramp widetungs. Multiple discussions, coordination
and meetings. beyond what were anticipated in the amended scope of work, were held to
obtain the approval of the GAD. The final GAD was signed by Caltrans in August 2000. The
addi:ional effort was expended to maintain the project delivery schedule.
1.2 PROJECT CONTROL (SOUND WALL NO. 36)
1.2.1 PRIMAVERA TARGET SCHEDULE
detailed schedule (critical path method network) will be developed for the URS Team's
on Sound Wall No. 36. The schedule will detail the specific products and deliverables
-'.is scope of services and indicate preparation periods, submittal dates and review periods
for those products.
Products: Primavera Target Schedule
1.1./ MILESTONE MANAGEMENT
Milestone management efforts will be required. Efforts include PDT meetings, coordination
meetings; preparation of progress schedules, and monthly progress reports and invoices;
maintaining the project files; agency liaison and coordination with RCTC and the contractor.
SR9l Phase 11 Noise Walls, Auxiliary Lanes and Structures Modifications 1
00003'7
TASK 2 - DATA COLLECTION/ASSEMBLY (SOUND WALL NO. 36)
2.1 AS -BUILT PLANS
As -built plans of the existing hook ramp from eastbound State Route 91 onto Indiana Avenue
near Van Buren Boulevard will be retrieved and reviewed. Other as -built plans have been
previously retrieved during design work along State Route 91 in this area
Products: As -Built Plans
� .2
UTILITY INFORMATION
Based upon Underground Service Alert data, research of existing as-builts, field investigations
and coordination with Caltrans right-of-way staff, Utility Conflict May will be developed for
the utility agencies showing their facilities within the construction limits. Additional utility
facilities provided by the utility agencies will be digitized into the base maps. Potential utility
relocations will be coordinated with the appropriate utility agencies.
Products: Utility Conflict Map with Existing/Proposed Utilities
2.3 DESIGN SURVEYS
URS will perform design surveys necessary to complete the design. This includes topographic
surveys of the existing concrete drainage channel and the existing hook ramp from State Route
91 to Indiana Avenue in the area of the project, and required documentation. Field survey data
w..1 oC 1r-..nslated into electronic data files for design.
Surveys will be performed in accordance with the Caltrans "Survey Manual" and any
revisions. Work not covered by the Survey Manual will be performed in accordance with
aceopted professional surveying standards. The minimum standard of survey quality shall be
that of similar surveys performed by Caltrans. Caltrans approved horizontal and vertical
controls will be used.
Products: Design Surveys
SR9I Phase II Noise Walls. Auxiliary Lanes and Structures Modifications
7
•
•
•
000038
•
•
•
2.4 FIELD RECONNAISANCE
A field investigation will be performed at the project site to document the conditions of the
existing features.
2.5 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
Two borings will be drilled along the right-of-way line, near the ends of the proposed Sound
Wall No. 36. The drilling will be planned and coordinated with Caltrans to minimize, any
impact on the flow of traffic and to maintain proper safety precautions.
=.5.: Field Exploration
Two Hollow Stem Auger Borings will be drilled to a depth of approximately 30 feet below
the ground surface with sampling every five feet.
Lab Testing
So:: samples taken during the Field Exploration stage will be tested to determine the index and
the engineering properties of the soil.
2.x.3 Engineering Analysis and Report
Subsurface conditions will be characterized in a Nilaterials/Foundation Memorandum.
Geotechnical parameters will be developed for use in the design of Sound Wall No. 36, in
accord:.nc: with current Caltrans standards. A recommendation will be provided for the
foundation type and a Log of Test Borings Sheet will be developed to. be included in the plan
set.
SR91 Phase 11.Voise Walls, 4uriliury Lanes and Structures Modifications 3
000030
TASK 3 — PRELIMINARY DESIGN (15% PS&E) (SOUND WALL NO. 36)
3.1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
During the coordination of the supplemental noise study by Caltrans, the City of Riverside
performed a field investigation at the locations where a sound wall was not identified for
design and construction. The City determined at one location that a sound wall is required.
The sound wall will be designed along the eastbound right-of-way between Harrison Street.
and Myer Street. The plan sheets will include: a Title Sheet, Typical Cross Sections, Layouts
(2), Construction Details (2), Utility, Construction Area Signs, Sound Wall Details (1), Sound
Wall Quantity, Log of Test Borings, Highway Planting and Irrigation (5) plans.
Products: Preliminary Plan Sheets — (22 estimated)
3. -
RIGHT -OF -WAY ENGINEERING/MAPPING
3.2.1 Research Records and Catalog Documents
Assessors maps and rolls and other references data will be obtained. They will be stamped,
cataloged and filed. The obtained information will be used to determine the boundaryaf the
pri,. ate property and the right-ol=way limits for Sound Wall No. 36.
"
Products: Research Material
Easement Plat
?'.ats will be prepared to define the required temporary construction easement (TCE) for the
21 properties adjacent to the Sound Wall No_ 36.
SR91 Phase II Noise Walls, Auxiliary Lures and Structures Modifications 4
000040
•
•
•
•
•
313 Caltrans Right -of -Way Map Supplemental Attachments
A supplemental attachment will be prepared for Caltrans use in combination with the State's
existing right-of-way maps_ A right-of-way exhibit will be prepared showing the lateral parcel
lines graphically delineated from Assessor Parcel Maps and annotated with the Assessor
Parcel number, Caltrans parcel number, owner's name and the easement width and area
Distances and bearings will not be shown.
Products: Right -of Way Map Supplemental Attachments
TASK S — DRAFT DESIGN (90% PS&E)(SOUND WALL NO. 36)
5.1 DRAFT PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTLMATES
The following subtasks are coordination efforts to produce and assemble the PS& E
package.
5.1.1 Draft Plan sheets
RS will provide ongoing efforts to the plans to reach a 90% design completion.
Products: Draft PS&E
Draft Edited Standard Special Provisions
Draft edited Standard Special Provisions (SSPs) will be prepared in accordance to Caltrans
,:ar.dards for the bid package. Microsoft Word, Version 6.0, will be used for modifications
to ::e SSPs.
Products: Draft Engineer's Cost Estimate
5.1.3 Draft Cost Estimate
A detailed construction cost estimate will be prepared for the construction components.
The cost estimate will be prepared similar to Caltrans' BEES system.
Products: Primavera Target Schedule
SR%I Phase 11 Noise Walls. Auxiliary Lanes and Structures Modifications .
000041
5.2 LEAD TESTING PROGRAM
Based on the location of Sound Wall No. 36, a lead testing program is not anticipated. The
proposed sound wall is located along the right of way, which is furthest from the vehicles
that emitted aerial lead, and at the top of the cut slope. The highest concentration of aerial
lead is generally found near the edge of pavement and at the toe of cut slopes. Lead
concentration, if any, at the sound wall location is anticipated to be low.
TASK 8 -FINAL DESIGN (100% PS&E)
8.1 FINAL DESIGN (AUXILIARY LANES PROJECT)
8.1.1 ROADWAY PLANS REVISIONS FOR GAD
Additional effort was expended on the roadway design plans, quantity takeoffs and cost
estimate to continually match the latest GAD. Caltrans required that the roadway geometries
be changed several times after the final PS&E submittal. The original geometry reflected a
mainline widening for the auxiliary lane additions, and was revised to include extension of the
auxiliary lanes through ramp gores and ramp widt rings. Multiple revisions to the GAD
resulted in multiple revisions to the roadway geometries and related components, including
desi_n of tixtended retaining walls, landscaping, grading, utility impacts, drainage, electrical
reconstruction, stage construction, pavement delineation and signing, and typical cross -
sections. Quantity takeoffs for each of the additional design were completed in this task.
These design additions were accelerated so that the project delivery date can be maintained.
The combination of the ac,ceierated schedule and added designs also required mobilization of
ddditionai staff from other URS offices and overtime compensation to our CADD technicians.
Cost associat: d with lodging, per diem anti travel were expended to obtain the additional staff.
Products: Addirional Final Plans — (6 sheets)
Revised Final Plans (54 sheets)
Revised Quantity Takeoff Calculations
Revised Cost Estimate
SR91 Phase II Noise Walls, _auxiliary Lanes and Structures Modifications 6
•
•
8.1.2 STAGE CONSTRUCTION DESIGN COORDINATION
•
•
•
After completion of the final PS&E, Cahrans Construction branch required several revisions
to the stage construction design. These revisions were requested by Caltrans to minimized the
closure of the HOV lanes and expedite the construction period The revisions included
segmenting the stage construction for eastbound and westbound direction, and providing
specifications for incentive/disincentive programs, fast track concrete, maintaining traffic and
lane closures coordination.
Products: Revised Final Plans — (21 sheets)
Revised Special Provisions
Revised Quantity Takeoff Calculations
Revised Cost Estimate
8.1.3 ADDITIONAL DETOUR DESIGN AND LANE CLOSURE
CHART COORDINATION
During preparation of the final PS&E, Caltrans requested that the design include specific
detour plans for freeway closures, retrofit approach slab lane reductions at Brockton Avenue
and local street closures to facilitate undercrossing widenings. The detour plan for the
Brockton Avenue approach slab was intended to alleviate congestion on SR91 when the
fr"way traveled way is reduced to one lane. Coordination with Caltrans Lane Closure
Committee was required to ensure proper lane closure for the additional detour design.
Coordination with Caltrans regarding the final plans was held and modifications to the plans
were made in association with the District Office Engineer's plan review.
Products: Additional Final Plans — (2 sheets)
Revised Quantity Takeoff Calculations
Revised Cost Estimate
SR91 Pirate 11 Noise Walls, Auxiliary Lanes and Strictures Modifications 7
000043
&1.4 DETAILED CONSTRUCTION DURATION ANALYSIS
Several constructability meetings were held with Caltrans Construction branch during the final
design. Concerns were raised by Caltrans regarding the duration of lane closures to construct
this project. An additional review of the calendar days necessary for construction was
requested by Caltrans to precisely determine the duration of potential lane closures. The
evaluation was used in the special provisions to control the construction schedule.
Product; Detailed Construction Duration Analysis Memo
8.1.5 LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENT DESIGN COORDINATION
Additional landscape enhancement design was required by Caltrans to meet the City of
Riverside's aesthetic mitigation requirements. The landscape enhancement design was not
included in the original scope of work for the project and was added as part of the Amendment
No. 1. The final designs for landscape enhancements were provided for Caltrans review and
approval as part of the final PS&E submittal. After the final PS&E submittal, multiple design
revisions were made by Caltrans that required additional coordination, meetings and design
revisions to obtain Caltrans approval of the enhanced landscape designs. Final landscape
design approval was coordinated with Caltrans late September 2000. The additional effort was
expended to maintain the project delivery schedule.
Products: Revised Final Plans
Revised Special Provisions
Revised Quantity Takeoff Calculations
Revised Cost Estimate
8.1.6 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM DESIGN COORDINATION
Throughout the preliminary design phases of the project, Caltrans added several components
to the project that were desired by Caltrans, but bid and constructed with the auxiliary. . lane
improvement project_ One of these projects is the freeway system improvements related to
the existing fiber optic backbone system on SR91. After the final PS&E submittal, Caltrans
staff made revisions to their communication design that required additional coordination and
review of Caltrans' design to ensure that Caltrans' design were compatible with the roadway
design elements.
SR9I Phase II Noise Walls. Auxiliary Lanes and Srruclures Modifications 8
•
•
•
000041
8.1.7 INCORPORATION OF CALTRANS OE COMMENTS
•
•
•
Included in Amendment No. 1 is the coordination with the Caltrans Office Engineer (OE).
URS anticipated coordinating and submitting various documents upon completion of the final
PS&E. The documents included the PS&E Cover Memorandum, Attachment "A", project
plans (CADD files), Special Provisions and Estimate. Upon completion of the final PS&E,
Caltrans Office Engineer presented additional design comments that should have originated
from the various Caltrans branches during the design stage. The OE's comments required
coordination with the City of Riverside and various Caltrans branches, including the District
and DOS, to obtain resolution and their approval. Additional coordination and effort to revise
the final PS&E were not included in our original scope of work or level of effort estimate and
the additional effort was expended to maintain the project delivery schedule.
8.1.8 MILESTONE MANAGEMENT
Additional milestone management efforts were required to complete the PS&E package and
maintain the project delivery schedule. Efforts included coordination meetings., preparation
of progress schedules, and monthly progress reports and invoices; maintaining the project
files; agency liaison and RCTC coordination.
8.2 FINAL PS&E (SOUND WALL NO. 36)
Comments and questions regarding the Sound Wall No. 36 draft submittals will be addressed
and modifications to the plans, specifications and estimate will be made, as appropriate. A
final PS&E package will be prepared.
TASK 9 —BIDDING ASSISTANCE
9.1 BID ASSISTANCE (SOUND WALL NOS. 110, 121 & 161)
URS has provided bidding assistance for the bid package associated with Sound Wall Nos.
110, 121 and 161. Additional assistance will be provided for the separated landscape bid
packages for a total of two additional bid packages. Only one bid package was estimated in
the original scope of work and that effort will be expended on the Auxiliary Lanes project.
SR9 1 Phase II Noise Walls. Auxiliary Lanes and Structures Madijiicalions 9
000045
9.1.1 BID PACKAGE ASSEMBLY
URS will provide assistance in the preparation of two additional bid packages. The approved
construction drawings, technical specifications and bid form were delivered to RCTC for
advertisement
Products: Half -Size Plans, BIuelines (25 Sets per Package)
Technical Specifications (25 Sets per Package)
Bid Form (One Spreadsheet File per Package)
9.1.2 MILESTONE MANAGEMENT
An additional two months of milestone management efforts were required for the two
additional bid packages. Coordination with RCTC. Caltrans and the contractor were provided
along with invoicing and other administrative activities.
9.2 BIDDING ASSISTANCE (SOUND WALL NO. 36)
9.2.1 BID PACKAGE ASSEMBLY
URS will provide assistance in the preparation of the bid packages associated with Sound Wall
No. 36. The approved construction drawings, technical specifications and bid form will be
delivered to RCTC for advertisement.
Products: Half -Size Plans, Blue -lilacs (25 Sets)
Technical Specifications (25 Sets)
Bid Form (One Spreadsheet File)
9.2.2 PRE -AWARD BID QUESTIONS
Consuitation with RCTC for interpretations of the design drawings and technical
specifications will be provided_ URS will review inquires submitted by RCTC/bidders, as
needed. Responses to inquiries will be returned to RCTC within twenty-four hours after
receipt of the inquiry.
SR91 Phase 11 Noise Wails. Auxiliary Lunen andl Structures Modifications 10
000046
•
•
•
9.2.3 811) EVALUATION
•
•
URS will review and analyze contractor bids received by RCTC. The bids will be reviewed
for consistency with the Engineer's Estimate. Any irregularities will be identified and
discus cd with RCTC.
9.2.4 BIDDING ADDENDA
URS will prepare revised plans, technical specifications and bid forms; as directed by RCTC;
for required changes in the design during the bid period. The revisions will be incorporated
into addenda for distribution by RCTC to all bidders of record
Products: One Addendum
TASK 10 — CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES
10.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES (AUXILIARY LANES PROJECT)
URS originally proposed a scope of work with the understanding that RCTC will advertise,
award and administer (AAA) the construction of the project. Ongoing Caltrans and RCTC
funding coordination resulted in a bid package (auxiliary lanes project) that will be AAA by
Caltrans. It is anticipated that the construction phase services required with Caltrans Resident
Engineer will be greater than typically expected if the project was coordinated with RCTC
Residem Engineer. URS will provide engineering support during the construction phases of
the au.xaliary lanes project The construction phases are assumed to commence with the award
of each construction contract and end with each contractor's notice of completion. It has been
assumed that construction services will not be necessary during the plant establishment period.
10.1.1 PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING
URS will attend a pre -construction meeting held at Caltrans District office. Issues that may
arise during construction will be discussed. URS will answer questions with respect to the
plans, specifications and other technical aspects of the project.
