HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 22, 2001 Budget & Implementation053536
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 2:30 p.m.
DATE: Monday, January 22, 2001
RECORDS
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 - Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
...COMMITTEE MEMBERS...
Ron Roberts, Chair / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
John Hunt, Vice Chair / Jan Wages, City of Banning
Placido Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont
Gregory S. Pettis / Sarah DeGrandi, City of Cathedral City
Juan DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella
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 / Ron Loveridge, 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.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
http://www.rctc.org
3560 University Ave - Riverside, CA 92501 - Conference Room A
PARK IN THE PARKING GARAGE
ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001 - 2:30 P.M.
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
City of La Quinta City Hall (Video Conference Location)
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253 - Session Room
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (November 27, 2000)
5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
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.
6A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT - P. 01
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule
Report for the month ending December 31, 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee
January 22, 2001
Page 2
6B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT - P. 05
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for
the months ending November and December 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-2136 FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING FOR SOUND WALL NO.'S
110, 121 AND 161 ON ROUTE 91 - P. 07
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Award Contract No. RO-2136 for Landscaping of Sound
Wall No's 110, 121 and 161 on Route 91, to Diversified
Landscape Co., for $218,756.58 plus a contingency
amount of $21,243.42 (10% - to cover potential change
orders encountered during construction) for a total contract
amount not to exceed $240,000.00;
2) Authorize the Chairperson to execute an agreement
pursuant to Legal Counsel review, and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY TO CLOSE OUT CONTRACT
NO. RO-9847 FOR PHASE I SOUND WALLS ON ROUTE 91 -
P. 11
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
Budget and Implementation Committee
January 22, 2001
Page 3
1) Concur with staff's recommendation for Claims resolution
to close out Construction Contract No. RO-9847;
2) • Authorize the increase of the project construction
contingency, by $12,168.83, for Construction Contract No.
RO-9847 from $153,514.00 (6%) to $165,682.83 (7%).
The new not to exceed value of the contract will be
$2,652,168.83; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. AWARD AMENDMENT #3 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-9954 FOR
DESIGN SERVICES ON STATE ROUTE 74 - P. 14
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-9954 with SC
Engineering to perform miscellaneous design services related
to the final design of Measure "A" improvements to widen
State Route 74 between 1-15 and the City of Perris.
Amendment #3 will increase the authorized value of the
contract by $716,344 and will make an additional
$250,000 of extra work available for future contingencies.
This will bring the contract authorization to $3,460,263
with available extra work of $257,050 for a new contract
not to exceed value of $3,717,316;
2) Authorize the Chairperson to sign Amendment #3, pursuant
to Legal Counsel review; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee
January 22, 2001
Page 4
10. APPROVAL OF CALTRANS' PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL NO.
M008 FOR THE PEDLEY METROLINK STATION PLATFORM
EXTENSION - P. 20
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) Program Supplement No. M008 for the Extension of the
Existing Emergency Platform at the Pedley Metrolink
Station;
2) Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-9952 for PB Farradyne
to develop a Final PS&E for the extension of the Emergency
Platform at the Pedley Metrolink Commuter Rail Station for
$62,000 plus a contingency amount of $10,000 (16.1% -
to cover potential changes encountered during design) for a
total contract amount not to exceed $72,000;
3) Authorize the Chairperson to sign the Program Supplement
and Amendment, subject to Legal Counsel review; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-2128 TO STV
INCORPORATED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE -
P. 29
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Award Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2128 to provide
additional photographing and mapping to support property
management activities related to the San Jacinto Branch
Line between the cities of Perris and San Jacinto for a base
Budget and Implementation Committee
January 22, 2001
Page 5
amount of $40,636. With additional extra work of $5,000.
This additional cost will bring STV's total authorized
contract value to $206,823 and total extra work value to
$21,613 for a total not to exceed value of $228,436;
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.
12. FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 AUDIT RESULTS REPORT - P. 36
Overview
Any Audit Ad Hoc Committee recommendations will be presented
to the Budget and Implementation Committee for its review and
possible action.
13. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (LTF) PROJECTION - P. 61
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) The projected Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
apportionments for Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley and
Western Riverside County areas; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC)
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS (SANBAG)
2001/2002 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM -
P. 63
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
Budget and Implementation Committee
January 22, 2001
Page 6
1) The proposed 2001/2002 State and Federal Legislative
Program; and
2. Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. ADJOURNMENT - The next meeting is scheduled to be held at
2:30 p.m. on Monday, February 26, 2001 at the RCTC offices.
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
Monday, November 27, 2000
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order at 2:35 p.m.,
by Chairman Ron Roberts at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission,
3560 University, Suite 100, Riverside, California, 92501 and at the video conference location
at the City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253.
2. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Members Absent
John Hunt
Ameal Moore
Kevin Pape
John Pena *
Gregory S. Pettis
Andrea Puga
Ron Roberts
Phil Stack
John Tavaglione
Jim Venable
Frank West
*
Juan De Lara
Patrick Williams
Mike Wilson
* Attended meeting via video conference
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from the public.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S/C (Puga/Moore) approve the minutes of the October 23, 2000, meeting as submitted.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S/C (Moore/Venable) to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
5A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT
Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending
October 31, 2000.
5B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report as of September and October
2000.
Budget and Implementations Committee Minutes
November 27, 2000
Page 2
5C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
Receive and file the Investment Report for quarter ending September 30, 2000.
5D. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Receive and file the Financial Statements for the quarter ending September 30, 2000.
5E. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE
Receive and file the operational statistics for the Riverside County Motorist Aid Call Box
System for the quarter ending September 30, 2000.
6. AUTHORIZE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-9861 TO SUPPORT DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROUTE 91, MAGNOLIA AVENUE TO MARY STREET AUXILIARY
LANE PROJECT, AND PHASE II SOUND WALL #36
M/S/C (Venable/Hunt) to 1) Approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. RO-9861, with
URS Corporation, for additional engineering design services and construction support
services required to support design and construction of the Route 91, Magnolia Avenue
to Mary Street Auxiliary Lane Project, and the new Phase II Sound Wall #36, for an
additional Base Work of $383,728 and additional Extra Work of $41,272 for a total
Amendment value of $425,000; and 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the
amendment on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, using the
standard amendment format.
7. APPROVE CALTRANS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE FINAL PS&E DESIGN OF THE
ROUTE 91 AUXILIARY LANE PROJECT FROM TYLER STREET TO JANE STREET
M/S/C (Puga/Hunt) to 1) Approve Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans for RCTC to
provide the final PS&E Design for the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project from Tyler Street
to Jane Street in the City of Riverside; and 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to
Legal Counsel review, to execute the Cooperative Agreement on behalf of the
Commission.
8. AUTHORIZATION TO BID LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION PACKAGE FOR SOUNDWALLS NO.
110, 121, AND 161
M/S/C (Venable/Puga) to authorize staff to advertise for construction bids for
landscaping of Sound Walls No. 110, 121, and 161 on Route 91 from Jackson Street
to Jefferson Street in the City of Riverside.
9. AUTHORIZATION TO BID VEGETATION REMOVAL CONSTRUCTION PACKAGE FOR STATE
ROUTE 74 REALIGNMENT
In response to Commissioner Andrea Puga's question on eminent domain Hideo Sugita, Deputy
Executive Director, responded that in compliance with the noticing procedure, RCTC sent
notices to those property owners with which negotiations had not been concluded.
Budget and Implementations Committee Minutes
November 27, 2000
Page 3
M/SIC (Pape/Stack) to authorize staff to advertise for construction bids to remove
vegetation along State Route 74.
10. APPROVE CALTRANS' PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS NO. M006 FOR THE
PEDLEY METROLINK STATION CCTV SYSTEM AND M007 FOR THE SANTA FE DEPOT
RESTORATION PROJECT
M/S/C (Venable/Puga) to approve Caltrans' Program Supplement No's. M006 for the
Construction of Security Enhancements for the Pedley Station and M007 for the Santa
Fe Depot Restoration Project to Agency -State Agreement No. 08-6054.
11. AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-2027 FOR THE PROPOSED NEW METROLINK
COMMUTER RAIL STATION IN DOWNTOWN CORONA NEAR MAIN STREET AND ROUTE 91
In answer to Commissioner Puga's question on whether the service from Fullerton to Los
Angeles would start as scheduled in February 2002, Eric Haley, Executive Director, replied that
during a November 17, 2000, meeting with Steve Wylie, Interim Executive Director of OCTA,
it was indicated that this service was going ahead as scheduled.
Commissioner Puga questioned the varying prices from station to station. Hideo Sugita, Deputy
Executive Director, explained that the prices are done by zones and that zone breaks are based
on distance. Some form of negotiated exception would be needed to change the current prices,
which at this time is highly improbable.
M/S/C (Puga/Moore) to 1) Concur with the station concept and staging plan for the
proposed new Metrolink Commuter Rail Station in Downtown Corona near Main Street
and Route 91; 2) Approve Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2027 to Daniel, Mann,
Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM) to provide final Plans, Specifications, and Estimate
(PS&E) Design Services, and environmental clearance for the proposed new Metrolink
Commuter Rail Station, for a base amount of $625,000, with an extra work
contingency of $75,000, for a total not to exceed Contract value of $700,000; and 3)
Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract on
behalf of the Commission.
12. APPROVE SELECTION PROCESS TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE
SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF RIVERSIDE
AND PERRIS
M/S/C (Venable/Tavaglione) to 1) Approve the results of the selection process to
provide the Commission Engineering Services Related to the San Jacinto Branch Line
between the Cities of Riverside and Perris; 2) Direct staff to negotiate the scope,
schedule and cost with the top ranked firm to perform the required services (if
negotiation fail with the top ranked firm, staff is authorized to go the next firm on the
list to negotiate a contract to perform the services); and 3) Direct staff to bring back
an authorization to award a contract to the firm with which negotiations are successful.
13. CALL BOX UPGRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION AND COMARCO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES
Chairman Roberts thanked Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, for negotiating further with Comarco
and reaching an agreement with cost savings.
Budget and Implementations Committee Minutes
November 27, 2000
Page 4
M/S/C (TavaglioneNenable) to 1) Enter into an agreement between the Riverside
County Transportation Commission and Comarco Wireless Technologies to upgrade the
call box system in Riverside County; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal
Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Accept
Comarco's offer to reduce the first year maintenance costs by 330,341.25 and direct
staff to incorporate the cost savings' in the Comarco System Upgrade Agreement.
At this time, Eric Haley: 1) introduced Larry Rubio, who was appointed as RTA's Interim
General Manager; 2) announced that the MSRC TAC brought forward recommendation that RTA
receive $8.29 million. This will mean that they have achieved more than 50% of the funds
needed; 3) that RCTC would be hosting the California Transportation Commission meeting on
December 5 & 6, 2000; and, 4) on December 6th, RCTC Chairman Mullen would be presenting
the CETAP to the CTC.
Chairman Roberts recognized Andrea Puga for her work as a member of RCTC and that this
would be her last Committee meeting. He expressed his pleasure in working with her.
Commissioner Stack added that she would be missed.
Commissioner Phil Stack requested Commissioners for nominations to the Commission's
Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (CAC/SSTAC).
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation
Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be held
on Monday, January 22, 2001 at 2:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
`7
Traci R. McGinley
Deputy Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 6A
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager
Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Contracts Cost and Schedule Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month
ending December 31, 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts
reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the
Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value
approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and
the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending December 31,
2000. -
The report has been amended to reflect the request made by Corky Larson, CVAG
Executive Director at the January 2001 meeting regarding the inclusion of Caltrans
Route 86 projects.
Attachments
00000
RCTC ME ASURE "A" HIL. .rVAY/RAIL PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY R OUTE
PR OJE CT
DESCRIPTI ON
ROUTE 60 PR OJECTS
Final Design HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. (2042)
500/TO TAL ROUTE 60
ROUTE 74 PROJECTS
En gineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966,
(R02142)
SUBTOTAL RO UTE 74.
ROU TE 79 PROJECTS
Engin ee ring/Enviro n./ROW
Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961)
JBTOTAL RO UTE 79
ROUTE 86 PROJECTS
Aven ue 58 to Av enue 66 (Segment 2)
Av enue 66 to Avenue 82 (Segment 3)
(Coltran e Fu nde d Proje cts)
St!6TQTAL Re '8 i
ROUTE 91 PROJECTS
Soundwall design and co nstruction
(R09101,9337, 9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043)
(2058)
Van Buren Blv d. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535)
Sndwall Lan dscaping (R09933,9946,9945,2059)
S116T0T�1L>fiotlT11 61
RO UTE 111 PROJECTS
(R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538)
9635,9743,9849-9851,9857
SU TO TAL f# 17r :t 1 t
COMMISSION
AUTHORIZED
ALLOCATION
52,229,000
7,66C9L3
$ 740,000
$ 740,000
$ 20,253,000
$33,860,000
$64.113.OD0
$ 10,632,800
$2,300,000
$883,450
$ 13,,8'16.260
S15,933,909
5,933,
C ONTRACTURAL
COMMITMENTS
TO DATE
$ 2,006,100
$2.0 100
$7,563,700
663 ,700
$ 630,000
$830,000
$19,500,000
$33,760,000
$9,872,324
$2,300,000
S798,291
$144$ !O.Ii;1i$
$15,933,909
*16,9313, 909
Page 1 of 3
% C OMMITTED
AGAINST AUTH,
A LLOC ATION
90.0%
90.0'
95 .0%
9E
85 .1%
99.7%
92 .8%
100.0%
90 .4%
;9
100.0%
EXPENDITURE FOR
MONTH ENDED
12/31 /00
$21,723
$21,723
$606,220
iZ2O
96 .3%
Pr otect Complet e
$2,070,000
s0
$385,815
$44,963
EXPENDITURES
TO DATE
$159,709
$119 709r
52,844,655
• $2 644 ,6bg' :!
$100,770
31
0i
$18,060,000
$26,800,000
% E XPENDITURES
TO -DATE AGAINST
C OMMITMNTS TO DATE
8.0%
16.0%
92.6%
79.4 %
44,0 sue.
$7,041,727
$ 1,797,708
$679,961
»
71 .3%
78 .2%
85.2%
9.61 9.396'6 +`7G
$9,300,192 58.4%
$9.30019 g8 45
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PR OJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
1-215 PR OJECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018)
UOTQ'Ti4i;,1
INTERCHA NGE IMPROV . PROGRA M
Yuma IC Landscapin g (R09926,9946)
SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE
PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV.
IRO 2100)
SUBTOTAL BECHTEL
PROGRAM PLA N & SERVIC ES
No rth/South Corridor study (R09936)
SUBTO TAL: PROGRAM PLAN & SV+CS.
PA RK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM
IRO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917)
sU8' i'i TAL pAR1Cd ,AIDE
COMMUTER RA IL
Stu dies/Engineering
(R0 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956,2028)
R02031, 2027, 2120, 2029
Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/M aint. Costs
(0000,2026,2056,9929!9845,9953,9957, 9932,9972)
S(J TOTAk1. GOMMUTizR F
COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL
AUTH ORIZED COMMITMENTS
ALLOCATI ON TO DATE
$6,726,504
8440,000
8125,000
82,293,911
$2,298, 911
82,807,070
$ 13,190,402
!'.$18,997.47Z
, 121, 940
85,878,173
8400,000
81,715,104
$1,716,104
$125,000
,0D0
82,293,911
44293.0
$2,764,070
S12,810,402
Page 2 of 3
% COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
AGAINST AUTH. M ONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
ALL OCATION 12/31/00 TO DATE COMMIT MNTS TO DATE
90 .9%
100.0%
100 .0%
871,108
1iia
850,620
' 1, .: . 0e1,82j
98 .5%
s.o
851,339
$ 5,704,897
$312,481
8744,3041
zih,z s a
$66,260
81,726,852
81,997 ,421
864,147 J 811 242,257
78 .1%
43.4%
53 .0%
75.3%
72.3%
87.8 %
RCTC ME ASURE "A" HIGHWA . . 00AL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS
BUDGET REP ORT BY PR OJECT
EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL
PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A"
DESCRIPTION COM MITMENT 12/31/00 ADVANCES
CITY OF CANY ON LAKE
Railroad Canyon Rd Impr ovements
SUBTOTAL CAN YON LAKE LOAN
CITY OF CORONA
Smith, Maple & Linco ln Interchanges & (1)
Sto rm drainage struc tu re
SURTOTAL
IT
CORONA
CITY OF PERRIS
Lo cal streets & ro ad improvements
C ITY OF SAN JACINTO
Lo cal streets & road impro vements
CITY OF TEM ECULA
Local streets & road impro vements
CITY OF NORCO
Yu ma I/C & Loca l stre ets and road Imprmts
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
Local stre ets & road impro vements
$1,600,000
1,1306;00#
*5,212,623
$1,936,419
$1,324,500
65,094,027
52,139,067
$1,500,000
Timm
'3 48,80C,a3
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange impro vemen t programs.
