Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08 August 28, 2000 Budget & ImplementationC51682 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TI BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION MEETING AGENDA RECORDS TIME: 12:00 p.m. (NOTE TIME CHANGE) DATE: Monday, August 28, 2000 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 / County of Riverside Jim Venable / District Three / County of Riverside Patrick Williams / Chris Carlson-Buydos, 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, p/ease complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board. TL.36.� RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION 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, AUGUST 28, 2000 - 1 2:00 Noon 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 (June 26, 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 receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending July 31, 2000 and forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 28, 2000 Page 2 5B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT - P. 05 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report as of June 30, 2000 and forward to the Commission for final action. 5C. QUARTERLY CALL BOX ACTIVITY - P. 08 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the operational statistics for the Riverside County Motorist Aid Call Box System for the quarter ending June 30, 2000 and forward to the Commission for final action. 5D. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - P. 17 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the Financial Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2000, and forward to the Commission for final action. 5E. INVESTMENT REPORT - P. 26 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the Investment Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2000 and forward to the Commission for final action. • • • • • Budget and Implementation Committee August 28, 2000 Page 3 6. ERNST & YOUNG AUDIT CONTRACT - P. 36 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of the contract with Ernst and Young to provide audit services for Measure A and TDA recipients, and forward to the Commission for final action. 7. ADVANCE OF MEASURE A FUNDS - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AGREEMENT - P. 38 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) grant the City of Lake Elsinore an advance of Measure A, Local Streets and Roads funds; 2) increase the Local Streets and Roads appropriation in Fund 222 - Measure A Western budget by $1,500,000; 3) authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute a Measure A advancement agreement between the Commission and the City; and 4) forward to the Commission for final action. 8. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE - P. 57 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) direct staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal; 2) select a consultant to provide engineering services related to the San Jacinto Branch Line; and 3) forward to the Commission for final action. • Budget and Implementation Committee August 28, 2000 Page 4 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. RO 2061 TO PROVIDE ON -CALL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES - P. 59 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) award a contract to SC Engineering to provide On -call Engineering Design Services for small engineering support needs, in an amount not to exceed $300,000; 2) authorize the Chairman to execute a contract with SC Engineering, pursuant to Legal Counsel review; and 3) forward to the Commission for final action. 10. AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. RO-2127 TO HOLMES AND NARVER INFRASTRUCTURE TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 PHASE I PROJECT - P. 61 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) award Contract No. RO-2127 to Holmes & Narver Infastructure to provide construction management support services for construction of the State Route 74 Measure "A" Phase 1 Project from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road for a Base Work amount of $1,054,800 and a Extra Work amount of $95,200 for a Total Contract amount not to exceed $ 1 , 1 50,000; 2► authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the contract on behalf of the Commission; and 3) forward to the Commission for final action. 11. AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-2028 TO POUNTNEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR THE PROPOSED NEW VAN BUREN METROLINK STATION - P. 72 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) concur with the Budget and Implementation Committee August 28, 2000 Page 5 proposed conceptual plan and staging for the proposed new Metrolink commuter rail station in Riverside near Van Buren Boulevard and Route 91; 2) authorize the Executive Director to continue negotiations with adjacent property owners for Stage II parking; 3) award Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2028 to Pountney & Associates, Inc., for final Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E), and environmental clearance for Stage I of the proposed new Van Buren Metrolink Commuter Rail Station for an amount of $740,000; 4) authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 5) forward to the Commission for final action. • • 12. FY 2001-05 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF CATHEDRAL CITY, HEMET, MURRIETA AND RANCHO MIRAGE -P.91 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of the FY 2001-05 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads, as submitted, and forward to the Commission for final action. 13. FY 1997-98 SB821 PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - P. 110 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) grant the County bf Riverside a twelve month extension to June 30, 2001 to complete the Serfas Club Drive sidewalk project; and 2) forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 28, 2000 Page 6 14. PROPOSED RATE INCREASE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICE - P. 112 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) increase the hourly labor dates for Geographics professional services included in RCTC Contract RO-2060; 2) direct staff to process an agreement amendment to the existing contract; 3) authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission; and 4) forward to the Commission for final action. 15. RIDESHARE WEEK OVERVIEW - P. 117 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file Rideshare Week Overview as an information item and forward to the Commission for final action. 16. AMENDMENT TO COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASES BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (RC SAFE) AND SUB -LEASES BETWEEN RC SAFE AND LODESTAR TOWERS CALIFORNIA - P. 119 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) an amendment to the communications site lease between the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies; 2) an amendment to sub -lease between the Riverside County Service Authority for Emergencies and Lodestar Towers California, Inc.; and 3) forward to the Commission for final action. • • • • • • Budget and Implementation Committee August 28, 2000 Page 7 17. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY - P. 123 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) enter into an agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation, in the amount of $929,000, in State funding for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol Program for FY 2000-01; 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. 18. AMENDMENT OF SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS CONTRACTS FOR STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES - P. 125 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) extend the shared State Legislative Advocacy Services Contract No.00-051 between RCTC and SANBAG for a two year period in an amount not to exceed $48,750 annually; and 2) extend the shared Federal Legislative Advocacy Services Contract No. 00-047 between RCTC and SANBAG in an amount not to exceed $56,000 annually; 3) authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 4) forward to the Commission for final approval. 19. ADJOURNMENT - The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, September 25, .2000 at the RCTC offices. • AGENDA ITEM 4 • • MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • • BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, June 26, 2000 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order at 2:40 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 City of La Quinta City Hall Session Room, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92553. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: John Hunt Anneal Moore Kevin Pape Gregory S. Pettis* Ron Roberts Phil Stack John Tavaglione** Jim Venable Frank West** Patrick Williams** Attended meeting via video conference Arrived after start of the meeting 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. Jeffrey Bennett Juan DeLara John Pena Mike Wilson At this time, staff informed the Committee of a late breaking item, Federal Appropriation, that arose after posting of the agenda and needs action by the Committee. M/S/C (Pape/Stack) to determine the Federal Appropriation item as a late breaking item that arose after posting of the agenda and requiring action by the Committee. This item will be discussed as Agenda Item No. 17. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (PAPE/MOORE) to approve the minutes of the May 22, 2000 meeting as presented. Abstain: Pettis; Roberts; and, Stack 5. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Hunt/Pettis) to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 2 5A. MONTHLY CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Recommend that the Commission receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending May 31, 2000. 6. AMENDMENT #4 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-9832 TO PROVIDE ON -CALL MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR MEASURE A CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS In response to Commissioner Kevin Pape's question as to whether the amendment was required, Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager, responded that this was requirement of by Caltrans. M/S/C (Hunt/Moore) recommend that the Commission approve and Award Amendment #4 to Contract No. RO-9832 with Ninyo & Moore and to bring forward to the Commission for final action. 7. PROCEED WITH A NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) TO ACQUIRE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS (TCE'S) AND A PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT (PUE) BY EMINENT DOMAIN ALONG ROUTE 91 Bill Hughes informed the Committee that they have completed negotiations with one of the property owners to acquire right-of-way. Staff is in the process of negotiating and is close to achieving agreement with the last two property owners. If negotiations are successful, the Commission will not need to proceed with the eminent domain. M/S/C (Pape/Venable) if negotiations are not successful with the property owners, recommend the Commission authorize staff to: 1) proceed with a Notice of Intent (NOI) process to acquire the Temporary Constructions Easements (TCE's) and Permanent Utility Easement (PUE) by Eminent Domain for the construction of the Route 91, Mary to Magnolia Auxiliary Lane Project; and, 2) set a hearing date for July 12, 2000 to consider adopting a resolution of necessity. 8. AWARD CONTRACT NO. RO-2058 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALLS #110, #121 AND #161 ON ROUTE 91 Commissioner Roberts indicated his concern that only two bids were received to which Bill Hughes explained that there are more work available and some of the contractors that would typically bid on these projects were unable to get bonding coverage. M/S/C (Stack/Moore) recommend that the Commission approve to: 1) award Contract No. RO-2058 for construction of sound walls #110, #121 and #161 on Route 91, to D.W. Powell Construction, Inc., for $1,773,372 plus a 10% contingency amount of $176,628 to cover potential change orders encountered during construction for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,950.000; and 2) authorize the Chairperson to execute an agreement pursuant to Legal Counsel review. 9. AWARD CONTRACT NO. RO-2059 FOR SOUND WALL NO. 98 LANDSCAPE PROJECT ON ROUTE 91 As requested by the Committee, for future awards, the contractor's address will be included in the memorandum to the Commission. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 3 M/S/C (Hunt/Stack) recommend that the Commission: 1) award Contract No. RO-2059 for landscaping of sound wall #98 on Route 91 to the lowest responsive bidder; and, 2) authorize the Executive Director to execute the RCTC standard construction agreement pursuant to Legal Counsel review. 10. STATE ROUTE 74 FUNDING UPDATE AND MEADOWBROOK/GREENWALD INTERSECTION FUNDING Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, addressed two funding issues: 1) a revised budget for the Route 74 project; and, 2) the Meadowbrook/Greenwald Intersection. The current proposal for Meadowbrook is to leave the existing angled intersection in place, for approximately 3-5 years, and come back with a separate project. Environmental clearance has not been received and if this change is brought forward now it would require the process to start over. In response to Commissioner Phil Stack's question whether the Meadowbrook/Greenwald project was approved under a separate Route 74 project budget, Hideo Sugita replied that the Meadowbrook/Greenwald project is outside the current project limits as it relates to the environmental document. He recommended that this project be discussed further to determine funding of the increased expenditure and to designate the lead agency for the project. M/S/C (Pape/Venable) recommend the Commission: 1) adopt a revised budget of $51.3 million for the State Route 74 Measure "A" Project, between 1-15 and 7th Street in the City of Perris; and, 2) that the Chair expand representation of the Ad Hoc Committee to review the Meadowbrook/Greenwald intersection issues and develop a recommendation(s) for the Commission. From this point on of the Budget and Implementation Committee meeting, there was no quorum and the Committee continued to operate as a "Committee As A Whole". 11. CMAQ CLEAN FUELS OPPORTUNITY FUND PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Craig Nuestaedter, City of Moreno Valley and member of the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), voiced his concern regarding a project that had been submitted by Western Riverside Council of Governments on behalf of Moreno Valley and Waste Management for a CNG facility available for public use in the 1-1 5 Corridor and questioned the current evaluation process used to determine eligibility. He felt that there were discrepancies in the data used to evaluate this project. Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications, responded that one of the requirements of the applicant was to indicate the benefit of a project. Because this was not clearly defined in the Moreno Valley/Waste Management application, a Caltrans standard of vehicle use was applied. This approach was also applied to one other applicant that did not give a clear delineation of the number and type of vehicles that would use the facility in the initial development stage. However, if the Committee took action on all seven items, that would set in motion the possibility of the Moreno Valley/Waste Management project to be funded. Commissioner Frank West asked if each location would have LNG and CNG filling capabilities, and why the option of consolidation on one countywide was not considered and Marilyn Williams replied that a combined LNG and CNG site was not possible at this time. The heavy- duty industries particularly the trucking and refuge industries are opting to go to LNG, while Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 4 CNG is typically the fuel of choice for light duty vehicles. She added that the Banning site was particularly of critical importance as it is on a major corridor, which currently serves long -haul trucking companies that are moving to the LNG technology. M/S/C (Hunt/Pape) recommend the Commission to: 1) award CMAO. funding in an amount not to exceed $1.75 million under the Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund CaII for Projects to the highest priority projects as listed on Attachment B; and, 2) approve TAC recommendations 1-7 as detailed in the agenda item. 12. FY 2001-05 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming, informed the Committee that with the exception of six cities (Hemet, Murrieta, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Indio, Rancho Mirage), staff have received the five-year capital improvement plans for local streets and roads from all other local agencies. She noted that no disbursements of Measure "A" funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents are received and approved by the Commission. M/S/C (Hunt/Moore) recommend the Commission to approve the FY 2001-05 Measure "A"Five-year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads, as submitted by cities on staff memorandum. 13. FY 1999 — 2000 SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSIONS FOR THE CITIES OF HEMET, PALM SPRINGS, AND SAN JACINTO M/S/C (Venable/Hunt) recommend the Commission to approve, pursuant to FY 1999- 2000 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrians Facilities Program allocations: 1) the City of Hemet a six month extension to December 31, 2000 to complete the Santa Fe Avenue Sidewalk and Ramps Project; 2) the City of Palm Springs a six month extension to December 31, 2000 to award the contract for construction of the Sidewalk Safety Project; and, 3) the City of San Jacinto a twelve month extension to June 30, 2001 to construct the Young Street/Ramona Boulevard sidewalk project. 14. 2000-01 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS M/S/C (Hunt/Venable) recommend the Commission to approve the FY 2000-01 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program allocations. 15. AMENDMENTS TO COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASES BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (RC SAFE) AND THE SUB -LEASES BETWEEN RC SAFE AND LODESTAR TOWERS CALIFORNIA, INC. Marilyn Williams stated that the proposed site and sub leases extension to December 1, 2001 are critical to the maintenance of cellular coverage from 1-10 east of Indio. M/S/C (Venable/Stack) recommend the Commission to approve: 1) the amendments • • • Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes June 26, 2000 Page 5 • to communications site lease between the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies; and 2) the amendments to subleases between the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies and Lodestar Towers California, Inc. 16. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Eric Haley, Executive Director, informed the Committee that proposed Governor's package which included the following projects within Riverside County: 1) $40 million for HOV lanes on Route 91 from Mary Street to the Route 60/215 Interchange; 2) $25 million for HOV lanes on Route 60 from Route 15 to Valley Way; 3) $5 million for Route 91 to improve the Green River Interchange and add auxiliary lane and connector ramp east of the Green River Interchange to northbound Route 71; and, 4) for Route 10 first phase improvements to reconstruct Apache Trail Interchange. M/S/C (Hunt/Stack) recommend the Commission to: 1) adopt a support position on HR 3160; and, 2) receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update. 17. FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS M/S/C (Hunt/Stack) recommend the Commission, that in addition to previously approved projects, to approve staff advocacy for clean fuel infrastructure for Riverside Transit Agency, as a part of the federal transportation appropriations process. 40 18. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:02 p.m. There will be no meeting in July 2000. The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 12:00 p.m. on Monday, August 28, 2000 at the RCTC offices. Respectfully submitted, C Traci R. McGinley Deputy Clerk of the Board 77-7 f ATTENDANCE ROSTER • NAME/ /7r 11- /1) (&)/A) �� BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000 - 2:30 P.M. I t+LC.. 5TH} eg Vol Vole-al ()loot e_ • REPRESENTING 07 -e -tee %GRAN caw TELEPHONE AND FAX NO 32'i `7s-s%C/ c 92-2 -_3i 54.c. S2G-5/ 1 ATTENDANCE ROSTER NAME BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000 - 2:30 P.M. • REPRESENTING TELEPHONE AND FAX NO CL. o cc v„o u((, ,) c l 4( (3 ..3/ yv 1 AGENDA ITEM 5A • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager Louie Martin, Measure A 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 receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending July 31, 2000, and 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 July 31, 2000. Attachments 100001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. (2042) , ,, BTQ SU;;::;:::.:: TAf1<i031TE: fit? ROUTE 74 PR OJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966) *00004* ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineerin g/Environ./ROW (R09961) Re alignment study, Rjght turn lanes .Stnat ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538) 9635,9743,9849-9851,9857 ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall design and construction (809101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) Van Buren Blv d. Frwy Hoo k Ramp (R09535) Sndwall Landscaping (R09933,9946,9945) BTq�'. Ai.;AQ�� 81t 1-216 PRO JECTS Preliminary Engrg/Env iron. (R09008; 9018) �1119r7`C Page 1 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIW%Y/R AIL PROJECTS BUDGET REP ORT BY R OUTE COMMISSI ON AUTHORIZED ALL OCATI ON 82,229,000 $ 15,933,909 86,812,800 82,300,000 S883,450 �;;986tt# $ 6,726,504 CONTRACTURAL CO MMIT MENTS TO DATE $ 2,006,100 $6,508,900 $ 537,000 815 ,933,909 86,398,952 82,300,000 8798,291 $ 5,878,173 % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED ALLOCATION 07/31/00 90 .0% 100 .0% 100.0% 100 .0% $101 $166,869 $330,656 $1,337 EXPENDITURES TO DATE 5101 $1,813,615 86,438 $9,182,493 85,717,773 $1,797,708 8616,125 is1$ 6O. 85, 704,897 • % EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST COMMITMNTS TO DATE 0.0% 27 .9% 1 .2% 57.6% 89.4% 78.2% 77.2% RCTC ME ASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTION INTERCHA NGE IMPROV . PR OGRAM Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946) ......... .. ... .. ... ........ ..... ..... ...... ... skI TQTAL iNTERBi , PRO JECT & CO NSTR. MGMT SERV. (RO 2000) PROGRA M PLAN & SERVICES North/South Corridor study (R09936) PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PRO GRAM IRO 9859) (2001-2014) (9813) (2046) (9917) COM MUTER RA IL Studies/En gineering (RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956,2028) R02031,2027 Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2020,2026,9929,9845,9953,9957,9932,9972) CD CD CD O W TOTAti.: IiAA UTI#.. • COMMISSION AUTHORIZED ALLOCATION 9440,000 ,4p $1,550,000 AW $125 ,000 82,293,911 81,948,600 $13,150,502 CONTRACTURAL C OMMITMENTS TO DATE $400,000 $ 1,470,000 14. $125,000 S2,293,911 $1,905 ,600 $12,770,502 • % COMMITTED AGAINST AUTH . ALL OCATION 90.9% 94.8% 100.0% 100.0% Page 2 of 3 EXPENDITURE FOR MONTH ENDED 07/31/00 $7,748 7.748::: $127,642 961,137 9195,146 659,756 9424,347 iii ew #4'e '4s EXPENDITURES TO DATE 9312,481 $1,233,550 961,137 91,266,522 91 ,881,277 $10,269,585 % EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST COMMITMNTS TO DATE • 78.1% 83.9 % 48.9% 55.2% 98.7% 80.4% • PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY OF CANYON L AKE Ra ilroad Canyo n Rd Improvem ents CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Linco ln Interc hanges & (1) Storm drainage structure SUBTO T CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & roa d impro vements CITY OF SA N JACINTO Local streets & road improve ments CITY OF TEMECULA Lo ca l streets & ro ad improv ements CITY OF NO RCO Yu ma 1/C & Local stree ts and roa d Imprmts 1 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PR OJECTS BUD GET REP ORT BY PR OJECT • EXPENDITURE FOR T OTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE"A" LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST CO MMIT MENT 07/31/00 ADVANCES BALANCE C OMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT. $1,600 ,000 #:.?.,I~it?.04fik $5,212,623 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. 