SR91 Phase 17 Noise Walls, Auxiliary Lanes and Structures Modifications 11
000047
10.1.2 SITE REVIEW
URS will perform six additional site reviews at the project. Site reviews are intended to
observe the general progress of construction and do not include detailed review of the
contactors' construction procedures or inspection of the contractor's work. Any issues noted
in the field will be brought to the attention of RCTC and Caltrans for resolution.
10.13 SHOP DRAWINGS/PRODUCT SUBMITTALS
Shop drawings/product submittals will be reviewed and cnmrne„ts provided to Cain-ans. Shop
drawings and product submittals are assumed to be provided by the contractor in complete,
parkfged submittals. The review, with any comments, will be returned to Caltrans within ten
working days of receipt. This task includes in-house review/comment efforts, field review
time as necessary and review of nonstandard materials or materials not specified. Four
additional shop drawing/product submittal reviews are assumed.
101..1 REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
Consultation with Caltrans for interpretation of the design drawings and technical
specifications will be provided. URS will review Requests for Information (RFIs) submitted
by Caltrans and the contractor, as needed. Responses to the RFIs will be resumed to Caitrans
within five working days after receipt of the RFIs. Thirty additional RFIs have been
estimated.
10.13 AS -BUILT PREPARATION
in accordance to the C.itrans Drafting and Plans Manual of Instructions. March 1999, Caltrans
is .csponsibie for the preparation of all As-Builts.
10.1.6 MILESTONE MANAGEMENT
An additional twelve months of milestone management efforts will be required for the
extended construction schedule. Coordination with RCTC, Caltrans and the contractor will
continue along with invoicing and other administrative activities
SR91 Phase 11 Noise Walls, Auxiliary Lanes and Structures Modifications
12
000043
10.2 CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES (SOUND WALL NO. 36)
•
•
URS will provide engineering support during the construction phase of the Sound Wall
No. 36 project The construction phases are assumed to commence with the award of each
construction contract and end with each contractor's notice of completion. It has been
assumed that construction services will not be necessary during the plant establishment period.
10.2.1 PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING
URS will attend the pre -construction meeting at RCTC. Issues that may arise during
construction will be discussed. 'RS will answer questions with respect to the plans,
specifications and other technical aspects of the project. Sets of construction drawings and
specifications will be delivered to the RCTC and the contractor at the meeting.
Products: Full-SzLe Plans, Vellums - Contractor
Half -Size Plans, Vellums - Contractor
102.2 SITE REVIEW
URS will perform one site review at the project. Site review is intended to observe the general
progress of construction and do not include detailed review of the contractors' constniction
procedures or inspection of the contractors' work. Any issues noted in the field will be
brought to the attention of RCTC for resolution.
10.2.3 SHOP DRAWINGS/PRODUCT SUBMITTALS
Shop drawings/product submittals will be reviewed and comments provided to RCTC. Shop
drawings and product submittals are assumed to be provided by the contractor incomplete,
packaged submittals. The review, with any comments, will be returned to RCTC within ten
working days of receipt. This task includes in-house review/comment efforts, field review
time as necessary and review of nonstandard materials or materials not specified. Two shop
drawing/product submittal reviews are assumed.
SR91 Phase 11 Noise Walls, Auxiliary Lanes and Structures Modifications 13
000049
10.2.4 REQUESTS FOR INFORMAT1ON
Consultation with RCTC for interpretation of the design drawings and technical specifications
will be provided. URS will review Requests for Information (RFIs) submitted by RCTC and
the contractor, as needed. Responses to the RFIs will be returned to RCTC within five
working days after receipt of the RFIs. Four RFIs have been estimated.
10.25 AS -BUILT PLANS
URS will prepare one set of reproducible as -built plans from the design drawings based upon
a legible, red -lined set of design drawings provided by RCTC/contractor. This task is limited
to transferring the as -built information provided by RCTC/contractor to the design drawing
originals.
The accuracy of the as -built information provided by RCTC/contractor shall be certified by
the contractor's licensed land surveyor or professional engineer providing the information.
This excludes providing any review or field survey of the as -built conditions.
Products; As -Built Drawings -- (Full Size Vellums)
As -Built Drawings — (Half Size Vellums)
As -Built Drawings — (Microfilm)
10.2.6 MILESTONE MANAGEMENT
months of milestone management efforts will be required for the construction duration.
Coordination with RCTC, Calnrans and the contractor will be provided along with invoicing
and other administrative activities.
f. V.; \rrytscdamcni Yuve_DOC
SR91 Phase 11 Noise Walls, Auxiliary Lanes and Structures Modifications 14
000050
AMENDMENT NO. 2 - FEE SUMMARY 20 -Nov -0O
•
1
•
Continued Rovisions to the GAD after Final PSZE submittal and Amendment No. 1 including:
• Extended Auxiliary Lanes through Ramp Gores
• Widened Entrance and Exit Ramps beyond Auxiliary Lanes
• Revision to the Auxiliary Lanes pavement widening tapers
' Cost Analysis for each GAD revisions
Additional Design to accommodate extension of Project along Interchange ramps including:
• Extended Retaining Walls
' Extended Landscaping
Extended Grading
Extended Utility impacts
' Extended Drainago Impacts
' Extended Electrical Reconstruction
• Extended Stage Construction
• Extended Signing and Striping
' Additional Quantity Takeoff
• Revision to the Cost Estimate
Mutuplo Revisions to Construction Staging Concept and Final Design including:
• Segmented Construction for Eastbound and Westbound directions
• Specification additions for IncenUvelDisincentive programs
• Specification additions for Fast Track concrete pavement
• Specificauon additions for maintaining traffic and coordinating lane closures
• Addiuonal Detours
• Additional Quantity Takooffs
• Revisions to the Cost Estimate
521,226
395,472
532,446
Deaiiad Construction Duration Analysis $3,900
Modifications to the Landscape Design after the Final PS&E Submittal including: 59,589
' YLitipie meetings with Caltrans Landscape branch
' Revisions to the Landscape PULE
Continued coordination of Caltrans Communication System project after the Final PS&E Submittal 59,262
Coordination of Caimans OE Comments after the Final PSLE Submittal including: 535,824
Coordination of OE's comments with Caltrans' various District branches to obtain resolution
' Coordination of OE's comments with Caltrans DOS to obtain resolution
• Coordination of OE's comments with Ctry of Riverside to obtain rosowtion
• Coordination of OE's comments regarding constructability vs. presentation
Bidding Assistance for Sound Wall Nos. 110, 121 & 161
Estimated Construction Support with Caltrans Resident Engineer
Sound Wall No. 36 Including:
' Design Services
• Preparation of Plane, Specifications and Estimate
Bidding Assistance
Construction Support Services
54,792
565,064
$106,153
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TOTAL a $383,723
amanaZ iec.ns
00005f
AMENDMENT NO. 2
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE II NOISE WALLS, AUXILIARY LANES
AND STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
DIRECT LABOR
HOURLY
NAME FUNCTION HOURS �OTAI,
J. CHAPMAN PROJECT MANAGER 139 $60.00 58,340.00
PROJECT MANAGER 271 555.00 514.905.00
R. LEW SR. PROJECT ENGINEER 217 542.00 S9,114,00
SR. PROJECT ENGINEER 682 539.00 526,598.00
PROJECT ENGINEER 490 530.00 514,700.00
ENGINEER 214 526.00 55.564.00
ENGINEER 404 525.00 510,100.00
TECHNICIAN/CADD 186 526.00 54.836.00
TECHNICIAN/CADD 416 525.00 $10,400.00
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR 110 524.00 52,640.00
CLERICAL 82 520.00 51,640.00
TOTAL HOURS 3211
SUBTOTAL 5109,518
COLA ® 5% 1„511
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS 5110.029
FRINGE BENEFITS RATE TOTAL
48.12% S52.945.95
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS 552,946
OTHER WORK
DESIGN SURVEY 54,000
RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING (TOE'S) 38,000
STRUCTURES 50
CALENDAR DAY EVALUATION 53 900
SUBTOTAL 515,900
OTHER COSTS
'AVEL COSTS 5733
REPRODUCTION 36.698
MSC COSTS 522.576
SUBTOTAL 530,107
Zi;BCONSL L7AN-S
_Z;GHTON AND ASSOCiATE3
TATSUMI AND PARTNERS
86.980.00
510.5.53.00
SUBTOTAL 517,533.00
SJbCONSULTANTFEE (MIE TOTAL,
5.00% 5876.65
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD & GENERAL
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 548,517
RATE TOTAL
114.51% 5125,994.21
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS 5125,994
FEE RATE
10.50%
TOTAL COST
M100379'ADMN.EWR arnend2_fee.xis
830.342
5383.727
11/20/00
00005;)
AMENDMENT NO.2
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE II NOISE WALLS, AUXILIARY LANES
AND STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
DIRECT LABOR
• NAME
J. CHAPMAN
R. LEW
FUNCTION
PROJECT MANAGER
SR. PROJECT ENGINEER
PROJECT ENGINEER
ENGINEER
TECHNICIAN/CADD
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR
CLERICAL
TOTAL HOURS
FRINGE BENEFITS
OTHER WORK
DESIGN SURVEY
RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING (ICE'S)
STRUCTURES
CALENDAR DAY EVALUATION
fiTHER COSTS
TRAVEL COSTS
REPRODUCTION
MISC COSTS
SUBCCNSULTANTS
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
TATSUMI AND PARTNERS
SUeCONSJLTANTFEE
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD & GENERAL
FEE
TOTAL COST
•
H 100379V+DMN\EWR\amand2 fee.xls
HOURS
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
SU3TCTAL
HOURLY
RAT.
TOTAL;
24 $55.00 $1.320.00
80 539.00 53,120.00
40 $30.00 51,200.00
0 525.00 $0.00
50 525,00 S1,250.00
0 524.00 50.00
1P. $20.00 5200.00
204
SUBTOTAL
COLA @ 0%
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS
RATE
48.12%
TOTAL
S3,411.71
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
50
50
so
SQ
50
$100
S50
$500
5650
50.00
$0.00
50.00
RATE
5.00%
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
RATE
114.51%
TOTAI_
$0.00
TOTAL
$8,118.76
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
RATE
10.50%
$7,090
57.090
$3,412
5650
S8,119
51,955
$21.226
11/20/00
000053
AMENDMENT NO, 2
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE II NOISE WALLS, AUXIUARY LANES
AND STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
DIRECT LABOR
HOURLY
NAME FUNCTION HOUR$ TOTAL
J. CHAPMAN PROJECT MANAGER 50 355.00 52,750.00
R. LEW SR. PROJECT ENGINEER 122 539.00 34,758.00
PROJECT ENGINEER 160 S30.00 34,800.00
ENGINEER 240 525.00 56,000.00
TECHNICIAN/CADD 240 525.00 56,000.00
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR 0 324.00 50.00
CLERICAL 48 520.00 3960.00
TOTAL HOURS 860
SUBTOTAL
COLA
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS
0%
FRINGE BENEFITS RATE 2Q
48.12% 312.158.96
525,268
525,268
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS 312,159
OTHER WORK
DESIGN SURVEY SO
RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING t?CES) SO
STRUCTURES SO
CALENDAR DAY EVALUATION 30
SUBTOTAL 50
OTHER COSTS
TRAVEL COSTS $166
REPRODUCT;ON 52,000
MISC COSTS 319 977
....BCONSULTANTS
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
TATSUMI AND PARTNERS
SUSCONSULTANT FEE
SUBTOTAL 322.143
50.30
50.00
SUBTOTAL S0.00
RATE TOTAL
5.00% 50.00
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 522,143
INDIRECT COSTS RATE TOTAL
OVERHEAD & GENERAL 114.51% $28,934.39
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS 528.934
FEE S
10.50%
TOTAL COST
H100379\ADMNIEWR1amend2 feexds
36.968
395,472
112W00
•
•
•
000051
AMENDMENT NO. 2
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE II NOISE WALLS, AUXILIARY LANES
AND STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
DIRECT LABOR
NAME
J. CHAPMAN
R. LEW
FUNCTION
PROJECT MANAGER
SR. PROJECT ENGINEER
PROJECT ENGINEER
ENGINEER
TECHNICUUVCADD
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR
CLERICAL
TOTAL HOURS
FRINGE BENEFITS
OTHER WORK
•
DESIGN SURVEY
RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING (TOE'S)
STRUCTURES
CALENDAR DAY EVALUATION
THER COSTS
TRAVEL COSTS
;REPRCDUCTION
MISC COSTS
SuBC,C NS,:LTANTS
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
TATSUMI AND PARTNERS
SUBCCNSULTANTFEE
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD & GENERAL
FEE
TOTAL COST
•
H1003791ADMN\EWR\amend2 fee.zls
HOURS
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
HOURLY
MIL
TOTAL,
40 555.00 52200.00
120 539.00 S4,680.00
24 530.00 5720.00
64 525.00 51,600.00
74 525.00 61.850.00
4 524.00 596.00
0 520.00 50.00
326
SUBTOTAL
COLA @ 0%
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS
SZF TOTAL
48.12% S5,383.46
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
50
50
50
50
SO
S100
S100
50.00
00
50.0D
twg
5.00%
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
RATE
TOTAL
50.00
TOTAL
114.51% 512,763.28
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
RATE
10.50%
000055
511,146
511,146
55,363
5100
512.763
53,074
532.446
1120/00
COORDINATION AND MEETING
AMENDMENT NO. 2
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE II NOISE WALLS, AUXILIARY LANES
AND STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
DIRECT LABOR
NAME
J. CHAPMAN
R. LEW
FUNCTION HOURS
HOURLY
RATE
TOTAL
PROJECT MANAGER 8 555.00 $440.00
SR. PROJECT ENGINEER 60 S39.00 52.340.00
PROJECT ENGINEER 0 530.00 50.00
ENGINEER 8 525.00 5200.00
TECHNICIAN/CADD 0 525.00 50.00
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR 12 524.00 5288.00
CLERICAL 0 S20.00 50.00
TOTAL HOURS 88
SUBTOTAL
COLA a 0%
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS
FRINGE BENEFITS
OTHER WORK
DESIGN SURVEY
RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING (ICE'S)
STRUCTURES
CALENDAR DAY EVALUATION
C'HER COSTS
TRAVEL COSTS
REPRODUCTION
MISC COSTS
SUBCCNSULTANTS
L E!GHTON AND ASSOCIATES
TATSUMIAND PARTNERS
SUBCONSU..TANTFEE
INDIRECT cOSTS
OVERHEAD & GENERAL
FEE
TOTAL COST
H100379WDMN1EWRlamnnd2 fee.xI3
SUBTOTAL
48.12%
TOTAL
51,572.58
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
50
SO
50
50
S55
50
50
SUBTOTAL 5105
50.00
5x000
SUBTOTAL 50.00
TOTAL
5.00% 50.00
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
RATE
114.51%
TOTAL
53,742,19
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
10.50%
53.268
53,263
51.573
5105
53,742
5901
59,589
11/20/00
000056
rtt 151(MATE - COORD. OF FIBER OPTIC PROJECT
AMENDMENT NO. 2
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE I1 NOISE WALLS, AUXIUARY LANES
AND STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
DIRECT LABOR
NAME
J. CHAPMAN
R. LEW
FUNCTION
PROJECT MANAGER
SR. PROJECT ENGINEER
PROJECT ENGINEER
ENGINEER
TECHNICIAN/CADD
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR
CLERICAL
TOTAL HOURS
FRINGE BENEFITS
OTHER WORK
DESIGN SURVEY
RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING (ICE'S)
STRUCTURES
CALENDAR DAY EVALUATION
•TP1 COSTS
TRAVEL COSTS
REPRODUCTION
MSC COSTS
LUf3cCNSJL'ANTS
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
`ATSUMI AND PAR'NERS
S,;BCONSUL7ANT FEE
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD 3 GENERAL.