All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
sfl
$1,6On,O0o
$5,212,623
2;625
$1,936,419
$ 1,324,500
$ 5,094,027
*2,139,067
$1,500,000
0,806,63
Page 3 of 3
OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE
LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST
BALANCE CO MMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT.
51,163,511
$1,1'
63,556,943
11%; 6,
3
51,469,676
$ 1,005,250
53,886,191
$ 1,623,479
$ 1,472,272
*0
S0
30
*0
S0
*0
72 .7%
!95
68.2%
75.9%
75 .9%
76 .3%
75.9%
98 .2%
Stat us as of: 12/31/00
Pr
AGENDA ITEM 6B
1
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Single Signature Authority Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months
ending November and December 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The attached report details all contracts which have been executed for the months of
November and December under the Single Signature Authority granted to the
Executive Director by the Commission. The remaining unused capacity is $363,240.
Attachment
000005
SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2000
C ONSULTANT
SANBAG
Smith & Kempto n
LSA Asso ciates, Inc.
Ray G orski
AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2000
AMO UNT USED
AMOUNT REMAINING THRO UGH June 30, 2001
,Af4(45947z0-1.
Prepared by
f:lusers\preprintldp\sinsig0l
DESCRIPTION
OF SERVICES
Co -manage study of growth In demand
for air cargo and other freight m ovement
in r elation to inland Empire Empl oyment
and p opulati on gr owth .
Phase I Riverside County Transp Expenditure
Plan pursuant to SCA-3 which may be
on the March 2002 General Election .
Environmental services Apache Trail &
1-10 improvement pr otect.
Consulting Services in support of RCTC
Air Quality and Tra nsportation Pr ograms
Reviewed by
ORIGINAL
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
15,000 .00
10,000.00
15,760.00
20,000.00
$ 500,000 .00
136,760.00
$ 363,240.00
EXPENDED
AM OUNT
15,000.00
10,000.00
7,853.59
20,000.00
$ 62,853 .59
REMAINING
C ONTRACT
AMOUNT
0 .00
0 .00
7,906.41
0.00
$ 73,906 .41
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Erik Galloway, Bechtel Resident Engineer
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Award Construction Contract No. RO-2136 for the Installation of
Landscaping for Sound Wall No.'s 110, 121, and 161 on Route 91.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Award Contract No. RO-2136 for Landscaping of Sound Wall No.'s 110,
121, and 161 on Route 91, to Diversified Landscape Co., for
$218,756.58 plus a contingency amount of $21,243.42 (10%- to cover
potential change orders encountered during construction) for a total
contract amount not to exceed $240,000.00;
2) Authorize the Chairperson to execute an agreement pursuant to Legal
Counsel review; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
At the December 2000 RCTC meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise
for bids for landscaping of Sound Wall No.'s 110, 121, and 161 located along the
North and South sides of Route 91, between Jackson Street and Jefferson Street, in
the City of Riverside. The construction costs for the project were estimated to be in
the range from $200,000 to $225,000.
The project was advertised starting on December 15, 2000. Three(3) bids were
received and opened on January 11, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. A summary of the bids are
shown below:
000007
Bid Results for Landscaping Sound Wall No. 110, 121, and 161
Firm - Home Office
2
3
Bid Amount
Difference
Diversified Landscaping Co.,
Winchester, CA
E&M Constructors, Co.,
Sylmar, CA
A&B Landscaping, San
Diego, CA
Engineers Estimate
$218,756.58
$247,245.00
$427,600.00
$200,000 to
$225,000
$0
$28,488.42
$208,843.42
1
The bids were reviewed by Legal Counsel and Bechtel, and all concurred that
Diversified Landscape Co.'s low bid was the lowest responsive bid received for the
project. A summary of the review of the two (2) lowest bids received and the
responsiveness of the bids are as follows:
Checklist Item
Diversified
Landscape
Co.'s
E&M
Constructors,
Co.
1
Bid Letter
2
Yes
Not Completely
Filled out
Schedule of Prices
- Bid Amount (math check)
- Bid Item Comparison
- w/Eng's Est
- w/other Bidders
- Unbalanced Bid Items
3
4
5
Bid Bond
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
List of Subcontractors
- Prime Performs >50%
Bidder Information Forms
- Reference Check
Yes
Yes
6
Non -Collusion Affidavit
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No References
Yes
000008
7
Evidence of Insurance
*No
*No
*Note:
Both bidders did not submit evidence of insurance, however, staff is currently working
with both bidders to obtain and verify that the each bidder either currently has or can
obtain the insurance required prior to award of a construction contract with the
Commission for the project.
The following summarizes the costs associated with the construction of the RCTC
funded Landscape of• Sound Wall No.'s 110, 121, & 161 for the two (2) lowest
responsive bids received:
RCTC
SOUND WALL
No.11O LANDSCAPE COSTS
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Diversified
E&M
Unit Price
Total
Unit Price
Total
1
Traffic Control System
LS
S 1,000.00
$ 1,000.00
$10,660.00
$ 10,660.00
2
Highway Planting
LS
$11,818.16 '
$ 11,818.16
$18,000.00
S 18,000.00
3
Plant Establishment Work
LS
$26,000.00
$ 26,000.00
$12,000.00
$ 12,000.00
4
Irrigation System
LS
$15,785.05
$ 15,785.05
$22,000.00
$ 22,000.00
5
Mobilization
LS
S 3,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$10,000.00
S 10,000.00
6
City Riverside Street Permit
LS
$ 200.00
S 200.00
$ 753.00
$ 753.00
Total SW No.110
Landscaping
$ 57,803.21
$ 73,413.00
RCTC
SOUND WALL
No.121 LANDSCAPE COSTS
Item No.
Description
Quantity
i Dive sified
E&M
Unit Price
Tot&
Unit Price
Total
1
Traffic Control System
LS
$ 1,000.00
$ 1,000.00
88,666.00
$ 8,666.00
2
Highway Planting
LS
$10,300.52
$ 10,300.52
$20,000.00
$ 20,000.00
3
Plant Establishment Work
LS
$28,000.00
$ 28,000.00
510,000.00
S 10,000.00
4
Irrigation System
LS
817,567.50
$ 17,567.50
531,000.00
$ 31,000.00
5
Mobilization
LS
S 3,000.00
$ 3,000.00
88,000.00
$ 8,000.00
6
City Riverside Street Permit
LS
$ 200.00
$ 200.00
$3,000.00
$ 3,000.00
Total SW No.121
Landscaping
$ 60,068.02
$ 80,666.00
000009
RCTC SOUND WALL No.161 LANDSCAPE COSTS
Item No.
1
2
3
Description
Traffic Control System
Highway Planting
Plant Establishment Work
Quantity
LS
LS
4
Irrigation System
LS
LS
Diversified
Unit Price
$ 1,000.00
$ 17,983.60
$28,000.00
850,701.75
5
Mobilization
6
City Riverside Street Permit
LS
LS
$ 3,000.00
$ 200.00
Total
$ 1,000.00
S 17,983.60
$ 28,000.00
S 50,701.75
$ 3,000.00
$ 200.00
Unit Price
89,666.00
$22,000.00
813,000.00
$35,000.00
810, 000.00
83,500.00
E&M
Total
$ 9,666.00
$ 22,000.00
S 13,000.00
S 35,000.00
S 10,000.00
$ 3,500.00
Total SW No.161
Landscaping
8100,885.35
S 93,166.00
Staff and Legal Counsel has completed their review of the three(3) bids received and
is recommending that the Committee award Contract No. RO-2136 for Landscaping
of Sound Wall No.'s 110, 121, and 161 on Route 91, to Diversified Landscaping Co.,
for $218,756.58.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000-01 Amount: $240,000
Source of Funds: Measure "A"
GLA 222 31 81301
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Budget Adjustment: N
Date: 1-16-01
000010
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Resolution of Claims and Request for Additional Construction
Contingency to Close Out Contract No. RO-9847 for Phase I Sound
Walls on Route 91
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Concur with staff's recommendation for Claims resolution to close out
Construction Contract No. RO-9847;
2) Authorize the increase of the project construction contingency, by
$12,168.83, for Construction Contract No. RO-9847 from $153,514.00
(6%) to $165,682.83 (7%). The new not to exceed value of the
contract will be $2,652,168.83; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In June of 1998, the Commission awarded Construction Contract No. RO-9847 to R.