81,600,000 $5,212,623 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 4 S1,209,363 20%3'63: $3 ,687,547 $1,5.29,983 $1,046,500 $ 4,024,839 $1,690,097 $0 $0 SO $0 SO Page 3 of 3 75.6% 70.7% 79 .0% 79 .0% 79.0% 79 .0% Status as of : 7/31/00 AGENDA ITEM 5B • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON DATE: August 28, 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 receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report as of June 30, 2000 and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all contracts which have been executed through , June 30, 2000 under single signature authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The remaining unused capacity is $ 391,340.00. io Attachment • 100005 • CONSULTANT Smith & Kempton Smith & Kempton Creative Manageme nt Solutions 18 .... ... .. .. . .. ... .. .. .. ssoclatest AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 1999 AMO UNT USED AMOUNT REMAINING THRU June 30, 2000 CONTRACTS AUTHORIZED UNDER. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 • FINAL DESCRIPTI ON CONTRACT CONTRACT EXPENDED REMAINING OF SERVICES AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT BALANCE Phase I Riversid e County Transp Expenditure Plan pursuant to SCA-3 which may be on the March 2002 General El ection. Legislative Services as related to Route 91 Express Lan es Pr ovide professional consulting and conduct training sessi ons as It relates to pay guidelines for administration . <Envlrt nme t ts: sa 0..0(00000.00.10 c Prepared by Reviewed by tote Stisdod *te* t I +: Ot1f fO. i.. O O f:luserslpreprin tldplsin sig00 10,000.00 10,000 .00 11,000 .00 5,000.00 500,000.00 11,000 .00 5,000 .00 0 .00 10,000.00 8,472 .06 2,527.94 3,550 .00 1,450 .00 500,000 .00 70,227.06 38,432.94 108,660.00 391,340 .00 CONTRACTS AUTHORIZED UNDER SINGLE SI GNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 CONSULTANT FINAL DESCRIPTION CONTRACT CONTRACT EXPENDED RE MAINING OF SERVICES AMOUNT AM OUNT AMOUNT BALANCE Mathis & Associates Consultant f or RCTC employe e survey, RCTC 10,000.00 10,000.00 6,739.18 3,260 .82 organizati onal structure, relationships of new staff & f ollow up meetings with RCTC staff . SANBAG Co -manage study of growth in demand 15,000.00 15,000 .00 7,500 .00 7,500 .00 for air cargo and other freight movement in relation to Inland Empire Empl oyment and populati on gr owth. Susan Van Note Provide part-time financ e and accounting 9,800.00 5,600.00 5,600.00 0.00 services as Interim Chief Financial Officer Ric hard Doyle Co nsulting Services as a facilitator for the 1,500 .00 1,500 .00 1,500 .00 0 .00 Commission's staff retreat. Ray G orski Evaluation of Congestion Mitgation/Air 20,000.00 20,000 .00 20,000 .00 0 .00 Quality (CM AQ) project and development of a Clean Fuel Opportunity Fund . We st Group Design Architechtural Programming 15,700 .00 14,800.00 14,800.00 0.00 Office Planning & Design Services f: \users\preprint\dp\sinsig00 1 • • AGENDA ITEM 5C • • • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications SUBJECT: Quarterly CaII Box Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the operational statistics for the Riverside County Motorist Aid CaII Box System for the quarter ending June 30, 2000, and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the operational statistics for the call box system for the quarter ending June 30, 2000. There were a total of 13,934 calls during the quarter; 8,174 to Inland CHP and 5,760 to Indio CHP dispatch offices. This represents an increase of 2,496 calls (+ 21.8%) in call box activity over the quarter ending March 31, 2000. The average calls per day were 153 for the current quarter versus 126 for the previous quarter. In comparing the quarter ending June, 2000 to June, 1999 call volumes, there has been a decrease of 2,203 calls (-13.7%) from last year to this year. All call box programs throughout the state have been experiencing a similar decrease in usage. Attachments )00006 • Jun May Apr 4141464141414.4... 41..41.4141/414141*. 416.41.46.414146.... A41 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Calls to CHP ®1999 ❑ 2000 5,000 6,000 7,000 RCTC Active CaII Boxes Calls to CHP 2nd QTR '1999 2nd QTR '2000 Difference 1,123 1,118 -5 16,137 13,934 -2,203 Jun Totals Apr - Jun Totals Inland Calls/Box 14.4 12.5 -1.9 Chart Inland 2nd QTR 1999 2nd QTR '2000' Difference Call Boxes .2 Catls to CHP 9,354 74 ,180` Calls/Bo Calls/Box 2. Indio 2nd QTR '1999 2nd QTFR'2000 Difference Call Boxes 551 537 -14 Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Calls to CHP 6,783 5,760 -1,023 12.3 10.7 -1.6 Inland: 0 71) Cr 0 0 CD m dHO 01 sIIeQ jo AJewwns apisaan!H 000z aapeno puz Page: 1 Data Source: AT&T Wireless '00009 Average CaII Lengths Average CaII Lengths 2nd 3:50 Apr -99 3:49 May -99 3:44 Jun -99 3:57 2nd 3:42 Apr -00 3:39 May -00 3:49 Jun -00 3:39 *The amount of time each call box is authorized to use in one month without an additional charge from the cellular vendor ' 1,123 CaII boxes 117,915 Minutes Call Box Cellular Minutes Allocated 117,915 minutes 1,118 CaII boxes 117,390 Minutes CaII Box Cellular Minutes Allocated 117,390 minutes 1999 CHP Close-up (2nd QTR)',', .2000 CHP'Close-up (2nd QTR) Call Length Number of calls Percent Call Length Number of calls Percent 1 to 3 min 4,938 31% 3 to 5 min 3,405 21% 5 to 7 min 2,149 pq 13% 7 to 9 min 1,156 El 7% over 9 min a 1,300 --- 8% Total 16,137 calls 100% 1,021 Ej 7 to 9 min 7% over 9 min 1,078 ED 8% Total 13,934 calls 100% 1999 Maintenance' Ca Is"'(2rid'QTR) 2000 Maintenance Calls ('2nd QTR); 'Call boxes are scheduled to Call Maintenance every 3 days (10 times/month) 90 episaan!J 0003 JaTJBnO pu3 • • • Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 2 Data Source: AT&T Wireless :100010 1999 ❑ 2000 xoq / sireo e eJenv 20 15 10 - < < < o 0 b a a 0 'o < < .N.. N a w 2nd QTR '1999 CaII Calls to Avg Highway Boxes CHP Calls/Box RV -010 398 5,335 RV -015 RV -031 205 5 4,006 39 13.4 19.5 7.8 2nd QTR '2000 CaII Calls to Avg Highway Boxes CHP Calls/Box RV -010 398 4,459 11.2 RV -015 201 3,367 16.8 RV -031 5 RV -033 2 21 10.5 RV -033 2 39 7.8 RV -060 RV -062 RV -071 75 1;058 14.1 13.6 0.0 RV -074 30 362 12.1'' RV -078 7 12 1.7 RV -86S RV -091 4`' 102 7.3 60 2,603 16:3 RV -060 RV -062 10 5.0 74 971 13.1 26 283 10.9 RV -071 N/A RV -074 RV -078 RV -079 RV -086 RV -86S RV -091 0 0.0 30 277 9.2 7 6 0.9 29 256 8.8 10 46 4.6 14 161 RV -095 7 1.7 2.4 RV -095 7 99 2,245 21 7.1 13.9 3.0 RV -111 13' ; 158 12.2 RV -111 13 107 8.2 RV -177 26 77 3.0 RV -177 26 89 RV -215 94` ,672; 17.8 RV -215 89 RV -243 RV -371 assigned OTALS 14 Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services 6.1 RV -243 RV -371 unassigned TOTALS Page: 3 14 12 1,558 67 34 3.4 17.5 4.8 2.8 0 0 0.0 1,118 13,934 12.5 Riverside CaII Box Statistics by Highway 0000 JePeno puz Data Source: AT&T Wireless 10 00 Calls to CHP Park N Ride Average Calls / Day TIME of day 10pm - 11 pm 11 pm - 12am 12am - 1 am 1 am - 2am 2am - 3am 3am - 4am 4am - 5am 5am - 6am TOTAL 2nd QTR 1999 441' 242 200 70 185 339 2,461 2000 478 365 288 189 160 142 162 293 2,077 2nd QTR 1999 18 2000 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 11 2nd 1999 2000 5.2 4.8 4.0 3.2 2,7 2.1 22 1.8 1.6 27.0 22.8 I 1 i L1 t 2nd QTR '1999 2nd QTR 2000 6am - 7am 7am - 8am 8am - 9am 9am - 10am 10am - 11 am 11 am - 12pm 12pm - 1pm 1 pm - 2pm TOTAL 881 428 544 528 563 956 982 6;042 633 764 809 885 5,154 6 8 6 2 13 10 10 10 11 15 11 12 9 10 12 80 73 7♦8 8.4 97 10.5 6.2 6.9 8.4 8.9 2pm - 3pm 1,028 961 16 14 11.3 10.5 1 3pm - 4pm 1,179 990 18 21 12.9 10.8 1 1 4pm - 5pm 1,149 1,026 26 16 12.6 11.2 i 5pm - 6pm 1,085 994 24 18 11.9 10.9 I 6pm - 7pm 1,052 823 13 20 11.5 9.0 I 7pm - 8pm 863 778 14 19 9.5 8.5 I 8pm - 9pm 714 635 21. 14 7.8 7.0 1 I 9pm - 10pm , 564 496 13 4 6.2 5.4 I TOTAL 7,634 6,703 145 126 83.7 73.5 �� .. a . ' RCTC TOTAL 16,137 13,934 243 210 176.8 152.7 RCTC TOTAL Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 4 (D --z V) Q CD 3 3 O p) (1) cr O C 000z aainno pu Data Source: AT&T Wireless • • • 100012 • AVG Number of Active CaII Boxes (over the last 6 months) Previous PM Cycle Jul -99 Aug -99 Sep -99 Oct -99 Nov -99 Performance Preventive Maintenance Visits 235 183 194 70 136 Percent of System Visited 21% 16% 17% 6% 12% Dec -99 284 25% Total 1,102 98% PM visits needed to be on schedule 186 / Month (17%) PM visits in the last 6 months 183 / Month (16%) Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services 250 200 150 100 50 Most Recent PM Cycle Jan -00 Feb -00 Mar -00 Apr -00 May -00 Jun -00 Total Performance Preventive Maintenance Visits Percent of System Visited 252 23% 33 3% 200 18% 90 8°/O 205 18% 201 981 PM visits needed to be on schedule 186 / Month (17%) PM visits in the last 6 months 163 / Month (15%) 18% 88% AVG Number of Active CaII Boxes (over the last 6 months) Riverside Preventive Maintenance 000 ietaen° puz Page: 5 Data Source: Comarco Wireless 100013 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.) SHE'D 1soI 10 1U93Jed 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% m co Aug '99 - CHP changed from the SR1000 ACD to the Meridian ACD. [Data was not provide by CHP from Aug - Dec 1999.] mco O m z 0 co m f0 D 8 E, cco 0) to O Z 0 co 0 8 0 T 8 8 8 8 Jul -98 Au -98 Sep -98 Oct -98 Nov -98 Dec -98 Jan -99 Feb -99 Mar -99 Apr -99 May -99 Jun -99 5% 8% 7% 7% 6% 9% 5% 7% 6% 7% 6% 8% Jul -99 9% Aug -99 Sep -99 cc �. Oct -99 to z Nov -99 o Dec -99 Z NA NA NA NA NA Jan -00 9% Feb -00 16% Mar -00 11% Apr -00 9% May -00 12% Jun -00 14% w' The length of time (in minutes) a motorist waited before hanging up or "redialing" CHP. On hold Apr -00 May -00 Jun -00 AVG 1 Chart 0-12 27% 1 9% 26%1 24% 12-24 6% 6% 6% 24 - 36 50/0 7% 6% 36 - 48 7°/0 4% 6°/0 48 - 60 6% 4% 4% 60 - 120 10% 13% 14% 120 - 180 10% 9% 60/0 180 - 240 7% 6% 6°/0 240 - 300 4°/0 4% 4% 300-!- 20% 32% 25% Average Delay (seconds) 3:13 Max Delay (seconds) 10:12 ( 0/0 12°/0 8°/0 ♦♦• 21% Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 6 sisiCjEuy IIBo ISO -I eplaleA }d 00(2 J8TenO puz Data Source: CHP ACD X00014 • • • 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. 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 90 60 30 z 0 co co d 8 8 8 seconds 8 Jul -98 Aug -98 Sep -98 79% 84% 82% 54 78 72 Oct -98 83% 66 Nov -98 80% 56 Dec -98 Jan -99 84% 77 Feb -99 Mar -99 Apr -99 May -99 Jun -99 Jul -99 79% 79% 80% 80% 80% 84% 83% 62 62 60 65 56 83 82 Aug -99 as Sep -99 o Oct -99 z Nov -99 Dec -99 a> O z a) (1) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Jan -00 42% 44 Feb -00 49% 70 Mar -00 48% 55 Apr -00 47% 57 May -00 53% 71 Jun -00 51% 67 m m> D m On Time 50% Aug '99 - CHP changed from the SR1000 ACD to the Meridian ACD. Criteria for the SR1000 % Delayed = a call must be answered within 5 secs. Criteria for the Meridian % Delayed = 12 seconds. [Data was not provide by CHP from Aug - Dec 1999.] 7% 5% MEM 4% 3% Delayed 11% 7% MON 5% 4% 0 5% MEE 53% 7% 47% 49% 7% 7% 50% 7% 36 5% 5% 5% 5% <48 .. 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 2617 10% 12% 11% 11% <180 7% 7% 7% [240 4% 5% 5% 300 3% 4% 4% 4% 6% 5% Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 7 Riverside Delayed CaII Analysis 000 ieieno pu Data Source: CHP ACD 'CVRS Counties `a Sacramento San Joagain Sutler Yuba • Yoio • ..'MTC Counties' Alameda Conira Costa,.., „ .... • Marro Napa • San Francisco San.Mateo ::.Santa Clara... ::Solaro Sonoma Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 8 Data Source: Cellular Tapes 1 • !100016 AGENDA ITEM 5D • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 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 receive and file the Financial Statements for the quarter ending June 30, 2000, and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Revenues Fiscal Year 1999-2000 continued to be good year for Measure A Revenues. The Commission received over $81 million in Measure A revenues. As a result of greater revenues than expected, staff is going to revise our Measure A revenue estimates at the October Commission meeting. Local Transportation Funds (LTF) received by the County were similarly higher, however, the Commission revenues were not as high due to claims not being submitted. The Finance Department continues to submit claims as costs are incurred. Federal, State, Local and Other Government category revenues were less than budgeted as projects were not undertaken. Staff will submit claims to the appropriate agencies as construction and other costs are incurred. Per the statements, the Interest Income category is less than budgeted, however, the Commission does not receive its final apportionment of interest from the County Treasurer until after June 30, 2000. Staff expects the Interest Income category to be greater than the amount budgeted as interest rates were higher this last fiscal year. The Other Revenue category which includes refunds, reimbursements and other miscellaneous revenues were higher than budgeted. Expenditures All expenditure categories were below the budget except Office Lease/Utilities and General Legal Services. The reason the Commission was over budget in the Office Leases/Utilities category was due to an invoice received from our Lessor for services rendered in Fiscal Year 1998-1999. The services were valid and the Commission paid the Lessor. Staff will use cost savings in General Administration Expenditures to cover these costs and make the adjustment prior to the closing of the general ledger for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. )00017 The General Legal Services category was over budget due to the additional costs incurred during the Route 91 Toll Road discussions. Staff will use cost savings in the Professional Services category to cover these costs and make the adjustment prior to the closing of the general ledger. Overall, the Commission incurred 75% of the budgeted expenditures as several projects did not start as anticipated. Attached is a report from Bechtel Staff, providing an explanation for the Budget to Actual variances in the Construction program. Attachments 1100018 • Description REVENUES Sates Tax Revenues Measure A Other Sales Tax Revenues Fed State Local & Other Govern Interest Income Other Re ve nues TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATION Salaries & Benefits General Legal Service s Prof Services (Exclu des Legal) Office Lease/Utilities General Adm in Expenses TOTAL ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Salaries & Bene fits Gene ral Legal Services Prof Services (Excludes Legal) General Projects Highway Engineering Highway Co nstruction Highways ROW Special Studies Rail Engineering Rail Construction Rail ROW Commuter Assistance Regional Arterial Stre ets & Roads Special Transportion\Transit Pro ject Operatio ns/Maintenance Project Towing STA Distributions TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Intergovern Distribution Capital Outlay TOTAL EXPENDITURES Other Finan cin g Sourc es(Uses) Operating Tran sfers In Operating Transfers Out CZ 111/1 Riverside County Transportation C ommission 40TRA BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-4th Otr For Period Endi ng: 06/30/00 08/11/00 REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION 73,486,999.00 81,543,732.35 7,155,263.00 5,984,170.00 10,268,645.00 6,414,223.27 3,678,164.00 3,578,732 .14 6,623,129.00 7,106,655.89 101,212,200.00 104,627,513.65 (8,056,733.35) 1,171,093.00 3,854,421.73 99,431.86 (483,526.89) 110.96 83.63 62.46 97 .29 107.30 (3,415,313.65) 103.37 827,000.00 642,943.69 184,056.31 107,500.00 88,256.07 19,243.93 1,199,056.00 960,604 .36 238,451.64 220,000 .00 225,151 .22 (5,151.22) 820,740 .00 593,523 .69 227,216.31 3,174,296.00 2,510,479.03 663,816.97 1,489,306.00 287,500.00 437,000. 00 1,859,200. 00 3,274,915.00 11,590,776.00 1,710,729.00 2,475,000.00 1,717,479.00 5,741,250.00 652,352.00 1,531,076.00 7,508,794.00 31,275,141.75 6,581,399.00 1,693,579.00 972,158. 00 2,395,666.00 83,193,320.75 518,609. 00 86,000.00 86,972,225.75 0.00 30,600,224.00 1,373,605 .88 115,700 .12 328,718.10 (41,218.10) 351,308 .03 85,691.97 1,539,897 .23 319,302.77 2,505,619.18 769,295.82 1,437,414.85 10,153,361.15 482,373 .08 1,228,355.92 2,415,361.63 59,638.37 295,036.40 1,422,442.60 2,452,755.23 3,288,494.77 650,082.87 2,269.13 968,225. 02 562,850.98 6,467,674.29 1,041,119.71 31,275,141. 75 0 .00 5,975,750.04 605,648.96 1,636,478. 00 57,101.00 866,058. 79 106,099 .21 1,527,661.00 868,005.00 62,549,161.37 20,644,159.38 518,322.40 286.60 50,503.59 35,496.41 65,628,466.39 21,343,759. 36 1,536,629.71 (1,536,629.71) 32,063,691.56 (1,463,467. 56) 77.74 82 .09 80.11 102.34 72.31 79.08 92.23 114 .33 80.39 82 .82 76 .50 12.40 28.19 97.59 17.17 42 .72 99 .65 63 .23 86 .13 100.00 90.79 96.62 89.08 63.76 75.18 99 .94 58.72 75.45 0.00 104.78 Description Debt Service Issuance Costs Total Other Financing Sources Uses Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues And Other Financing Sources Over(Under)Expenditures And Other Fin ancing Uses FUND BALANCE July 1, 1999 FUND BALANCE June 30, 2000 c) c • BUDGET 0 .00 ACTUALS Riverside Co unty Tra nsportati on Commission BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-4th Qtr For Period Endi ng: 06/30/00 08/11/00 REMAINING PERCENT BALANCE UTILIZATION 0 .00 0.00 0.00 30,600,224.00 30,527,061.85 (16,360,249.75) 8,471,985.41 86,586,843.00 96,140,717.63 70,226,593 .25 104,612,703.04 73,162 .15 _99.76 (24,832,235.16) (51.78) (9,553,874 .63) 111.03 (34,386,109 .79) 148.96 4QTRA • 1 Description REVENUES Sales Tax Revenues Me asure A Other Sa les Tax Revenues Fed State Local 8 Other Gove rn In terest In come Othe r Revenu es TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATION Salarie s 8 Benefits General Lega l Serv ices Prof Se rvices (Excludes Legal) Office Lease/Utilitie s Gen era l Admin Expen ses TOTAL ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Salaries 8 Benefits Ge neral Legal Services Prof Service s (Excludes Legal) Genera l Pro jects Highway Engineering Highway Con stru ctio n Highways ROW Special Studie s Rail Engineering Rail Con struction Rail ROW Commute r Assistan ce Region al Arterial Stre ets It Roads Special Transpo rtion\Transit Project Operations/Maintenance Pro ject Towin g STA Distribu tions TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Inte rgovern Distribution Capital Outlay TOTAL EXPENDITURES Othe r Fin ancin g So urces(Uses) Ope rating Tran sfe rs In Operating Transfers Out • Rive rside Cou nty Tran sportation Co mm ission ACTUALS BY FUND THRU 415 QTR Fo r Period Ending: 06/30/00 08/11/00 40TRB 08/11/00 GENERAL STATE WESTERN WESTERN COUNTY WESTERN EASTERN TRANSIT CVAG COUNTY COMMERCIAL COMBINING FUND FSP/SAFE COUNTY COUNTY ASSISTANCE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION PAPER TOTAL 2,000,000. 00 0.00 57,514,560. 68 22,029,171.67 0. 00 5,984,170. 00 0. 00 0.000.00 0. 00 0 .00 0.00 85,984,0.00 0. 00 0 .00 0 .00 6,484,170 .0023.27 2,905,406.54 2,606.21 3,251,848. 89 0. 006,414,223 .27 172,132.65 128,559. 02 1,265,490.85 561,915.13 170,681. 16 295,430.14 907,148.64, 106 .04 (1 77, ) 374.55 3,578,732.14 544,533.75 1,962,243. 91 49,856.93 1,430,084.16 2,423,397.00 0.00 696,540 .14 0 .00 7,106,655 .89 11,606,242. 94 2,093,409. 14 62,081,757. 35 24,021,170. 96 2,594,078.16 295,430 .14 1,985,794.82 (50,369 .86) 104,627,513.65 599,807.95 42,916.60 83,297.52 4,958.55 928,101.33 29,903. 03 211,642.17 13,509.05 558,233. 22 35,290. 47 2,381,082.19 126,577.70 219.14 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 219. 14 0. 00 0. 00 2,600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,600.00 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 0.00 909,546.98 102,269.07 361,789. 83 0.00 0.00 0.00 92,002.09 5,832.50 229,800. 79 388. 50 0.00 0.00 0 .00 1,373,605 .88 275,887.04 38,953. 93 36,467.06 0. 00 0 .00 694.22 0 .00 328,718.10 48,529.59 0.00 1,452,526. 59 38,841. 05 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 351,308.03 0. 00 0. 00 41,327. 52 36,219.23 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 1,539,897.23 0.00 0.00 813,598.83 488,056.09 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 2,438,363 .77 (10,291.34) 2,505,619 .18 0.00 0. 00 460,821. 48 20,821.60 0 .00 0.00 92,077.23 43,682.70 1,437,414.85 2,397,000. 14 0. 00 18,361.49 0.00 (1,566 .00) 5,225 .00 (2,929.00) 482,373.08 0.00 0.00 295,036. 40 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 2,415,361 .63 0. 00 2,452,755.23 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 295,036.40 627,729. 87 0.00 22,353.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .000 .00 0.00 2,452,755 .23 0.00 0.00 968,225. 02 0 .00 0.00 0.00 650,082.87 0. 00 0. 00 6,467,674.29 0. 00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 968,225.02 0. 00 0. 00 23,005,824.34 8,269,317.41 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 6,467 ,674 .29 3,149,719.00 0.00 976,031.04 1,850,000.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 31,275,141.75 890,290.22 746,187. 78 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 5,975,750 .04 0.00 866,058.79 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 .00 0 .00 1,636,478.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 866,058 .79 0 .00 1,527,661.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 1,527,661 .00 8,390,704. 93 1,759,302.07 31,134,918.62 17,171,318 .17 1,527,661 .00 (1,566 .00) 2,536,360.22 30,462.36 ' 62,549,161.37 518,609. 00 0. 00 0 .00 (286.60) 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 518,322 .40 47,473.40 3,030.19 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 50,503.59 11,337,869. 52 1,888,909.96 31,135,137.76 17,173,631 .57 1,527,661.00 (1,566.00) 2,536,360.22 30,462.36 65,628,466.39 6,297. 41 202,962.16 1,327,370 .14 0.00 0.00 8,125.47 202,500 .00 22,629,432.69 7,897,981 .88 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 1,536,629.71 0.00 0.00 1,325,651 .52 0 .00 32,063,691 .56 642,943.69 88,256 .07 960,604 .36 225,151.22 593,523.69 0 .00 2,510,479.03 • • Description De bt Service Issu an ce Costs Total Other Financing Sou rce s Uses Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues And Other Fin ancin g Sou rces Over(Under)Expen ditures And Other Financing Uses FUND BALANCE July 1, 1999 FUND BALANCE Ju ne 30, 2000 GENERAL FUND 0. 00 FSP/SAFE • Riverside Coun ty Transportation Com missio n 4OTRB 08/11/00 ACTUALS BY FUND THRU 4TH OTR For Pe riod En ding: 06/30/00 08/11/00 STATE WESTERN WESTERN COUNTY WESTERN EASTERN TRANSIT CVAG COUNTY COMMERCIAL COMBINING COUNTY COUNTY ASSISTANCE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION PAPER TOTAL 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 1,828.06 (462.16) 21,302,062. 55 7,897,981. 88 0. 00 0.00 1,325,651.52 0.00 30,527,061 .85 266,545. 36 204,961.34 9,644,557.04 (1,050,442. 49) 1,066,417. 16 296,996.14 (1,876,216.92) (80,832.22) 8,471,985.41 3,934,367. 02 2,412,126.77 25,847,422. 99 14,113,165. 55 3,627,152.94 8,281,776.47 36,192,063 .72 1,732,642.17 96,140,717.63 4,200,912.38 2,617,088.11 35,491,980. 03 13,062,723.06 4,693,570. 10 8,578,772 .61 34,315,846 .80 1,651,809.95 104,612,703.04 • Budget Variance Explanations 41h Quarter ending 6/30/00 Highway Engineering Route 74 - The budget was reduced to $1.5M for the fiscal year due to delays for environmental issues and related studies having to be performed for the US Fish & Wildlife. In addition, scope changes resulted in a increase of ROW estimates impacting design. Route 79 - The allocated budget of $12,000 to cover the cost of performing environmental review of the landscaping for the Lamb Canyon project is Awaiting formalization from the Fish and Wildlife to complete the mitigation requirements to close out the project. Expect to have completed by Fiscal year 2001. 