FEE
TOTAL COST
•
I-1100379 W DAAN1EWR1a menG2_fee.zls
HOURS
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
HOURLY
RATE
TOTAL
8 355.00 5440.00
40 539.00 31,560.00
24 530.00 5720.00
0 525.00 30.00
12 525.00 $300.00
6 $24.00 3144.00
0 320.00 411.0t2
90
SUBTOTAL
COLA 0%
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS
RATE TOTAL
48.12% 51.522.52
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
SO
30
SO
§.4
50
530
50
S80
50.00
50.00
30.00
RATE
5.00%
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
TOTAL
50.00
RATE DOTAL
114.51% 33.623.10
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
RAT
10.50%
000057
$3.166
33.164
51,523
580
53.623
5873
$9.262
11/20/00
FEE ESTIMATE - COORDINATION OF CALTRANS
OFFICE ENGINEER COMMENTS
AMENDMENT NO. 2
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE 0 NOISE WALLS, AUXILIARY LANES
AND STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
DIRECT LABOR
NAME FUNCTION
HOURS
RATE
HOURLY
TOTAL,
J. CHAPMAN PROJECT MANAGER 56 $55.00 33,080.00
R. LEW SR. PROJECT ENGINEER 140 $39.00 35,460.00
PROJECT ENGINEER _ 0 $30.00 $0.00
ENGINEER 80 525.00 $2,000.00
TECHNICIAN/CADD 40 325.00 $1.000.00
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR 32 $24.00 3768.00
CLERICAL 0 520.00 0.00
TOTAL HOURS 348
SUBTOTAL 512,308
COLA @ 0% IQ
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS 312,303
FRINGE BENEFITS
OTHER WORK
RATE TOTAL
48.12% 55,922.61
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS S5,923
DESIGN SURVEY 50
RIGHT -OF -NAY ENGINEERING (TOE'S) SO
STRUCTURES SO
CALENDAR DAY EVALUATION �0
SUBTOTAL 50
OTHER COSTS
TRAVEL COSTS 555
REPRCDUCTiON 50
MISC COSTS gQ
SUBCONSULTANTS
L_IGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
TATSUMI AND PARTNERS
S'L BCONSU'.TANT FEE
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD & GENERAL
SUBTOTAL 5105
50.00
50.00
SUBTOTAL 50.00
RATE jQTAL
5.00% 50.00
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 5105
SAL TOTAL,
114.51% $14,093.89
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS 514,094
FEE RATE
10.50%
TOTAL COST
H100379WDMN1EWRamend2 fee.:ls
53,394
$35,824
11/20i00
000059
(SOUND WALL NOS. 110, 121.8 161)
AMENDMENT NO. 2
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE II NOISE WALLS, AUXILIARY LANES
AND STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
DIRECT LABOR
HOURLY
NAME FUNCTION )-LOURS RAT TOJAA
J. CHAPMAN PROJECT MANAGER 4 555.00 5220.00
R. LEW SR. PROJECT ENGINEER 32 539.00 51248.00
PROJECT ENGINEER 0 530.00 $0.00
ENGINEER 0 525.00 50.00
TECHNICIAN/CADD 0 525.00 50.00
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR 0 524.00 $0.00
CLERICAL 4 520.00 380.00
TOTAL HOURS 40
SUBTOTAL 51.548
COLA @ 0% i0
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS 51,548
FRINGE BENEFITS
RATE TOTAL
48.12% 5744.50
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS 3745
OTHER WORK
DESIGN SURVEY $p
RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING (TOE'S) SO
STRUCTURES 50
CALENDAR DAY EVALUATION �p
• sUSTOTAL SO
OTHER COSTS
TRAVEL OOSTS
REPRODUCTION
MISC COSTS
SUBCCNSUJTANTS •
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
TATSUMI AND PARTNERS
SUBTOTAL
SO
50
S300
3300
S0.00
$0.00
SUBTOTAL $0.00
SUBCONSULTANT FEE RATE TOTAL
5.00% 50,00
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $300
INDIRECT COSTS RATE
OVERHEAD & GENERAL 114.51%
FEE
•OTAL COST
H100379\ADMNEWR\amend2 fee.xis
I4IS
$1.772.61
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS 51,773
RATE
10.50%
00005)
$427
54,792
11/20100
SUPPORT SERVICES (MAY 2001 - OCTOBER 2001)
AMENDMENT NO. 2
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE II NOISE WALLS, AUXILIARY LANES
AND STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
DIRECT LABOR
NAME FUNCTION
HQ_URS
HOURLY
RATE
TOTAI.
J. CHAPMAN PROJECT MANAGER 81 560.00 54,860.00
R. LEW SR. PROJECT ENGINEER 89 542.00 $3,717.00
PROJECT ENGINEER 27 530.00 5810.00
ENGINEER 12 528.00 5312.00
TECHNICIAN/CARD 0 526.00 50.00
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR 22 S24.00 5528.00
CLERICAL 0 520.00 ADO
TOTAL HOURS 231
FRINGE BENEFITS
OTHER WORK
SUBTOTAL 510,227
COLA (g 0% �0
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS 510,227
f12.1M TOTA6
48.12% 54,921.23
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS 54.921
DESIGN SURVEY 50
RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING (TCES) 30
STRUCTURES SO
CALENDAR DAY EVALUATION i0
SUBTOTAL 50
OTHER COSTS
TRAVEL COSTS 5111
REPRODUCTION $1,250
MISC COSTS 5750
SUBCONSULTANTS
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
TATSUMI AND PARTNERS
SUBCONSULTANTFEE
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD 8 GENERAL
FEE
TOTAL COST
H1003791ADMN\EWR\amend2 jee.xls
SUBTOTAL S2.111
50.00
$0.00
SUBTOTAL $0.00
RATE
5.00%
TOTAL
50.00
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 32,111
RATE TOTAL,,
114.51% 511,710.94
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $11,711
RATE
10.50%
S2.820
531.790
000060
11/20/00
SUPPORT SERVICES (NOV 2001 - OCTOBER 2002)
AMENDMENT NO. 2
• DIRECT LABOR
NAME FUNCTION(
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE 11 NOISE WALLS, AUXILIARY LANES
AND STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
HOURS
HOURLY
RATE TOTAL
J. CHAPMAN PROJECT MANAGER 81 560.00 54,860.00
R. LEW SR. PROJECT ENGINEER 89 542.00 53,717.00
PROJECT ENGINEER 27 $30.00 5810.00
ENGINEER 12 526.00 S312.00
TECHNICIANICADD 0 526.00 50.00
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR 22 $24.00 5528.00
CLERICAL 0 520.00 $0.00
TOTAL HOURS 231
SUBTOTAL. 510.227
COLA 0 5% X5_1
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS 310,738
FRINGE BENEFITS
RATE TOTAL
48.12% 35,167.29
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS 55,157
OTHER WORK
DESIGN SURVEY $0
RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING (TCE'S) 50
STRUCTURES S0
CALENDAR DAY EVALUATION
411
SUBTOTAL SO
OTHER COSTS
TRAVEL COSTS 3111
REPRODUCTION $1250
MISC.'. COSTS 3750
SUBCONSULTANTS
L.E,GHTON AND ASSOCIATES
TATSUMi AND PARTNERS
SUBCONSULTANTFEE
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD & GENERAL
FEE
TOTAL COST
H 100379 WDM N\ENNRlamend2_fee.xls
SUBTOTAL 52,111
50.00
$0.'00
SUBTOTAL 50.00
RATE TOTAL
S.00% 50.00
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 32,111
RATE TOTAL
114.51% $12,296.48
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $12,296
RATE
10.50%
000061
52.961
533,274
11/20/00
AMENDMENT NO. 2
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE I1 NOISE WALLS, AUXILIARY LANES
AND STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
DIRECT LABOR
NAME FUNCTION
HOURS
HOURLY
RATE TOTAL
J. CHAPMAN PROJECT MANAGER 58 $60.00 53,480.00
R. LEW SR. PROJECT ENGINEER 128 542.00 $5,376.00
PROJECT ENGINEER 188 $30.00 $5,640.00
ENGINEER 202 $26.00 $5,252.00
TECHNICIAN/CADD 186 $26.00 $4.836.00
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR 12 524.00 5288.00
CLERICAL 20 $20.00 $400.00
TOTAL HOURS 754
FRINGE BENEFITS
OTHER WORK
DESIGN SURVEY
RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING (ICE'S)
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
COLA
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS
0%
RATE TOTAL
48.12% 512,160.89
$25,272
$25,272
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS S12,161
$4,000
$8,000
512,000
OTHER COSTS
-RAVE_ COSTS 5105
REPRODUCTION $2,048
MISC COSTS 5249
SUBCCNSULTANTS
.EIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
7A'SUMI AND PARTNERS
S ECCNSuLTANTFEZ
SUBTOTAL $2,402
56.980.00
$10.553 J0
5LJ ETGTAL 517,533.00
RATE TOTAL
5.00% $876.65
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 520,812
INDIRECT COSTS RATE TOTAL
OVERHEAD & GENERAL 114.51% 528,938.97
FEE
TOTAL COST
H 100379\ADMN\EWR\sw36fee.xIs
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
RATE
10.50%
$28,939
$6,969
5106,153
11/20100
000062
O
CD
CD
C7:`,
CA.)
TASK
NO
EVEL OF EFFORT ESTIMATE
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE II NOISE WALLS,
AUXILIARY LANES & STRUCTURE MOD
TASK DESCRIPTION
AUXILIARY LANES PROJECT
TASK NO. 1 • PROJECT C ONTR OL
1.1 JORD Coordination for Approval
[TOTAL TASK NO 1 HOURS
TASK NO. 2 - DATA COLLECTION/ASSE MBLY
Ff }
1TOTAL TASK NO 2 HO URS
TASK NO. 3 - PRELIMINARY DESIGN (157, PS&E)
ITOTA t TASK NO. 3 HOURS
TASK NO.4 - PRELIM INARY STRUCTURES DESIG N
1
'TO TAL TASK NO. 4 HO URS
TASK NO. 5 - DRAFT DESIGN (90% PS&E)
TOTAL TASK NO. 5 HO URS
TASK N0.6 - DRAFT STRUCTURES PS&E
J
'TOTAL TASK NO. 6 HOURS
F'ItVE
RI SI)
TASK NO. 7 - FINAL STRUCTURES PS&E
'TOTAL TASK NO. 7 HOURS
•
URS CIVL lIGHWAY/PROJ. MANAGEMENT
PM SPE I PE 1 LIJGR
•
TECH/
CADD
PROD
ADMIN 1 CLER
SUB
TOTAL
24
80
40
50
10
204
24 8OJ 44 OT 50 0 101
204
1
0
0� 0� 01 0
0
0
0
i
0
i
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1
1 1
0[ 0, 0T 0I 0, 0I 0I 0I
1
1
amenI2_fee.xls
11/20100
TASK
NO.
LEVEL OF EFFORT ESTIMATE
STATE ROUTE 91 PHASE II NOISE WAt LS,
AUXILIARY LANES 8 STRUCTURE MOD
rim 1!
TASK DESCRIPTION RI sr'
TASK NO. 8 • FINAL DESIGN 1100°/. PSBE
8 1
Additional Detour Design and Lane Closure Chan
8.3 1
M ultiple Ro adway Plan Revisions lo Incorporate GAD
8 3 2
Stage Construction Coordinalion and Revisions
8 3 3
Enhanced Lan dscape Coordination and Meetings
8 3 6
Communicatio n S stem Design Coordination
8.3.7
Coordination Caltrans OE Comments
8 4
Milestone Mena emenl
UftS
UR I;
URS
URS
URS
URS
URS
TOTAL TASK NO 8 HO URS
TASK NO. 9 - BIDDING ASSISTANCE
9.1
Bid Package Assembly
URS
9. 2
Milestone Management
URS
TOTAL TASK NO. 9 HOURS
TASK NO . 10 - CO NSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES
10. 1
Pre -Construction Meeling
10. 2
Responses to RFIs (30)
10,3
Product Submittal/Shop Drawings Review (4)
10.4
Sile Reviews (6)
10.6
Milestone M anagemen t (12 months)
'TOTAL TASK NO. 10 HOURS
[SUBTOTAL HOURS AUXILIARY LA NES PROJECT
URS CIVIU►uGt1wAYFPROJ. MANAGE MENT
TECH/ PR OJ
I'M 1 SPE I PE I ENGR-1 CADD ADMIN
CLER
SUB
TOTAL
16
40
24
24
24
4
0
132
50
24
122
160
240
240
0
48
860
80
0
40
50
0
0
194
8
60
0
8
0
12
0'
88
8
40
24
0
12
6
0
90
16
100
0
80
40
8
0
244
40
40
0
0
0
24
0
104
1
162
1
482
208
1
392
1
366
1.
54
1
48
1
1,712 1
0
32
0
0
0
0
4
36
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
32
0
0l
0
o1
4
40 1
4
4
8
30
45
30
24
129
8
32
24
64
48
48
120
48
44
162
177
1
54 1
24
1
01
44 1
01
249 )
.352 1
771 1 302 1
416 1 416 1
98 1 62 1 2,417 1
am cxls
•
• 11/20/00
•VEL
OF EFFORT ESTI MATE
TS OUND WALL NO. 36
AMEN DMENT NO . 2
T ASK DESCRIPTION
TASK
NO
TASK NO. 1 - PROJECT CONTROL
12
Pirmavera Target Sched ule
M ilestone Manageme nt
I'it I ML
itLSF'
URS
URS
TO TAL TASK NO 1 HOURS
TASK NO . 2 - DATA C
2.1
As -Built Plans
URS
2. 2
Utility In formation
URS
2.3
Design Surve y
URS
2.4
Field Reconna isano e
URS
0 2 HOUR S
TASK NO, 3 - PRELIM INARY DESIGN (15% PSBE)
3.1
3.2
Preliminary Plan Sheets
Right of Way Engineering (TCE'S)
URS
URS
'TOTAL TASK NO. 3 HOURS
TASK NO. 4 • PRELIMINARY STRUCTURES DESIGN
'TOTAL TA SK NO. 4 HOURS
TASK ND. 5 • DRAFT DESIGN (90% PS&E)
5.1
5.2
5.3
Draft Plan Sheets
Draft Special Provisions
Draft Cost Eslimate
'TOTAL TASK NO. 5 HOURS
sw36fee.xis
URS
URS
URS
•
ORS CIVIUHI(,11WAYfPROJ . MANAGE MENT
SPE 1 _ PL
TECH/
E NGK CAUL)
PR OJ
AD MIN
CLER
SUB
TOTAL
0
8
0
Ii-
0
0
0
9
32
24
0
0
0
8
0
64
am ....T -
0
0
8]
721
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
4
4
8
8
8
84
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
15,
24
8
24
32
0
0
0
64
0
7
20
32
38
0
0
97
0
4
10
0
0
0
0
14
30
32
38
0
01
of
0(
0
0
12
43
77
85
0
0
217
0
3
22
0
0
0
14
39
0
3
0
20
0
0
0
24
0
19
65
981
85�
. 01
141
2801
11/20100
LEVEL OF EFFORT ESTIMATE
SOUND WALL NO. 36
AMENDMENT N O. 2
TASK
NO.