Fox Construction, Inc., for construction of the remainder of the Phase I Sound Walls
on Route 91, from Van Buren Blvd. to Mary St., in the City of Riverside. The amount
of the construction contract was for $2,486,486, with a contingency of $113,514
(5%) to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not
to exceed Contract amount of $2,600,000.
During the design of Sound Wall #183A, included as part of Contract No. RO-9847,
Cattrans could not tell RCTC the exact extent of their proposed future widening of
Route 91. To move forward with construction of the wall, RCTC and Cattrans
concurred with a location for the wall. During the time period between the completion
of the design and the early stages of construction, RCTC received new direction from
Cattrans that the wall would need to be moved further back to allow for the future
widening of Route 91. With this information RCTC initiated Change Order #1 to
relocate Sound Wall #183A to a location that would preclude the reconstruction of
000011
Change Order #1 would relocate the wall further back from the existing freeway,
which would require a taller retaining wall and additional excavation and backfill work.
The total cost of Change Order #1 was approximately $73,000, based on the
increased quantities of bid items. At the time, R. Fox Construction was approximately
75% complete with construction. This major change order of $73,000 combined with
the other change orders, for work to that date, would have completely depleted the
construction contingency for the project and leave no contingency to cover any
additional change order's during the final 25% of construction. In March of 1999, staff
requested and the Commission authorized an increase in the project contingency of
$40,000, from $113,514 (5%) to $153,514 (6%), for a total not to exceed Contract
amount of $2,640,000.
On May 5, 1999, R. Fox completed construction of Contract RO-9847 and the project
was accepted by RCTC and Caltrans. The project cost at the time of completion was
as follows:
Original Contract Work $2,470,467.94
Total Contract Change Order Work $ 1573035.09
Total Contract Work $2,627,503.02
At the time of project completion, there were three (3) outstanding Claims and two (2)
outstanding Contract Change Orders (CCO's) by R. Fox against the project. During the
past 1 1/2 years staff has been negotiating with R. Fox to reach an agreement
concerning these outstanding claims and Change Orders. Recently, staff and R. Fox
have come to terms concerning each issue and recommends approval of the following:
Issue
Description
CCO #11
Rework exposed CIDH Pile Cap in resident's yard.
Cost
$976.81
CCO #15
Claim #1
Claim #2
Increase depth of SW #221A Concrete "V" Ditch.
Restocking fees for deleted mechanical couplers.
$1,450.00
$8,239.00
Unsuitable Structural Backfill Material
Claim #3
Reconnect (Tie -In) to Property Owner's Fencing.
Denied
$14,000
Total Cost to Close Out Contract
$24,665.81
000012
The following is a summary of the project costs to date, and the additional
contingency required to close out the project:
Total contract not to exceed amount as of 3/99:
Total paid to R. Fox to date:
Remaining available contract funds:
Additional contingency required to close out contract:
Total cost for Claims and remaining CCO's:
Remaining available contract funds:
Additional contingency required:
$2,640,000.00
$2,627,503.02
$12,496.98
$ 24,665.81
$ 12,496.98
$ 12,168.83
To close out Contract No. RO-9847, staff recommends that an additional $12,168.83
be authorized for construction contingency, increasing the existing approved amount
from $153,514.00 (6%) to $165,682.83 (7%).
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:_N Year: FY 2000-01 Amount: $ 12,168.83
Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: Y
GLA No. 222 31 81301
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Date: 1-17-01
000013
AGENDA ITEM 9
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Brian Cundelan, Project Coordinator
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Award Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-9954 for Design
Services on State Route 74
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-9954 with SC Engineering to perform
miscellaneous design services related to the final design of Measure "A"
improvements to widen State Route 74 between 1-15 and the City of
Perris. Amendment #3 will increase the authorized value of the contract
by $716,344 and will make an additional $250,000 of extra work
available for future contingencies. This will increase the contract
authorization to $3,460,263 with available extra work of $257,053 for
a new contract not to exceed value of $3,717,316;
2) Authorize the Chairperson to sign Amendment #3, pursuant to Legal
Counsel review; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The State Route 74 Realignment project is a Measure "A" project from Dexter
Avenue in Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris. The initial Contract was
awarded to prepare the Plans Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for Segment 1 of the
project that extends between Dexter Ave and Wasson Canyon Rd. The contract was
later amended with Amendment #1 to extend the design from Wasson Canyon to 7th
Street in Perris (Segment 2). The contract was further amended with Amendment #2
to perform an environmental reevaluation and perform right-of-way engineering for the
project.
Staff is now proposing Amendment #3 to this contract. The items included in
Amendment #3 are attached for your review along with the reasons why they are
now required. The total value of the work included in Amendment #3 is $716,344.
000014
Amendment #3 will increase the authorized contract value to $3,460,263. Several
items included in Amendment #3 will either be reimbursable or will provide savings
during right-of-way acquisition or construction. The value of the savings and
reimbursements are currently estimated to be about $853,000.
In addition, six (6) extra work authorizations have been issued for this contract. The
extra work authorizations to date total $94,556. The extra work amount originally
authorized by the Commission to manage this contract was $101,609. This leaves
the contract with only $7,053 remaining in extra work. Staff believes that there will
be additional future need for extra work authorizations. In order to be able to keep the
project delivery on schedule. Staff is therefore requesting that an additional $250,000
of extra work be added to this contract. The total extra work amount available to the
contract would then be $351,609 ($101,609 + $250,000) equaling 10% of the new
contract value ($3,460,266).
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2000-01 Amount: $ 966,344
Source of Funds: Measure "A" Budget Adjustment: Y
GLA No. 222 31 81102
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 1-17-01
000015
RO 9954 Contract Status
1 PS&E Dexter to Wasson Cyn.
2 Amendment #1 - PS&E Wasson. Cyn. To 7th St.
3 Amendment #2 - R/W Engineering and Environmental
Reevaluation.
4 Extra Work #1- Biology Study
5 Extra Work #2- Support Caltrans Safety projects
6 Extra Work #3- Envir. Mitigation Site Studies
7 Extra Work #4- Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Study
8 Extra Work #5- Vegetation Removal PS&E
9 Extra Work #6- Vegetation Removal Contract Support
(Staking and Env. Monitor)
$11,000
$4,460
$ 20,440
$10,500
$ 5,920
$42,236
$798,014
$1,586,650
$264,699
10 Subtotal Authorized Extra Work 894,556
11 Current Authorized Contract Value (lines 1,2,3,&10) $2,743,919
12 Proposed Amendment #3 (see attached for details) $716,344
13 Proposed New Contract Authorization $3,460,263
(lines 11 + 12)
14 Previous Amount of Extra Work provided by contract $101,609
15 Amount of Extra Work Authorized to date (line 10) $94,556
16 Amount of Extra Work Currently Remaining (line 14-1 5) $7,053
17 Proposed new Extra Work $250,000
18 Total Extra Work that would be Available (line 16 +17) $257,053
19 Proposed new Contract not to exceed value $3,717,316
(line 13 +18)
000016
Amendment #3 Scope of Work
The items included in Amendment #3 are discussed below. Cost savings will be
realized during construction from the money expended during design for items 1 and
3. New environmental requirements (not in effect at project initiation) have required
the costs for item numbers 2, 4, and 8. Item numbers 5 and 7 are related to and
agreement with a property owner who will dedicate property to the project. Item No.