1 • The re -alignment project was delayed due to insurance issues required of the consultant to meet RCTC requirements, qualifications by the Feds and environmental issues that have not been resolved with the Fish and Wildlife. A limited NTP was issued in FY 2000 with a revised budget of $45,000. Route 111- Design activities for the Palm Desert projects have been delayed due to awaiting decision on the feasibility of the City assuming Hwy 111 design responsibilities from the State for all projects. Invoices need to be submitted for those projects that have completed design by the cities. Highway Construction Route 74 - Due to the environmental issues and studies being performed for the Fish and Wildlife and increase in ROW requirements, construction could not start in FY 2000 therefore, budget of $2,860,088 will move to the FY 2001 period. Route 79 - County of Riverside has not made a decision on proceeding with constructing Of right turn lanes on Gilman Springs Road. The $100,000 will roll over to FY2001. Route 91 - Soundwall 635 was the only project awarded from the five that were scheduled in FY2000 and the budget was revised to $350,000 to be spent by June 30`x'. The balance of construction for SW635 is forecasted for completion by 8/31/00 with a budget of $450,000. The other remaining soundwall projects will be awarded during fiscal year 2001. ,100023 Route 91 - Phase II of the Van Buren Interchange Row and appraisal did not start as budgeted in FY 2000. The City of Riverside is the lead agency for this project and forecasted to start in FY2001 . The City received a $2M CMAQ allocation for this project which reduces the Measure A required funds to now be budgeted at $653,000. Route 111 - Construction was completed on San Pablo and Deep Canyon in Palm Desert. Balance of projects totaling $1.3M have been moved to the 2001 fiscal year. This includes $1M for construction of the Monroe to Rubidoux project in Indio which also start in FY 2001. Highway Right of Way Route 74 - Due to the on -going analysis and assessments being performed in the design phase of work, acquisition of right of way that was budgeted in FY00 for $1.1M will now be moved over to start in Fiscal year 2001. Rail Engineering Pedley Station - Due to the on -going contract negotiations with the consultant and the rescoping of the security system installation work to be performed, the start of this Project has been moved to Fiscal year 2001. Santa Fe Depot - Project has been moved to fiscal year 2001 due to the lateness of the RFP being sent out resulting from rescoping of the project and negotiations with the consultant that will perform the work. Tier II stations - The contract award of the Corona -Main station was delayed until the pre -award audit required by State was completed. San Jacinto Line - The Commission received congressional approval for $500,000 to start preliminary environmental clearances. However, we cannot proceed until we have completed the FTA grant approval process. Due to the amount of time it will take to get through the process, the funds for this work will be moved to the FY 2001. 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. Atotal of $2.1M will be moved • • • 0}00024 • • into the FY 2001. The West Corona/ La Sierra overcrossing project is running behind schedule due to material leadtime delivery taking longer than anticipated. The project scheduled completion is now forecasted for October 2000 and $1.4M will be moved into FY2001. Regional Arterial Several regional arterial projects were completed below cost of the engineer's estimate. One project that was scheduled to start at the beginning of the fiscal year, actually started later reducing the budgeted amount required in FY2000. The project will now completed in FY2001. 100025 • AGENDA ITEM 5E • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Investment Report for Quarter Ending June 30, 2000 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the Investment Report for quarter ending June 30, 2000 and forward to the Commission for final action. 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 June 30, 2000 is also attached for your review. Attachments }00026 Investment Rep ort Period Ending June 30, 2000 OPERATING FUNDS RATING PAR PUR CHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED MOODYS/S8P/FITCH VALUE DATE DATE MARKET PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS) Bank of Amercia 8844,795 .06 AA1/AA- Cash with County Treasurer $40,801,825.49 AAA-MR1/AAAf-S1/AAA v1+ Financ ial Investors Trust (FIT) $5,020 ,475 71 AMJAAAA Highmark Money Market (US Treasury Ob Fund) $28,530 00 AAA/AAA A gencyfTreasury Securities: Fed Nat'l Mtge Assoc $4,999,750.00 AAA/AAA $5,000,000 .00 04/07/00 03/30/01 6.65% $4,999,750 .00 $4,992,167.50 ($7,562.50) Fed Home Ln Banks $3,778,510 75 AAA/AAA 83,775,000.00 06/16/00 06/14/01 6.90 % $3,778,510.75 $3,777,359.37 ($1,151 .38) Fed Home Ln Mtg $1,994,600.00 AAA/AAA $2,000,000 00 06/14/99 06/15/01 5.89% $1,994,600 .00 81,978,750.00 (515,850.00) Fed Ho me Ln Ba nks $2,528,747.80 AAA/AA A $2,540,000.00 11/01/99 09/17/01 6.12% $2,528,747.80 $2,509,043 .75 ($19,704 .05) Fed Natl M tg Assn Me dium Term (Ca llable) $2,297,843.75 AAA/AAA $2,300,000.00 02/23/99 02/25/02 5 .65 % $2,297,843.75 $2,254,526 .70 ($43,317.05) Fed Nat'l Mtge As so c $2,000,000.00 AAA/AAA . 82,000,000.00 03/09/99 03/08/02 5.88 % $2,000,000.00 81,966,912 .00 ($33,088.00) Fed Nat1 Mtge As so c $696,919.50 AAA/AAA $720,000 .00 06/13/00 12/07/00 6 .74 % 5696,919.20 5699,179.04 52,259 .84 Fed Home Ln M tg $1,961,200.00 AAA/AAA 82,000,000.00 06/14/99 07/15/03 6.29 % Sub-To ta l$1,961,200.00 51,931,875 .00 ($29,325 .00) $66,953,198.06 820,335,000.00 820,257,571 .50 820,109,833 .36 ($147,738.14) FUNDS HELD IN TRUST Cash with County: Local Transportation Fund 817,132,095.13 AAA-M R1/AAAf-S1/AAAv1+ First American Treasury $2,899,884.18 AANAAA Sub -Total $20,031,979.31 CO MM ISSIO N BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE Mile sto ne Funds $8,815,243.09 AAA/AAA First American Treasury $3,986,758.19 AAA/AA A U.S. Treasury Notes 815,926,000.00 AAA/AAA M BIA Investment Agreement 80.00 Sub -To tal 828,728,001.28 TOTAL 8115,713,178. 65 SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE Banks $844,795.06 Cash with County 857,933,920 .62 Mutual Funds: Financial Investors Trust 85,020,475.71 Highmark $28,530.00 First American Treasury 82,899,884 .18 Milestone $8,815,243.09 Sub -Total Mutual Funds 816,764,132.98 Federal Agency Not es 820,257,571.50 U.S. Treasury Notes 819,912,758.19 Investment Agreements 80 00 TOTAL 8115,713,178.35 i Portfolio Investment Type Portfolio Maturity Agencies 18% Mutual Funds 14% County Pool 51% Investment Agreements 17% Nature of Investment Bond Project 0% 1 to 3 Yrs. 11% $12,599,702 Less than 1 Yr. 5% $5,696,669 Over 3 Yrs. 1% $1,961,200 0 to 90 Days 83% $95,455,607 Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ending June 30, 2000 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on November 12, 1998. The Commission adequate cash flows . six months of operations. Signed by Chie ►Financial Officer =300028 FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST Monthly Master Account Statement o‘stOE 906 July 2, 2000 �`JF1� iVE�1�\ ACCOUNT 330072823-00 * 1 JUL 1 1 2000 l = a RIVERSIDE COUNTY 'i TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION /fig 3560 UNIVERSITY PLACE /,�, RIVERSIDE CA 92501 4IIUN Fund Performance as of 7/2/00 U.S. TREASURY MONEY MARKET (AM) SEC 7 DAY YIELD 6.14% 7 DAY EFFECTIVE YIELD 6.33% SUBACCOUNT OPENING MONTHLY REINVESTED BALANCE TOTAL CREDITS TOTAL DEBITS DIVIDENDS ENDING MONTHLY BALANCE U.S. TREASURY MONEY MARKET (AM) 00 4,994,044.86 0.00 0.00 26,430.85 $5,020,475.71 total FIT Funds Investment 4,994,044.86 4,994,044.86 0.00 0.00 26,430.85 $5,020,475.71 0.00 0.00 26,430.85 5,020,475.71 Mutual Funds Services '100020 GE Investments Sponsor and Distributor The Investment Management Arm of GE Investment Advisor COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund Compliance Analysis and Investment Report (www.countytreasurer.org) June 30, 2000 PAUL McDONNELL TREASURER/TAx COLLECTOR KENNETH C. KIRIN ASSISTANT TREASURER DONALD R. KENT CHIEF DEPUTY TREASURER (909) 955 - 3967 J U L a)00 Treasurer's Commentary Looking for the Soft Landing" ill I As anticipated by mo IU.N—" investors, the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) left interest rates unchanged after its two- day - �•...�.::...,.. meeting ended June 28th. The economic reports released after the FED's May decision to increase rates came in a little weaker than expected, triggering the shift in sentiment among market observers. However, on its June 28th release, the FED did state "signs that growth in demand moving to a sustainable pace are still tentative and preliminary.' The National Association of Purchasing Managers (NAPM), nonfarm payrolls and unemployment, and inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI), were all seen as the determining factors that the FED used as there decision to hold rates steady. These reports remained virtually unchanged for the month. Nonetheless, some experts still believe thatthe gradualist Greenspan FED could possibly raise rates again at its next meeting on August 22nd, althoughsthe arguments to do so will hinge upon several more reports. It remains to be seen if the election year theory of rate hike aversion will hold true in the months to come. Chairman Greenspan has been known to be free of political bias (appointed by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton). The financial markets stabilized somewhat this month after a period in which we saw increased volatility and triple digit swings, perhaps because the FED is now seen near the end of the tightening cycle. As far as the bond markets were concerned, U.S. Treasury yields fell, although they still remain inverted. At month's end, the ovemight rate was 7.13% (due to heavy short-term market pressures), the 2 -year T -Note was 6.36%, while the 30 -year T -Bond was 5.89%. For the month of June, the Pool experienced an 11 bps. increase in yield. We now feel that the FED may raise rates one additional time by the year-end, as the economy has finally shown some of the effects of the last six increases. We expect to see a limited increase in the Pool yield as our securities mature and we reinvest at the current market 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 docs not include accrued interest JUNE PORTFOLIO STATISTICS MAY APRIL $ 1,518,022,591 $ 1,514,875,822 $ 1,770,794,345 $ 1,505,182,395 $ 1,502,322,136 $ 1,758,229,415 $ (12,840,196) $ (I2,553,686) $ (12,564,930) -0.85% -0.84% -0.71% 6.21% • 0.84 0.65 6.10% 0.85 0.68 5.95% 0.79 0.63 MARCH FEBRUARY JANUARY $ 1,439,804,648 $ 1,499,144,057 $ 1,455,567,108 $ 1,427,273,959 $ 1,486,739,258 $ 1,442,898,650 $ (12,530,689) $ (12,404,799) $ (12,668,458) -0.88% -0.83% -0.88% 5.91% 5.75% 5.70% 0.98 0.91 0.94 0.78 0.74 0.78 THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS RATED AAA/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/VI+ BY FITCH IBCA }00030 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Pooled Investment Fund — Portfolio Characteristics n s or Less 3111110 Days 90 Days - 1 Year 1 - 2 Years 2 - 3 Years Over 3 Years Total: Market Value 582,449,881.53 79,613,529.85 218,511,738.89 455,112,055.00 169,495,190.00 51,505,182,395.27 Oualitv U.S. Treasury Federal Agency AAA A-1 and/or P-1 AA A N/R Total: Market Value 128,789,252.50 702,118,642.50 5,992,500.00 653,782,000.27 • 14,500,000.00 — S1,505,182,395.27 Quality AAA 0.40% Sector U.S. Treasury Federal Agency Cash Equiv. & MMFs atrial Paper Term Notes Negotiable CD's Bankers Acceptances Certificates of Deposit Local Agency Obligations ',Total: • Market Value 128,789,252.50 702,118,642.50 29,100,000.00 573,934,651.38 4,992,500.00 10,000,000.00 41,747,348.89 8,000,000.00 6.500.000.00 51,505,182,395.27 • includes Reims •• Collates -alined Time Deposit t BANs RIVERSIDE PORTFOLIO SIMULATION Interest Rate Stress Analysis 1 Interest rate stress analysis is used to show the effect on market value, given a dramatic change in interest rates. The table to the right 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 are assumed to move up or down 300 basis points (bp) in 50 bp increments. Next to the change in market value is the gain/loss column for each scenario. 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 earned. 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 addition, the portfolio would be six months shorter. • Yield Acquisition Change Cost 31,518,023 31,518,023 31,518,023 31,518,023 $1,518,023 31,518,023 31,518,023 0 31,518,023 $1,518,023 31,518,023 $1,518,023 $1,518,023 31,518,023 (bp) -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250 300 Interest Rate Changes Take Place: Instantaneous Uver Slx lviontns Market Value $1,523,181 $1,521,749 $1,520,208 $1,517,671 $1,514,302 $1,510,070 Gain/Loss $5,159 $3,727, $2,186 4351 43,720 47,952. Market Value $1,557,288 $1,558,848 $1,560,128 $1,561,139 $1,581,247 $1,560,642 Gain/Loss $39,266 $40,828 • $42,108 $43,117 $43,225 $42,620 31,505,182 412,840 31,559,383 $41,361 $1,499,859 418,163 $1,557,541 339,519 $1,494,314 -$23,708 $1,555,440 $37,418 $1,488,729 429,293 $1,553,340 $35,318 $1,483,162 434,860 $1,551,269 $33,247 $1,477,834 -$40,388 $1,549,217 331,195 31,472,129 -$45,893 $1,547,174 $29,152 This analysis demonstrates that sharp moves of interest rates either up or down by 3% will not have a significant effect on this portfolio. 100031 COMPLIANCE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE & COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS Cal. Govt. Investment Cateaory Ma67mlm1 MatllDllc Government Code Authonzed Ye �alitr Unis S&P/Moodva Maamlam MS= County Investment Policy S&P/Moot s/Fitc h Actual Riverside Portfolio 53601(a) LOCAL AGY BONDS 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 15% / S150mm A/A2/A 0.00% 53601(b) U. S. TREASURY 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 100% N/A 8.56% 53601(d) CALrFORNIA 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 46.65% 53601(fl BILLS OF EXCHANGE 270 DAYS 40%' 180 DAYS 30% AI/Pl/FI 2.77% 53601(g) COMM. PAPER 180 DAYS 40% Al/P1 180 DAYS 40% A1/Pl/FI 38.13% 53601(h) CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS 5 YEARS 30% 1 YEAR 20% max Al/PI/F1 0.669E 53601(i) REPOS 1 YEAR NO LIMIT 31 DAYS 20% max Al/Pl/FI 1.87% 53601(i) REVERSE REPOS 92 DAYS 20% 60 DAYS 10%max N/A 0.33% 53601(j) MED. TERM NOTES 5 YEARS 30% A 2 YEARS 10% met AA/Aa2JAA 0.00% 53601(k) MUTUAL FUNDS 90 DAYS 2 20% AAAJAaa r IMMEDIATE 15% / Sl SOmm AAA by 2 of 3 Raring Agencies 0.00 53601(m) SECURED DEPOSITS (BANK DEPOSITS) 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 1 YEAR 2% max 0.53% 53601(n) MORTGAGE PASS- THROUGH SECURITY 5 YEARS 20% AA -SECURITY A -ISSUER N/A N/A 0.00% 16429 (1,2,3) LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS N/A NO LIMIT _ 3 YEARS 0% max 0.00`/e No more than 30% of this category may be invested with any one commercial bank 2 Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days Or must have an Investment Advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of $500,000,000. 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. FEND SERVICES ADVISORS, ENC. 'L„.9 c909. 4, (310) 229-9170 Los Angeles - San Francisco - New York R e g i s t e r e d I n v e s t m e n t A d v i sors FSA • 110003 • County of Riverside PROJECTION OF FUTURE CASH FLOW The Pooled investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. The Treasurer states that based upon projected cash receipts and maturing investments there are sufficient funds to meet future cash flow disbursement requirements over the next 12 months. • MONTH " MONTHLY MONTHLY REQUIRED ACTUAL INV. AVAIL. TO RECEIPTS DISBMNTB DIFFERENCE MAT. INVEST BALANCE MATURITIES INVEST>1 YR. 07/01 13.3 07/2000 302.2 356.4 -54.2 40.9 0.0 08/2000 325.7 356.5 -30.8 30.8 0.0 09/2000 308.6 355.9 -47.3 47.3 0.0 10/2000 404.7 395.2 9.5 0.0 9.5 11/2000 372.2 340.8 31.4 0.0 40.9 12/2000 726.6 346.5 380.1 0.0 421.0 01/2001 290.9 586.9 -296.0 0.0 125.0 02/2001 378.7 341.8 36.9 0.0 161.9 03/2001 3.02.1 433.9 -131.8 0.0 30.1 04/2001 678.9 350.0 328.9 0.0 359.0 05/2001 353.9 580.4 -226.5 0.0 132.5 06/2001 349.4 404.5 -55.1 0.0 77.4 Totals: 4,793.9 4848.8 -54.9 119.0 7.84% 614.4 37.7 30.1 30.0 25.0 59.9 10.0 25.0 15.0 15.0 0.0 20.0 882.1 1399.0 58.11% 92.16% 24 Month Gross Yield Trends The yield history represents gross yields; administrative costs have not been deducted. Actual eamings on your fund balance will be credited by the Auditor -Controller based upon County Treasurer calculations. Portfolio yield always lags current trends in short -tens interest rates. Yields fluctuate with changing markets and past performance is not an indication of future results. Gross Yield Trends 6.75 6.50 6.25 6.00 5.75 5.50 F"11 5.25 5.00 4.75 4.50 Jul -98 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul -99 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun - 98 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 00 00 00 t PORTFOLIO YIELD -u- ALL TAXABLE AVERAGE 0 30 0.25 0.20 4-- 0.15 0.10 i 0.05 I 0.00 • -0.05 -0.10 -0.15 -0.20 -0.25 • -0 30 I 24 Month Yield Spread (Pool Yield - All Taxable Average) Jul -98 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul -99 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun - 98 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 00 00 00 The Money Fund ReportTM/ 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 Index tracks the yield of over 500 taxable money market funds across several categories, i.e. Treasury, Govemment, and Pnme, and reports the average yield of those funds on a monthly basis. For more information on the iMoneyNet, Inc. Index see www.ibcdate.cortundex.html )00033 • • SC8777R5'J!hS6KC88at--gg ignnRRARRA77777C7777z/$R$RR'ss:i666{0rrr'r'g" 88gCg88888 95,1,, tiRRR$$ $$a6 K'F"861g ddodddd dddd �Jri N�rN��riN�•i widddei �e l �J iJ ��J • In'J e7 < r tl aitsaeooeadeEeao"mmme6opAAAA$aR131cfaAA1iAARf{eRR763Ya+is5! IP“JIBllR406'go88i8R°�R$Af86RRijo•714Aril F� Ei1Q $ip!$AeeA:JAo ifFIM Rlx1i6EtIFFlgi 91LIAPUtliY" i7o RlfaBsApiAkVAIAicEnARiA7,41131oE� irkg o g o o i{ o o 8 8 o g o 6 o o o o o D a o o 8 o o o o o 8 0 4 6 8 8 B o o O o g o o 6 O 8 C o o o 8 0 o N9 99 91999199944 500 &= 9A§i g990g0991 14iilO89 1991§ 499§9 9i9R99ig18949909999A0AA4949 4 1 ` 4i 4.aggIgge§__. 4@141=111=56n1 �N: h5 Edti x c$AAAdA 5aca@amtk Iggt@gg=ea mg ! 88888888888 88888888888888 8 888888888 8 8888888$$888888888888 88888$8888888888888 nVira ili9 i999ill i9lili i9A9##11;11111#;99$9;41$99$$999 I $ -9111$;;; 199 l i 5 gffgz9 i 6i =5is 66 . _ii iirk1 11iAi gE00RIE E IDAHO gloi66gii Ei=3iigg3gilEgdka ` 'c A$i�=�gm��Ai��9o3E"ss.F�i3eEs'iiE�Y=�Eo6EEEE�iA$a6AY3i�iEiSsEie�iE�E��iiiOiAi??EE'� !llrtaliill n 11:1 CsfC!!!!!CCCCCElliiilCS6Sl!!!!!!!n!!!!!!!H!�!!!!�!!!!!!E !! !s 8888988888 $8$ 88 8 8888888>�i88S 88888888888888888888888888888888 R 2 i9ii99ii9#9i999i9999999999i9999999999999999993 11 m1111f111115!!!!g111111111dd 1.III AIILId I MILAPAIIIII,Ilfil g 1 1111111111111111111111111111/11188111111111I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 W ilmIlitlillisillilliim s111311'g331'1'3111ig33ii119111331i1sitsi33i33i3333333333333 01111111111111111111/11111111111111/1111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111 8$88888 888$888888888$8$$$$8$8$88$88$$8 a $$888$$$88$88 888$$$88888$888$8$88$888 8888 8 991911111111 9 ;1;;;AI�g� I�g INII 111 = 1 11;;;A;;;1111119111111;1;111111 99A99999A9��AA9�A�i$A�i99��Ai�A$i99�ii�iiAi9AAiAA�i9�9Ai�999A�9�A999ii� d d o m d d m d o i d o d d d m o o d d o o s d o m o N o m d d d d o m d o o .n m d o d m d m m d m o 0 o Q d o 0 o m m d r d +t d m m d l d d o d d d m m d d d m o o d o .s • 2 0 z 0 0 0 1 1 1 dd a 1 d d a dddd 4 4 5225,51 222222222.2222221` 0SSS88g000000000000 •d E, 9 d d d d d d d d d d e c d o d d d d d d d d 53 s 1 :1 88 gg - 88 8 8 8 8 8 8 g g 8 1 8 221 a 1 g sssssssss22!!!!sgg86s9 8 1 8 d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d c d d d a d 9 9 !!A 1 1 !!o!!!!$$!g!!!!!o!!!$3 9 9 8 g 8 88 fV ssR 8 8 0 1 6 $$8$ 8 813888 88888136iA t:8i4lOgg8 9 $gg8W 1 R'8'dY ggfgRR°1CFi'Ri1Cntgtitt 6C8g88 8 888 88888 63. liggggg igOF rE14$ggg Afgfgggeggggagggegfgt odo0 00 000doo00 00000o00 d o d o 0 o d d d o 0 o d d o d d d d o d Ili 451881-).i 8 8 P Iq�' yp 1(�iSalina � < � � jQ� < � 88888888888888888888 .8 Y1111;;;;;;11111;111111 ggggggggggggggggg a 51gRti148ggg8gf RR>dRfIRRR s 111111q111111111!11111 • 8 8 1BN88868!! t it d d d d d o d dcid2edo8SR1 d dI gp Rwe8841 i 051PIV1VEi 1 8888888888 3g$MEg13? 1 R § $93tirguak 8 88888dS88S8 8 a 1 8 8 LL 0 31313333233 z . 4KKKKKKK filcIMM 8' 888888888881 1 1 8 R 8 8 8 8I 1 J1Jj 1 L7 00 0 C' AGENDA ITEM 6 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Ernst and Young Audit Contract STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of the contract with Ernst and Young to provide audit services for Measure A and TDA recipients, and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • • Two years ago, the Commission did a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Audit Services. As a result of the RFP, Ernst and Young (E&Y) was chosen to provide Audit Services for Measure A and TDA recipients. The contract was set up as an annual contract with the option to renew for five years. The scope of work includes E&Y providing an opinion on the fair representation of RCTC's general purpose financial statements and the transportation and transit funds financial statements of Riverside County funding claimants/recipients in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. All findings will be reported to the Audit Committee. Based on E&Y's performance to date, staff recommends that their contract be renewed for one additional year. For Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Audit Services, the contract amount is $356,000 and is included in the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Adopted Budget. Legal Counsel has prepared the agreement and has provided their final approval. )00030 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000-01 Amount: $356,000 Source of Funds: FY 2000-01 Budget Fiscal Procedures Approved: Budget Adjustment: N Date: 08/21/00 • • :)0003'7 • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Advance of Measure A Funds Agreement with the City of Lake Elsinore STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) grant the City of Lake Elsinore an advance of Measure A, Local Streets and Roads funds; 2) increase the Local Streets and Roads appropriation in Fund 222 - Measure A Western budget by $1,500,000; 3) authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute a Measure A advancement agreement between the Commission and the City; and 4) forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Two years ago, staff sent out letters to all Riverside County cities notifying them of an approved process by which their agency could request an advance on their Local Streets and Roads funds. The original intention was to include any requests received in the Bond Issue the Commission was planning for Route 74 and other projects. A follow-up letter was mailed to each of the cities last year. Currently, the cities of Canyon Lake and Corona have received advances on their Local Streets and Roads funds. The City of Lake Elsinore (City) has submitted a request for an advance to make repairs, improvements and expansions to major local streets and road within the City. Due to the small amount, staff decided not to include this advance in the bond issue and instead advanced the funds to the City from the Commission's current reserves. As a result, the advance of $1,500,000 will be repaid over four years. Staff has negotiated with the City a 6% percent interest rate on the advance. The interest rate charged to the City is based upon the current interest income on Commission funds. The City will have a fixed payment over the period of the advance. Staff will withhold the advance payment prior to the remittance of the Local Streets and Roads funds to the City. Attached as Exhibit A is the Measure A advancement agreement to be entered into between the Commission and the City. )00033 Staff is also requesting a budget adjustment. The budget adjustment will provide sufficient expenditure authority to make the advance to the City. Attachment Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2000-2001 Amount: $1,500,000 Source of Funds: Current Reserves Budget Adjustment: Y X49. Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 08/18/2000 • • • 700039 EXHIBIT A • • • AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE OF MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDS DRAFT 1. Parties and Date. This Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into as of this day of , 2000, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") and the City of Lake Elsinore ("City") located in the County of Riverside, State of California: 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 The City is a municipality with local streets and roads requiring maintenance, development and rehabilitation. 