TASK OL SCRIPTION
TASK NO. 6 • DRAFT STRUCTURES PS&E
t
PRIME
I<E_SI'
TOTAL TASK NO 6 HOURS
TASK NO. 7 • FINAL STRUCTURES PS&E
TOTAL TASK NO. 7 HOURS
TASK NO. 8 • FINAL DESIGN 100% PS&E
8. 1
Final Plans
(IItS
8.2
Final Special Provisions
• URS
8.3
Final Cost Estimate
URS
TOTAL TASK NO. 8 HOU RS
TASK NO. 9 - B ID DING ASSISTANCE
9.1
Bid Package Assembly
ORS
9.2
Pre -Award Bid Questions
URS
9.3
Bid Evaluation
URS
9.4
Bidding Addenda
URS
TOTAL TASK NO. 9 HOURS
TASK NO . 10 - CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVIC
10. 1
Pre -Construction Meeting
URS
10. 2
Site Review
URS
10.3
Shop Drawing/Product Submittals
URS
10.4
Review RFIs
URS
10. 5
As -Built Plans
URS
Milestone Management
URS
TOTAL TASK NO. 10 HOURS
'TOTAL HOURS SOUND WAIL NO 38
URS - CIVIUHIGHWAY/PROJ MANA GEMENT
T TECH' PMli SPL PE l ENGR CAD�ADMIN
PROJ
CLER
SUB
T OTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
15
27
30
0
0
76
N 0
1
4
0
0
0
2
7
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
6
19I
301
30
0
21
87
0
2
4
10
0
0
0
4
18
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
121
10
0J
o[
' 0
4
34J
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
4
16'
0
0
0
0
24
4
8
24
0
0
0
0
36
0
10
6
0
10
34
0
0
50
10
0
0
0
4
0
24
18
40 40 10 34 1
41
0
146 J
58
128 1 1881 202 T 186 1. 12 1 20 1 794 J
sw36111
•
ill 11/20/00
•
AGENDA ITEM 7
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Approve Caltrans Cooperative Agreement for the Final PS&E
Design of the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project from Tyler Street to
Jane Street
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to;
1)
Recommend the approval of Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans for
RCTC to provide the final PS&E Design for the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane
Project from Tyler Street to Jane Street in the City of Riverside;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
the Cooperative Agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In June of 1998, the Commission awarded a Contact for the Final PS&E Design for the
Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project from Tyler Street to Monroe Street in the City of
Riverside. This project also included the design for the remaining Phase II Sound Walls
along Route 91, required for the mitigation of RCTC's previously constructed Route
91 HOV Median Widening Project from Magnolia Avenue to Mary Street in the City of
Riverside. The design and construction costs for the project were estimated to be $16
million. The Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project was initially to be totally funded by RCTC
Measure A funds. Currently, this project will be funded using Caltrans State Highway
Operations and Projection Program (SHOPP) funds and $3.345 million of Regional
Improvement Program funds (reference Commission agenda Item 9 of the November
8, 2000 Commission meeting).
000067
RCTC has now completed the design of all Sound Walls along Route 91, except one,
and has completed construction of all Sound Walls along Route 91, except the one
to be designed and three currently under construction. At the same time the final PS&E
Design for the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project has proceeded and has been delivered
to Caltrans for final comments.
The construction cost for the auxiliary lane project is currently estimated to be
approximately $21.5 million. Caltrans has secured $18.5. million from, the SHOPP
Program. This SHOPP funding along with the previouslyreprogrammed $3:345 million
of RIP funding will totally fund the project.
Attached, for approval, is the Cooperative Agreement between the State and RCTC
for the final PS&E Design for the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. The Cooperative
Agreement outlines the responsibilities of each party. RCTC is responsible for all costs
associated with the design of the project and design construction support. Per a
subsequent agreement, Caltrans will be responsible for all construction costs for the
project.
The design costs have already been approved as part of previous Commission actions
and were part of the approved budget.
Attachments
000068
•
•
•
•
•
08-Riv-91-KP 11.91/34.76
(PM 7.4/21.6)
from 15/91 Interchange to
60/91/215 Interchange
Construct Auxiliary Lanes and
Install CCTV, VDS and RMS
Systems
08303 — 4353U0
District Agreement No.- 8-1132
DESIGN
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT, entered into , is between the STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as
STATE, and
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to herein as
COMMISSION.
RECITALS
(1) STATE and COMMISSION, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 130, are
authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State highways
within city of Riverside.
12) STATE and COMMISSION desire State highway improvements consisting of the
construction of Auxiliary Lanes and the installation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV),
Video Detection System (VDS), and Ramp Meter System (RMS), on Route 91 between
15/91 Interchange and 60/91/215 Interchange, referred to herein as "PROJECT", and
COMMISSION is willing to fund one hundred percent (100%) of all capital outlay and
staffing costs for the design of the auxiliary lanes, and STATE is willing to perform and
fund one hundred percent (100%) of the design of the CCTV, VDS and RMS. STATE
will also provide oversight for the design of the auxiliary lanes and environmental at
STATE expense.
(3) This Agreement supersedes any prior Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to
PROJECT.
(4) Construction of said PROJECT will be the subject of a separate future Agreement.
(5) STATE will Advertise, Award, and Administer the construction of PROJECT.
000063
District Agreement No. 8-1132
(6) The parties hereto intend to define herein the terms and conditions under which PROJECT
is to be developed, designed, and financed.
SECTION I
COMMISSION AGREES:
(1) To fund one hundred percent (100%) of all preliminary and design engineering costs for
the auxiliary lanes.
(2) To have a Project Report (PR), including all necessary Environmental Documentation
(ED), and detailed Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for auxiliary lanes,
prepared at no cost to STATE and to submit each to STATE for review and approval at
appropriate stages of development. Project Report, final plans and standard special
provisions shall be signed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California.
(3) To permit STATE to monitor and participate in the selection of personnel who will
prepare the PR, conduct environmental studies and obtain PROJECT approval, prepare the
PS&E for the auxiliary lanes. provide the right of way engineering services, and perform
right of way activities, if necessary. COMMISSION agrees to consider any request by
STATE to discontinue the services of any personnel considered by STATE to be
unqualified on the basis of credentials, professional expertise, failure to perform in
accordance with scope of work and/or other pertinent criteria.
Personnel who prepare the PS&E and right of way maps shall be available to STATE, at
no cost to STATE, through completion of construction of PROJECT to discuss problems
which may arise during construction and/or to make design revisions for contract change
orders.
(1)
t5 i To make written application to STATE for necessary Encroachment Permits authorizing
entry onto STATE's right of way to perform surveying and other investigative activities
required for preparation of the PR, ED and/or PS&E.
(6) To identify and locate all utility facilities within the PROJECT area as part of its
PROJECT design responsibility. All utility facilities not relocated or removed in advance
of construction shall be identified on the PROJECT plans and specifications.
2
000070
•
•
•
•
1
•
District Agreement No. 8-1132
(7) To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities within the PROJECT
area and to protect or otherwise provide for such facilities, all in accordance with
STATE's "Manual on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights
of Way." COMMISSION hereby acknowledges receipt of STATE's "Manual on High
and Low Risk Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of Way."
(8) If any existing public and/or private utility facilities conflict with PROJECT construction
or violate STATE's encroachment policy, COMMISSION shall make all necessary
arrangements with the owners of such facilities for their protection, relocation or removal
in accordance with STATE policy and procedure for those facilities located within the
limits of work providing for the improvement to the State highway and in accordance with
COMMISSION policy for those facilities located outside of the limits of work for the
State highway. Total costs of such protection, relocation or removal shall be in
accordance with STATE policy and procedure.
(9) To furnish evidence to STATE, in a form acceptable to STATE, that arrangements have
been made for the protection, relocation, or removal of all conflicting facilities within
STATE's right of way and that such work will be completed prior to the award of the
contract to construct PROJECT or as covered in the Special Provisions for said contract.
This evidence shall include a reference to all required State highway encroachment
permits.
(10) COMMISSION shall require the utility owner and/or its contractors performing the
relocation work within STATE's right of way to obtain a STATE encroachment permit
prior to the performance of said relocation work.
( 1 1) To perform all right of wav activities, if required, including all eminent domain activities,
if necessary, at no cost to STATE, in accordance with procedures acceptable to STATE,
and in compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations, subject to
STATE oversight to insure that the completed work is acceptable for incorporation into
the State highway right of way.
(12) To utilize the services of a qualified public agency in all right of way acquisition related
matters in accordance with STATE procedures as contained in Right of Way Procedural
Handbook, Volume 9. Whenever personnel other than personnel of a qualified public
agency are utilized, administration of the personnel contract shall be performed by a
qualified Right of Way person employed or retained by COMMISSION.
3
000071
District Agreement No. 8-1132
(13) To certify legal and physical control of right of way ready for construction and that all
right of way were acquired in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and
regulations subject to review and concurrence by STATE prior to the advertisement for
bids for construction of PROJECT.
(14) To deliver to STATE legal title to the right of way, including access rights, free and clear
of all encumbrances detrimental to STATE's present and future uses not later than the date
of acceptance by STATE of maintenance and operation of the highway facility.
Acceptance of said title by STATE is subject to a review of a Policy of Title Insurance in
STATE's name -to be provided and paid for by COMMISSION.
(15) To be responsible, at COMMISSION expense, for the investigation of potential hazardous
waste sites within and outside of the existing State highway right of way that would impact
PROJECT.
(16) To be responsible, at no cost to STATE, for remediation of hazardous waste found on
existing or proposed State highway right of way to be acquired for PROJECT.
(17) COMMISSION shall provide all plans prepared by COMMISSION or COMMISSION's
consultant on either 4 or 8 millimeter magnetic tape using Micro Station Release 5.0 .dgn
and/or Micro Station SE V05.07 Rev. 22 files in UNIX TAR or CPIO format. or 1S0
9660 Standard CD ROM format or Auto CAD Version 13. One copy of the data on the
magnetic tape, including the Engineer's electronic signature and seal, shall be provided to
STATE upon completion of the final PS&E for PROJECT. STATE reserves the right to
modify the magnetic tape requirements and STATE shall provide COMMISSION advance
notice of any such modifications. Reimbursement to STATE for costs incurred by STATE
to Advertise, Award, and Administer the construction contract for PROJECT will be
covered in a separate Cooperative Agreement referred to in Section III, Article (9), of this
Agreement.
SECTION II
STATE AGREES:
(1 ) To provide, at no cost to COMMISSION, oversight of the PR, ED and auxiliary lane
PS&E, and to provide prompt reviews and approvals, as appropriate, of submittals by
COMMISSION, and to cooperate in timely processing of PROJECT.
4
OOOO7
District Agreement No. 8-1132
•
(2) To provide, at no cost to COMMISSION, oversight of all right of way activities, if
required, undertaken by COMMISSION, or its designee, pursuant to this Agreement.
(3) To issue, at no cost to COMMISSION, upon proper application by COMMISSION, an
Encroachment Permit to COMMISSION authorizing entry onto STATE's right of way to
perform survey and other investigative activities required for preparation of the PR, ED
and/or PS&E. If COMMISSION uses consultants rather than its own staff to perform
required work, the consultants will also be required to obtain an Encroachment Permit.
The permit will be issued at no cost upon proper application by the consultants.
(4) To perform, at no cost to COMMISSION, the preliminary and design engineering for the.
CCTV, VDS and RMS for PROJECT.
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
SECTION III
(1) All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the
appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the allocation of resources by the
California Transportation Commission.
• (2) Should any portion of PROJECT be financed with Federal funds or State gas tax funds, all
applicable laws, rules and policies relating to the use of such funds shall apply
notwithstanding other provisions of this Agreement.
•
(3) The parties hereto will carry out PROJECT in accordance with the Scope of Work,
attached and made a part of this Agreement, which outlines the specific responsibilities of
the parties hereto. The attached Scope of Work may in the future be modified in writing
to reflect changes in the responsibilities of the respective parties. Such modifications shall.
be concurred with by COMMISSION's Chairman and/or Executive Director or other
official designated by COMMISSION and STATE's District Director for District 8 and
become a part of this Agreement after execution by the respective officials of the parties.
(4) The Project Study Report (PSR) for the auxiliary lanes was approved on January 12,
2000, and the Project Study Report/Project Report (PSR/PR) for the CCTV, VDS and
RMS approved on June 23, 1998, by this reference, shall become part of this Agreement.
(5) The basic design features (as defined in Attachment 3 of the Scope of Work for
PROJECT) shall comply with those addressed in the approved PSR, unless modified as
required for environmental clearance and/or FHWA approval of PROJECT.
5
0000'
District Agreement No. 8-1132
(6) The design, right of way acquisition, and preparation of environmental documents for
PROJECT shall be performed in accordance with STATE standards and practices current
as of the date of execution of this Agreement. Any exceptions to applicable design
standards shall be approved by STATE via the processes outlined in STATE's Highway
Design Manual and appropriate memorandums and design bulletins published by STATE.
In the event that STATE proposes and/or requires a change in design standards,
implementation of new or revised design standards shall be done in accordance with
STATE's memorandum "Effective Date for Implementing Revisions to Design
Standards", dated February 8, 1991. STATE shall -consult with COMMISSION in a
timely manner regarding effect of proposed and/or required changes on PROJECT.
(7) COMMISSION's share of all changes in development costs associated with modifications
to the basic design features as described above shall be in same proportion as described in
this Agreement, unless mutually agreed by STATE and COMMISSION in a subsequent
amendment to this Agreement.
(8) Any hazardous material or contamination found within the area of PROJECT requiring
remedy or remedial action. as defined in Division 20, Chapter 6.8 et seq. of the Health
and Safety Code, or any cultural, paleontological, anthropological, or other protected
resource requiring protection shall be the responsibility of COMMISSION, at
COMMISSION's expense as part of the cost of PROJECT. Locations subject to remedy
or remedial action and/or protection include utility relocation work required for
PROJECT. Costs for remedy and remedial action and/or protection shall include, but not
be limited to, the identification, treatment, removal. packaging, transportation, storage,
and disposal of such material.
(9) COMMISSION shall be responsible, at COMMISSION's expense, for the development of
the necessary remedy and/or remedial action plans and designs. Remedial actions
proposed by COMMISSION shall be preapproved by STATE and shall be performed in
accordance with STATE's standards and practices and those standards mandated by the
Federal and State regulatory agencies.
(10) A separate•Cooperative Agreement will be required to cover responsibilities and funding
for the PROJECT construction phase.
(11) Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to
or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either
party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance
of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law.
6
00007,1
•
•
•
District Agreement No. 8-1132
(12) Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or
liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COMMISSION
under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
COMMISSION under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.4, COMMISSION shall fully defend, indemnify and save
harmless the State of California, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or
actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as
defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done -or ,
omitted to be done by COMMISSION under or in connection with any work, authority or
jurisdiction delegated to COMMISSION under this Agreement.
(13) Neither COMMISSION nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage
or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under
or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this
Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section
895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless COMMISSION from all
claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of
injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything
done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or
jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement.
(14) This Agreement may be terminated or provisions contained herein may be altered,
changed, or amended by mutual consent of the parties hereto.
1 ) Except as otherwise provided in Article (14) above, this Agreement shall terminate upon
completion and acceptance of the construction contract for PROJECT, or on January 30,
2005, whichever is earlier in time.
7
000075
District Agreement No. 8-1132
STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION •
JEFF MORALES
Director of Transportation
By:
S. LISIEWICZ
District Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
PROCEDURE:
Attorney, Department of Transportation
By:
TOM MULLEN, Chairman
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED
FOR APPROVAL:
By:
ERIC HALEY
Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: PROCEDURE:
District Budge: Manager
CERTIFIED AS TO PROCEDURE:
Accounting Administrator
8
By:
Steven C. DeBaun
Best, Best & Krieger
Commission Counsel
000076
District Agreement No. 8-1132
•
SCOPE OF WORK
This Scope of Work outlines the specific areas of responsibility for various project development
activities for the proposed State highway improvements consisting of the construction of
Auxiliary Lanes and the installation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), Video Detection
System (VDS), and Ramp Meter System (RMS), on Route 91 between 15/91 Interchange and
60/91/215 Interchange
1. STATE will be the Lead Agency and COMMISSION will be a Responsible Agency for
CEQA. COMMISSION will prepare the Environmental Document (ED) to meet the
requirements of CEQA and NEPA. The draft and final ED will require STATE review
and approval prior to public circulation. COMMISSION will provide all data for and
prepare drafts of the Project Report (PR) and Project Approval Report (PAR). STATE
will review and process the reports and request approval of the PROJECT and ED by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). COMMISSION will be responsible for the
public hearing process.
COMMISSION will provide the necessary environmental clearance for this project.
COMMISSION will perform all studies to document the Categorical
Exemption/Categorical Exclusion (CE/CE) determination. STATE will sign the CE/CE
determination sheet. If, during preliminary engineering or preparation of the PS&E, new
information is obtained which requires the preparation of an environmental clearance
document, this Agreement will be amended to include completion of these additional tasks
by COMMISSION.
�. COMMISSION and STATE concur that the proposal is a Category 5 as defined in
STATE's Project Development Procedures Manual.