5 costs will be reimbursed to RCTC. Item 6 is related to the new
Greenwald/Meadowbrook intersection supported by the County and local residents,
and approved by the Commission.
1. Right of Way - Segment 2
A Value Engineering analysis was performed on the right of way requirements
developed in 1994. It is estimated that approximately $416,500 could be saved
during right of way acquisition by revising the right of way limits. In addition to this,
future maintenance savings would be realized by Caltrans.
2. Environmental
In 1994 a Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact (ND/FONSI) was
approved for the project. The project design was begun in 1999 and during that 5
year period new environmental regulations had been enacted into law, which required
an environmental re-evaluation. During this environmental re-evaluation it was
determined that the California Gnatcatcher had been observed along the project route
and that a critical linkage of Gnatcatcher habitat existed along the route. The
requirements imposed by the regulatory agencies resulted in increased environmental
work.
3. Segment 2 Slab Bridge
A Value Engineering analysis was performed on the culvert crossings proposed in the
original 1994 design. It is estimated that redesigning a box culvert crossing to a
bridge crossing would save approximately $390,400.
4. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
In January 2001 the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) is
expected to approve new storm water regulations for projects in the San Jacinto
drainage basin. The intent of the regulation is to protect Lake Elsinore and Canyon
Lake which have been designated as impaired water bodies. Staff has been working
with SARWQCB staff to determine what new requirements will be required for this
project. New engineering analysis and design, and monitoring programs will be
required. It is also possible that additional right of way will be required to
accommodate pollution control structures.
5. Ramsgate Coordination/Design
Ramsgate is a planned development which abuts SR -74. The property owner plans
to dedicate property for the SR -74 project. We are working on an agreement which
incorporates the property dedication and allows for future acceleration and deceleration
lanes to be constructed by Ramsgate, as required by the City of Lake Elsinore. These
costs will be reimbursed after the agreement is enacted.
6. Greenwald Realignment
This project was approved by the Commission on September 13, 2000. It requires an
environmental evaluation, an alternative bid package to the current work, and right-of-
way acquisition.
7. Ramsgate Alternative Right of Way Acquisition
This effort involves alternative right of way acquisition in case the Ramsgate owners
do not enter into the agreement being developed in Item 5 above.
000017
8. California Gnatcathcer Mitigation Site
This is right of way and engineering work that will be required during the acquisition
of property required for the California Gnatcatcher mitigation.
000018
STATE ROUTE 74
Amendment No. 3
TASK
Estimated
No. of Sheets
Estimated I Estimated
HouralSheet E Hours
Firm
Cost
1. RIGHT OF WAY - SEGMENT 2
Revisions to Right of Way Requirements
Revisions 10 Right of Way Hardcopies, Maps, Legal Descnplto
Revisions to Right of Way Requrrments (SWPPP Impacts)
Revisions to Right of Way Hardcopies, Maps. Legal Descnp5o
(SWPPP Impacts)
Righl of Way Coordination/Project ManagemenVMeebngs
Subtotal
116 116
654 654
124 124
600 600
120.1 120
1,614
SC
AE
SC
AE
SC
SC+SUBS
59,47
$48.31
510.111
550,0(
59,80
5127.7
2 ENVIRONMENTAL
Final Environmental Reevaluation (ERj
Biological Opinion (BO)
Review of Vegetation Removal Plans
Permits (USCOE 404 and WOCB 401)
Permits (CDFB.G 1601)
Project Management and Meetings
Subtotal
22 22
24 24
28 28
42 42
43 43
104 104
263
LSA
LSA
LSA
LSA
LSA
LSA
LSA
52,02
52.08
52.20
53,420
$4,120
53,990
517,83
SEGMENT 2 -SLAB BRIDGE
Structure Foundation Report
Slab Structure Design
Hydraulics Report
Project Management and Meetings
10
Subtotal 13
100 126
62 620
40 40
24 24
810
GD
TYLIN
SC
SC
SC+SUBS
S18.811
545.00(
53.267
S1,960
569,03
4 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTATION PLAN (SWPPP)
A SWPPP•Segment 1 1
Revisions to Contract Plans 24
New Contract Plans 5
Project Management and Meetings 1
Subtotal 31
B SWPPP-Segmenl2
Revisions to Contract Plans
New Contract Plans
Project Management and Meetings
40
5
Subtotal 47
Subtotal 78
5 RAMSGATE COORDINATION/DESIGN EFFORTS
AC Pavement Thickness on Shoulder
Incoroonaling Coordination of Slope Seloack Grading Plan
Utihiv Sleeves
°roiec1 ManagementWeeiings
500 J 500
12 286
32 160
80 80
1 028
500 1 000
12 480
32 160
120 120
664 1 1 760
2 788
SWPPP
SC
SC
SC
SC+SUBS
SWPPP
SC
SC
SC
SC+SUBS
SC+SUBS
550,000
523,524
513,069
$6,535
593.128
5100,001
S39 207
513.069
59 802
5162,078
5255,206
Subtotal 23
4 20
62 372
10 110
62 62
564
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
51 634
530 386
38 985
55 064
546 068
GREENWALD REALIGNMENT
vironmenta
Alternative Bid Pacxaae
R.nni of 'Aay Engineering
Tcoogrpmc Mapp,ng'Design Surveys
Subtotal
586 586
696 696
242 242
130 130
1 654
LSA
SC
AE
ADM
SC+SUBS
552,575
556 850
517 849
57 783
5135,057
7 RAMSGATE ALTERNATIVE RIGHT OF WAY ACOUISTION
Revise P Requirements
Revise R V. Hardcooies Maps Legal Descnplions
Proieci ManagementCooroination
Sublolal
CALIFORNIA GNATCATHER MITIGATION SITE
Rion: of Way Legal Descriptions and Exhibits (6 Total)
Cultural Resources Evaluation for the 22 Acre Preservation Sit
Protect ManagemenCCoordination/Meetings
Subtotal
TOTAL
6
80 80
262 III 262
24 24
366
42 252
48 46
48 48
348
sc
AE
SC
SC+SUBS
AE
LSA
SC
SC+SUBS
56.535
523 000
51,960
531,495
522,000
$8,000
53,921
533.921
8,407
SC+SUBS
5716,344
SUMMARY
FIRM i HOURS
SC ENGINEERING
I LSA ASSOCIATES
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS
GROUP DELTA
TYLIN INTERNATIONAL
ADVANCE DIGITAL MAPS
SWPPP DESIGN FIRM
TOTAL
3.124
897
2,010
126
620
130
1.500
8.407
BUDGET PERCENT
8255,173
078,805
5161.173
818,510
545,000—
$7,783
5155,005
571.6,344
35%
11%
22%
3%
6%
1%
21%
100%
1- RIGHT OF WAY - S
CHECK
o
0
0
S0
LSA
AE
GD
TYLIN
ADM
a'/VP,'
5
116
4
654
9
124
0
600
120
!9 1,614
360
0
1254
2 ENVIRONMENTAL
0
0
_
0
0
CHECK
5C
LSA
AE
GC
TYLIN
ADM
SWPPP
__
24
28
.,
104
263
0
263
0
0
0
0
I. SEGMENT 2-5L49 9AIOGE
CHECK
SC
LSA
AE
GO
TYLIN
ADM
SWPPP
12o
620
40
24
810
64
•
0
126
620
0
0
4. STORM WATER POLLUTION
PREVENTATION PLAN tSWPPP)
Co -,Ch
.,0
LSA.
AE
GO
TYLrN
ADM
SWPPP
500
28°
'
160
80
1,028
528
0
0
0
0
0
500
032
480
_
1160
20
1 760
760
0
0
0
0
0
1.000
2 788
1 288
0
0
0
0
0
1 50.