2.3 RCTC has enacted and the voters of Riverside County ("County") have approved Measure "A" which authorizes RCTC to impose a retail transaction and use tax of one-half percent (.5%) throughout the County of Riverside for up to twenty years. This tax is popularly known as a '/2 cent sales tax. 2.4 The Transportation Improvement Plan ("Plan") implementing Measure "A" provides that such funds are to be used for transportation purposes in the County and further provides that forty percent (40%) of Measure "A" funds are to be distributed to the cities in the Western County area for local street and road improvements ("Local Streets and Roads Funding") in amounts based on both proportionate population and contribution to Measure "A" revenue. 2.5 The proceeds of the retail transaction and use tax ("Measure "A" Funds") are collected by the California Board of Equalization pursuant to a contract between RCTC and the Board of Equalization, and paid to RCTC monthly. 2.6 The City has requested and RCTC has agreed that RCTC will advance to the City certain amounts which the City and RCTC anticipate RCTC would otherwise collect and allocate to the City as its share of Local Streets and Roads Funding, as allocated pursuant to the formula set forth in the Plan. 2.7 The funds shall be used to finance a portion of the cost of improvements to the streets more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto ("Project"). 2.8 The City agrees that it will repay to RCTC the advance and costs associated therewith described herein from Local Streets and Roads Funding. R VPUB\SCD\576096 100040 3. Terms. 3.1 Advance of Measure "A" Funds. A. Amount of Advance. RCTC hereby agrees to make the Advance to the City on or before , 2000 (the "Funding Date"), on the terms and conditions set forth herein, in the principal amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00) (the "Advance"). B. Interest. The Advance shall accrue interest payable by the City at a rate of 6% per annum. C. Repayment of Advance. The City shall repay the Advance to RCTC as set forth hereunder in equal monthly installments according to the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "B". The repayment schedule for the Advance has been established to insure that the Advance (principal and interest) is repaid prior to D. Payment of Interest. Interest shall be paid by the City to RCTC at the interest rate specified in Section 3.1(B) above in arrears on the unpaid portion of the Advance as specified in Section 3.1(C) above. E. Prepayment. Because the Advance is, or may be, made with the proceeds of tax exempt debt, prepayment of the Advance may be made by the City only with RCTC's prior written consent. 3.2 Repayment. A. Authorization to Apply Local Streets and Roads Funding to Payments; Pledge of Additional Security. For so long as any obligation of the City under this Agreement remains outstanding, the City hereby instructs RCTC to apply the City's portion of any Local Streets and Roads Funding which would otherwise be distributed to the City under Measure "A" to pay any due but unpaid obligations of the City to RCTC under this Agreement. RCTC in its sole discretion may require the pledge of additional security if Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Funding is insufficient to meet the repayment schedule established by RCTC under Section 3.1(C), above. B. Application of Local Share. RCTC shall calculate the Local Streets and Roads Funding which would otherwise be allocated to the City under Measure "A" within thirty (30) days of receipt by RCTC of such funds from the Board of Equalization, and shall apply such amount against any amounts due from the City and not yet paid to RCTC under this Agreement. C. Remaining Balance Payable. RCTC shall notify the City of the calculation and application of funds made under Section 3.2(B) above, and any amounts then due to RCTC from the City, within thirty (30) days of RCTC's calculation and application of such amounts. RCTC's calculations shall be final, absent clerical or mathematical error. The City shall pay to RCTC any balance due within fifteen (15) days of receipt of such notice from RCTC of such amount. RVPUII\SCD\576096 -2- 1000041 • • • 3.3 Conditions of the Advance. The obligation of RCTC to make the Advance shall be subject to the condition precedent that RCTC shall have received, in form and substance satisfactory to RCTC, all of the following: A. Duly executed copies of this Agreement and such other documents as RCTC may request in order to fully effectuate the purposes and intent of this Agreement. B. The written opinion of the General Counsel of the City, addressed to RCTC, that this Agreement and the other documents contemplated herein have been duly authorized and do not require the further consent or approval of any body, board or commission or other authority; are the valid, binding and legally enforceable obligations of the City in accordance with their respective terms; are not in contravention of or conflict with any law or regulation; will not conflict with any other agreements of the City, nor constitute an event of default on any obligations of the City to RCTC, on any existing public debt issuance of the City, or under any other agreements of the City; and the Project identified in Exhibit "A" attached hereto are a qualified use of Local Streets and Roads Funding under Measure "A." C. Such documents and certificates regarding the existence, authority and power of the City to execute this Agreement and any related documents as RCTC deems reasonably necessary. 3.4 City's Representations and Warranties. The City hereby makes the following representations and warranties which shall be deemed to be continuing representations and warranties so long as the Advances remains outstanding: A. Agreement Authorized. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and any and all related documents (collectively "Advance Documents") are duly authorized and do not require the further consent or approval of any body, board or commission or other authority. B. No Default. The City is not in default, nor is it aware of any events that, with the passage of time or the giving of notice, would constitute an event of default on any obligation of the City to RCTC or on any existing public debt issuance of the City. C. No Conflict. The execution, delivery and performance ofthe Advances Documents does not contravene or conflict with any constitutional provision, law, statute, regulation, or any agreement, indenture or undertaking to which the City is a party or by which it or the Measure "A" Funds may be bound or affected, and does not and will not cause any lien, charge or other encumbrance to be created or imposed upon the Measure "A" Funds by reason thereof. D. Solvency. The City is solvent. E. No Violation of RCTC Measure "A" Advance Policies. The City is not in violation of the policies of RCTC for recipients of Measure "A" funds, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." R V PUB\SCD\576096 -3 - X00042 F. Litigation. There is no litigation or other proceeding pending or threatened against or affecting the City and relating to the Advance, or the Advance Documents, or the transactions contemplated herein or thereby. G. Financial Condition. All financial statements and data submitted in writing by the City to RCTC in connection with the request for Advance are true and correct, and said statements truly represent the financial condition of the City as of the date thereof and the results of the operations of the City for the period covered thereby and have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles on a basis consistently maintained, and that since such date there have been no materially adverse changes in the ordinary course of business. The City has no knowledge of any liabilities, contingent or otherwise, at such date not reflected in said statements, and the City has not entered into any special commitments or substantial contracts which are not reflected in said statements other than in the ordinary and normal course of business, which may have a materially adverse effect upon its financial condition or operations as now conducted. 3.5 City's Affirmative Covenants. The City agrees that so long as the Advance is outstanding, it will, unless RCTC shall otherwise consent in writing: A. Use of Advance. Use the Advance only for purpose and project identified in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. In addition, the City recognizes that under Measure "A" the purpose of Local Streets and Roads Funding is to assist with the maintenance, development, and rehabilitation of the existing the City and County road system in Western Riverside County, and the City agrees that the Advance shall only be used in a manner consistent with the portions of Measure "A" related to Western County Local Streets and Road Funding. B. Tax Covenants. Comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements of Internal Revenue Code §§ 103 and 141 through 150, as amended, including any written instructions from RCTC arising from requirements or covenants contained in any nonarbitrage certificate relating to any RCTC Bonds. C. Records and Reports. Maintain a standard and modern system of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles on a basis consistently maintained and furnish RCTC annual audited financial statements and such other information relating to the affairs of the City or the uses of the Advance as RCTC reasonably may request from time to time. D. Inspection. Permit, at any reasonable time, upon reasonable notice, qualified personnel designated by RCTC in writing, to inspect any projects funded by the Advance and any records maintained in connection therewith and the Pledged Revenues. RCTC shall have no duty to make any such inspection and shall not incur any liability or obligation by reason of making or not making any such inspection. E. Notice ofDefault. Promptly notify RCTC in writing ofthe occurrence of any Event of Default hereunder or of any event which would become an Event of Default hereunder upon giving of notice, lapse of time, or both. R V PUB\SCD\576096 -4- �00043 1 • • 3.6 Citv's Negative Covenants. The City will not, so long as the Advance remains outstanding, without RCTC's prior written consent create, incur, assume or permit to exist any mortgage, deed of trust, security interest (whether possessory or nonpossessory) or other lien upon or on the City's Local Share of Measure "A" Funds other than liens in favor of RCTC. 17 Rights and Remedies. A. RCTC shall at all times have the rights and remedies of a secured party under the California Commercial Code ("Code") in addition to the rights and remedies provided herein or in any other agreement or document executed by the City. B. The rights and remedies of RCTC under this Agreement shall not be exhausted by the exercise of any of the rights or remedies of RCTC pursuant to this Agreement or any other agreement between the City and RCTC or any action, proceeding or any number of successive actions or proceedings, unless and until all of the sums owing RCTC by the City shall be fully paid, performed and discharged. All rights and remedies afforded to RCTC pursuant hereto or under any other agreement at any time in effect between the City and RCTC (whether or not there are other parties in addition to the City and RCTC) shall be separate and cumulative and in addition to any and all rights or remedies available at law, in equity or otherwise, and no one of such rights or remedies, whether exercised or not, shall be deemed to be in exclusion of any other right or remedy available and shall in no way limit or prejudice any other right or remedy. The exercise of any one of such rights or remedies shall not be deemed a waiver of, or an election not to exercise, any other right or remedy. 3.8 Events of Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall, at RCTC's option, constitute an event of default (each an "Event of Default") and the City shall provide RCTC with immediate notice thereof. A. Any warranty, representation, statement, report or certificate made or delivered to RCTC by the City or any of the City's officers, employees or agents now or hereafter is incorrect, false, untrue or misleading in any material respect; or B. The City shall fail to pay, perform or comply with, or otherwise shall breach, any obligation, warranty, term or condition in this Agreement, any agreement delivered pur- suant hereto or any other agreement whether now or hereafter existing between the City and RCTC; or C. There shall occur any of the following: dissolution, termination of existence or insolvency of the City; the commencement of any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency law by or against the City; entry of a court order which enjoins, restrains or in any way prevents the City from paying any sums owed by the City to RCTC. 3.9 Further Assurances. The parties shall at all times hereafter execute, acknowledge, deliver, and perform all financing statements, documents and acts and further R V PUB\SCD\576096 -5- }00044 assurances as are reasonably necessary to fulfill their obligations hereunder and to effect the transactions contemplated herein. 3.10 Indemnification. The City shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend RCTC and the Depository from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses, including interest, penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, incurred or suffered, which arise, result from, or relate to its breach of or failure to perform any of its agreements, covenants, obligations, representations, or warranties contained• herein or relate to or arise from the acceptance of and performance of the duties of the Depository under this Agreement. Such indemnity shall survive the termination or discharge of this Agreement. 3.11 Use of Advance. The City shall use the Advances only for the purpose of offsetting the City's costs incurred for the Project. 3.12 Miscellaneous. D. No Waiver. No waiver of any Event of Default or breach by the City hereunder shall be implied from any omission by RCTC to take action on account of such default, and no express waiver shall affect any default other than the default specified in the waiver and the waiver shall be operative only for the time and to the extent therein stated. Waivers of any covenant, term, or condition contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition. The consent or approval by RCTC to or of any act by the City requiring further consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent or approval to or of any subsequent similar act. E. No Third Parties Benefitted. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of RCTC, the City and the Depository and no third person, other than a permitted assignee or successor hereunder, shall have any right of action under this Agreement. F. Notices. All notices or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be considered as properly given if mailed by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified with return receipt requested, or by express courier delivery or personal delivery to the addressee. Notice mailed by U.S. mail shall be effective only if and when received at the addressee's address. For purposes of notice, the addresses of the parties shall be as follows: RCTC: RVPUB\SCD\576096 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director -6- • • ft sJO0045 CITY: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE • • Lake Elsinore, CA Attn: City Manager Each party shall have the right to change its address for notice hereunder to any other location by the giving of notice to the other party in the manner set forth above. D. Applicable Law. This Agreement and all documents provided for herein shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of California. E. Time. Time is of the essence in this Agreement, and each and every provision hereof in which time is an element. F. Amendment and Waiver. This Agreement and each provision hereof may be amended, changed, waived, discharged or terminated only by an instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto. G. Attorney's Fees. The prevailing party in any action arising out of this Agreement shall be entitled to its actual attorney's fees and other related expenses actually incurred. H. Severability. The invalidity and unenforceability of any one or more provisions of this Agreement will in no way affect any other provision. I. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in three or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. J. Headings. The various headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or any provision hereof K. Further Assurances. At any time or from time to time upon the request of RCTC, the City will execute and deliver such further documents and do other acts and things as RCTC may reasonably request in order to effect fully the purposes of this Agreement, RVPUB\SCD\576096 -7- 000040 and any other Advances Documents and to provide for the payment of the Advances and interest thereon in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 'TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Tom Mullen, Chair Mayor REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED By: FOR APPROVAL: City Clerk By: Eric Haley, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP, Counsel Riverside County Transportation Commission 000047 RVPUB\SCD\576096 -8- Exhibit List • Exhibit A Description of Project Exhibit B Repayment Schedule Exhibit C Commission Policies • • RVPUB\SCD\576096 -9- 1)00048 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MEASURE "A" LOAN PROJECT: The Project consists of making repairs, improvements and expansions to major local streets and roads within the City of Lake Elsinore. 000049 RVPUB\SCD\576096 • • • • • • R V PUB\SCD\576096 EXHIBIT "B" REPAYMENT SCHEDULE [See attached] 1000'50 y .1/ .11 • r�r Amortization Table for $1500000.00 borrowed on Sep 18, 2000 Month Year 10 2000 11 2000 12 2000 1 2001 2 2001 3 2001 4 2001 5 2001 6 2001 7 2001 8 2001 9 2001 Payment (S) 35227 .54 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 . 35227 .54 35227 .54 35227.54 35227.54 35227 .54 35227 .54 35227 .54 35227 .54 Principal Pald (S) 27727.54 27866 .18 28005.51 28145.54 28286.27 28427 .70 28569.84 28712.69 28856 .25 29000 .53 29145.53 29291.26 Interest Pald (S) 7500 .00 7361.36 7222.03 7082 .00 6941.28 6799.84 6657.71 6514 .86 6371.29 6227.01 6082.01 5936.28 Total Interest (S) 7500.00 14861.36 22083.39 29165.40 36106 .67 42906.52 49564.22 56079.08 62450.38 68677.39 74759.40 80695.68 Balance ($) 1472272.46 1444406.28 1416400 .76 1388255.22 1359968 .96 1331541.26 1302971 .42_1274258.73 1245402 .48 1216401.95 1187256.42 1157965 .16 Month Year 10 2001 , 11 2001 12 . 2001 1 2002 2, 2002 3 2002 4 2002 : 5 2002 6 2002 7 2002 8 2002 9 2002 Payment (S) 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227 .54 35227.54 35227.54 Princlpal Paid(5) 29437.72 29584.91 29732.83 29881.50 30030.90 30181.06 30331.96 30483 .62 30636.04 30789 .22 30943.17 31097.88 Interest Paid ($) 5789.83 5642.64 5494.71 5346 .05 5196.64 5046 .49 4895.58 4743.92 4591 .50 4438.32 4284.38 4129.66 1 Total Interest($) 86485. 51 92128.14 97622.86 102968.90 108165.54 113212.03 118107 .61 122851.53 127443.04 131881 .36 136165 .74 140295.40 Balance($) 1128527. 44 1098942.53 1069209.70 1039328 .21 1009297.30 979116.25 948784 .28 918300.66 887664.62 856875.40 825932.24 794834.35 Month Year 10 2002 11. 2002 12 ' 2002 1 2003 2 2003 3 2003 4• 2003._ 5., 2003 6 2003 7 2003 8 2003 9 2003 Payment ($) 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227 .54 35227.54 35227 .54 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227 .54 Principal Pald(5) 31253.37 31409.64 31566.69 31724.52 31883.14 _ 32042.56 32202.77 32363.79 32525.60 32688.23 32851 .67 33015 .93 interest Paid (5) 3974.17 3817.90 3660. 86 3503.02 3344 .40 3184.98 3024 .77 2863.76 2701.94 2539.31 2375.87 2211.61 Total interest($) 144269. 57 148087.48 151748.33 155251.36 158595.76 161780.74 164805 .51, 167669.27 170371 .21 172910.52 175286.39 177498 .00 Balance (5) 763580. 98 732171.34 700604.66 668880.14 636996.99 604954.43 572751.66 540387.88 507862.27 475174.04 442322.37 409306.44 Month Year 10 2003 11 .. . 2003 12 2003 1 r 2004 2 ; °� 2004 3 2004 . 2004 - ' 5 ' 2004 : 6 2004" 7 , ;_8 2004, ,'_ 2004 9 2004 Payment ($) 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227. 54 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 35227 .54 35227 .54 35227.54 35227.54 35227.54 Principal Paid($) 33181.01 33346.92 33513.65 33681.22 33849.63 34018.87 34188.97 n 34359.91 34531.71 34704 .37 34877 .89 35052.28 interest Paid ($) 2046.53 1880.63 1713.89 1546.32 1377. 92 1208. 67 1038.58 867.63 695.83 523.17 349.65 175 .26 , Total Interest ($) 179544.54 181425. 16 183139.06 184685. 38 186063.30 187271. 97 188310.54 189178.18 189874 .01 190397 .18 190746.83 190922 .09 Balance ($) 376125.42 342778. 51 309264.86 275583. 64 241734.01 207715.14 173526.17 139166.26 104634.55 69930.17 35052.28 0.00 of 1 • • 418/00 12:03 PM • • • RVPUB\SCD\576096 EXHIBIT "C" COMMISSION POLICIES [See attached] 000052 GUIDELINES FOR MEASURE A RECIPIENTS FINANCING PROGRAM With the successful passage in November 1992 of Measure AA the Commission's bonding limitation was increased from $300 million to $525 million. One of the reasons voters were asked to increase the limit was to allow the Commission to serve as the vehicle for local jurisdictions to bond against their Measure A streets and roads revenue stream. To that end, staff has developed policies which will guide the Commission when providing bond revenues for local jurisdictions. All jurisdictions which receive Measure A local streets and roads monies are eligible to apply for the program. It is the Commission's intent that a number of requests from local jurisdictions will be combined into one debt issue. This will prove to be more efficient for the Commission to administer and probably more advantageous to the borrower(i.e., lower rate of interest). The intent of this is clearly to maximize economies of scale. To accomplish this, local jurisdictions are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time, once notified of timing and scheduling for the bond issuance, prior to start of project so that delays will not occur as a result of the Commission's need to process all requests. Any jurisdiction either not willing or unable to participate in the combined issuance but still desiring to bond through the Commission, may be subjected to higher administrative fees, issuance costs and interest rates. Any jurisdiction wishing to access this program must meet the following criteria: Section 1. Credit Criteria 1.1 All currently issued general obligation debt must be rated investment grade by Moody's and Standard & Poors. Any jurisdiction which has not issued public debt should be in financial condition such that if debt were issued it would be rated investment grade. The Commission encourages all non rated jurisdictions to obtain a shadow rating from Moody's and/or Standard & Poors.(See provision 2.4) 1.2 The jurisdiction (1) has not commenced a voluntary case under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or similiar law now or hereafter in effect,(2) admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due, (3) is the subject of a decree or order for relief entered by a court of competent jurisdiction in an involuntary case under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or similiar law now or hereafter in effect, (4) has not made an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or (5) has not consented to the appointment of a receiver of itself. 'J00053 1.3 The jurisdiction must not be in violation of any Measure A policies as established by the Commission for recipients of Measure A funds. 1.4 The jurisdiction may not be in default on any other obligations to the Commission or on any general obligation 'debt, certificates of participation, or debt supported by special revenues. This is not meant to include financings such as assessment district, redevelopment, or housing bonds. Section 2. Terms and Conditions 2.1 Duration of the loan will be determined by the Commission at its sole discretion. In no event will any term be longer than June 1, 2009. 2.2 Interest rate will be the best rate the Commission can obtain in the market which will be the true interest cost (TIC) for the bond issuance. 2.3 Debt will be issued on a basis subordinate to the Commission's senior debt. 2.4 A debt coverage ratio of 1.5 to 1 based on the lower of the last two year's revenues will be required, unless the jurisdiction is not rated investment grade and chooses not to obtain a shadow rating, then the coverage ratio requirement will be 2 to 1. 