3. COMMISSION will submit drafts of environmental technical reports and individual
sections of the draft environmental documents to STATE, as they are developed, for
review and comment. Traffic counts and projections to be used in the various reports
shall be supplied by STATE if available, or by the COMMISSION. Existing traffic data
shall be furnished by COMMISSION.
4. STATE will review, monitor, and approve all project development reports, studies, and
plans, and provide all necessary implementation activities up to, but not including,
advertising of PROJECT.
5. The existing freeway agreement need not be revised.
9
00007',
District Agreement No. 8-1132
6. All phases of the PROJECT, from inception through construction, whether done by
COMMISSION or STATE, will be developed in accordance with all policies, procedures,
practices. and standards that STATE would normally follow.
7. Detailed steps in the project development process are attached to this Scope of Work.
These attachments are intended as a guide to STATE and COMMISSION staff.
10
000073
•
•
•
District Agreement No. 8-1132
•
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING PHASE ACTIVITIES
RESPONSIBILITY
PROJECT ACTIVITY STATE COMMISSION
1. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS & DOCUMENT PREPARATION
Establish Project Development Team (PDT) X
Approve PDT X
Project Category Determination X
Prepare Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Identify Preliminary Alternatives and Costs
Prepare and Submit Environmental Studies and Reports
Review and Approve Environmental Studies and Reports X
Prepare and Submit Draft Environmental Document (DED)
Review DED in District X
110
PROJECT GEOMETRICS DEVELOPMENT
Prepare Existing Traffic Analysis
Prepare Future Traffic Volumes for Alternatives
Prepare Project Geometrics and Profiles
Prepare Layouts and Estimates for Alternatives
Prepare Operational Analysis for Alternatives
Review and Approve Project Geometrics and
Operational Analysis
3. PROJECT APPROVAL
Lead Agency for Environment Compliance Certifies
ED- in Accordance with its Procedures
Prepare Draft Project Report (DPR)
Finalize and Submit Project Report with Certified ED
ED for Approval
Approve Project Report
•
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0000 )
District Agreement No. 8-1132
ATTACHMENT 2
DESIGN PHASE ACTIVITIES
RESPONSIBILITY
PROJECT ACTIVITY STATE COMMISSION
1. PRELIMINARY COORDINATION
Request 1 - Phase EA
Field Review of Site
Provide Geometrics
Approve Geometrics
Obtain Surveys & Aerial Mapping
Obtain Copies of Assessor Maps and other R/W Maps
Obtain Copies of As-Builts
Send Approved Geometrics to Local Agencies for Review X
Revise Approved Geometrics if Required
Approve Final Geometrics
Determine Need for Permits from other Agencies
Request Permits
Initial Hydraulics discussion with District Staff
Initial Electrical Design discussion with District Staff
Initial Traffic & Signing discussion with District Staff
Initial Landscape Design discussion with District Staff
Plan Shezit Format Discussion
X
X
X
X
ENGINEERING STUDIES AND REPORTS
Prepare & Submit Materials Report & Typical Section
Review and Approve Materials Report & Typical Section X
Prepare & Submit Landscaping Recommendation
Review & Approve Landscaping Recommendation X
Prepare & Submit Hydraulic Design Studies
Review & Approve Hydraulic Design Studies X
Prepare & Submit Bridge General Plan & Structure
Type Selection
Review & Approve Bridge General Plan & Structure Type X
12
•
•
000030 •
District Agreement No. 8-1132
RESPONSIBILITY
40,ROJECT ACTIVITY STATE COMMISSION
3. R/W ACQUISITION & UTILITIES
Request Utility Verification X
Request Preliminary Utility Relocation Plans from Utilities X
Prepare R/W Requirements X
Prepare R/W and Utility Relocation Cost Estimates X
Submit R/W Requirements & Utility Relocation Plans for Review X
Review and Comment on R/W Requirements X
Longitudinal Encroachment Review X
Longitudinal Encroachment Application to District X
Approve Longitudinal Encroachment Application X
Request Final Utility Relocation Plans X
Check Utility Relocation Plans X
Submit Utility Relocation Plans for Approval X
Approve Utility Reiccation Plans X
Submit Final R/W Requirements for Review & Approval X
Fence and Excess Land Review X
R/W Layout Review X
Approve R/W Requirements X
Obtain Title Reports X
• Complete Appraisals X
Review and Approve Appraisals for Setting Just Compensation X
Prepare Acquisition Documents X
Acquire R/W X
Open escrows and Make Payments X
Obtain Resolution of Necessity X
Perform Eminent Domain Proceedings X
Provide Displacee Relocation Services X
Prepare Reiccation Payment Valuations X
Provide Dispiacee Relocation Payments X
Perform Property Management Activities X
Perform R/W' Clearance Activities X
Prepare and Submit Certification of R/W X
Review and Approve Certification of R/W X
Transfer RJW to STATE
Approve and Record Title Transfer Documents X
Prepare R'W Record Maps X
•
13
000081.
District Agreement No. 8-1132
RESPONSIBILITY
PROJECT ACTIVITY STATE COMMISSION
4. PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES
Prepare and Submit Preliminary Stage Construction Plans
Review Preliminary Stage Construction Plans
Calculate and Plot Geometries
Cross -Sections & Earthwork Quantities Calculation
Prepare and Submit BEES Estimate
Put Estimate in BEES
Local Review of Preliminary Drainage Plans and Sanitary
Sewer and Adjustment Details
Prepare & Submit Preliminary Drainage Plans
Review Preliminary Drainage Plans X
Prepare Traffic Striping and Roadside Delineation Plans
and Submit for Review
Review Traffic Striping and Roadside Delineation Plans X
Prepare & Submit Landscaping and/or Erosion Control Plans
Review Landscaping and/or Erosion Control Plans X
Prepare & Submit Preliminary Electrical Plans (Aux Lanes)
Review Preliminary Electrical Plans (Aux Lanes) X
Prepare & Submit Preliminary Signing Plans
Prepare CCTV, VDS and RMS Plans X
Review Preliminary Signing Plans
Quantity Calculations
Safety Review
Prepare Specifications
Prepare & Submit Checked Structure Plans
Review & Approve Checked Structure Plans
Prepare .Final Contract Plans
Prepare J nne Closure Requirements
Review and Approve Lane Closure Requirements
Prepare & Submit Striping Plan
Review & Approve Striping Plan
Prepare Final Estimate
Prepare & Submit Draft PS&E
Review Draft PS&E
Finalize & Submit PS&E to District
14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
000082
•
District Agreement No. 8-1132
ATTACHMENT 3
•
•
•
Basic Design Features:
DEFINITIONS
1. The desirable minimum design speed for a limited access freeway like Route 91 is 130 kph.
The posted speed limit is 105 kph. However, due to stopping sight distance restrictions the
implied design speed for this location ranges from 84 kph to 92 kph.
2. Between Magnolia Avenue and Mary Street, SR -91 is an eight -lane, controlled access freeway
facility, three mixed -flow lanes plus a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction.
There is an existing auxiliary lane, eastbound between Tyler Street and Van Buren
Boulevard.
3. The width of the existing mixed -flow lane and HOV lane is 3.35 with a 0.61 m inside
shoulder width. The width of the outside shoulder is 2.44 m.
4. Proposed improvements for this project includes:
a. Add a 3.6 -meter auxiliary lane and standard outside shoulder at westbound 91 from Van
Buren Boulevard to Tyler Street, from Adams Street to Van Buren Boulevard, and from
Madison Street to Adams Street.
b. Add a 3.6 -meter auxiliary lane and standard outside shoulder at eastbound 91 from Van
Buren Boulevard to Adams Street and from Madison Street to Jane Street.
c. Install CCTV, VDS and RMS.
5. Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards:
a. Design Speed
b. Stopping Sight Distance
Maximum Grade
d. Paved Left Shoulder Width
e. Ramp I ane Width
Ramp Right Shoulder Width
g. Deceleration Length at Exit Ramp
15
000083
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
O'733
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 6, 464 W. 4th STREET, 601 FLOOR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400
November 16, 2000
Mr. Eric Haley
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Mr. Eric Haley:
Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project -Hazardous Materials Responsibility
Under the terms of the Design Cooperative Agreement for the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane project,
RCTC is responsible for the identification and remediation of hazardous materials within the
project area. The intent of this clause in the agreement is to identify hazardous materials that
need to be remediated prior to the award of the construction contract. Since the construction is
now being funded with state funds, instead of Measure funds as originally proposed, the State
will assume responsibility for hazardous material remediation during the construction stage.
In summary, Caltrans acknowledges that the Commission has properly carried out its
responsibilities for the identification of hazardous material under Section 1 Paragraph 15 of
District Agreement No. 8-1132. No hazardous materials were located by the Commission during
the phase of the project covered by the agreement and therefore, Caltrans agrees that the
Commission will have no further responsibility or liability under the District Agreement No. 8-
1132 for identification, remediation or liability related to hazardous materials which may be
located within the area of the Project as defined m District Agree ment No. 8-1132.
Please contact me at (909) 388-7149 if you wish to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
GARRY COHOE
Division Chief
Program/Project Management
c: HSueita - RCTC
BHughes - RCTC
SLisiewicz
SBavati
BStokes
('c laf
N -t Dm SuG,t roa✓
Lim 'jL JS
•
•
000084
AGENDA ITEM 8
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Erik Galloway, Bechtel Resident Engineer
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Authorization to Bid Landscape Construction Package for Sound
Walls No. 110, 121, and 161
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids for landscaping of
Sound Walls No. 110, 121, and 161 on Route 91 from Jackson Street
to Jefferson Street in the City of Riverside; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its July 12 meeting, the Commission awarded the construction of Sound Walls No.
110, 121, and 161 on Route 91 from Jackson Street to Jefferson Street in the City
of Riverside. The project is currently scheduled to be completed approximately by mid
April 2001.
The Sound Wall Landscaping Plans and Specifications were completed along with.the
Sound Wall Plans, but were not bid with the Sound Walls. Since different contractor
trades are required for the construction and the landscaping construction efforts, the
Commission has been able to obtain lower bids by bidding the projects separately.
The City of Riverside has requested that landscaping be installed as soon as the
construction of an individual Sound Wall is completed. To comply with the City of
Riverside's request, the landscaping is scheduled to be installed at the completion of
each sound wall and not be delayed until all three (3) sound walls are constructed.
Therefore, staff is requesting authorization from the Committee to advertise for
Construction Bids for Landscaping around Sound Walls No. 110, 121, and 161 on SR
91. The construction cost for Sound Walls No. 110, 121, and 161 Landscaping is
estimated to be approximately $200,000 to $225,000.
00008.=
SCHEDULE
The schedule for the bid process is as follows:
Calendar of Events
Advertise Request for Bids
December 18, 2000
Pre -Bid Meeting
January 2, 2001
Request for Bids Deadline
January 11, 2001
Evaluate the Bids and make Recommendation to
the Budget and Implementation Committee
January 22, 2001
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000-01 Amount: $200,000 to $225,000 Budgeted
Source of Funds: Measure "A"
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Budget Adjustment: N
Date: 11-20-00
000086
AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Brian Cundelan, Bechtel Project Coordinator
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Authorization to Bid Vegetation Removal Construction Package for
State Route 74 Realignment
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids to remove vegetation
along State Route 74; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The State Route 74 Realignment project is a Measure "A" project from Dexter
Avenue in Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris. The project will be
constructed in two segments. Segment 1 is from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to
approximately 1 ,640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road. Segment 2 is from
approximately 1 ,640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of
Perris. Segment 1 will be constructed first. -
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in their Biological Opinion for the project, required
that gnatcatcher habitat within the proposed right-of-way be removed outside of the
gnatcathcer breeding season (March 15 to August 31) to avoid disruption of its
breeding and nesting activities. Vegetation removal will consist of cutting vegetation
flush with the ground surface. The equipment used will most likely be chain saws and
weed -whackers. The work must be completed by March 14, 2001. Based on
environmental requirements, property must be acquired to remove vegetation. The
Commission approved appraisals and acquisition of the properties on November 8,
2000. Offers were mailed to property owners on November 10, 2000. In order to
provide time for advertising, bid submittal and review, and construction, the
Commission must approve this action at their December 1 3, 2000 meeting.
000087
A December Commission agenda item, not on the Committee November 27, 2000
agenda, will allow eminent domain action on properties which do not conclude
negotiations by December 13, 2000. If the eminent domain action is not approved
by the Commission, this agenda item would be halted, since work cannot be initiated
without acquisition of the properties.
SCHEDULE
The schedule for the bid process is as follows:
Calendar of Events
Advertise Request for Bids
December 14, 2000
Pre -Bid Meeting
December 20, 2000
Request for Bids Deadline
December 29, 2000
Evaluate the Bids and Submit to the Commission
for Approval to Award Contract
January 10, 2001
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000-01 Amount: $80,000
Source of Funds: Measure "A"
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Budget Adjustment: N
Date: 11-20-00
000088
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 10
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Approve Caltrans' Program Supplemental Agreements No. M006
for the Pedley Metrolink Station CCTV system and M007 for the
Santa Fe Depot Restoration Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Approve Caltrans' Program Supplement No's. M006 for the Construction
of Security Enhancements for the Pedley Station and M007 for the Santa
Fe Depot Restoration Project to Agency -State Agreement No. 08-6054;
and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Program Supplemental Agreements are required so that RCTC can be reimbursed
for the expenditures of Commission funds on the federally funded projects described
below. The Program Supplemental Agreements are attached for your review and
approval.
Pedley Station:
RCTC's existing Metrolink stations: Riverside -Downtown, Riverside -La Sierra and
West Corona, have been or are being modified with the installation of a Close Circuit
Television System(CCTV). This system will monitor the stations and transmit the
images to a main terminal in the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. By centralizing
the system, RCTC will be able to reduce the time spent by uniformed security at the
various Metrolink Stations in the evening hours after the passengers have returned.
The Pedley Metrolink Station is the only station that does not have a CCTV system
designed for it.
000089
At the December 1999 RCTC meeting, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-
9952 to PB Farradyne, Inc., for the Phase I Communications Study, for the proposed
new CCTV System at the Pedley Metrolink Station, for a total not to exceed contract
amount of $ 17,000. The source of funds for this project are from CMAQ Funds.
Santa Fe Depot:
On November 3, 1997, RCTC purchased the historic Santa Fe Depot located at
Mission Inn Avenue and Vine Street in Downtown Riverside. The depot was to be
included as part of the expansion of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station.; It was
envisioned that the depot could partially be used as crew quarters for the SCRRA train
crews. The depot has not been in use or occupied in the recent past and has sustained
substantial damage due to the elements and vandalism. Prior to occupancy, the depot
would require retrofitting to present seismic standards and rehabilitation including
replacing windows, doors, electrical system, and plumbing, and repairing the interior
and exterior walls, ceiling, and floor.
At its November 12, 1998 meeting, the Commission approved discretionary STP funds
to support the Santa Fe Depot restoration. Staff was directed to prepare and advertise
a Request for Proposal (RFP) for engineering services for the interim rehabilitation of
the Historic Santa Fe Depot. The engineering work includes design for rehabilitation
and seismic retrofit, and preparation of cost estimates and specifications for
construction.
At the April 12, 2000 RCTC meeting, the Commission awarded contract No. RO-2029
to Milford Wayne Donaldson Architect for a total contract not to exceed amount of
$150,000. This amount includes funds to support the Section 106 studies that may
be required to modify a potentially historic structure. The source of funds for this
project are from TEA21 STP.
000090
•
PRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. X006
to
ADlraNISTERINc AGENCY -STATE AGREEMENT
FOR FEDERAL -AID PROJECTS NO. 08-6054
Data:September 15,3000
Locations 08-RN-O-RCTC
Pro j eat Numbers X6054(024)
E.A. Number:08-924547
gram Supplement is hereby incorporated into the Agency -State Agreement for Federal Aid which was entered into between
ency and the State on 06/03/97 and is subject to all the terms and conditions thereof This Program
accordance with Article I of the aforementioned Master Agreement under authority of Resolution No. 9 Supplement OC is in
approved by the Agency on l
'�j � � 3 lei 1 (See copy attached).