5 RAMSGATE
COORDINATION/DESIGN
EFFORTS
CHECK
:
�a
AE
GD
TYLIN
ADM
SWPPP
20
372
110
62
564
564
0
0
0
0
0
6 GREENWALD
REALIGNMENT
CHECK
5C
LS4
AE
GD
TYLIN
ADM
SWPPP
55n
696
---
242
130
1.654
696
586
242
0
0
130
0
7 RAMSGATE
ALTERNATIVE
RIGHT OF
WAY ACOUISTION
CHECK
SC
LS
AE
GD
TYLIN
ADM
SWPPP
80
20"_
I
24
366
104
0
262
0
0
0
0
8.. CALIFORNIA
GNATCATHER MITIGATION 5
TE
CHECK
SC
LSA
A£
GD
TYLIN
ADM
SWPPP
252
48
48
348
48
48
252
0
0
0
0
8 407
3.124
897
2 010
126
620
130
1.500
0 0 0 031arfi 2001
AGENDA ITEM 10
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Erik Galloway, Bechtel Resident Engineer
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Approval of Caltrans' Program Supplemental Agreement No. M008
for the Pedley Metrolink Station Platform Extension
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) Program Supplement. No. M008 for the Extension of the Existing
Emergency Platform at the Pedley Metrolink Station;
2) Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-9952 for PB Farradyne to develop a
Final PS&E for the extension of the Emergency Platform at the Pedley
Metrolink Commuter Rail Station for $62,000 plus a contingency amount
of $10,000 (16.1% - to cover potential changes encountered during
design) for a total contract amount not to exceed $72,000;
3) Authorize the Chairperson to sign the Program Supplement and
Amendment, subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
RCTC's existing Pedley Metrolink Station was constructed with an emergency platform
between the two sets of Union Pacific Tracks. The emergency platform was intended
to be used during situations where Metrolink passengers need to disembark from the
set of tracks furthest away from the Station's Platform. The existing emergency
platform is only 194 feet long. This length will not easily accommodate Metrolink
Passenger trains over three (3) cars in length. Currently, Metrolink Trains longer than
three (3) cars in length must first stop and unload passengers from the first set of cars
and then pull forward to unload the remaining cars. This has resulted in impacts to the
freight traffic on this rail line. By extending the emergency platform to match the
length of the Metrolink Trains, up to six (6) cars in length, will minimize the delays to
unload passengers when the emergency platform must be used.
0000;0
Staff has developed a scope of work and construction cost estimate to extend the
existing emergency platform approximately 316 ft. The following is a summary of that
estimate:
Final PS&E Design
Estimated Construction Cost
Total Estimated Cost
$ 50,000 to $ 60,000
$210.000 to $240,000
$260,000 to $300,000
In December of 1999, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-9952 to PB
Farradyne, Inc., to perform a Phase I Communications Study. The purpose of this
Phase I Study, was to develop the most cost effective means to provide a CCTV
Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station and propose the means to connect the
Pedley CCTV Security System to the Main Security System located at the Downtown
Riverside Metrolink Station.
When PB Farradyne was selected, their selection was initially based upon their
qualifications to perform the Communication Study and the Final PS&E for the
Communication/Security System to be constructed. PB Farradyne also has suitable
qualifications for the extension of the emergency platform. With this in mind, the
most cost effective method for RCTC to provide for the Final PS&E Design for the
platform extension is to have PB Farradyne perform the work under the existing
contract.
Staff requested that PB Farradyne provide a cost estimate for the scope of work
developed by RCTC, for Final Engineering PS&E Design, for the extension of the
emergency platform.
Staff will use RCTC's scope and cost of services along with PB Farradyne's scope and
cost of services to negotiate an Amendment to PB Farradyne's Contract for PB
Farradyne to perform Final PS&E Design for the emergency platform extension. PB
Farradyne provided their cost estimate to perform the Final Engineering PS&E Design
which totaled $62,000. The source of funds for this project are from CMAQ and Local
Measure "A".
Program Supplemental Agreements are required so that RCTC can be reimbursed for
the expenditures of Commission funds on the federally funded projects. The attached
Program Supplemental Agreement No. M008 is for the PS&E Design of the platform
extension. Per the attached supplement, Federal Funds are provided in the amount of
$50,000, which require that local matching funds in the amount of $6,479 be
provided by the local agency, for a total design budget of $56,479. The Local
Assistance Representative recommended that this Program Supplement be signed off
at this time and the amount will be amended at a later date to cover the total design
costs. In addition, at that time, RCTC will request that the local matching funds be
waived due to the expenditures of local monies for the original construction of the
station.
000021
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000-01 Amount: $72 000.00
Source of Funds: STP
GLA No. 222 33 81102
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Budget Adjustment: N
Date: 1-17-01
000022
PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. M008
to
ADMINISTERING AGENCY -STATE AGREEMENT
FOR FEDERAL -AID PROJECTS NO. 08-6054
Date :November 30, 2000
Location:08-RIV-0-RCTC
Project Number: STPL-6054(022)
E . A. Number :08-924545
This Program Supplement is hereby incorporated into the Agency -State Agreement for Federal Aid which was entered into between
the Agency and the State on 06/03/97 and is subject to all the terms and conditions thereof. This Program Supplement is adopted in
accordance with Article I of the aforementioned Master Agreement under authority of Resolution No.
approved by the Agency on (See copy attached).
The Agency further stipulates that as a condition to payment of funds obligated to this project, it accepts and will comply with the
covenants or remarks setforth on the following pages.
PROJECT LOCATION:
IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AT PEDLEY STATION
TYPE OF WORK: CONSTRUCTPLATFORM
LENGTH: 0(MILES)
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION OR PHASE(S) OF WORK
[X] Preliminary Engineering
[ ] Construction Engineering
Estimated Cost
[ ] Right -Of -Way [ ] Construction
Federal Funds
Q23
$56,479.00
$50,000.00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By
Date
Attest
Title
LOCAL
$6,479.00
Matching Funds
$0.00
OTHER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
By
$0.00
Chief, Office of Local Programs
Project Implementation
Date
I hereby certify upon my personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance:
64Accounting Offic Date //. 3 v • i./
52 2000 2660-101-890 2000-20
20.30.010.810 C 262040 892-F
Program Supplement 08-6054-M008- ISTSA
000023
$50,000.00
)UNT
50,000.00
Page 1 of 2
08-RIV-0-RCTC
STPL-6054(022)
11/30/2000
SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
1. The Local Agency agrees the payment of Federal funds will be
limited to the amounts approved by the Federal Highway
Administration in the Federal -Aid Project Agreement (PR-2)/Detail
Estimate, or its modification (PR -2A) or the FNM-76, and accepts
any increases in Local Agency Funds as shown on the Finance or -
Bid Letter or its modification as prepared by the Office of Local
Programs Project Implementation.
2. This Program Supplement will be revised at a later date to
include other phases of work.
3. The Local Agency will advertise, award and administer this
project in accordance with the current Local Assistance
Procedures Manual.
4. All maintenance, involving the physical condition and the
operation of the improvements, referred to in Article III
MAINTENANCE of the aforementioned Master Agreement will be the
responsibility of the Local Agency and shall be performed at
regular intervals or as required for efficient operation of the
completed improvements.
5. The Local Agency will reimburse the State for their share of
costs for work requested to be performed by the State.
000024
Program Supplement08-6054-M008- ISTEA Page 2 of 2
01/12/01 FR1 13:46 FAX 213 362 9480 PB LA 10002
PEDLEY EMERGENCY PLATFORM EXTENSION
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. SCOPE
The Consultant shall prepare a set of design drawings for use in the bid and construction
for the Pedley Commuter Rail Station, Emergency Platform Extension. The consultant
scope of services, contained herein, covers the preparation of Civil, Structural and
Electrical plans.
The Civil Design will cover the layout of extending the existing rail / passenger
platform, between the mainline tracks and siding. The platform will be extended
approximately 300 feet. The Civil design will include the preparation of Civil Site plan
layout and details for the platform extension. The plans will include Platform level plans
and details showing all station elements; Grading and Drainage details; Utility
relocations; ramp plans and details; railing plans, elevations and details may be required;
Pre -cast concrete platform edge pavers details; signs location and installation detail;
The Structural Design will include the preparation of design drawings covering all plan
layout and details of the platform extension (assumed to be a slab on grade system),
including all necessary details required for construction.
The Electrical Design will cover the installation of new lighting fixtures, relocation and
retermination of some electrical conduits, wirings and conduit runs necessary for the
additional lighting requirement of the platform extension. Electrical plans will provide
the nccessary wiring diagrams, schedules and details for the lighting installations.