2.5 The Commission will withhold payment from Measure A streets and roads allocations on a monthly basis. Any month in which a jurisdiction's revenues do not meet the payment obligation, the jurisdiction will be required to remit the difference within 15 days of notice from the Commission. Failure to make timely payment may result in project funds being withheld. In the event project funds are exhausted, a pledge of additional revenues may be required. 2.6 If it is deemed to be feasible and warranted, and subject to bond counsel review, jurisdictions may capitalize interest during the construction period(up to a maximum of two years. 2.7 Prepayment of the obligation will be subject to the terms and conditions of the bond documents, approval of bond counsel, and shall be at no cost to other jurisdictions or the Commission. 2.8 Borrowed funds must be used for eligible projects as set forth in the agreement between the. Commission and the jurisdiction. Eligible projects may include construction, repair, and maintenance of streets and roads. The Commission along with its bond counsel will determine if the projects meet this criteria. • 2— X00054 2.9 A debt reserve fund may be required and each jurisdiction's proceeds from the bond sale will be reduced by its proportionate share of the reserve fund. In the event of early payment by a borrower (if approved by the Commission) , debt reserve fund amounts may not be released if deemed not advisable by the Commission after consultation with its financial advisors, municipal bond insurers(if insurance is obtained), the rating agencies, and bond counsel. 2.10 Jurisdictions shall be required to enter into one or more agreements including a loan agreement with the Commission upon such terms and conditions required by the Commission. Section 3. General Provisions 3.1 Though it is not the desire of the Commission to be involved in the administration of the project, review by the Commission's bond counsel will be necessary to ensure that any project will not jeopardize the tax exempt status of the bonds issued. This review will be ongoing in the event jurisdictions later substitute other projects. Agency agreements may be executed with each jurisdiction that will clearly define roles and responsibilities. 3.2 An application fee for RCTC administrative costs may be charged to all jurisdictions desiring to participate in the issue. Ongoing administrative costs will be periodically billed to all participants. All costs of issuance including but not limited to accounting, financial, legal, and bank fees, will be proportionately shared among the participants(i.e., approved applicants) and shall be at no cost to RCTC. Any jurisdiction, which subsequent to application approval elects not to participate will be fully responsible for their proportionate share of costs incurred to the point of withdrawal. 3.3 Incremental costs incurred as a result of an action or lack thereof by any jurisdiction will be charged to that jurisdiction and not be borne by the pool. 3.4 Market timing, structure of the issue, selection of trustee, bond counsel, underwriters, and financial advisors will be at the sole discretion of the Commission. 3.5 Proceeds from bond sales will be held by a trustee. The Commission will process all requests for release of funds and forward to the trustee on behalf of the jurisdiction. 3.6 Federal tax law generally requires that the pool participants be identified at the time of issuance of the bonds. The pool participants must be available to work with bond counsel with regard to the legal considerations, including the federal tax law requirements. Tax law 1 • {]000155 • • • requirements will continue after the loans are made and the pool participants will have ongoing compliance responsibilities in connection with which tax covenants and certificates will be obtained from each participant. Coordination of each participant's needs and timing of those needs will be essential in order to determine the availability of exceptions to the arbitrage rebate requirement. 3.7 The Commission reserves the right to approve exceptions to these policy guidelines on a case by case basis, to discontinue the program at any time, or to add or revise conditions or requirements. )00056 • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Brian Cundelan, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Proposal to Provide Engineering Services Related to the San Jacinto Branch Line STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) direct staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal; 2) select a consultant to provide engineering services related to the San Jacinto Branch Line; and 3) forward to the Commission for final action. action. ill BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • At its June 14 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 from downtown Riverside to Perris This 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. The New Start grant is programmed for $625,000 for preliminary engineering and design. The scope of work is proposed in phases. The first phase includes, but is not limited to, preparation of an alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering. Subsequent phases will involve final design. Selection of the consultant will be in accordance with federal procurement requirements. 10005'7 SCHEDULE The schedule for the selection process is as follows: Calendar of Events Advertise Request for Proposals September 18, 2000 Request for Proposals Submittal Deadline October 13,2000 Shortlist top three (3) qualified firms October 27, 2000 Interview top three (3) qualified firms November 15, 2000 Committee Recommendation to Commission December 13, 2000 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y&N Year: FY 2000-01 Source of Funds: STA - $129,000, Sec 5309 - $496,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $500,000 Budgeted $125,000 Budg. Adj Budget Adjustment: Y&N Date: 08/22/00 • • Jo0058 111 • AGENDA ITEM 9 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Brian Cundelan, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Contract No. RO-2061 to Provide On -Call Engineering Design Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) award a contract to SC Engineering to provide On -call Engineering Design Services for small engineering support needs, in an amount not to exceed $300,000; 2) authorize the Chairman to execute a contract with SC Engineering, pursuant to Legal Counsel review; and 3) forward to the Commission for final action. 4111) BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The time required to have a consultant in place to perform engineering services can be as long as four to six months. This time frame can significantly lengthen the time line required to develop information necessary to make management decisions on the viability or funding of a project, or to support the day to day information needs of the RCTC staff. Sample engineering on -call services might include: 1. Preliminary engineering or layout of proposed transportation related projects or improvements 2. Small Project Study Reports needed to support planning activities 3. Resolution of engineering issues related to the management of RCTC properties 4. Advanced studies to support requests for transportation funding from various funding sources At the June 14, 2000 Commission meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide on -call engineering services for the Measure "A" highway improvement program. 100059 The calendar of events was as follows: Distribution of RFP Proposals delivered to RCTC Short Listed Firms Notified Interviews of Short Listed Firms June 19, 2000 July 20, 2000 August 1, 2000 August 17, 2000 Staff received proposals from twelve (12) firms. A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from RCTC/Bechtel, Caltrans and Riverside County. The selection panel reviewed the twelve (12) proposals and short listed three (3) of the twelve (12) firms to interview. The three (3) firms presented teams that would be capable of supporting the proposed scope of work. After evaluating the proposed project teams, their knowledge of on - call engineering services and proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the three (3) interviewed firms as follows: Top Ranked Second Third SC Engineering HNTB RBF Staff is therefore recommending that the Commission develop an on -call engineering service agreement with SC Engineering, located in Victorville, CA so that engineering resources can be applied to an issue with little start-up time to assist the Commission with resolving various issues that will arise from time to time in the course of doing business. SC Engineering would provide the Executive Director with one more option at his disposal to resolve engineering issues in the most efficient and expedient manner possible. Significant engineering projects would still be contracted out as separate services and projects containing Federal funding would still have to be bid out separately as well. Staff recommends that the initial contract be for an amount not to exceed $300,000 and that each work order require the authorization of the Executive Director. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2000-01 Source of Funds: Measure A Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $300,000 Budget Adjustment: Y Date: 08/22/00 • • • 1)00060 • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Contract No. RO-2127 to Holmes & Narver lnfastructure to Provide Construction Management Support Services for the State Route 74 Phase 1 Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) award Contract No. RO-2127 to Holmes & Narver lnfastructure to provide construction management support services for construction of the State Route 74 Measure "A" Phase I Project from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road for a Base Work amount of $1,054,800 and a Extra Work amount of $95,200 for a Total Contract amount not to exceed $1,150,000; 2) authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the contract on behalf of the Commission; and 3) forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Strategic Plan includes improvements to State Route 74, between 1-15 in the City of Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, a length of approximately 8.5 miles. The improvements will realign curves and widen the existing 2 lane roadway to 4 lanes with 8 foot shoulders and a continuous 14 foot paved median. The project is being designed in two phases. Phase 1 is from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road. Phase II is Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris. This contract will provide for construction management services for Phase I only. At the June 14, 2000 Commission meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) to perform construction management support services for the Measure "A" Highway improvement project along State Route 74 for Phase 1 from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road. The calendar of events was as follows: Distribution of RFP Proposals delivered to RCTC Short Listed Firms Notified Interviews of Short Listed Firms June 19, 2000 July 20, 2000 August 1, 2000 August 17, 2000 °100061 Staff received proposals from eleven (1 1) firms. A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from RCTC/Bechtel, Caltrans, Riverside County Transportation Department, the cities of Lake Elsinore and Perris. The selection panel reviewed the eleven (1 1) proposals and short listed three (3) of the eleven (1 1) 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 Holmes & Narver Second Berg & Associates Third MK Centennial After Holmes & Narver out of Orange, CA was selected as the top ranked firm, their cost proposal was opened and used as a starting point in further negotiations. Staff has been working with Holmes & Narver and has come to an agreement with the attached scope of services and the respective costs. Based on the results of the selection committee, staff recommends that Contract No. RO-2127 be awarded to Holmes & Narver Infastructure to provide construction management support services for construction of the State Route 74 Measure "A" Phase 1 Project from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road for a Base Work amount of $1,054,800 and a Extra Work amount of $95,200 for a Total Contract amount not to exceed $1,150,000. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000-01 Source of Funds: Bond Proceeds Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $1,150,000 Budget Adjustment: N Date: 08/22/00 000062 • • 111 Holmes & Narver • • Holmes & Narver, Inc. Riverside County Transportation Commission State Highway 74 Proposed Ave. Direct Total Personnel Classification Hours Labor Rate Labor Project Manager/Senior R.E. 2,380 $ 54.08 $ 128,710 Lead Inspector/Office Engineer 2,410 $ 35.62 $ 85,844 Civil Inspectors 1,250 $ 32.00 $ 40,000 Office Technician 2,250 $ 15.00 $ 33,750 Home Office Support (Schedule) 86 $ 41.60 $ 3,578 Direct Salary Costs $ 291,882 Payroll Additives (Fringe) 39% Overhead Costs c 60.6% Subtotal (@ 99.60%) Total Labor Costs Fixed Fee c 10% Other Direct Costs/Outside Services Communications Field Office/Reimbursable Costs Vehicles (3 c $1000/mo x 12 mo) Survey Services Material Testing Services Subtotal ODCs Total Price Say $ 113,834 $ 176,881 $ 290,715 $ 582,597 $ 58,260 $ 10,960 $ 4,000 $ 36,000 $ 270,000 $ 93,002 $ 413,962 $ 1,054,819 I $ 1,054,800) Includes Construction Administration and Staking for the $1,500,000 pipeline; inspection of the pipeline is to be performed by Lake Elsinore Water District. Inspection of the pipeline is not included in this price. • )00063 C onstr ucti on Ma nageme nt of Stat e R oute 74, RCTC 2001 2002 2003 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NO DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 i I Construction Ma nagement C ontract Duration = 23 months • V Prof C onstruction Support L' I C onslructabi 6y Re vkw Project Coordi nati on Holmes & Narver Phase Construction 9 9I TIME II h•se0C M •. i.n .I- - N•tlnclu•-• InS •ifin• P1... . 11 C •aslnct.bIIlty Ewl •w I I fa vor. . C•ar e.. .. .1 1 CLOSE OUT Aeee e••l. a1•} alNlea Aw ard P SE II C ON TR ACTION (C OPTION AL C•NST•UCTI•NM •N•GEMENTST•FFING JUL AUG SEP OCT NO V DEC JAN FEB MA APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB M APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NO DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN Pro ect Mena. er /Senio r R.E. 0. 5 _�■■■ 1.0 1.0 1 .0 1 .0 1.0 1 .0 1 .0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 .0 1.0 1 .0 0 .1 0 .1 0.1 ■■-■-■ 13 .8 Le ad Ins ecforiO ffice En • ineer ■_■■■■ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 .0 1.0 1.0 1 .0 1.0 1 .0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 .0 ■.■■-■-■ 14 .0 Civil In s •ecto rs ■_.■ ■■■■. 0.8 0 .6 0 .6 0.6 0 .6 0.6 0 .6 0.6 0 .6 ■ ■�■ ■�■-■ 7 .2 Office Tech ■ .■■ ■■ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 .0 1.0 1.0 1 .0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ■■ ■■ ■-.-■ 12 .0 Surve ■_■■■■ . 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 .0 2.0 2.0 2 .0 2.0 2.0 2 .0 2.0 ■ ■■■■w■-. 22 .0 Material Testing 0.3 0. 3 0.3 0.3 0 .3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 .3 0.3 0.1 3.1 SUB TOTAL FIELD 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. 0 5. 3 5.3 6.1 6.11 6.11 6.1 6 .11 6.1 6.1 6 .1 6.11 3.1 1 .11 0 .1 0.11 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 J 71 .6 Home Office Schedule Support 0. 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 .1 I 0 .5 TOTAL CM SERVICES 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 #tt# ## # ### 0. 0 0.0 ### 0. 0 2.0 5.4 5.3 6. 1 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.1 3.1 1.2 0 .1 0.1 0.0 0 .0 0.0 da0 ds 5146orde r•do wnlsort•daleipo s•0. RLS • •• •. 74 .4 19 APPENDIX "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES RCTC SR 74 PHASE 1 • ASSUMPTIONS 1) Computer equipment will be provided by Consultant 2) When the Construction Contractor's actual schedule is produced, H&N will review the Construction Management (CM) staffing plan and scope of work during the construction period to adjust to the Construction Contractor's work activities and schedule. 3) Additional project staffing will be provided by EVWD. We have assumed EVWD will provide an Inspector for the water line and will perform all tests. 4) Source inspection of materials will be provided by Caltrans 5) Post -construction assistance in outstanding disputes/claims documentation will be extra work. 6) Preparation of As -Built plans on CADD is extra work. 7) The partnering session will be paid for by the Contractor. 8) There are 280 working days for this Phase I contract. • • PHASE I — MOBILIZATION OF H&N CONTRACT Our Project Manager will: • Work closely with RCTC and Caltrans to develop a schedule of staffing requirements. • Upon identification of the projects/work segments will review contract plans, special provisions and quantity list to identify expertise required (e.g., timing, number of people, and skills required). • Provide an appropriately skilled staff and compatible team. • Monitor staff performance and provide support training to correct any deficiencies • Videotape/photograph Right -of -Way prior to construction. • Receive Resident Engineer's file. Orient staff on project and conduct safety training for consultant team. • Assure that inspectors are properly equipped to perform required services (e.g., vehicles, 2 -way radios, and appropriate inspection tools). • Mobilize field office. • Establish construction control and perform survey Scope of Services, Exhibit A. • Prepare weekly and monthly status report. 1)00065 APPENDIX "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES CONTINUED RCTC SR 74 PHASE I PHASE II — CONSTRUCTION TASKS The specific project team will be tailored for the project assignment, but in general, the following activities will take place, and H&N could be asked to provide qualified people to accomplish the tasks as outlined below: • Conduct pre -construction conference and participate in partnering sessions. • Project Management/Resident Engineering duties. • Coordinate construction contractors administrative submittal. • Conduct construction contractors administrative submittal reviews. • Conduct construction contractors construction progress schedule review, evaluate and monitor. • Coordination of technical and material submittal review and processing. • Coordination of construction contractors requests for information/clarification and responses thereto. • Coordination of materials testing and analysis, designer review and evaluation efforts, and regulatory agencies involvement. • Conduct periodic project progress meetings with construction contractor, designer, and other participants to discuss schedules, problems and future plans. • Manage change order, force account and extra work processes. Includes documentation and logging of potential changes, review and analysis of construction contractors price proposals, coordination of independent cost estimates, negotiation of process, and complete documentation of the process, including preparation of change order documents. • Management and coordination of resolutions to construction problems and design/construction conflicts. • Manage the inspection plan, coordinate inspector's and office engineer/technician's work and review the documentation. • Monitoring the contingency budgets for the projects in conjunction with the change order process. • Maintenance of necessary documentation for efficient retrieval and ultimate provisions to the RCTC. • Provision of status reports (progress and financial) on a regular basis. • Preparation of correspondence with construction contractor, designer, regulatory agencies, and other consultants involved. • Managing and resolving issues associated with prevailing wage requirements, liens and stop notices; subcontractor, employee and material supplies payments, EEO management; DBE/MBE participation, and other contractually mandated Federal, State and County compliance programs. • Field Inspection Duties Inspection of Structures Inspection of Excavation and Embankment Inspection of Subgrade Inspection of Surface Treatments, Pavements and Seal Coats Inspection of Storm Drain Laterals and Catch Basins Page 2 of 5 ,)00666 APPENDIX "A' SCOPE OF SERVICES CONTINUED RCTC SR 74 PHASE I Monitoring and Traffic Control Inspection of Traffic Signing, Pavement Marking, Signals, Loop Detectors, Highway Lighting Inspection of Landscaping and Plant Establishment Inspection of Irrigation Facilities Inspection of Sanitary Sewer Facilities Calculation of Pay Quantities Preparation of Daily Report Maintain awareness of Safety and Health requirements Videotape and Project Photographs • Field Inspection/Materials Duties - Perform Material Sampling and Testing as described in Scope of Services, Exhibit B. - Preparation of Materials Logs. • Office Technician/Staff Compilation of Project Documents Preparation of Routine Change Orders, Process Extra Work, and Billing Enter Data into Caltrans Project Information and Analysis System Preparation of Monthly Progress Pay Estimate Preparation of Monthly Status Report - Perform/Check Routine Quantity Calculations Review of construction contractor's Payroll Records Prepare minutes of weekly meetings with construction contractor Perform design for minor changes and make design estimates Perform field inspection duties • Field Surveys - Construction Staking as described in Scope of Services, Exhibit A. Perform all Surveying Tasks Identified per Caltrans Survey Standards PHASE 111- POST CONSTRUCTION TASKS • Coordination of Final Inspection • Preparation of Final Records Including As -Built mark-ups • Assistance in the Preparation of Final Pay Estimate DELIVERABLES THROUGHOUT PROJECT • Pre -construction and construction program meeting minutes • Submittal and completed submittal processing logs. • RFI logs and documentation • Weekly statements of working day • Progress payment processing records • Status reports • Daily reports, extra work diaries, and reports of test observations • Progress payment quantity documents • Final payment quantities documents )0006'7 Page 3 of 5 APPENDIX "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES CONTINUED RCTC SR 74 PHASE • Field reports, test data, and other documents required by the State's procedures will be recorded, maintained, and submitted. SERVICES WILL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS • All reports, calculations and documents will be prepared using approved forms. • Prior to reporting for work, each assigned staff will be provided with the necessary instruments, tools and safety equipment. • Staff will be provided with vehicles suitable for the work. • With respect to the performance of the construction management services by Holmes & Narver under this Agreement, Holmes & Narver shall exercise that degree of skill and judgement described in this Agreement and its Attachments, including ensuring for itself and assuring COMMISSION, that the construction work, as performed by the construction contractor, is progressing in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Holmes & Narver shall not have control over or charge of, and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs used by the construction contractor in connection with the construction contractor's performance of his or her work since these are solely the construction contractors responsibility. Holmes & Narver shall not be responsible for the construction contractor's schedules or failure to carry out the work in accordance with the contract documents. However, Holmes & Narver in its role as construction manager shall immediately notify COMMISSION's Representative of any suspected, known or observed deviation from the contract documents. Holmes & Carver shall not have control over or charge of acts or omissions of the construction contractor, subcontractors, or their agents or employees, or of any other persons performing portions of the work, but shall as construction manager, be responsible to COMMISSION in pointing out promptly any suspected, known or observed such acts or omissions, in the course of competently performing its construction management services under this Agreement. • Holmes & Narver shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal, or disposal of or exposure of persons to preexisting hazardous materials in any form, including but not limited to asbestos, asbestos products, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) or other toxic substances, on