The Agency further stipulates that as a condition to payment of funds obligated to this project, it accepts and will comply with the
covenants or remarks setforth on the following pages.
PROJECT LOCATION:
1N WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AT PEDLEY STATION
TYPE OF WORK: CONSTRUCT SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION OR PHASE (S) OF WORK LENGTH: p(MILES)
[X] Preliminary Engineering
[ J Constriction Engineering
Estimated Cost
$112,957.00
[ J Right -Of --Way [ J Construction
Federal Funds
Q40 S100,000.00 LOCAL
R` IDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CODibiISSION
By
Date
Attest
Title
I hereby certify upon my personal !marl dge that A �n budgeted toads are available for /I this .*. -..+. raace:
Accounting Office
512,957.00
Matching Funds
50.00
OTHER
S0.00
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
By
Chapter
52
•
2000 2660-101-890 2000-2001
Chief, Office of Local Programs
Project Implementation
Date
892-F
0.010.820 C 262040
Program supplement 08-6054-M006- ISTEA
//Id
5100,000.00
mosmT
100,000.00
Page 1 of 2
000091
08-r3V-0-RCTC
CML-6054(024)
09/15/2000
SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
1. All maintenance, involving the physical condition and the
operation of the improvements, referred to in Article III
MAINTENANCE of the aforementioned Master Agreement will be the
responsibility of the Local Agency and shall be performed at
regular intervals or as required for efficient operation -of the.
completed improvements.
'2. The Local Agency will reimburse the State for their share of
costs for work requested to be performed by the State.
3. The Local Agency agrees the payment of Federal funds will be
limited to the amounts approved by the Federal Highway
Administration in the Federal -Aid Project Agreement (PR-2)/Detail
Estimate, or its modification (PR -2A) or the FNM-76, and accepts
any increases in Local Agency Funds as shown on the Finance or
Bid Letter or its modification as prepared by the Office of Local
Programs Project implementation.
4. This Program Supplement will be revised at a later date to
include other phases of work.
5. The Local Agency will advertise, award and administer this
project in accordance with the current Local Assistance
Procedures Manual.
000092
•
•
Program Supplement 08-6054-M006- ISTEA Page 2 of 2
PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. M007
to
NISTERING AGENCY -STATE AGREEMENT
'MI
R FEDERAL -AID PROJECTS NO. 08-6054
Date :November 06, 2000
Location : 08-RIV-0-RCTC
Project Number: STPL-6054(023)
E.A. Number: 08-924546
This Program Supplement is hereby incorporated into the Agency -State Agreement for Federal Aid which was entered into between
the Agency and the State on 06/03/97 and is subject to all the terms and conditions thereof. This Program Supplement is adopted in
accordance with Article I of the aforementioned Master Agreement under authority of Resolution No.
approved by the Agency on (See copy attached).
The Agency further stipulates that as a condition to payment of funds obligated to this project, it accepts and will comply with -the'
covenants or remarks setforth on the following pages.
PROJECT LOCATION:
IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AT THE SANTA FE DEPOT
TYPE OF WORE: REHAB/REpAIRDEPOT
LENGTH: 0(MILES)
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION OR PHASE(S) OF WORK
[X] Preliminary Engineering
[ ] Construction Engineering
Estimated Cost
•
3135,548.00
[ ] Right -Of -Way [ ] Construction
Federal Funds
Q23 $120,000.00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By
Date
Attest
Title
LOCAL
$15,548.00
Matching Funds
OTHER
$0.00
$0.00
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
By
Chief, Office of Local Programs
Project Implementation
Date
hereby certify upon my •ersonal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance:
Accounting Off •er
Chapter
Statutes
Item
��,, //. • o o
Date
Year
Program
BC
Category
•
Fund Source
$120,000.00
AMOUNT
2000 2660-101-890 2000-2001 20.30.010.810 C 262040 892-F 120,000.00
000093
Program Supplement 08-6054-M007- ISTEA Page 1 of 2
08-RIV-0-RCTC
11/06/2000
STPL-6054(023)
SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
1. The Local Agency agrees the payment of Federal funds will be
limited to the amounts approved by the Federal Highway
Administration in the Federal -Aid Project Agreement (PR-2)/Detail
Estimate, or its modification (PR -2A) or the FNM-76, and accepts
any increases in Local Agency Funds as shown on the Finance or
Bid Letter or its modification as prepared by the Office of Local
Programs Project Implementation.
2. The Local Agency will advertise, award and administer this
project in accordance with the current Local Assistance
Procedures Manual.
3. All maintenance, involving the physical condition and the
operation of the improvements, referred to in Article III
MAINTENANCE of the aforementioned Master Agreement will be the
responsibility of the Local Agency and shall be performed at
regular intervals or as required for efficient operation of the
completed improvements.
4. This Program Supplement will be revised at a later date to
include other phases of work.
5. The Local Agency will reimburse the State for their share of
costs for work requested to be performed by the State.
•
000091 .
Program Supplement08-6054-M007- ISTEA Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM 11
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2027 for the Proposed New
Metrolink Commuter Rail Station in Downtown Corona near Main
Street and Route 91.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Concur with the station concept and staging plan for the proposed new
Metrolink Commuter Rail Station in Downtown Corona near Main Street
and Route 91;
2) Recommend the approval of Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2027 to
Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM) t� provide final Plans,
Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Design Services, and environmental
clearance for the proposed new Metrolink Commuter Rail Station, for a
base amount of $625,000, with an extra work contingency of $75,000,
for a total not to exceed Contract value of $700,000;
3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
the Contract on behalf of the Commission; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the November 10, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission awarded Contract
No. RO-2027 to Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM) for Phase I Conceptual
Studies for the proposed new Metrolink Station to be located in Downtown Corona
near Main Street and Route 91. The scope of the Phase I Studies was to encompass
all the preliminary activities to develop a master plan for development of the station,
including the resolution of the following project specific issues:
1. Rail Access
2. Vehicle Access
000095
3. Pedestrian Access
4. Parking configuration
5. Right of Way Issues
For the past year, DMJM has been working cooperatively with RCTC, Caltrans,
BN&SF, SCRRA, and the City of Corona, in the development of a master plan for the
new station.
The initial concept for the Corona Main Metrolink Station followed the
recommendations given in the "Tier II Study" prepared for and approved by the
Commission in April of 1999. That concept proposed to have the Station generally
located between Main St. on the West, Joy St. on the East, Grand Ave. on the South,
and Blain St. on the North. The proposed site was split into two segments by the
existing BN&SF tracks, with the Southerly segment consisting of approximately 2
acres and the Northerly segment consisting of approximately 4.50 acres. It was
assumed that the initial concept would accommodate approximately 425 cars on the
north and approximately 175 cars on the south. The station would have a loading
platform on each side and a pedestrian overcrossing for safe access to each side. At
the time of the "Tier II Study" both parcels were privately owned but the City of
Corona was actively pursuing acquisition of the property for redevelopment.
Subsequent to the "Tier II Study," a "Phase I Commuter Rail Parking Study" was
started and is currently in the process of development. Staff has reviewed a draft of
that study. This new "Parking Study" has projected a need for approximately 550
parking spaces at the proposed new Corona Main Station at start-up. The study also
projected that approximately 750 to 950 parking spaces will be required at the Corona
Main Station by 2010. Most of this projected demand is attributed to riders
preference in the use of the Corona Main Station in lieu of La Sierra or West Corona
Station. Because of this projected need for additional parking and after early
discussions with BN&SF, it became apparent that the initial station concept would
have to be modified, for the following reasons:
1. The size and geometry of the South parcel limited the amount of useful
parking that could be made available.
2. The potential for confusion associated with split parking areas, with the
north parking area separated from the south parking area by the BN&SF
tracks. Currently all existing stations have parking located on one side
of the railroad tracks.
3. The overall cost for this initial concept plus the costs associated with
providing access to two parking areas and the required BN&SF rework of
track to accommodate the station turned out to be far in excess of what
was originally budgeted for the project.
000096
•
•
4. The City of Corona has purchased the northern segment at the proposed
station site, which totals approximately 6.72 acres. The City has
indicated that it will provide RCTC 5.22 acres of the 6.72.acres for the
proposed Corona Main Station site, but the preliminary layout of the
Corona Main Parking Lot, on the 5.22 acres provided by the City, can
only accommodate approximately 500 cars. This is close to the 550
parking spaces projected at start-up, but would not be adequate to
support future parking demand. As a note, the City is planning on
developing the, retained 1.5 acres, of the 6.72 acres purchased, as asite
for a future restaurant.
The current schedule to start operation of a new Metrolink service from Riverside
through Fullerton to Los Angeles is set for February of 2002. The Corona Main
Metrolink Station must be substantially completed by that date to accommodate the
projected service start-up. To meet that schedule, RCTC staff is recommending that
the Corona Main Station be constructed in two stages.
Stage I would be built on the 5.22 acres North of the BN&SF tracks, provided by the
City of Corona, constructing approximately 500 parking spaces, a loading platform on
each side, a pedestrian overcrossing for safe access to each side. Attached as Exhibit
A is a draft copy of the Stage I concept for the new Corona Main Metrolink Station.
At the same time, staff will continue to work with the City of Corona in an effort to
obtain additional right of way, adjacent to the proposed Corona Main Station Site, for
additional parking. Staff is also looking into other methods or incentives that could
reduce the movement of riders from La Sierra or West Corona to the Corona Main
Station as a short range strategy.
Staff has been working with DMJM and has come to an agreement with the attached
scope of services and respective costs for the final PS&E Design and Environmental
Clearance of Stage I of the proposed new Corona Main Metrolink Commuter Rail
Station. The RCTC model consultant amendment agreement will be used.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:_Y
Year:
FY 2000-01
Amount: $700,000
Source of Funds: Sec 5307
—h
Budget Adjustment:
N
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Date: 11-20-00
000097
IT
4 •
A�
� 1r ati i
imm
11
NIIIOIOt COLT► TUAMIPOITAT10N COMMON
DIM
111 - O.1' • 11' /MING 114111
11 - 1' • 11 ' P11111R 114►1
111 - 1' • 11' PAKIIs Si4LI
11 - 1' 1 1/' 11APCCI. 41411111 SPILLS
11 - 1' 1 II' 1111 1 1101 PI 1111 111111
11 - 1' , 11' N NOICl/ PAN1111G 11 3111
11{ - 1101/1 . PARKIN 11 411
P1.1
ROO P,PE W/ PL�STI� 9t1K.
Rift tIiACT-'NO) "2959@ _1;
4:01914141115" ,u
4. 4..... . _�,._1. ._ . s; oll •• ••• • II 111 .___1 : 1 .. 1 I
OTT N 0611111, I MfU c1
IOYTRdT II ►AIIS MRS
fr
CORONA COMMUTER RAIL STATION
PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
cONccMulL
r•O0'
EXHIBIT
Milestones
Start Finish
• Conceptual Design - Phase 1 Fri 2/11/00 Tue 1/2/01
• Initial Review ( 30%) Mon 12/18/00 Tue 1/2/01
• Design Development - Phase 2 Mon 12/4/00 Wed 3/7/01
• Revise 60% PS&E Fri 3/9/01 Wed 3/14/01
• FINAL DESIGN (100%) Wed 3/7101 Tue 5/15/01
• AGENCY APPROVAL Tue 5/15/01 Wed 5/30/01
• 31D SERVICES Mon 5/28/01 Thr 6114/01
•
•
000099 •
•
•
•
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CORONA - MAIN STREET COMMUTER RAIL STATION
PHASE 2 - FINAL DESIGN SERVICES
TASK 1 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT & COORDINATION
DMJM will provide overall management and coordination for the • preparation of plans,
specifications and estimates, as well as other required elements of design, for the Corona -Main
Commuter Rail Station,. including attendance at regular progress meetings with RCTC staff as
well as third party meetings as required (BNSF and City of Corona). DMJM will provide all
necessary exhibits and drawings for presentation and discussion. DMJM will submit progress
plans, specifications, and estimates to RCTC and appropriate third parties at the 60%, Pre-
Final(95%), and Final (100%) phase. DMJM will coordinate all preliminary rail designs with
BNSF. It is assumed that final rail design documents will be prepared by BNSF.
Deliverables:
• RCTC Progress Meetings - Exhibits and meeting minutes (6 meetings assumed)
• BNSF Coordination — Exhibits and meeting minutes (2 meeting assumed)
• City of Corona Coordination — Exhibits, presentation graphics, project narratives, drawings,
and meeting minutes (4 meetings assumed)
• Progress submittals at 60% Design, 95% Design, 100% Design including contract drawings,
technical specifications, and engineer's estimate (hardcopy)
TASK 2 - DESIGN SERVICES
DMJM will prepare contract documents sufficient to obtain all necessary approvals from the
reviewing agencies. Except for those elements associated with the final track alignment concept
drawings, all other construction documents will be prepared as follows:
Deliverables:
• 60% contract drawings, draft specifications and preliminary engineer's estimate
• 95% contract drawings, specifications, and engineer's estimate
• 100% contract drawings. specifications, and engineer's estimate
Final Bid Document ( Contract drawings, specifications, and engineer's estimate).
The design scope of services associated with the design will include the following elements:
RAILROAD ENGINEERING
Finalize track alignment concept, based on layouts developed in Phase I. Adjust alignments
as necessary based on actual survey and rail survey data. Develop preliminary vertical
alignments to match existing profile at track tie-ins and grade crossings. Establish top of rail
elevation at station platform location.
The following are assumed to be performed by BNSF:
• Final track designs, including horizontal and vertical alignments and cross -sections.
• Grade crossing designs, including trackwork through crossings and modifications to
existing pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter, as required to accommodate track
realignments.
• Signal design.
Deliverables:
Page 1 of 3
000100
Preliminary Track Design (horizontal and vertical alignments, typical sections)
Preliminary Cost Estimate for Trackwork
SITE DEVELOPMENT: DMJM will prepare Construction Documents for the following:
On Site Improvements
Site Development Plan — Civil site plan to define the layout of the project site. Plan to
include the overall site development, identifying site fumiture and the relative location
of general site features.
Horizontal Control Plan — Establishes the horizontal control for the site layout. Provides
dimensional control for all site construction.
Site Grading and Drainage Plan — Provides vertical control for the site' grading and
develops drainage details. Determines drainage characteristics for storm water run-
off. Grading plan will address removal and disposal of any classified excavation' as
determined by site investigations
Striping and Signage Plan — Defines the location for all on -site striping and signage. This
plan will establish the number of parking stalls and define the site access points.
DMJM will verify with the City of Corona that local parking requirements are met.
Site Lighting and Electrical Plan — Provides design details for site lighting and electrical
service. Lighting will include pole -mounted bollards adjacent to platform areas as
well as parking lot lighting. Lighting requirements will be provided by SCRRA and
City of Corona.
Landscape and Irrigation Plan — Establishes criteria for site landscaping and landscape
irrigation.
Fire Service Plan — Defines the location for all on -site fire service mains, fire hydrants and
other fire service equipment. DMJM will prepare a fire safety plan for the site based
on City of Corona Fire Marshall requirements
Utility Plans
DMJM will prepare a final utility plan showing location of existing utilities and final
design of utilities to be protected in place, abandoned, or relocated.
Off Site Improvements
Street Plan and Profiles - DMJM will develop final Roadway plans and profiles for Blaine
Street and the new local road to be constructed connecting Harnson Street to Blaine
Street.
Storm Dram Connector Plan — DMJM will prepare necessary plans to provide a
connection between Blaine Street and the existing storm drain at the intersection of
Harrison Street and Main Street.
Platform -
The proposed platform is to be a minimum of 585' to be capable of expansion to 1000' in
the future. The platform will include shelter canopies, seating, MTTV's, TVM's, and
related communications systems, PA/CMS. and other amenities per SCRRA Station
Design Manual requirements. No bathroom facilities are to be included.
Structure - Plan, Elevation & Foundation Design
DMJM will prepare all necessary Architectural, Structural. Mechanical, Plumbing and
Electrical construction drawings, specifications, and calculations required for plan
check, bidding and construction of the proposed station platforms, canopies, and
pedestrian crossing. The final design drawings and specifications will be based on
the SCRRA station deign manual criteria. In addition, DMJM will provide Building
Department coordination.