Design Submittals
Two submittals will be prepared, one at approximately 60% and one final at 100%. The
interim submittal of the Design Plans will be reviewed by the client who will provide
design review comments within 10 working days after submission. The Consultant will
compile and coordinate design review comments from three reviewing third parties
(SCRRA, UPRR, and Riverside County), and will make selected design changes based
on the design review comments received from not more than two reviewers at each of the
reviewing third parties. It is understood that the Commission will provide the names and
mailing addresses of the reviewers at each of the three reviewing third parties.
The Consultant will provide Technical Specifications based on red -lining the existing
Pedley Station Technical Specifications or other baselined Technical Specifications
provided by the Commission and acceptable to the Consultant. It is understood that the
Commission will provide the Technical Specifications in a suitable electronic format for
use by the Consultant.
000025
01/12/01 FRI 13:47 FAX 213 362 9460 1-12. LA
4 003
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
The PB Standard Quality Control and Quality Assurance program will be utilized for the
project. A quality assurance and control program will be implemented for the preparation
of the design plans in this contract. Quality procedures will be implemented ensuring
that design packages are checked before submittals.
2. ASSUMPTIONS
The Consultant Scope of Services has included the following assumptions with respect to
the preparation of the design plans:
• New Geotechnical Investigations will not be required.
• Record Survey or special right-of-way (Fee simple, etc.) documents will not be
required.
• Our scope does include any design of Utility relocations.
• No Systems work is anticipated for this project, including SCADA,
Communications (PA, CCTV, etc.), Signaling, etc.
• This contract docs not include the preparation of an Engineer's cost estimate,
preparation of Bid Documents or any other items not listed in the scope.
• No Coordination with Caltrans is provided for in this proposal.
• The Consultant Scope of Services does not include the traditional design services
during construction, including Requests for Information (RFI), Shop Drawing
Review, Field. Requested Changes (FRC), etc. However, it is suggested that 10
hours of Consultant services be provided to answer requests by phone during
construction.
• Design drawings will be developed using CADD Microstation SE.
3. SCHEDULE, COST AND DELIVERABLES
Schedule:
The scope of services, defined herein, will be completed within 3 months after Notice to
Proceed.
Cost:
See attached Spread Sheet.
Deliverables:
Two submittals: A 60% and a 100%.
000026
01!11/01 THli 12:09 FAX 213 362 9460 PB LA
IJ UU4
PEDLEY EMERGENCY PLATFORM EXTENSION
DRAWINGS LIST AND HOURS
Title
General, Civil, Utility & Electrical Notes
1/8" Exist. Condition & Demo Plan Sheet 1
1/8" Exist. Condition & Demo Plan Sheet 2
1/8" Civil & Utility Plan Sheet 1
1/8" Civil & Utility Plan Sheet 2
3/8" Civil & Utility detail Sheet 1
3/8" Civil & Utility Detail Sheet 2
3/8' Structural Details & Notes
1/8" Lighting & Electrical Plan Sheet 1
1/8" Lighting & Electrical Plan Sheet 2
3/8" Lighting & Electrical Details Sheet 1
3/8" Lighting & Electrical Details Sheet 2
Subtotal
TOTAL
Engineering CADD
30
15
15
15
15
15
15
24
20
20
20
20
224
40
15
15
15
15
15
15
26
20
20
20
20
236
460
000027
01/12/01 FRl 13:48 FAX 213 362 9480 PR LA
l® 004
PEDLEY EMERGENCY PLATFORM EXTENSION
Classification
1.0 Proiect M riguage nenN
1.1
1.2
1,3
1.4
2.0
2.1
3.0
3.1
3.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
5.0
51
5.2
6.0
6.1
6.2
Project Manager
Engineering Manager
Project Administrator
Support
QA/QC Manager
Structural
Sr Structural Engineer
CADD
Civil
Sr Civil Engineer
CADD
Electrical
Sr Electrical Engineer
CADD
Subtotal
Overhead
Total
7.0 Other Direct Costs
7.1 Local Travel/FedEx/Phone calls
7.2 Drawing Sets
8.0 Fixed Fee
9 0!Total
Total Hourly Rate
Hours
32
8
8
14
6
32
26
136
130
88
80
560
153%
37.86
64.62
21.68
20.52
42.81
54.30
29.00
51.92
29.00
44.45
29.00
Total
1,211.52
516.96
173.44
287.28
256.86
1,737.60
754.00
7,061.12
3,770.00
3,911.60
2,320.00
22,000.38
Total
22,000
33,661
55,661
450
300
5,589
62,000
000028
Pedley Platform Extension
1/12/0112:49 PM
AGENDA ITEM 1 1
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. RO-2128 to STV Incorporated
for the Development Phase Engineering Services Related to the San
Jacinto Branch Line
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Award Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2128 to provide additional
photographing and mapping to support property management activities
related to the San Jacinto Branch Line between the cities of Perris and
San Jacinto for a base amount of $40,636. With additional extra work
of $5,000. This additional cost will bring STV's total authorized
contract value to $206,823 and total extra work value to $21,613 for
a total not to exceed value of $228,436;
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:
At the January 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved contract No. RO-2128
with STV Incorporated for a base contract amount of $166,187. The scope of work
for this contract is to perform preliminary engineering that will result in improvements
to the San Jacinto Branchline that will result in a new commuter connection between
the limits of Downtown Riverside and the City of Perris.
RCTC also has current ongoing property management issues that effect the entire
length of the San Jacinto Branchline. Staff is of the opinion that it will be cost
effective to have the entire length of the line flown and mapped at the same time. The
photography and mapping will be a significant management aid to staff while working
through issues related to the rail line.
000029
STV has estimated that the cost of flying and mapping the segment of the line
between Perris and San Jacinto will be $40,636. Amendment #1 to the STV contract
will bring STV's total not to exceed contract value to $206,823. Staff suggests that
an additional extra work amount of $5,000 be established to address any unforseen
issues that must be addressed to complete the task. The extra work will be authorized
by the Executive Director. The amendment language will be drafted by RCTC Legal
Counsel.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000-01
Source of Funds: Measure A
GLA 222 33 81102
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Amount: $45,636
Budget Adjustment: Y
Date: 1-17-01
000030
STV Incorporated
1055 %V WW seventh Street, guile 3150
Los Angola's, Coiciornil* 60017 -ES»
1213)482-34s• fax:i213)4$2-5278
January 16. 2001
Mr. Gustavo Quintero
Project Coordinator
Bechtel Infrastructure Group
356(1 University Ave.. Suite 100
Ki‘ersic►e. CA 9250f
RE• Phase I — Project Development for FTA Submittal; Amendment No. 1
Dear Gustave:
The STS' Team is pleased to submit for your approval Amendment No. 1 to our Phase 1
estimate and Scope of Work, We estimate the cost of this amendment to be $40.636.00.
This amendment will cover the cost (see attached) associated with increasing the aerial
phot:;graph\ and mapping initially proposed in our Phase I scope to include the area from
Perris to San Jacinto. Please note the brief explanation by our sub -contractor (PSOMAS)
outlining additional cost of services as a result additional control survey Work and
increased cost for LIDAR technology in year 2001.
Please contact me if you have any questions pertaining to the above information
Sincerely,
Richard D. Walker
Project Manager
Attachments:
Amendment No. 1, estimate of cost.
File RCTC Sar. Jacinto Branchline
cc:
D. Borger
J. Craft
D. Baer
o r r, i n a e• s M a n A p e r s
000031
Cl.) Moot (0
STV Incorporated
Mr. Gustavo Quintero
December 18. 2000►
Page 2
B. Clarke
B. Cardenas (file)
000032
Cost Estimat e - Work Sheet - Pha se 1- RCTC
Ame ndment No_ 1
Total Area L abor:
Mapping -
Total H ours:
Avg Labor Rate ! Hr
Total Labor Cost:
Travel:
Repro ducion_
Mileage.