the project construction site, over which construction, Holmes & Narver, by entering into the construction management agreement, assumes responsibility for managing, which preexisting hazardous materials may be alleged to be the responsibility and liability of COMMISSION. However, although Holmes & Narver shall have no responsibility to detect preexisting hazardous materials or hazardous waste, in the event it encounters any material or substances which it suspects are toxic or hazardous, it shall stop any affected portion of its own services and stop, or cause to be stopped, any affected portion of the construction contractors work, secure or assist in securing the area, and promptly notify COMMISSION. This provision shall no way abrogate Holmes & Narver for any liability and responsibility for any hazardous materials or substances which it introduces, causes or allows to be placed on the project construction site, or elsewhere during its performance of construction management services under this Agreement, as to which events, and each of them, it shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend COMMISSION. Page 4 of 5 X00068 APPENDIX "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES CONTINUED RCTC SR 74 PHASE 1 • • • • The review of documents is for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept, and shall not constitute approval of construction means methods techniques, sequences of procedures, or for safety precautions or programs. Page 5 of 5 ,J00069 APPENDIX A EXHIBIT A Surveying Scope of Services Precalculations and Meetings DEA will provide precalculations of horizontal and vertical alignments. DEA will attend the pre -construction meeting and project meetings as required. Horizontal and Vertical Control DEA will perform a reconnaissance of the project horizontal and vertical control. DEA will set reference points outside of the construction area. During the course of construction, DEA will maintain the control. Right of Way / Temporary Construction Easements DEA will provide clearing stakes outlining the right of way and any temporary easements. Rough Grade Stakes DEA will provide rough grade staking in areas with cut or fills in excess of 10 meters. One line of stakes will be set on the centerline or on an offset lines. These stakes will be marked with cut or fill to permit rough finishing of the grading plane. Where slope check points have been set near the elevation of the grading plan, these will serve as the rough grade stakes. The stake intervals will be 20-40 meters. Drainage Structures DEA will establish references to end of culverts and to grade line breaks. No more than two references will be set in each case. No intermediate points will be set. In some cases, supplemental stakes may be necessary. If a culvert is required to be constructed in stages, the ends of the staged lengths may be staked. A maximum to two stakes will be set at locations of junctions, drop inlets, and risers. DEA will make elevations on the reference points. Curb & Gutter, AC Dike and Ditches Curb stakes will be set in accordance to a uniform horizontal offset from the flow line. Stakes will be set at 20 meters intervals, in general. Shorter intervals will be used for grades less than 0.3% for curbs and radial less than 300 meters and for vertical curves with rate of change of grade less then 0.3% per station. Major channels and dikes will be controlled by slope staking in the same manner as roadways. Minor ditches will be controlled with offset references to the line and grade breaks. Fencing For fences along the right of way line, DEA will set references on the right of way line. For tangent alignments, DEA will set intervisible points at breaks in the terrain or at a maximum interval of 40 meters. DEA will set points for changes in the alignment and will set stakes at regular intervals on curves. Sound Walls DEA will establish an offset line at 20 meter intervals referenced to the layout line of the wall. DEA will set a minimum of two reference points normal or radial to the layout line opposite control features such as curve points and angle points. DEA will mark the elevations when the wall is not controlled by existing features. Finish Grade Stakes (PPP) On completion of the rough grading plane, fmal grades stakes will be set by DEA. One set of final grade stakes will be used to control and to check all elements of the structural section of the roadbed, including AC and PCC pavement. Two lines, one on each side, will be set for the roadbed. They will be set outside the limits of the structural section. The offset from each edge of pavement will be constant. Sign Bases DEA will set two stakes for each structure, furnishing offsets, elevations and alignment to control the orientation of anchor bolts, mast arms, signal heads, _or features. DEA. will. use elevations rather than differences -in elevations to control elevations shown on the plans. Final Monument Replacement, Post Construction and Right of Way At the completion of construction, DEA will set monuments at the final right of way line and file a record of survey with the County of Riverside. Note: Any services to be performed which are not included in the scope of services such as restaking charges and as -built surveys will be charged at $165.00/hour with a 4 hour minimum. Hours above 8 hours and Saturday work will be charged at 1.5 times this rate. 000070 APPENDIX A EXHIBIT B • • • Materials Testing Scope of Services Ninyo & Moore will provide soils and materials observation and testing services during the construction of the proposed project. The purpose of our observation and testing will be to document that satisfactory materials and sound construction practices were used, and that the construction was conducted in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, project plans, special provision, Caltrans Standard Specifications, and the Caltrans Construction Manual. Based on our understanding of this project and our experience with similar projects, we propose the following scope of services: • Attendance at preconstruction and field meetings, as requested by the client. • Field observation, documentation, and testing during the earthwork operation. Our field services may include observation of excavations, field density testing of fill soils during grading at the site, including structure backfill, trench backfill, subgrade preparation, base placement and compaction operations. • Field inspection, sampling, and testing of concrete placed at the site, as requested by the Resident Engineer. Field testing of the concrete may include casting cylinders for compressive strength and testing for penetration, air content, unit weight, and temperature. • Performance of off -site batch plant inspection and sampling for portland cement and asphalt concrete during construction, as outlined in the Caltrans Construction Manual. • Performance of laboratory testing of the fill, concrete, masonry block, mortar, grout, asphalt, and reinforcing steel in accordance with the guidelines and frequencies outlined in Chapter 8 of the Caltrans Construction Manual and, in particular, as requested by the Resident Engineer. • Geotechnical field assistance in evaluation of the suitability of foundation materials, and removal of unsuitable materials (if any). • Preparation of daily field reports and other memoranda to summarize the field operations and test results. In addition, we will maintain project files in accordance with Caltrans filing procedures for the project. • Project coordination and client liaison, including scheduling of personnel to provide observation and materials testing services. '000'71 • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 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-2028 to Pountney & Associates, Inc., for the proposed new Van Buren Metrolink Commuter Rail Station STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) concur with the proposed conceptual plan and staging for the proposed new Metrolink commuter rail station in Riverside near Van Buren Boulevard and Route 91; 2) authorize the Executive Director to continue negotiations with adjacent property owners for Stage II parking; 3) award Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2028 to Pountney & Associates, Inc., for final Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E), and environmental clearance for Stage I of the proposed new Van Buren Metrolink Commuter Rail Station for an amount of $740,000; 4) authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 5) forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the November 10, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-2028 to Pountney & Associates for Phase I Conceptual Studies and Environmental Clearance for the proposed new Riverside Van Buren Metrolink Station. The scope of Phase I was to encompass all the preliminary activities to develop a master plan for the development of the station, including the resolution of the following project specific issues: 1. Rail Access 2. Vehicle Access 3. Pedestrian Access 4. • . Adjoining Local Streets and Freeway Interface 5. Parking configuration For the past nine (9) months, Pountney has been working cooperatively with RCTC, Caltrans, BN&SF, SCRRA, the City of Riverside, and adjacent property owners in the development of a master plan for the new station. )0007; The initial concept for the Van Buren Metrolink Station proposed to use previously purchased RCTC properties for the station. The properties are bounded on the north by Indiana Avenue, bounded on the east by Van Buren Boulevard, bounded on the south by Rudicil Street, and bounded on the west by existing commercial/manufacturing industries. The properties are split in two parts by existing BN&SF tracks, with approximately 4.8 acres of land located in the northern section, fronting Indiana Avenue and approximately 2.2 acres in the southern section, fronting Rudicil Street. The initial concept would accommodate approximately 475 cars on the north side and approximately 175 cars on the south side. The station would have a loading platform on each side and a pedestrian overcrossing for safe access to each side. In early discussions with BN&SF and Caltrans, it became apparent that the initial station concept would have to be modified for the following reasons: 1. Limited access to the north parking area due to close proximity of the intersection of Van Buren Blvd. and Indiana Ave. and the State Route 91 off ramps. 2. The confusion and aggravation associated with split parking areas, with the north parking area separated from the south parking area by the BN&SF tracks. 3. The high cost associated with a vehicle crossing under the BN&SF tracks to allow traffic to travel between the north and south parking areas. 4. The overall cost for this initial concept plus the costs associated with the required BN&SF rework of track to accommodate the station turned out to be far in excess of what was budgeted for the project. Because of the problems outlined above, RCTC staff began to inquire into the availability of land south of Rudicil, directly adjacent to the south parking area. Keeping all of the parking on one side of the tracks, the south side, would allow for easier access to the station, eliminate the confusion and aggravation associated with a split parking area, eliminate the need for a vehicle under -crossing to connect the two parking areas, and bring the cost to construct the station back within the budget. The land is currently vacant and owned by Fleetwood Enterprises. Fleetwood Enterprises has currently given the Hopkins Real Estate Group development rights for this property. Staff has had several discussions with representatives of Fleetwood Enterprises and the Hopkins Real Estate Group. Both seem receptive to some sort of shared parking arrangement. RCTC would require approximately 5 acres of the Fleetwood Property to accommodate 500 cars. • • • J 0 0 0 7 3 Attached as Exhibit A is an initial draft copy of the Hopkins Group development concept for the area, which includes the proposed new Van Buren Metrolink Station. 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 Van Buren 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 Van Buren Station be constructed in two stages. Stage I would be built on RCTC's existing 2.2 acres south of the BN&SF tracks constructing approximately 260 parking spaces, a loading platform on each side, a pedestrian overcrossing for safe access to each side, and would be designed to accommodate easy access to addition parking, either across Rudicil Street on the adjacent Fleetwood property as part of a shared use agreement, or on the existing RCTC property on the north side if necessary, when constructed in Stage II. Staff has determined that the approximate 260 parking spaces made available in Stage I would accommodate the projected ridership for start-up service and operation of the new Orange County Line for the near term. Attached as Exhibit B is a draft copy of the Stage I concept for the new Van Buren Metrolink Station. Staff, working with Pountney & Associates, is still in the process of developing the scope of services, and respective costs for the final PS&E Design and Environmental Clearance of Stage I of the proposed new Riverside Van Buren Metrolink Commuter Rail Station. Staff will present the negotiated cost of this approach at the Committee meeting. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2000-01 Amount: $740,000 Source of Funds: STA - $450,000, Sec 5307$290,000 Budget Adjustment: Y Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 08/22/00 100074 AERIAL VIEW 201[0 C-3 !COr•9CI.% I, MONO, I0 NI0Tml, W9.0u Pw ol UOC9 II( COM AM ZONING MAP SHO WING PROPERTY ARE) 20003. 01 FUTURE LOCATION // J G IBSON STREET j as 1 Gu :..... •:w NIA O mw 83 44144 L 'ela''1.451411M &WM. Mutt VAN BUREN VILLAGE RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNI A HOPKINS REAL ESTATE GROUP B T 0 U T ENB 0 R 0 0 0 H ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 3300 IRVINE AVE., SUITE 0200 • NEWPORT SOACH, CA 92140 94•.100.3901 • F AX, 140 .950 .3014 140054:049.954 .3097 • 9A MIpobU110ao oM EXHIBIT A RIVERSIDE CAA NALTER CO. RESIDENTIAL R•1-05 (E) DRl AV w:aaa 001/111.01•4111141 EDEAUX DR. ARES DR . • (FOUROSED F INTERSECTION FBUILDING TABULATI ON P1 -P4 23 ,000 S.F. 115 SPACES SHOPS 14,000 8.F . 70 SPACES HEALTH CL UB 30.000 S.F . 190 SPACES INDUSTRIAL 50,000 S.F. 108 SPACES TOTAL BUILDING AREA 131,000 3..F.. TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED PA RKI NS) PROVIDED 1,407 SITE AREA: 81 300.250 S .F . 82 122,700 S .F. 83 022,008 8.F . T OTAL SITE AREA: P. A.R . 1,003,50! S.F. .04 1 Q, COMPOSITE SITE PLAN August 0, 2000 • • morn" 1NZZZaZi •Tr Mori RCTC VAN BURNBUREV METROLINK C OMMUTER RAIL STATION PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - ALT. 3 =ma Lpotcaroalw ri. . o,►aER POUNTNEY ASSOC., INC. 8/22/00 FEE PROPOSAL 1 • DESCRIPTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT HOURS/QUANT. RATE TOTAL Project Management Principal Engineer Project Manager Word Processor/Clerical 8 40 20 $67.50 $47.50 $17.00 $540.00 $1,900.00 Staff/Team Meetings - $340.00 Trend Meetings (8 meetings) Principal Engineer Project Manager Senior Engineer Word Processor/Clerical 16 48 8 16 $67.50 $47.50 $37.00 $17.00 $1,080.00 $2,280.00 Progress Reports $296.00 $272.00 Project Manager Word Processor/Clerical 40 16 $47.50 $17.00 $1,900.00 Design Team Meetings $272.00 Project Manager Senior Engineer Word Processor/Clerical 24 16 8 $47.50 $37.00 $17.00 $1,140.00 Subconsultant Coordination $592.00 $136.00 Project Manager Senior Engineer Word Processor/Clerical 40 24 12 Quality Control Reimbursables Mileage Postage & Deliveries $47.50 $37.00 $17.00 $1,900.00 $888.00 $204.00 Principal Engineer Project Manager Project Engineer 16 40 16 $67.50 $47.50 $32.00 $1,080.00 $1,900.00 $512.00 SUBTOTAL - Project Management 1LS 1LS $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $18,232.00 PUBLIC MEETINGS RCTC Commission (up to 1 meeting) Principal Engineer Project Manager CADD Drafter 4 6 8 Subconsultants- $67.50 $47.50 $24.25 $270.00 $285.00 $194.00 Architect - Oncina (inc. w/ design phases) Landscape Architects - Teshima Reimbursables 1.05 1.05 $0.00 $457.60 1.00 $40.00 $0.00 $480.48 $40.00 RCTC Metrolink Station Van Buren Route 91 1 1000077 POUNTNEY ASSOC., INC. 8/22/00 FEE PROPOSAL City of Riverside City Council (up to 1 meeting) Principal Engineer 4 $67.50 $270.00 Project Manager 6 $47.50 $285.00 CADD Drafter 8 $24.25 $194.00 Subconsultants- Architect - Oncina (inc. w/ design phases) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Landscape Architects - Teshima 1.05 $457.60 $480.48 Reimbursables 1.00 $40.00 $40.00 Reimbursables- Mileage 1LS $150.00 $150.00 Reproductions 1LS $400.00 $400.00 SUBTOTAL - Public Meetings $3,088.96 ENVIRONMENTAL Subconsultants- Environemental - RBF 1.05 $9,719.03 $10,204.98 Reimbursables 1.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 IS/CUP Application/Update Air & Noise Studies Assist City w/ CEQA MND NEPA PES and CE Application SUBTOTAL - Environmental $11,204.98 SURVEY & MAPPING Subconsultants- Survey & Mapping - RBF 1.05 $16,717.61 $17,553.49 Reimbursables 1.00 $5,650.00 $5,650.00 Parcel Map Additional Field Surveys SUBTOTAL - Survey & Mapping $23,203.49 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS Subconsultants- Geotechnical Consultant-Ninyo & Moore 1.05 $8,835.57 $9,277.35 Reimbursables . 1.00 $10,608.00 $10,608.00 SUBTOTAL - Geotechnical Investigations $19,885.35 UPDATE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RCTC Metrolink Station Van Buren Route 91 2 000078 POUNTNEY ASSOC., INC. 8/22/00 FEE PROPOSAL • • RCTC Metrolink Statio n Van Buren Route 91 Subconsultants- Traffic Engineer -Katz Okitsu & Assoc. 1.05 $4,500.00 SUBTOTAL - UpdateTraffic Analysis SCHEMATIC DESIGN (15%) - PHASE III Principal Engineer 4 $67.50 Project Manager 24 $47.50 Senior Project Engineer 20 $37.00 Project Engineer 20 $32.00 Staff Engineer 8 $25.00 Designer 20 $25.00 CADD Drafter 40 $24.25 Word Processor/Clerical 4 $17.00 Subconsultants- Architect - Oncina 1.05 $5,200.00 Landscape Architects - Teshima 1.05 $2,422.35 Electrical Engineer - Kanrad 1.05 $6,679.05 Structural Engineer - RBF 1.05 $38,283.00 Track Engineer - RR Engrs. 1.05 $0.00 Traffic Engineer - KOA 1.05 $0.00 Signage Consultant - SKA 1.05 $2,457.75 Reimbursables- $4,725.00 $4,725.00 $270.00 $1,140.00 $740.00 $640.00 $200.00 $500.00 $970.00 $68.00 $5,460.00 $2,543.47 $7,013.00 $40,197.15 $0.00 $0.00 $2,580.64 Computer Time CADD Plotting Reproduction Postage & Mileage 40 20 1LS SUBTOTAL - Schematic Design 1LS $10.00 $10.00 $250.00 $100.00 $400.00 $200.00 $250.00 $100.00 $63,272.26 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT (35%) - PHASE IV Principal Engineer Project Manager Senior Project Engineer Project Engineer Staff Engineer Designer CADD Drafter Word Processor/Clerical 8 40 32 80 24 24 80 4 Subconsultants- $67.50 $47.50 $37.00 $32.00 $25.00 $25.00 $24.25 $17.00 $540.00 $1,900.00 $1 184.00 $2,560.00 $600.00 $600.00 $1,940.00 $68.00 Architect - Ontina Landscape Architects Teshima Electrical Engineer Kanrad Structural Engineer- RBF 1.05 3 1.05 1.05 1.05 $14,520.00 $3,229.80 $8,905.40 $51,044.00 $15,246.00 $3,391.29 $9,350.67 $53,596.20 r.)000 7 9 POUNTNEY ASSOC., INC. 8/22/00 FEE PROPOSAL Track Engineer - RR Engrs. 1.05 $7,143.14 $7,500.30 Traffic Engineer - KOA 1.05 $2,800.00 $2,940.00 Signage Consultant - SKA 1.05 $3,277.00 $3,440.85 Reimbursables- Computer Time 40 $10.00 $400.00 CADD Plotting 20 $10.00 $200.00 Reproduction 1LS $250.00 $250.00 Postage & Mileage 1LS $100.00 $100.00 • SUBTOTAL - Design Development $105,807.31 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Plans - Title Sheet Note Sheet Site Plans Existing Conditions/Demolition Plans Horizontal Control Plans Finished Elevations/Drainage Plans Site Utilities Plans Paving Striping Plans Profiles Platform Details Site Details Public Improvements Principal Engineer 24 $67.50 $1,620.00 Project Manager 80 $47.50 $3,800.00 Senior Project Engineer 60 $37.00 $2,220.00 Project Engineer 100 $32.00 $3,200.00 Staff Engineer 80 $25.00 $2,000.00 Designer 100 $25.00 $2,500.00 CADD Drafter 160 $24.25 $3,880.00 Word Processor/Clerical 24 $17.00 $408.00 Subconsultants- Architects - Oncina 1.05 $38,243.00 $40,155.15 Reimbursables 1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Shelter Plans, Elevations, Sections Pedestrian Overcrossing Plans, Elev., Sections Shelter Details Landscape Architects - Teshima 1.05 $9,266.85 $9,730.19 Reimbursables 1.00 $1,230.00 $1,230.00 Planting Plans Planting Legend Planting Details Irrigations Plans Irrigation Legend Irrigation Details RCTC Metrolink Station Van Buren Route 91 4 • • • 'JO 00 0 POUNTNEY ASSOC., INC. 8/22/00 FEE PROPOSAL 1 Site Furnishing Plans Site Furnishing Details Electrical - Kanrad 1.05 $28,942.55 $30,389.68 Reimbursables 1.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Electrical Site Plans Platform Electrical Plans Wiring Diagrams and Schedule Misc. Electrical Details Structural - RBF 1.05 $165,893.00 $174,187.65 Reimbursables 1.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 Structural Notes Van Buren Bridge Widening Pedestrian Overcrossing Shelter Foundations, Roof Plans Shelter Structural Details Misc. Structural Details Track Plans - RR Engrs. - 1.05 $13,265.82 $13,929.11 Reimbursables 1.00 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 Track Plans Track Details Traffic Plans - KOA 1.05 $5,200.00 $5,460.00 Traffic Control/Detour Plans Signage Plans - SKA 1.05 $10,650.25 - $11,182.76 Reimbursables 1.00 $750.00 $750.00 Sign Location Plans Sign Elevations & Details 1 Specifications - Outline Specifications (35% Submittal) Boiler Plates (100% & Final Submittal) Special Conditions (90%, 100%, & Final) Technical Special Provisions (90%, 100%, & Final) Bid Schedule (100% & Final Submittal) Project Manager 32 $47.50 $1,520.00 Project Engineer 60 $32.00 $1,920.00 Staff Engineer 40 $25.00 $1,000.00 Word Processor/Clerical 24 $17.00 $408.00 Estimates - Construction Estimates (50%, 90%, 100%, Final) Project Manager 16 $47.50 $760.00 Project Engineer 60 $32.00 $1,920.00 Staff Engineer 40 $25.00 $1,000.00 Designer 32 $25.00 $800.00 Word Processor/Clerical 12 $17.00 $204.00 Submittals • • Project Manager 16 $47.50 $760.00 Project Engineer 32 $32.00 $1,024.00 CADD Drafter 32 $24.25 $776.00 Word Processor/Clerical 1 12 $17.00 $204.00 RCTC Metrolink Station Van Buren Route 91 5 )00081 POUNTNEY ASSOC., INC. 8/22/00 FEE PROPOSAL Comment Review Project Manager Project Engineer 12 $47.50 $570.00 80 32.00 2 CADD Drafter 100 $24.25 $2,425.00 Word Processor/Clerical 12 $17.00 $204.00 Reimbursables- Computer Time 120 $10.00 $1,200.00 CADD Plotting 60 $10.00 $600.00 Reproduction 1LS $500.00 $500.00 Postage & Mileage ,1LS $300.00 $300.00 SUBTOTAL - Construction Documents $336,697.54 - OUTSIDE AGENCY COORDINATION City of Riverside SCRRA BNSF RTA Project Manager 40 $47.50 $1,900.00 Project Engineer 40 $32.00 $1,280.00 Word Processor/Clerical 16 $17.00 $272.00 Subconsultants- Architect - Oncina 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Landscape Architects - Teshima 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Structural - RBF 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Track Engineer- RR Engrs. 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Traffic Engineer- KOA 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Signange Consultant - SKA 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 SUBTOTAL - Outside Agency Coordination $9,752.00 TOTAL HOURS/DIRECT LABOR - Pountney 2092 $73,785.00 OVERHEAD MULTIPLIER (1.65) $121,745.25 TOTAL POUNTNEY - LABOR $195,530.25 FIXED FEE (10%) $19,553.03 REIMBURSABLES (0% Markup) $6,050.00 SUBCONSULTANTS (with 5% labor mark-up) $516,033.89 GRAND TOTAL $737,167.16 RCTC Metrolink Station Van Buren Route 91 6 ')000$2 POUNTNEY ASSOC., INC. FEE PROPOSAL 8/22/00 • • SUMMARY Before M/U After M/U Pountney & Assoc. -Prime $73,785.00 $195,530.25 P&A Fixed Fee $19,553.03 Reimbursables - P&A $6,050.00 $6,050.00 TOTAL P&A $221,133.28 RBF - Surveys To be negotiated $16,717.61 $17,553.49 Reimbursables $5,650.00 $5,650.00 RBF - Environmental $9,719.03 $10,204.98 Reimbursables $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Ninyo & Moore (MBE) - Geotechnical $8,835.57 $9,277.35 Reimbursables $10,608.00 $10,608.00 Katz Okitsu & Assoc. (MBE) - Traffic $13,500.00 $14,175.00 Manuel Oncina (MBE) - Architects To be negotiated $58,963.00 $61,911.15 Reimbursables $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Teshima Design Group (MBE) - Landscape Architects $16,834.20 $17,675.91 Reimbursables $1,310.00 $1,310.00 Kanrad Engineers (MBE) - Electrical To be negotiated $44,527.00 $46,753.35 Reimbursables $1,000.00 $1,000.00 RBF - Structural $256,220.00 $269,031.00 Reimbursables $4,500.00 $4,500.00 Railroad Engineers & Consultants - Track $21,408.96 $22,479.41 Reimbursables $1,900.00 $1,900.00 Sanchez Kamps - Signage $17,385.00 $18,254.25 Reimbursables $750.00 $750.00 TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS $492,828.37 $516,033.89 TOTAL $492,828.37 $737,167.16 Karl: The highlighted areas in the summary are the subconsultants fees that we are still negotiating. We anticipate that we can get the total fees in the $600,000 to $625,00 range by the time we are through. 