Architectural construction plans include the following:
Passenger Shelter Plans
Entry Shelter Plans
Page 2 of 3
•
•
•
000101
Shelter Details
Site Furnishing Plan
Platform Layout Plan
Platform Structural Detail Plan
Foundation Plan
Platform Cross Section Plan
Platform Electrical Plan (Includes TVM's, CCTV, TV's, etc.)
Platform Mechanical Plan
Platform Lighting Plan
TASK 3 — AGENCY APPROVALS
/ Submit and process all documents through the appropriate approving agencies.
/ Incorporate review comments into construction documents.
/ Make presentation of Final Construction Documents to RCTC.
TASK 4 - BID SERVICES
/ Attend Pre -Bid Meeting
/ Respond to Contractor Questions
/ Issue Bidding Addenda
/ Review Contractor Bids
/ Perform Contractor Review and Evaluation of References
Page 3 of 3
00010`'
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Cor ona Metrolink Station
PHASE 2- FINAL DESIGN
PM
$ 134 .00
DM
$ 120 60
PE/PAJTE
$ 99.16
D esigner
$ 80.40
CADD
$ 64.32
Clerical
$ 37 .52
LS
$ 107 .20
Flagman
$ 75 .04
2M Cr ew
$ 160.80
TOTAL
HOURS
Total
Cost
TASK D
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT (60%)
O (V (V V •- C v (D (D m CV N O) CD (D (V N N (D N N N
Q
Probable Construction Drawings
Title sheet
4
8
12
Railroad Engineering
8
4
40
80
172
At grade crossinfg lo
4
12
20
22
70
At grade crossinfg fo
4
12
20
22
70
Puc exhibits
40
40
General & Cons! Note Sheet
8
4
16
Ex isting Conditions Plan
4
8
13
Site Development Plan
1
12
12
29
Horizontal Control Plan
8
8
20
Grading Plan -Platforms
2
16
8
32
Grading Plan -Parking Lot
4
16
12
38
Grading Details
1
16
24
49
Roadway Plan
4
16
20
52
Roadway Plan
4
16
20
52
Roadway Typical Sections
1
12
16
37
Sign Plan 1
4
16
16
44
Roadway and Parking Striping Plan
4
24
40
84
Water/Fire System -On -Site
1
12
12
Y7
Drainage Plan
2
16
24
54
Drainage Plan
2
16
24
54
Drainage profiles
2
32
32
82
Civil Details
2
30
30
74
Civil Details
2
30
30
74
Civil Quantity
8
32
32
84
•
TASK E
Civil Specs
Hydrologylllydrauli . Studies
Parcel Map
Total Civil Hours 16
Total Civil Cost I $2,144
Arch . Platforms & Canopies-l0shls
Arch .Bridge & Towers-13shts
Structural Platforms-7shls
Structural Towers Foundations-7shls
Structural Bridge Framing-7shts
Structural Calculations
Electrical Platforms -1 lshts
Electrical Bridge & Towers-6shts
Electrical Site Lighting-3shts
Electrical CCTV-14shts
Electrical Calculations
M echanical/Plumbing/Drainage-9541s
SIgnage•7shts
Parking Lot Lighting -201s
Total Arch hours
Total Arch Cost
Project Management
8
51,072
8
88
510,613
12
16
12
12
16
2
12
6
6
14
2
14
• 7
2
133
516,040
60
57,236
24
12
32
299
$29,649
80
101
90
90
126
24
115
64
36
148
24
106
28
8
1040
5103,126
12
$1,190
fl6016i : f ibs (LYnl COp uya, III
!TASK D 3,776! 3,6581 2 .739
TASK D
PROGRESS REVIEW (60%)
$3,216] 533,8891 5133,965
Coordinate Agency 4
Hours subtotal
Labor Cost
TASK E TOTAL
4
5536
8
8
$965
16
16
$1,587
4(1 24
0 81
456 576
$36,662 537,048
78 120
130 130
50 50
50 50
54 54
16
96 66
52 52
24 24
122 122
16
86 70
84 84
24 24
882 876
$70,913 666,344
1,338
$107,575
0
5o
AMIN
1,452
593,393
0
$0
321
32
51,201
2
4
10
$375
16
$600
808
$2,176
4
4
5150
<: a
0
50
0
50
$
0
50
$ {H s yes r
$
i
0
0
So
64
84
40
1467
$117,317
292
377
202
202
250
42
323
174
90
406
46
276
203
58
41
X46,796
96
510,098
16110
13,771
5374,214
32
32
53,237
5117,317
397,
510,098
5114
5339 164
53,237
TASK F
FINAL DESI GN (100 %)
Probable Conslruction Diawuig
Title sheel
Railroad Engineering
Al grade crossinfg Iu
Al grade crossinfg lo
Puc exhibits
G eneral 8, Const. Note Sheet
Existing Conditions P an
Site Development Plan
Horizontal Control Plan
Grading Plan -Platfo rms
Grading Plan -Parking Lot
Grading Details
Roadway Plan
Roadway Plan
Roadway Typical Sectio ns
Sign Plan
Roadway and Parking Striping Plan
Water/Fire System -On -Site
Drainage Plan
Drainage Plan
Drainage Profile
Civil Details
Civil Details
Civil Quantity
Civil Specs
Hydrology/Hydraulic Report
Parcel M ap
Legal Description/Easements
Subtotal Civil Hou r 8
Subtotal Civil Cost 81,072
Arch, Platforms & Canopies-10shls
Aroh.Sridge & Towers-13shts
Structural ptallorms-7shls
Structural Towers Foundations-7shts
0
4
4
1 2
0 0 0 0
12 12 20 22
12 12 20 22
40
2 2
2 2
1 4 8
1 6 8 8
2 6 10 10
2 4 8 20
2 4 16 12
2 4 16 12
2 4 8 10
2 4 8 8
2 6 16 10
2 4 10 6
2 8 12 16
2 8 12 16
1 8 16 16
2 4 12 10
2 4 12 10
1 6 16 16
4 16
2 8 24 20
0 24 0 0
1 4
58 157 252 296
86,995 815,568 $20,261 819,039
20 40 80 120
36 52 104 156
14 20 56 84
14 20 56 84
•
16
8
8
32
81,201
2
4
16
20
82,144
0
80
0
_80
3
0
70
70
40
4
4
13
0
23
28
34
34
34
24
22
34
22
38
38
41
28
28
39
36
62
28
29
823
866,279
282
348
174
174
851,314
TASK G
Structural Bridge Fianung-7shls
Structural Calculahuns
Electrical Platforms 11shts
Electrical Bridge & Towers-6shts
Electrical Site Lighting-3shts
Electrical CCTV-14shts
Electrical Calculations
Mechanical/Plumbing/Drainage-9shts
Signag e-7shts 1
Parking Lot Lighling-2shts
Total Arch hours
Total Arch Cosl
Q uality Assurance Review
Pro ject Management
rfitiigindk
TASK F T
TASK F T
AGENCY APPROVAL
Coordinate Agency R
Incorporate Final Co
Presentation 10 RCT
Hours subtotal
Labor Cosl
• •
1t 42 64
32 8
24 44 88
1: 24 48
E 12 24
28 154 100
2 32 8
18 36 72
12 24 48
4 8 16
0 208
$0 $25,086
16 24
8 40
24 64
$7,718
330 705
TASK G TO TAL
2
2
4
540 772
$53,646 $62,069
8
8
$793
540,128 $70,613
$536
TASK H IBID SERVICES
Atlend pre -bid meeti
8
8
2
18
$2,171
81
16
16
4
36
$3, 570
1,024
$83,354
24
24
$1,930
88
132
72
36
82
108
72
24
1068
$68,051
1,354
$88,443
32
32
$2,058
4
4
10
$375
8
8
$300
50
$1,926
4
2
6
$225
0
;0
20
$2,164
8
8
$858
0
$o
210
<42
292
156
78
364
46
234
156
52
,; 2588
$200426
0
0
$167,301
$15,950
$011 $286,628j $234,665
0
$0
128
$11,347
24
$11,347
Respond 10 Conk actors 40 40
Issue addenda I 2 ti 24 32
Review Bids 4 to 24
Contractor Evaluahuns . • 1b 16
Hours sublulall 10 88 112
LaborCosl $1,340 $10,613 $11,106
TASK H T OTAL
32
$2,573
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
TASK D
TASK E
TASK F
TASK G
TASK H
40
40
$2,573
24
6
2
2
38
$1,426
0
$0
0
$o
0
$o
104
112
46
34
320
$29,630
$29,630
DESIGN DEVELOP MENT (60%) $339,154
PROGRESS REVIEW (60 %) $3,237
FINAL DESI GN (100 %) $234,565
AGENCY APPROVAL $11,347
BID SERVICES $29,630
ESTIMATED REIMBURSIBLE EXPENSES
Mileage $1,000
Telephone/Fax $442
Blueprinting $2,000
R eprod uction $1,500
Postage/Delivery $730
Presentation Boards $1,395
TOTAL REIMBURSIBLE EXPENSES $7,067
'ESTIMATED TOTAL COST $625,0001
• AGENDA ITEM 12
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Approve Selection Process to provide Engineering Services Related
to the San Jacinto Branch Line in Riverside County between the
Cities of Riverside and Perris.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Approve the results of the selection process to provide the Commission
Engineering Services Related to the San Jacinto Branch Line between the
Cities of Riverside and Perris;
2) Direct staff to negotiate the scope, schedule and cost with the top
ranked firm to perform the required services (if negotiations fail with the
top ranked firm, staff is authorized to go to the next firm on the list to
negotiate a contract to perform the services);
3) Direct staff to bring back an authorization to award a contract to the firm
with which negotiations are successful; and
4) Forward to the Commission forfinal approval.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its June 14, 2000 meeting, the Commission committed $20 million of future
Measure "A" rail program funds to upgrade the San Jacinto Branch Line for commuter
rail passenger service between downtown Riverside and Perris. The track
improvements will also be compatible with the existing and future freight operations
that are projected to be on this facility. The action, coupled with $3 million in federal
CMAQ and Federal Transit Administration New Start funding requires the selection of
a consultant to perform engineering services related to developing the necessary
branch line improvements to support passenger rail and freight operations between
Riverside and Perris.
000108
At the September 13, 2000 Commission meeting, the Commission approved and
directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide
Engineering Services Related to the San Jacinto Branch Line in Riverside County between
the Cities of Riverside and Perris.
The calendar of events was as follows:
Proposals were requested
Proposals were delivered to RCTC
Firms were notified of short list
Interviews
RCTC approves Selection
September 18, 2000
October 13, 2000
October 27, 2000
November 15, 2000
December 13, 2000
Staff received proposals from five (5) firms. A selection panel was assembled, which
consisted of representatives from RCTC staff, City of Riverside, Southern California
Regional Rail Authority, Schiermeyer Consulting, Bechtel and March Joint Powers
Authority. The selection panel reviewed the five (5) proposals and short listed three
(3) of the five (5) firms.
The three (3) firms presented teams that would be capable of competing the proposed
scope of work. After evaluating the proposed project teams, their knowledge of the
project and proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the three (3)
interviewed firms as follows:
Top Ranked
Second
Third
STV Incorporated
Boyle Engineering Corporation
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Based on the results of the selection committee, staff recommends that a contract be
negotiated with STV Incorporated to provide Engineering Services Related to the San
Jacinto Branch Line in Riverside County between the Cities of_Riverside and Perris. The
RCTC model consultant agreement will be used. The negotiated scope, schedule and
cost will be brought back to the Commission for the contract award.
•
•
•
000109
• AGENDA ITEM 13
•
i
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 27, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
SUBJECT:
Call Box Upgrade Agreement between Riverside County
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Enter into an agreement between the Riverside County Transportation
Commission and Comarco Wireless Technologies to upgrade the call box
system in Riverside County;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Accept Comarco's offer to reduce the first year maintenance costs by
$30,341.25 and direct staff to incorporate the cost savings in the
Comarco System Upgrade Agreement, and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This item was presented to the Committee ,at its October 23, 2000 meeting (please
see attached Committee report - Exhibit A). However, because of several questions
from Commissioners regarding the on -going maintenance costs for the upgraded call
boxes and the financial forecast of the program, it was sent back to staff for further
evaluation and negotiation.
Subsequently, staff met with Sebastian Gutierrez, Vice President of Comarco Wireless
Technologies, in an effort to gather additional information and negotiate a price
reduction. We also contacted other SAFEs in California to see how they had handled
the issue of maintenance costs for upgraded call boxes. Comarco set a flat rate of
$290 per box per year for maintenance work over two years ago, and according to
Comarco, they built in the value of a warranty assuming the SAFEs would be
proceeding with system upgrades when the rate was set.
00011+)
At our meeting with Mr. Gutierrez, staff proposed to Comarco a reduction in
maintenance costs amounting to $104,500. This would represent the elimination of
one preventive maintenance visit to the call box site during the installation period as
well as no corrective maintenance charges for the upgraded boxes for one year. A few
days later, Comarco submitted their offer to reduce the first year maintenance costs
by $30,341.25 (see Exhibit 1). In a telephone meeting with Mr. Gutierrez, he
explained that their offer equated to a three-month warranty on the 930 upgraded call
boxes and the reduction was equal to three months' worth of corrective and
preventive maintenance costs. The reduction represents a 9.1 % reduction in costs,
and, according to Mr. Gutierrez, almost completely eliminates the 10% profit built into
the $290 flat fee maintenance costs.
As mentioned previously, we did contact other SAFEs to see how they had handled
the issue, and all but one, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the Bay
Area, had not sought maintenance cost reductions when upgrading their call boxes.
MTC has approximately 3,200 call boxes in a nine county area, and they were able to
negotiate a credit of $84,000 in their contract equaling a 9% reduction. Since all of
their boxes were built by another manufacturer, all of their 3,200 boxes had to be
upgraded. Neither Orange nor San Diego counties requested an adjustment to. their
upgrade contracts. Staff feels Comarco's offer to reduce the first year maintenance
costs is reasonable when compared to MTC's credit and recommends the Commission
accept the offer.
Staff also prepared a ten-year financial forecast for the call box program through FY
2009/2010 to look at the financial stability of the program. Two forecasts were
prepared: one with the call box upgrade done all at once (Exhibit 2); and the other with
upgrading the call boxes as needed (Exhibit 3). The actual costs for FY 99/00 and
budgeted amounts for FY 00/01 are identical on both schedules, with the exception
of the system upgrade costs and the maintenance costs. The one-time upgrade
schedule has a larger budgeted expenditure in FY 00/01 for the upgrade and a credit
of $30,341 for the maintenance costs whereas the other schedule has a smaller
expenditure for upgrade costs, but continuing for five additional years, and no credit
to the maintenance costs.
In comparing the two schedules, it is evident that although the program experiences
a larger reduction to its fund balance in the first year when the upgrade is done all at
once, the projected balance at the end of the ten year period is $559,000 higher. It
also appears that the program will begin to use part of its reserve fund balance to fund
the program in FY 05/06; however, staff is already looking at cost cutting measures
(i.e. private call answering center versus higher CHP costs) to bring expenses more in
line with program revenues. Based on the analysis of the ten year financial forecasts,
staff recommends the Commission upgrade the call box system in one phase and enter
into a system upgrade agreement with Comarco.
000111
•
•
•
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N
Source of Funds: SAFE Fees
GLA Account No.: 202-45-73301
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Year: FY 2000-01 Amount Requested: $865,214
Budget Adjustment: Yes
Date: 11-20-00
000112
Exhibit "A" (1 of 3)
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 23, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
SUBJECT:
Call Box Upgrade Agreement between Riverside County
Transportation Commission and Comarco Wireless Technologies
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Enter into an agreement between the Riverside County Transportation
Commission and Comarco Wireless Technologies to upgrade the call box
system in Riverside County;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission and;
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Riverside County Transportation Commission, through its capacity as the Service
Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), operates approximately 1,149 call boxes
on freeways and highways in Riverside County. The call box system allows motorists
to call for assistance in the event of an accident or mechanical problem. Each call box
is a battery powered, solar charged roadside terminal with a microprocessor and built-
in cellular telephone.