41/RCTC Metrolink Station Van Buren Route 91 7 600083 RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Metrolink Station at Van Buren Boulevard & Route 91 SCOPE OF SERVICES FINAL DESIGN The Scope of Services identified herein for the Final Design is supplemented by the detailed proposals referenced that were prepared by our various teams of subconsultants. All specific scope items contained therein are part of this proposal, and all exclusions and/or assumptions apply. PROJECT MANAGEMENT: PROJECT MANAGEMENT - Overall project management for the Final Design effort including project scheduling, accounting, coordination and correspondence with RCTC and governing jurisdictions (e.g., City of Riverside, BNSF, SCRRA) . MEETINGS - Trend Meetings - We anticipate up to eight Trend Meetings with RCTC Staff to review overall project progress, schedule, budget, and other project issues. We will prepare an agenda and meeting minutes with action items for each of these meeting. Deliverables: Meeting Agenda and Minutes Monthly Progress Reports - Monthly reports will be submitted to RCTC with each Trend Meeting. Deliverables: Monthly Status Reports Design Team Meetings - Based on a Final Design duration of 7 months, we will hold monthly design team meetings where our design team meets to coordinate our progress, refine the design and resolve any potential conflicts. Deliverables: Meeting Minutes SUBCONSULTANT COORDINATION - 08/22/00 1 • • 000084 • We will provide overall Project Management to monitor schedules, budgets, and monitor the activities of our lisubconsultants including negotiating written and signed contracts with each subconsultant to establish their espective scope, insurance obligations, schedule, budget and production responsibilities. We will also review and process subconsultant's invoices. Deliverables: Monthly invoices and subconsultant correspondence, as/required QUALITY CONTROL — We will undertake a peer review of each of our submittals by an independent senior level registered engineer. PUBLIC MEETINGS - We will attend up to two public presentations with the RCTC, City of Riverside, or other planning group(s). Out architect, and landscape architect prepare colored site plans, rendered elevations and sketches. Deliverables: Colored drawings and sketches ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION - Reference: See RBF proposal (Environmental section) Our environmental consultant will update and revise the previously completed Initial Study, air, and noise dies to submit to the City of Riverside based on the new Site Plan. They will also assist the City of verside in their preparation of the CEQA documents towards a Mitigated Negative Declaration. They will also prepare a Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form, in consultation with RCTC, the City of Riverside,.and Caltrans. The PES form can be used in obtaining NEPA clearance for the project. Deliverables: Copies of all pertinent applications and reports SURVEY/MAPPING - Complete the mapping for the consolidation of the various parcels as required by the City of Riverside as part of the Conditional Use Permit process. Provide additional field surveys to facilitate the final design. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS - Reference: See Ninyo & Moore proposal, Final geotechnical'ancl geology report will provide input on the following data: Foundation design parameters for platforms, structures, pedestrian over -crossing, and asphalt pavement design. Our geotechnical subconsultants will undertake ten borings varying in depth from 08/22/00 2 +)00085 5 to 80 feet in depth. Laboratory analysis to evaluate moisture and dry density, gradation, expansion index, direct shear strength, consolidation potential, R -value, corrosivity, and sulfate content. Deliverables: (4) copies of the Final Geotechnical Investigations Report TRAFFIC ANALYSIS- Refererxce: See Katz Okitsu proposal Our traffic consultant will update their Traffic Assessment Study to include the new site plan and the additional access to Myers Street. Deliverables: (4) copies of the Traffic Analysis Report CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - Base on the approved site plan submitted on August 15, 2000, we will prepare our Construction Documents predicated on the following: SCRRA Design Manual for the minimum platform criteria, project signage, equipment and site furnishings (benches, ticketing machines, money changing machines, lighting, bicycle lockers and racks, vendor cart utility access, drinking fountains and other site amenities. Line over of the BNSF #1 main line track to provide horizontal clearance for a minimum 21 -foot separation between said track and the #2 main line track for the installation of the required PUC safety fence. The existing Van Buren railroad bridge must.widened in order to accomplish the above clearance a nominal 6 feet to the north. Two platforms adjacent to the "lined -over" #1 main line track, and the future #3 main line track. We will provide for an interim platform off the existing #2 main line track that will be demolished once the #3 main line track is constructed in the future. Access between the two platforms shall be via a new pedestrian over -crossing (similar to the West Corona pedestrian over -crossing), and/or pedestrian walkways under the existing Van Buren Blvd. railroad bridge. A vehicular under -crossing is specifically excluded at this time. Parking area for the station will be located south of the tracks, north of Rudicill Street, west of the Van Buren Blvd., and east of Myers Street. We anticipate approximately 280 parking spaces. We do not anticipate for the development of station parking north of the tracks, or for vehicular access onto the site from Indiana Avenue. Pedestrian access to the station from the intersections of Van Buren at Indiana Avenue and Rudicill Street. 08/22/00 3 • • r 000086 • Obtaining approval and permits from the City of Riverside and BNSF for the widening of the Van Buren Blvd. railroad bridge. Obtaining approval and building permits from the building department for sunshade the pedestrian over -crossing, platform structures, retaining walls, bridges, etc. Obtaining approval and permits from the City of Riverside Engineering Department for the onsite grading and all work within the public right of way. The City of Riverside will prepare the CEQA documentation, and RCTC will prepare the NEPA documentation to obtain environmental clearance for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Bus facilities will be limited to "off -site" bus stops on Indiana Avenue and/or Van Buren Blvd. Near the project site. SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Reference: See proposals from Oncina, Teshima, Kanrad, RBF (structural), Railroad Engineers, and Sanchez-Kamps We will finalize the Schematic Design (approximately 15%) level of design to include pedestrian over - crossing, utilities, landscape areas, sun shelter sizes and locations, site lighting, site signage, and other major site amenities. ur project architect will develop a number of typical sections and elevations to illustrate all proposed ructures, shelters, entry features, etc. These and the conceptual landscape plan can be rendered for public hearing presentations, if desired. The signage consultant will develop an outline of the overall signage program and the lighting consultant will identify the approximate location, height and candlepower of all site lighting. Platform electrical, lighting, and ticketing requirements will make reference the SCRRA Metrolink Station Design Manual. A Schematic Design level construction cost estimate will be developed with a 20% contingency factor applied. Deliverables: (10) blueline sets plus (1) reproducible of Schematic Design (10) copies of the Schematic Design Construction Estimate DESIGN DEVELOPMENT — Design Development will include a 30% level design consisting of plans, outline specifications, and construction estimates. We anticipate the following plans: Title, General Notes, Legend Sheets Site Plans Existing Conditions/Demolition Plans Horizontal Control Plans s 08/22/00 4 }300087 Finished Elevations/Drainage Plans Site Utilities Plans Paving/Striping Plans Platform Plans Architectural Plans - Pedestrian Over -Crossing Plans, Elevations, Sections Shelter Plans, Elevations, and Sections Mechanical Plans - Elevator Plans Landscape Architectural Plans - Planting Plans/Legend Site Furnishing Plans/Legend Electrical Plans - Electrical Site Lighting Plans Platform Electrical Plans Structural Plans - Van Buren Bridge Widening Plans Pedestrian Over -Crossing Plans Rail Track Plans - Track Alignment Plans Signage Plans - Site Location Plans/Legend Platform Signage Plans Deliverables: (10) blueline sets plus (1) reproducible of Design Development (35%) Plans (10) copies of the Outline Specifications (10) copies of the Design Development Construction Estimate CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - Construction Documents will include a 75%, 90%, and 100% level design consisting of plans, detailed specifications (CSI format using the Green Book as base standard specifications), and construction estimates. We anticipate the following plans: Title, General Notes, Construction & Grading Notes, Legend, and Index Sheets Site Plans Existing Conditions/Demolition Plans Horizontal Control Plans Finished Elevations/Drainage Plans Site Utilities Plans Paving/Striping Plans Miscellaneous Profiles & Site Elevations Public Improvements Platform Plans Plat form Details Architectural Plans - Pedestrian Over -Crossing Plans, Elevations, Sections 08/22/00 5 • • • 000088 • • Pedestrian Over -Crossing Schedules & Details Shelter Plans, Elevations, and Sections Shelter Details Mechanical Plans - Elevator Plans Elevator Details Landscape Architectural Plans - Planting Plans/Legend Planting Details Site Furnishing Plans/Legend Irrigation Plans/Legend Irrigation Details Site Furnishing Plans/Legend Electrical Plans - Electrical Site Lighting Plans Platform Electrical Plans Wiring Diagrams/Schedules Electrical Details Structural Plans - Structural Notes Van Buren Bridge Widening Plans Van Buren Bridge Sections Van Buren Bridge Details Pedestrian Over -Crossing Structural Foundation Plans Pedestrian Over -Crossing Structural Elevations & Sections Pedestrian Over -Crossing Structural Details Platform Shelter Foundation Plans Platform Shelter Structural Elevations & Sections Platform Shelter Structural Details Rail Track Plans - Track Alignment Plans Track Profiles - Track Details Signage Plans - Site Signage Location Plans/Legend Site Signage Elevations/Schedules Platform Signage Plans Platform Elevations/Schedules, if/as required Signage Details Deliverables: (10) blueline sets plus (1) mylar originals of the 100% Plans (10) copies of the 100% Specifications (10) copies of the 100%Construction Estimate OUTSIDE AGENCY COORDINATION - We will coordinate and process our Final Design with the City of Riverside, SCRRA, Caltrans, BNSF, and �A. 08/22/00 6 000089 Deliverables: Copies of all correspondence REIMBURSABLES - We have provide a estimated budget for anticipated reimbursables such as postage, deliveries, mileage, and reproduction. These direct expenses will be billed at actual costs with no further markups. BID PERIOD SERVICES (NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS PROPOSAL) CONSTRUCTION PERIOD SERVICES (NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS PROPOSAL) 08/22/00 7 • • 000090 • • AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: FY 2001-05 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Cathedral City, Hemet, Murrieta, and Rancho Mirage STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of the FY 2001-05 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads, as submitted, and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of Local Streets and Roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit an annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On April 24, 2000, RCTC staff provided the local agencies with Measure "A" revenue projections for Local Streets and Roads to assist them in preparation of the required Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The agencies were asked to submit their Plans by June 14th for submission to the Budget and Implementation Committee at its June 26, 2000 meeting and to the Commission on July 12, 2000. At its July 12, 2000 meeting, the Commission approved the Plans for all but six (6) cities: Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Hemet, Indio, Murrieta, and Rancho Mirage. Subsequently, we have received the required Plans, MOE certification and supporting documentation from the cities of Cathedral City, Hemet, Murrieta, and Rancho Mirage which ar0.attached as Exhibit A. 1000091 We have informed city staff from Desert Hot Springs and Indio that no disbursement of Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads funds will be made until all of the required documents are received and approved by the Commission. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY2000-01 Source of Funds: FY 2000-01 Budget Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $3,428,000 Budget Adjustment: N Date: 8-22-00 000092 • • EXHIB T A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C OMMISSION MEASURE " A" LOCAL FUNDS PR OGRAM FY 2000-2005 AGENCY: City of Cathedral City PAGE 1of2 • Item No. Project name/limits Project type 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3• 4 1 3; 4 FY 2000-2001 City Public Works Maintenance Engineering Division -Signal maintenance City Risk Management Misc. Street Projects Planning & Design FY 2001-2002 City Public Works M aintenance Engineering Division -Signal maintenance City Risk Management Misc. Street Projects FY 2002-2003 City Public Works Maintenance Engineering Division -Signal maintenance City Risk M anagement Misc. Street Projects City-wide operations traffic signal maintenance contracts Traffic related claims & lawsuits minor projects © various locations transportation project planning & design City-wide operations traffic signal maintenance contracts Traffic related claims & lawsuits minor projects © various locations City-wide operations traffic signal maintenance contracts Traffic related claims & lawsuits minor projects © various locations Total cost ($000's) $ 1475 .4 130.0 2275 .3 98 .5 50.0 $ 1555 .6 130.0 2300.0 78.9 $ 1594 .4 140.0 2400.0 85.5 Meas . A ($000's) $ 720.55 130.0 16.8 98.5 4.6 $ 780 .1 130 .0 20.0 78.9 $ 803.5 140.0 20 .0 85 .5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATION COMMISSION ME ASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-2005 AGENCY: , City of Cath edral City PA GE 2 of2 Item No. Project name/limits Project type Total cost: Meas. A ($000's) ($000's) FY 2003-2004 1 2 City Public Works Maintenance Engine ering City-wide operations $ 1634.3 $ 827 .6 3 Division -Signal maintenance City Risk traffic signal maintenance contracts 145 .0 145.0 4 M anagement Misc. Traffic related claims & lawsuits 2350 .0 20.0 Street Projects minor projects © various locations 98 .4 98 .4 FY 2004-2005 1 2 City Public Wo rks Maintenance Engineering City-wide operations $ 1555.6 $ 848.3 3 Division -Signal maintenance City traffic signal maintenance contracts 150.0 150.0 4 Risk Management Misc. Traffic related claims & lawsuits 2400.0 20.0 Street Projects minor projects © various locations 116.7 116.7 • • • • • • Agency: City of Hemet Prepared by: Juan C. Perez Date: June 21, 2000 ITEM NO. EXHIBIT A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-2001 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE 1. 2. Street Name Sign Replacement Program City-wide Pave ment Rehabilitation / Street Improvement Project Sign Replacement Pavement Maintenance / Improvements TOTAL T OTAL COST 40,000 1,166, 000 1,206,000 MEASURE A FUNDS 40,000 1,166,000 1,206,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM MISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2001-2002 Agency: City of Hemet Prepared by: Juan C. Perez Date: June 21, 2000 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE 1. 2 Street Name Sign Replacement Program City-wide Pavement Rehabilitation / Street Improvement Project Sign Replacement Pavement Maintenance / Improvements TOTAL • • TOTAL COST MEASURE A FUNDS 40,000 1,214,000 1,254,000 40,000 1,214,000 •1,254,000 • • • Agency: City of Hemet Prepared by: Juan C. Perez Date: June 21, 2000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2002-2003 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST 1. City-wide Pavement Rehabilitation / Street Improvement Project Pavement Maintenance / Improvements TOTAL 1,304,000 1,304,000 MEASURE A FUNDS 1,304,000 . 1,304,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003-2004 Agency: City of Hemet Prepared by: Juan C. Perez Date: June 21, 2000 00 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LI MITS PROJECT TYPE 1. City-wide Pavement Rehabilitati on / Street Improvement Project Pavement Maintenance / Improvements TOTAL • • TOTAL COST MEASURE A FUNDS 1,356,000 1,356,000 1,356,000 1,356,000 • • • Agency: City of Hemet Prepared by: Juan C. Perez Date: June 21, 2000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM MISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M • FY 2004-2005 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE 1 City-wide Pavement Rehabilitation / Street Improvement Project Pavement Maintenance / Improvements TOTAL TOTAL C OST 1,410,000 1,410,000 MEASURE A FUNDS 1,410,000 1,410,000 • • • Agency: City of M urriet a Prepa red by: Dan Clark Phon e No.: (909) 698-1040 Date: May 10, 2000 EXHIBIT A RIV ERSIDE CO UNTY T RANS PORTATION COMMISSION M EAS UR E "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000 - 2001 Page 1 of 5 ITE M NO . PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE T OTAL COST ($000'S) M EASUR E A FUN DS ($000'S) 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road from South City Limits to 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 Interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 11,350 345,502 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 431,498 C:/Excell/M easA5yr RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUN DS PROG RAM FY 2001- 2002 Page 2 of 5 PROJECT N AME/ LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) M EASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) Murrieta Hot Springs Road from South City Limits to 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 Interchanges Design and Construct R oad Improvements 11,350 339,000 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide C onstruct Road Improvements 469,000 • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY T RANSPORTATION COMMISSION M EASUR E "A" LOCAL F UNDS PRO GRAM FY 2002 - 2003 Page 3 of S PROJE CT NAME /LIMITS P ROJECT TYP E TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASUR E A FUNDS ($000'S) Murrieta Hot Springs Road from South City Limits to 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 Interchanges Design and Construct R oad Improvements 11,350 339,000 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 501,000 RIVERSID E COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSI ON M EASUR E "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 Page 4 of 5 PROJECT NAME / LIMITS PROJ ECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEAS UR E A F UNDS ($000'S) Murrieta Hot Springs Road from South City Limits tot 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 Interchanges o: Design and Construct Road Improvements 11,350 339,000 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide ! Construct Road Improvements 535,000 • • • • • RIVERSI DE COUNTY TRANSPO RTATION COMMISSION MEASUR E "A" LOCAL F UN DS PROGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 Page 5 of 5 PROJE CT NAME /LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) M EASU RE A F UNDS ($000'S) M urrieta Hot Springs Road from South City Limits to 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 Interchanges Design and Construct Road Impr ovements 11,350 339,000 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 570,000 • Agen cy: Prepared by: Phone No.: Date: EXHIBI • RI VERSIDE C OUNTY T RANSPO RTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" L OCAL FUNDS P ROGR AM FY 2000 - 2001 City of Rancho Mirage Bruce Harry, Director of Public Works (760) 770-3224 June 2000 • Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO . PROJECT N AME/LIMITS PROJECT T YPE 1 2 Frank Sinatra Drive widening from Bob Hope Drive to Monterey Avenue City -Wide slurry sealing and asphalt overlay mainte nance program on arterial and residential public streets. Wide ning Maintena nce/Rehabilitation TOTAL C OST ($000'S) 585 400 MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 275 200 RIVE RSIDE C OUNTY TR ANSP ORT ATI ON C OMMISSI ON MEASU RE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PRO GRAM FY 2001 - 2002 Agency: City of Rancho Mirage Prepared by: Bruce Harry, Director of Public Works Phone No.: (760) 770-3224 Date: June 2000 Page 2 of 5 ITEM NO. PROJECT N AME/LIMITS PR OJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) ME ASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1 2 3 Coun try Club D rive rehabilitation from Bob Hope Drive to Vista D unes Road Plumley Road reconstructio n from Gerald Ford Dri ve to Din ah Shore Driv e City -Wide slurry seal an d asphalt concrete overlay maintenance program on arterial an d residential public streets Pavement rehabilitation Pavement reconstruction Pavement maintena nce 600 300 450 200 200 100 • • • • • • RIVERSIDE C OUNT Y TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ME ASU RE "A" LOC AL FUNDS P ROGRAM FY 2002 - 2003 Agency: City of Rancho Mirage Prepared by: Bruce Harry, Director of Public Works Phone No. : (760) 770-3224 Date: June 2000 Page 3 of 5 ITEM NO. PROJECT N AME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE 1 2 City -Wide slurry seal and asphalt concrete overlay maintenance program on arterial and residential public streets Via Josephina, Via V ail and Key Largo from beginning to en d Pa vement maintena nce Pa vement reconstructio n and drainage impr ovements TOTAL COST ($000'S) 500 1,000 MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 200 314 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORT ATI ON COMMISSI ON MEASURE " A" LOCAL FUNDS PRO GRAM FY 2003 - 2004 Agency: Prepared by: Phone No.: Date: City of Rancho Mirage Bruce Harry, Director of Public Works (760) 770-3224 June 2000 Page 4 of 5 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS P ROJECT TYPE 1 2 City -Wide slurry seal and asphalt concrete overlay maintenance program on arterial and residential public streets Peterson Road reconstruction from Highway 111 to Mirage Co ve Pavement mainte nance Pavement rec onstruction T OTAL COST ($000'S) 450 375 MEASURE A FUN DS ($000'S) 350 200 • • • • • • RIVERSIDE C OUN TY TRANSPO RTATI ON C OMMISSI ON MEASU RE "A" L OC AL FUNDS P ROG RAM FY 2004 - 2005 Agency: City of Rancho Mirage Prepared by: Bruce Harry, Director of Public Works Phone No .: (760) 770-3224 Date: June 2000 Page 5 of 5 ITEM NO. PROJECT N AME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE 1 2 City -Wide slurry sealing and asphalt concrete overlay main tenance program Dinah Shore Drive widen ing from Bob Hope Drive to Key Largo Pa veme nt maintenance Street wide ni ng T OTAL C OST ($000'S) 450 500 MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 350 200 • AGENDA ITEM 13 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications SUBJECT: FY 1997-98 SB 821 Program Extension for the County of Riverside STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) grant the County of Riverside a twelve month extension to June 30, 2001 to complete the Serfas Club Drive Sidewalk project; and 2) forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The County of Riverside was allocated $43,000 in FY 1997-98 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program funds for the construction of a sidewalk along the east side of Serfas Club Drive. The County received Commission approval in June 1999 to switch the project to the west side of the street in order to reduce right-of-way acquisition and retaining wall relocation costs. Currently, the County is developing a pavement rehabilitation project on Serfas Club Drive and believes that it would be more cost-effective and less disruptive to the public to combine the two projects. The County expects to go out to bid within six to nine months and is requesting a twelve month extension. 000110 CO uJ • C7 ' 4. '04, . LAND01°4t. • • • June 14, 2000 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Departmen Mr. Jerry Rivera Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 0506 David E. Barnhart -rector of Tran.cportar:on RE: FY 1997-98 SB 821 Project - Serfas Club Drive Sidewalk, Coronita Area Dear Mr. Rivera: The County of Riverside Transportation Department was approved to receive $43,000 in FY 1997-98 SB 821 funds, for the construction of a sidewalk along the east side of Serfas Club Drive, between Rancho Corona Drive and Monterey Peninsula Drive. In June 1999, the Commission approved our request to construct the sidewalk along the west side of Serfas Club Drive, between Palisades Drive and Monterey Peninsula Drive, instead of the previously approved SB 821 project. The west side was found to be more suitable than the east side, due to its cost -efficiency compared to the additional expenses associated with Right of Way acquisition and retaining wall relocation, along one property at the corner of Serfas Club Drive and Rancho Corona Drive. We are currently developing a pavement rehabilitation project on Serfas Club Drive, and believe that it would be more cost-efficient and less disruptive to the public, to coordinate this project with the SB 821 westerly sidewalk project, by combining both projects into a single construction contract. We anticipate the new construction award date to be within six to nine months. However, to accommodate any unforeseen delays, we respectfully request an extension of time for the FY 1997-98 SB 821 funds, until June 30, 2001. If you have any questions with regard to this request, please contact George A. Johnson, Deputy Director of Transportation, at (909) 955-6741, or Sena B. Wijesinha, Senior Transportation Planner, at (909) 955-6828. Sing e y, David E. Barnhart Director of Transportation /sbw cc: George Johnson/Roy Null Scott Staley/Atef Zaki Ed Studor 4080 Lemon Street. 8th Floor • Riverside. California 92501 • (909) 955-6740 P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside. California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-6721 00111 • AGENDA ITEM 14 • 1 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: John Standiford, Public Information Officer THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications SUBJECT: Proposed Rate Increase for Communications and Graphic Design Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) increase the hourly labor rates for Geographics professional services included in RCTC Contract RO-2060; 2) direct staff to process an amendment to the existing contract; 3) authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission; and 4) forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since 1992, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has enjoyed a successful relationship with Geographics, a graphic design and public relations firm based in Riverside. Over the course of eight years, Geographics has assisted in the design of numerous promotional and written fliers, advertisements, and documents on behalf of the Commission. The effort has included annual reports, budget documents, advertising programs for the Commuter Assistance Program and material for public presentations. Most recently, the Commission received an award from the Western Region of the Association for Commuter Transportation for its employer rideshare awards program. The Rideshare Hero theme for the program was conceived and designed by Geographics. On November 10, 1999, the Commission approved a three-year contract with Geographics for Communications and Graphic Design Services. The contract includes two additional option years. The cost for each professional service provided by the firm is delineated in the contract through a rate sheet which specifies the hourly rate for each service. The original rate sheet included with the contract is attached as Attachment A. 000112 In June, Geographics submitted a letter to the Commission formally asking for a rate increase for all of its professional services. The letter, attached as Attachment B, explains the firm's reasons for seeking higher hourly rates and includes a revised rate sheet. What is especially striking is that Geographics has held its rates steady since the inception of their relationship with the Commission in 1992. This is the first time in more than eight years an increase has been sought. More importantly, the higher rates being sought are still lower than those charged by similar companies. When the original contract was awarded in 1999, the Commission sent Requests for Proposals to 117 potential bidders. Eventually, three bids were received and Geogrpahics was chosen for the quality of its proposal, their experience and the established quality of their work product for the Commission and for many other clients. In evaluating the proposals, labor rates and cost comprised only 20 percent of the overall evaluation. Geographics offered the lowest labor rates and charged during that bid process and would still offer the lowest labor rate with the proposed higher rate sheet. The Commission's communications staff recommends approval of the proposed higher rate sheet for a number of reasons. First and most importantly, the rate increase can be granted without increasing the Commission's FY 2000/01 budgeted amount for graphics design and communications services. It would continue to be the Commission's staff's responsibility to ensure that the overall expenditures remain within budget. Approving the rate increase is also likely to save money in the long run. Since Geographics' rates would remain lower than those of other firms, rebidding the proposed is unlikely to attract bids that would be lower than what is being proposed. The process of rebidding this size of contract would also be costly in terms of staff time. Overall, the performance of Geographics has been outstanding, and the new rates being proposed still ensures cost-effectiveness. For that reason, staff recommends amending the existing contract RO-2060 to incorporate the new rate sheet under the existing total contract amount not to exceed $325,000, as approved in the FY 2000/01 budget. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: 2000/01 Source of Funds: FY 2000-01 Budget Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $325,000 Budget Adjustment: N Date: 8-23-00 000113 • ATTACHMENT A EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION RATES AND REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 1. HOURLY COMPENSATION RATES. Photography: $65.00 Art Director: $40.00 Project Manager: $50.00 Graphic Designer: $40.00 Writer: $50.00 Graphic Production: $40.00 Media Production Illustrator: $40.00 & Direction: $50.00 Support Staff $40.00 MIS: $50.00 2. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES. Telephone: Consultant shall not bill the Commission for telephone calls conducted in the normal course of business. Consultant may bill the Commission for the actual cost of telephone calls when those calls constitute a special project, such as the creation of data bases or telephone survey research, or when such telephone calls constitute lengthy consultations which would, except for the availability of the parties to meet face to face, have been conducted in meetings between the parties. Copying: Unless authorized by the Commission's Representative in writing for a particular project/task, Consultant shall not bill the Commission for copying. Rushes: Consultant shall not charge a premium for rush jobs and shall not adjust the above hourly rates based on the type of projector project schedule; provided, however, that Consultant may bill the Commission for rush charges actually incurred by the Consultant from third parties because of the Commission's schedule on a project/task and not because of a delay on the part of the Consultant. Film: Film processing shall be charged at $30.00 per roll. Travel: Trips under one day are billed at the standard hourly rate for time actually spent on the road for the Commission. Trips over one day shall be billed as follows: (1) a per -diem rate approved in advance by the Commission's Representative; (2) reasonable transportation expenses approved in advance by the Commission's Representative ( plus a 15% mark-up); and (3) a reduced hourly rate, approved in advance by the Commission's Representative, for time spent in transit. Other Reimbursable Expenses: No other expenses shall be billed to the Commission unless approved in advance by the Commission's Representative. 110 R%PLB'DRD'528206 C-1 (BB&K: AUGUST 27, 1999) 000114 ATTACHMENT B June 21, 2000 Ms. Marilyn Williams Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 • Dear Ms. Williams, This letter is our notification that Geographics is applying for a change to our contract rates beginning this fiscal year. RCTC hasenjoyed the benefit of our current rate structure since 1992. Having looked at the standards for our industry, we can assure you that our rates remain lower than at least 90% of businesses of this type. The rate change is necessary for several reasons: • Since -1992, the annual costs associated with complete computerization of our industry have risen 800%. Between 28 and 40 percent of our previous profit margin now pays for storage media (maintained for our clients' convenience), computer supplies, software upgrades, licensing, and new computer . equipment. Annual capital expenditures on computer equipment, all of which are deducted directly from net earnings, have themselves increased by over . 700% since 1992. - We have absorbed all wage and benefit increases to staff for the past eight years. In today's highly competitive labor market where employees with high technology skills and experience are at a premium, in order to maintain •a staff with the level of skills required by our clients, we must pay competitive wages. In the last three years alone, wages have increased over 30%. As Geographics' earnings match the industry average at about 5 to 7% of gross, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to continue to support these increases without passing these additional . costs along to our clients. We regret having to do so. As you are aware, we are very conscious of the public trust attached to working as a consultant to a public agency. We strive to not only have lower rates than are common in our industry, but to givevalue for those rates equal to the best services available at any amount. If you have any doubts or questions regarding our request, we invite you to review our financial statements for 1997 through 1999. We have attached a new rate sheet. If you have any questions, we would be happy to answer. them. Yours Dawn Hassett Douglas McCulloh • 4178 CHESTNUT STREET RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92501 TELEPHONE 909 369 1564 FACSIMILE 909 369 8837 000115 k3L(A. Arn1L 06/.28/00 15:57 'x`909 369 15b4 4E04RpDNl(i GEOGRAPHICS HOURLY RATES Copywriting $60.00/hour Media Production and Direction $60.00/hour Technical/Scientific Illustration $48.00/hour Graphic Design/Production $48.00/hour Photography $75.00/hour Film/Processing $30.00/roll Technical Writing $60.00/hour Consultation and Project Management $60.00/hour Art Direction $60.00/hour All materials billed at cost plus 15% 4178 CHESTNUT STREET RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92.01.. IELtP.�iONE 9Q9 369 1564:.:FACSIMit,E;9•1J4367 oe { ,. • • • 000116 • AGENDA ITEM 15 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: John Standiford, Public Information Officer THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications SUBJECT: Rideshare Week Overview STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the Rideshare Week Overview report as an information item and forward to the Commission for final approval. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission's Commuter Assistance Program represents one of the most effective cooperative efforts between regional government, local employers and businesses. The Commission works with local employers to provide various incentives to employees who either rideshare, take transit, walk or bicycle to work. Employers are able to provide these incentives to their employees at no cost, while also making a positive difference to reducing congestion and improving air quality. RCTC also administers SANBAG's Commuter Assistance Program, thus providing rideshare services throughout the Inland Empire. One of the Commuter Assistance Program's most visible public efforts occurs each year during Rideshare Week when agencies throughout Southern California renew their efforts to encourage the public to use commute alternatives. The widespread marketing effort is often quite effective in encouraging residents to try ridesharing. This year, Rideshare Week takes place October 2-6. The centerpiece of the Inland Empire's Rideshare Week campaign, "Don't Drive Yourself Crazy," is a contest which is open to commuters who pledge to share a ride during the week. Pledge cards are collected through employers from all over Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and winners are selected randomly from those received. 000117 The employer services arm of the Commuter Assistance Program is known as Inland Empire Commuter Services (IECS). Among its services, IECS develops and implements the annual Rideshare Week campaign and secures prizes for the contest through established relationships with local employers and businesses. The array of prizes this year is quite impressive. Participants can vie for prizes that include weekend trips, gift certificates, an air traffic ride -along with Commander Chuck Street, a video -cassette recorder and a Stratocaster electric guitar donated by Fender Musical Instruments. Overall, there are 19 prizes valued at more than $6,000. In addition to the prizes, the Riverside Press Enterprise, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Bernardino County Sun are all donating free advertising to promote Rideshare Week that is valued at $6,500. Also, RTA and Omnitrans will add announcements regarding Rideshare Week during their ongoing radio advertisements. Yet another RCTC Commuter Assistance Program highlight taking place immediately before Rideshare Week is the Program's Awards Luncheon. This year more than 20 employers will be honored for their efforts to encourage ridesharing and transit use. This year's luncheon will be held on Wednesday, September 27 at Benedict Castle in Riverside. 00.11S • • • • AGENDA ITEM 16 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications SUBJECT: Amendment to Communications Site Leases Between the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) and Sub -leases Between RC SAFE and Lodestar Towers California, Inc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) an amendment to the communications site lease between the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies; 2) an amendment to sub -lease between the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies and Lodestar Towers California, Inc.; and 3) forward to the Commission for final action. 1110 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • In August 1990, the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) authorized staff to develop and execute agreements for the lease of three County owned/leased communications sites in order to provide timely cellular coverage from Indio to the Arizona border. The cellular coverage was necessary so that call box service could be provided on 1-10 east of Indio. RC SAFE then entered into a sub -lease with L. A. Cellular through Sigma Communications to allow L. A. Cellular equipment to be housed within county owned mountain top communications sites at Black Rock, Cactus City and Chuckawalla. The 1990 leases were for three years with two one- year continuation options, or a total of five years, and at no cost to RC SAFE. The leases and sub -leases were subsequently amended on January 10, 1996, on January 8, 1997, and on January 13, 1999. During this period, Lodestar Towers California, Inc., replaced Sigma Communications as the tower site operating company for L. A. Cellular. The third .amendment to the lease and sub -lease (Exhibit A) for the Black Rock communication site extends the agreement through December 31, 2002 under the same terms and conditions. The County may charge RC SAFE monthly rent based upon the establishment of a fee schedule by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1)00119 Bureau of Land Management, for the ground permit granted to the County with respect to each site. In other words, the County will recover any fees it may be required to pay from RC SAFE, and RC SAFE will, in turn, charge the sub -lessee any fees it pays the County. The net result will be that any fees charged by the U. S. Government will be paid by the sub -lessee, Lodestar Towers. Similar agreements for Cactus City and Chuckawalla were approved by the Commission at its July 12, 2000 meeting. • • 000120 EXHIBIT A • • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE (Black Rock Communications Site) THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Lessor, and RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES, Lessee, together hereinafter referred to as the Parties, hereby agree to amend that certain lease dated December 11, 1990, and amended on December 11, 1993, December 11, 1994, January 10, 1996, and December 31, 1999, on this day of , 2000, subject to the terms and conditions contained herein. 1. Term. The term of the lease is extended for a period of thirty-six (36) months commencing January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2003. 2. Department of Building Services Director's Authority. The authority for the Director of the Department of Building Services to execute this lease is contained in Resolution No. 97-252. 3. Counterparts. This Third Amendment to Lease may be signed in counterpart or duplicate copies and any signed counterpart or duplicate copy shall be equivalent to a signed original for all purposes. 4. Approval. This Third Amendment to Lease shall not be binding or consummated until its approval by the Director of the Department of Building Services. /// /// /// 000121 1 DE: dl 6/21/00 BLOO7 6.532 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. All other provisions of the lease not otherwise affected by this Thir Amendment to Lease shall remain the same. Date: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By: THOMAS M. DeSANTIS, Interim Director Department of Building Services REVIEWED AND RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL By: RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE) By: REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT By: APPROVED AS sel to uthority F ide County Service eeway Emergencies 00012 • AGENDA ITEM 17 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications SUBJECT: Fund Transfer Agreement Between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Operation of a Freeway Service Patrol Program in Riverside County STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) enter into an agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation, in the amount of $929,900, in State funding for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol Program for FY 2000-01; 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 Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program has been in operation for over seven years and provides roving tow truck service on five beats along portions of SR -91, I-215/SR-60, and 1-15 during the morning and afternoon peak commute hours. The FSP program is funded by the State of California (80%) and local SAFE fees (20%). Funds are allocated to participating local agencies through a formula based on population, freeway lane miles, and levels of congestion. The new State agreement for FY 2000-01 provides for continued funding in the amount of $929,900. This is an increase of $11,400 over the funding level for FY 1999-2000. The Riverside County SAFE must provide matching funds of $232,475. The Commission's FY 2000-01 budget for the Motorist Assistance Program included $854,000 in state funding and $213,000 in local matching funds. Due to the higher level of revenues over budget, an additional $75,900 in state funds and $19,475 in local matching funds are available for the FSP program and could be budgeted in the future to fund a new beat on SR -60 between the SR-91/1-215/SR-60 interchange and the 1-15/SR-BO interchange. At this time, staff and the CHP are in the process of determining if a new beat is warranted. )00123 Annually, the Program provides approximately 24,500 assists to stranded motorists along Riverside County freeways. The Commission contracts with two tow truck operators to provide twelve tow trucks to patrol routes Monday through Friday during peak commute hours, 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Program's day to day field supervision is handled by the California Highway Patrol. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY2000-01 Source of Funds: FY2000-01 Budget Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $213,000 Budget Adjustment: N Date: 8-22-00 000121 • • • • AGENDA ITEM 18 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 28, 2000 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment of San Bernardino Associated Governments Contracts for State and Federal Legislative Advocacy Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) extend the shared State Legislative Advocacy Services Contract No.00-051 between RCTC and SANBAG for a two year period in an amount not to exceed $48,750 annually; and 2) extend the shared Federal Legislative Advocacy Services Contract No. 00-047 between RCTC and SANBAG in an amount not to exceed $56,000 annually; 3) authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 4) forward to the Commission for final approval. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At their respective 1999 Board meetings, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) approved two contracts: 1) one with Smith and Kempton for RCTC/SANBAG shared State Advocacy Services in the amount of $96,000 (plus expenses not to exceed $1,500) per year, and 2) one with David Turch and Associates and Cliff Madison Government Relations, Inc. for RCTC/SANBAG shared Federal Advocacy Services in the amount of $108,000 (plus expenses not to exceed $4,000) per year. To streamline the management of the two contracts, SANBAG agreed to take the lead role in executing and administering the two legislative advocacy contracts on behalf of the two agencies. RCTC and SANBAG approved joint Contracts No. 00-047 and No.00-051 detailing their collective roles and responsibilities for the shared legislative services as well as reimbursements provisions (50%). Each contract was for a one year period with the option to extend the term for a two year period upon mutual agreement of the two agencies. Contract No. 00-047 expires on September 30, 2000 and Contract No. 00-051 expires on October 31, 2000. At both the state and federal level, the shared relationship of the advocacy services has proven beneficial. Members of the State Legislature and Congress have expressed appreciation for the RCTC/SANBAG coordinated approach to advocacy services via the 000127 establishment of the shared Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs position, and the shared advocacy services contracts. Based on the successful shared services relationships, staff recommends that Contracts No. 00-047 and No. 00-051 with SANBAG be extended for their defined two year periods. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000/01 Source of Funds: FY 2000-01 Budget Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $104,750 Budget Adjustment: N Date: 8-23-00 00012E • • •