The Commission's maintenance provider, Comarco Wireless Technologies (CWT),
installs, repairs, and maintains the call boxes at a flat annual fee of $290 per call box.
The agreement was approved by the Commission at its April 12, 2000, meeting and
is in effect until June 30, 2005. Comarco provides such services as preventive
maintenance; knockdown and vandalism repair; system operation and performance
monitoring, site improvements and construction, and removals and reinstallations due
to freeway construction.
0001.13
Exhibit "A" (2 of 3)
Most of the current call boxes in the system are over ten years old, and at the time the
program was originally implemented in April 1990, it was estimated that the
equipment would last no longer than ten years. In fact, the original maintenance
agreement with Cellular Communications Corporation, a division of GTE MobilNet, was
for that specific ten year duration. At the time CWT began negotiations with RCTC
staff to renew the maintenance agreement, Comarco encouraged RCTC to upgrade its
current system (six other SAFEs have agreements with Comarco to upgrade their
systems). Comarco had indicated that certain components are no longer manufactured
or available, and they have exhausted all of their remaining inventory.
However, since neither RCTC nor Comarco readily knew which or how many call
boxes would need to be upgraded, in April, 2000, it was agreed to enter into a five
year, flat -fee contract with the understanding that a further study would be done
regarding the issue of refurbishing the system. It was further agreed that over the
following twelve months, CWT and RCTC would analyze the system to determine its
useful life, and that based on the analysis, RCTC would work with CWT to either
upgrade the system, as deemed necessary, or renegotiate the contract to a time and
material basis.
Based upon Comarco's maintenance records, they have determined that 930 out of
the 1,149 call boxes are equipped with the obsolete, out -dated components, and they
are proposing to upgrade those boxes at $850 per box. Comarco would replace the
radio transceivers, controller boards, solar regulators, all worn harnesses, remove any
corrosion, replace all bulbs, replace all batteries, and paint all the housings and back
plates. The upgrade would extend the useful life of the call box equipment for an
additional ten years.
Commission staff met with Mr. Sebastian Gutierrez, Vice President of Comarco's Call
Box Systems, to discuss their proposal. Staff was concerned with the large, one-time
expenditure of funds, and whether it would be prudent to replace the components all
at once versus a piece -meal basis as they broke down. Comarco agreed to review our
maintenance records for the past three years to determine how many incidents
occurred which would require the replacement of transceivers, controller boards, or
regulators.
The attached schedule (Exhibit A) is a cost comparison on what the upgrade costs
would be if the work was performed only as required versus all at once. The total
estimated savings over a five year period is estimated at $465,200 based on
refurbishment of call boxes all'at once. The cost comparison is based on the Universal
Price List (UPL) included in our maintenance contract. The UPL is a uniform, state-
wide price list used by Comarco to charge on a time and material basis for any work
performed on non -system call boxes (i.e. TTY, smart call box or other ITS device).
000114
•
•
•
Exhibit "A" (3 of 3)
•
•
•
The costs to replace the components on an annual basis would be $195,487, based
on $1,245 per unit and our average of 157 units per year over the last three years.
As a comparison, the total cost for a new call box is $3,341.74, plus. It would take
approximately six (6) years to upgrade the system if done on a piece -meal basis. The
total cost as proposed in Comarco's refurbishment agreement would be $790,500,
plus tax, and could be completed by July 31, 2001. Also, if the call boxes were
upgraded on a piece -meal basis, the boxes would not receive the additional services
of having any corrosion removed, all batteries replaced, and painting of all housings
and back plates. The upgraded equipment would also be compatible -with digital
technology, so the call boxes could be readily converted when, and if, our cellular
provider, AT&T, goes completely digital.
Staff realizes that Comarco is the only provider of call box maintenance services in the
State. Therefore, staff requested TeleTran Tek Services, our call box consultant, to
independently review Comarco's maintenance data and assumptions used in their
proposal. As part of their consultant agreement with the Commission, TeleTran Tek
Services performs semi-annual audits of Comarco's billings for preventive and
corrective maintenance and for any above contract costs (i.e. repairs for knockdown,
vandalism, graffiti, etc.). It is their opinion that Comarco's statistics are accurate and
that their assumptions are reasonable, and they are forwarding a letter to Commission
staff to express their opinion in writing.
The Call Box program budget (including the matching funds for the Freeway Service
Patrol program but excluding the upgrade costs) for FY 2000-01 totals $1,218,000
and the estimated revenues are approximately $1,203,000, a difference of $15,000.
This appears to be the first fiscal year in which expenditures will exceed revenues, and
the program will begin using part of the reserve funds to finance program operations.
There is some concern about the program not generating sufficient revenues to pay for
itself, so staff is looking at various options (i.e. privatizing the call answering services)
to possibly reduce costs and will return to the Commission by the first of the calendar
year with a long term financial forecast for the call box program including future
system wide upgrades required to accommodate digital technology.
The call box program has a fund balance of $2,265,000 as of June 30, 2000, so there
are sufficient reserve funds to finance the equipment upgrade given that the all at once
approach over a five year period generates an estimated cost savings of $465,000.
0001.1 i
EXHIBIT 1.
Co,narce)
'rele •
lit stchrinlwesaat
•
.,•
3,,c •.
November 13, 2000
Mr. Jerry Rivera
Project Manager
Riverside County SAFE
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside Ca 92501
US
Dear Jerry,
I have reviewed the information that we discussed last week. As I mentioned, We
have very little room in the collective contracts to negotiate a Warranty that had
already been considered in the pricing. The cost for warranty of these units was
built into the new contract price. Therefore, what I have done is taken a look at
reducing your annual expense on the new contract.
The figures below represent the new contract monthly charges ($290.00 / 12).
The CM/PM portion of the contracts was calculated as 45% of the total figure. I
have provided a 3 -month warranty that is equal to 3 months worth of CM/PM
work. I then multiplied this figure by the total number of units (930) that we will
be upgrading.
New Contract Annual Price $290.00
Monthly CM/PM/ Billable
Monthly portion of CM/PM
3 Months Warranty
$ 24.17
$ 10.88
$ 32.63 $30,34125
I will call you tomorrow at 9:30 AM as agreed to previously.
Sincerely,
Sebastian E. Gutierrez
VP, Call Box Systems
Comarco Wireless Technologies
000111;
Curren ) Units = 1.149
Annua l Reven ue = $1,100, 00(1
An nual (;M 8 PM = $290/yr
Veh Reg Growth/Yr = 0 50%
ANNUAL CASH FLOW
Revenue
Fund Balance
In terest (est. 5%)
Misc Reve nues (1)
Vehicle Reven ue
Total Revenu e
Expenses
System Upgrade (in cl. tax) (2)
Cellular Acce ss Charges (3)
Lin e/Toll Chrg. (Est. ) (5)
Corrective Maint. (4)
Preventive Maint. (4)
Knockdowns (4)
Vanda lism (4)
Graffit & Other Misc. (4)
Prof. Services - T -Cubed
Prof Services - Other
RCTC Charges (6)
CHP Operation s (6)
Fre eway Svc. Patro l
Total Expenses
Surplus (Deficit) Revenues
Over Expenses
FOOTNOTES:
(1) M isc. Revenues
O (2) SYSTEM UPGRADE
Q (3) Cellular Access Charge
(4) PM/CM & Repair Charges
(5) Line/To ll Charges (est. )
(6) G & A, RCTC & CHP
-1
JR: 11/20/00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CAI 1 BOX SYSTEM
TEN YEAR FINANCIAL f ()RECAST
FY 2000-01 T HRU FY 2009-2010
ONE-TI ME UPGRA DE COSTS
FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10
$2.214,435 $2,265.190 $1 535 .132 $1,594,383 $1,638,881 $1,666,395 $1,677,932 $1,668,900 $1,637,496 $1,581,804 $1,499,785
$113,500 $97.000 $76,757 $79.719 $81,944 $83,320 $83,897 $83,445 $81,875 $79,090 $74,989
$5,000 $6, 050 $6,232 $6.418 $6 .611 $6,809 $7,014 $7,224 • $7,441 $7,664 $7,894
$1.081,200 $1.100.000 $1.105.500 $1,111,028 $1,116,583 $1,122,166 $1,127,776 $1,133,415 $1,139,082 $1,144,778 $1,150,502
$3,414.135 $3. 408.240 $2,723.620 $2,791,548 $2,844,019 $2,878,690 $2,896,619 $2,892,984 $2,865,894 $2,813,336 $2,733,169
$0 $851.800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$147,105 $104 400 $104,400 $104.400 $104,400 $104,400 $107,532 $110,758 $114,081 $117,503 $121,028
$986 $2. 400 $2,472 $2 .546 $2,623 $2,701 $2,782 $2,866 $2,952 $3,040 $3,131
$119,462 $302,869 - $343,206 $353,502 $364,108 $375,031 $386,282 $397,870 $409,806 $422,100 $434,763
$74.088 Intl Incl. Inc'. Incl. I ncl. Incl. Incl. Incl .
Incl . Incl .
$135,060 Incl. Incl. Inc)_ Incl . Incl . Incl . Incl. • Incl. Incl. Incl. .
$27,215 Ind Intl Inc! Incl. I ncl. I ncl. Incl. Incl. Incl . Incl.,:
$14.739 Inca Incl. Incl. Incl Incl. Incl . Incl. Incl . Incl. Incl .,
$38,954 $48.537 $50,479 $52,102 $54.598 $54,598 • $54,598 $54,598 , $54,598 $54,598 $54,598
$0 $40.000 $15.000 $15.000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
$171,073 $133.792 $137.806 $141.940 $146,198 $150,584 $155,102 $159,755 $164,547 $169,484 $174,568
$194,478 $236.310 $243,399 $250,701 $258,222 $265,969 $273,948 $282,166 $290,631 $299,350 $308,331
$225.785 $213,000 $232,475 $232,475 $232,475 $232,475 $232,475 $232,475 $232,475 $232,475 $232,475
$1,148,945 $1,933,108 $1,129,237 $1,152,667 . $1,177,624 $1,200,758 $1,227,719 $1,255,488 $1,284,090 $1,313,551 $1,343,895
$2,265,190 $1.535. 132 $1,594,383 $1,638,881 $1,666,395 $1,677,932 $1,668,900 $1,637,496 $1,581,804 $1,499,785 $1,389,274
Charges to SanBAG ($3,500/yr ) and insurance recoveries for knockdowns, subje ct to 3% escalation per year .
ONE-TIME COST FOR 930 BO XES 0 $850, plus lax.
Fixed at $7. 50/box/month thru 04/05; then estimated at +3% per yr.
Fixed at $290/box/yr. (less $30,341 credit in 00/01) thru FY 04/05; however, subje ct to annual CPI in crease (est. 3 %) .
Toll costs bet. CHP answering center and ou tlying respon se units; 3% an nu al increase.
Costs subject to 3% escalatio n.
•
•
•
•
•
Current Units = 1 149
An nual Revenu e = $1.100, 000
Annual CM & PM = $290/yr
Veh. Re g. Growth/Yr. = 0 50%
A NNUAL CASH FLOW
Reven ue
Fund Balance
Interest (est. 5%)
M isc. Revenues (1)
Vehicle Revenue
Total Re venue
Expenses
System Upgrade (incl. tax) (2)
Cellular Ac cess Charges (3)
Line /Toll Chrg. (Est.) (6)
Corrective M aint. (4)
Preven tive Maint. (4)
Kno ckdowns (5)
Vandalism (5)
G raffiti & Othe r M isc. (5)
Prof. Se rvices - T -Cube d
Prof. Services - Other
RCTC Charges (7)
CHP Operations (7)
Freeway Svc. Patrol
Total Expenses
Surplus (Deficit) Revenues
Ove r Expenses
FOOTNO TES:
0 (1) Misc. Revenues
(2) SYSTEM UPG RADE
(3) Cellular Access Charge
(4) PM /CM & Repair Charges
=-+ (5) Knockdo wns, Vandalism,
.� Graffiti, & Misc. Repairs
(6) Line/Toll Charges (est. )
(7) G & A, RCTC & CHP
FY 99/00
$2.214,435
$113,500
$5,000
$1.081,200
$3,414,135
FY 00/01
$2,265.190
$97.000
$6,050
$1,100,000
$3,468,240
RIVE RSIDF COUNTY CALL BOX SYSTEM
1FN YEAR FINANCIAL FORECAST
FY 2000-01 THRU FY 2009-2010
UPGRADE AS NEEDED PLUS
CURRE NT MAINT. COSTS
FY 01/02
$2,147,467
$107.373
$6,232
$1,105,500
$3,366,572
FY 02/03
$2,021,937
$101,097
$6,418
$1,111,028
$3,240,480
FY 03/04 FY 04/05
$1,865,953 $1,676,305
$93,298 $83,815
$6,611 $6,809
$1,116,583 $1,122,166
$3,082,444 $2,889,095
FY 05/06
$1,452,966
$72,648
$7,014
$1,127,776
$2,660,405
FY 06/07
$1,208,784
$60,439
$7,224
$1,133,415
$2,409,863
$0 $209,124 $215,398 $221,860 $228,515 $235,371 $223,902 $0
$147,105 $104,400 $104,400 $104,400 $104,400 $104,400 $107,532 $110,758
$986 $2,400 $2,472 $2,546 $2,623 $2,701 $2,782 $2,866
$119,462 $333,210 ' $343,206 $353,502 $364,108 $375,031 $386,282
$74,088 Incl. Incl.$397,870
Incl. Incl. Incl . Incl. Incl . $135,060 Incl. In cl. Incl. Incl. Incl. Incl. Incl .
$27,215 Incl. In cl. Incl. I ncl. Incl . Incl. Incl .
$14,739 Incl. Incl. Incl. Incl. Incl . Incl. Incl.
$38,954 $48,537 $50,479 $52,102 $54,598 $54,598 $54,598 $54,598
$0 $40,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
$171,073 $133,792 ' $137,806 $141,940 $146,198 $150,584 $155,102 $159,755.
$194,478 $236,310 $243,399 $250,701 $258,222 $265,969 $273,948 $282,166
$225,785 $213,000 $232,475 $232,475 $232,475 $232,475 $232,475 $232,475
$1,148,945 $1,320,773 $1,344,635 $1,374,527 $1,406,139 $1,436,129 $1,451,620 $1,255,488
$2,265,190 $2,147,467 $2,021,937 $1,865,953 $1,676,305 $1,452,966 $1,208,784 $1,154,375 $1,074,528
FY 07/08
$1,154,375
$57,719
$7,441
$1,139,082
$2,358,617
so
$114,081
$2,952
$409,806
Incl.
Incl.
Incl .
Incl .
$54,598
$15,000
$164,547
$290,631
$232,475
$1,284,090
Charges to SanBAG ($3,500/yr.) and insuran ce re coveries for knockdowns, subject to 3% escalation per year.
ANNUAL COST FOR 157 BOXES per year @ $1,332 (tax incl.) for FIVE YRS. & 145 BOXES IN 6th YR. With est. 3% CPI adjustment .
Fixed at $7. 50/box/month thru FY 04/05; then estimated at +3% pe r yr.
Estimated @ $17.50/mo. /bo x = $210/yr. subject to annual CPI increase (est. 3%).
Estimated at current expense subje ct to 3% CPI.
Toll costs bet. CHP an swering cente r and outlyin g respo nse units; 3% annual increase .
Costs subject to 3% escalatio n.
FY 08/09 FY 09/10
$1,074,526 $967,143
$53,726 $48,357
$7,664 $7,894
$1,144,778 $1,150,502
S2,280,694 $2,173,896
$o
$117,503
$3,040
5422,100
Ind.
I ncl.
Incl .
Incl.
$54,598
$15,000
$169,484
$299,350
$232,475
51,313,551
$o
$121,028
$3,131
$434,783
Ind.
In d.
Incl.
Incl .
$54,598
$15,000
$174,568
$308,331
$232,475
$1,343,895
$967,143 $830,001
JR: 11/06/00