3% subs
Postage: $
SF Travel: SO
Olhcr. S _
To tal Phas e 1: $40,636
SO
539,452
10
$
SO
51,184
0 # 0 + 0 D
$159 j 5159 j :109 ._+.11 .;543
SCI SO i SO
SO
I:
0
CD r
1
O
CO u
W
1
P ha se 1 eel .rlsadmen.no Lest 01116/2001455 PM
R O WO RM
nor f. 16.00, fieMMnnl nopining
SlV PC!L 10_06_2000)4s
Psomas Estimate
f or
San Jacinto Branch Line, Surveying and Mapping
16 -J an -01
n
0
8
a
iH101 *em
WORK BREAKDOWN STRU CTURE
(WS)
DESCRIPTION
SURVEY CREW
PROFESSI ONAL TECHNICAL
TOTALS
IWO MAN
$178 .00
PROJECT -
SURVEYOR
S105.00
SURVEY
TECHNICIA N
585.00
PROJECT
' MANA GER
S135 .00
TOTAL MAN
HOURS
TOTAL
DOLLARS
1.0
C ontrol Surve ys
24
4
4
2
34
S5 .302 .00
2..
Mapping
4
2
6
5610 .00
3.0
Design Su rve ys
40
- _
401
2
82
510.740.00
Total Hours
,64
4
48
6
122
$16.702.00
1/16/01
Mel Meer Cosh;
GPS. 3 -Trimble recelve rs
Mopping / LIDAR
375 Pe r Dcry/recely
Tot al Labor
2 Days
Tot al Edir ne?*
S 16.7[i2 .00
S750.00
S22.000.00
S39r452.00
Page no. 1
PSOMAS
Date: 1/16/01
Time: 16:36
3187 Red Mill Avoaue. Suite 250Costa Mesa. CA 92626 716-731-7373 Fax:714-345-1313
fi
To: Rich Walker
Company: STV Group
Fax #: (213) 482-5278
Office #: (213) 236-2553
T
From: Kan Lamm
Pages: 2
Job #: Proposal
Subrect: Revised Estimate
Comments:
Rich,
Here is a cost for Anmendment 1 Mapping.
Please not that the costs are increased due to following: 1. Mapping costs have slight increase of
52000 due to increase in LIDAR. 2. Control costs are higher in this areas. The first area covers
mapping through March Air Force Base which we have recent mapping and coma oL That was a
reason that we were able to reduce cost on that estimate. For this new area we need to tie into
Riverside which increases our costs.
Regards,
If you have any questions concerning this telecopy,
please contact Karl Lauren at 714751-7373.
, Ile .N• ..f .
TOTAL
000035
AGENDA ITEM 12
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Audit Ad Hoc Committee
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Audit Results Report
AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Any Audit Ad Hoc Committee recommendations will be presented to the Budget and
Implementation Committee for its review and possible action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Audit Results Report from
Ernst & Young, LLP; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Ernst & Young, LLP, the Commission's independent auditors, made an oral
presentation to the Audit Ad Hoc Committee on January 22, 200.1. The Report
covered the results of the Commission's, Measure A and TDA funding recipients'
audit.
The report indicates the following:
E & Y has issued an unqualified opinion on the Commission's general purpose
financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2000. They anticipate issuing
unqualified opinions on the financial statements of the TDA claimants and
Measure A recipients.
There was one audit adjustment related to an overstatement of accounts
payable of $232,500. Staff took it upon themselves to make the audit
adjustment to remove accounts payable in the general ledger. The State of
000036
California had forwarded remaining funds from condemnation to the
Commission. These funds were refunds to property owners on land purchases.
Legal counsel now indicates that the statue of limitations ran out for certain
property owners to claim this money. Since the statue of limitations has lapsed,
staff made the audit adjustment to remove the accounts payable.
Various audit adjustments were recorded by the TDA claimants and Measure A
recipients.
E & Y has also made several suggestions for improvement listed on page 17 of the
attached Audit Results Report. Staff is already addressing their concerns and will
present the steps taken and respond to the Commission in April 2001.
Attachment
000037
Confidential
.\\t ARY 2001
2000 Audit Results Report
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Audit Sub -committee
J -L
•
•
1
•
000038
ill ERNST&YouNc
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.'^"
El ERNST &YOUNG LLP
January 22.2001
Audit Sub -committee
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Dear Members of the Audit Sub -committee:
• Suite 200
3403 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 1270, 92502
Riverside, CA 92501
■ Phone: 909 276 7200
Fax: 909 787 8184
We are pleased to present the results of our audit of the general purpose financial statements of
the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission) and the audits of the
financial statements of Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants and Measure A
recipients.
This report to the Audit Sub -committee summarizes our audit results. the scope of our
engagement. the reports issued and various analyses and observations related to the Commission.
the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients as well as compliance with laws and regulations.
This document also reviews communications required by our professional standards as well as
current accounting issues that will affect the Commission.
The completion of this year's audits was accomplished through the effective support and the
assistance of the Commission's finance. program and administrative personnel. As always. we
strive to continuously improve the quality of our audit services. This meeting is a forum for you to
provide feedback on ways we can continue to meet and exceed your expectations.
This report is intended for the information of the Audit Sub -committee. the Budget and
Implementation Committee. the Board of Commissioners and Commission management and is
not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
We appreciate this opportunity to meet with you. If you have any questions or comments. please
call Sallv.Anderson at (909) 276-7221 or Theresia Trevino at (909) 276-7263.
Very truly yours.
".1finct LLB
000039
Ernst &Young LLP is a member of Ernst &Young International, Ltd.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Focus: 2000 Audit Results
Summary of What We Agreed to Do 4
Business Risk Assessment Update 6
Communication with the Audit Sub -committee Regarding Our Responsibilities 8
Required Communications I0
Comments on the 2000 Commission Financial Statements 12
Comments on the 2000 TDA Claimants and Measure A Recipients Financial Statements 13
Focus: Value Results
The Value Scorecard 16
Value Ideas — Suggestions for improvement 17
Looking Ahead to Next Year
Team Continuity 19
GASB Issues and Pronouncements 20
Fiscal 2001 Audit Planning.. 21
000040
J ERNST &YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
Focus: 2000
Audit Results
A Year in the Life of an Ernst & Young Client
Co -Develop
Expectations
Drivers
Understanding
Internal/Extemal
Factors
Methodology
Portfolio of
Procedures
Team
Focus
JERNST&YOUNG
A process focused 011 continuous improvement
and exceeding client expectations.
000041.
3 J ERNST &YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.-
SUMMARY OF WHAT WE AGREED TO DO
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Our Approach
As previously discussed with management. our audit plan represents an approach responsive to the assessment of
risk for the Commission. Specifically. we designed our audit to issue reports and letters on the following:
• General Purpose Financial Statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission
• Financial Statements.on the Local Transportation Fund
• Internal control over financial reporting and compliance
• Management letter
Areas of Audit Emphasis
The principal areas of audit emphasis were as follows:
• Evaluation of the Commission's investment policies and internal control over cash and investments
Evaluation of the Commission's accounting for investments at fair value
• Evaluation of the Commission's accounting for debt and debt covenant compliance
• Evaluation of the Commission's accounting for project expenditures
• Analytical review and inquiry into the nature of various account balances
• Evaluation of litigation. claims and assessments
• Evaluation of the Commission's internal control
• Evaluation of TDA and Measure A expenditures
• Review of compliance with the provisions of Measure A. including level of administrative salaries and
benefits
Review of compliance with the provisions of TDA
000042
4 J ERNST &YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
SUMMARY OF WHAT WE AGREED TO DO (continued)
TDA Claimants and Measure A Recipients
Our Approach
We designed our audits to issue reports and letters on the following:
• Transit and Transportation Financial Statements of TDA claimants and Measure A recipients
• Internal control over financial reporting and compliance
• Management letter
Areas of Audit Emphasis
The principal areas of audit emphasis were as follows:
• Evaluation of TDA and Measure A expenditures
• Evaluation of Measure A expenditures in relation to approved Measure A five-year capital improvement
plans
• Evaluation of deferred revenues and capital grants equity. as applicable
• Analvtical review and inquiry into the nature of various account balances
• Analvtical review of actual results and comparison to budgeted amounts
• Re‘iew of compliance with the provisions of TDA and Measure A
1 here were no changes to our planned approach or audit areas of emphasis.
000043
5 J ERNST & YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
BUSINESS RISK ASSESSMENT UPDATE
As changing demographics. regulations and other factors continually transform the operating environment. the
Commission faces a steady stream of business risks. Business risks have audit implications and drive our choice of
audit procedures and emphasis.
Understanding Internal/External Factors
Business Implication
Audit Implication
INDUSTRY ISSUES
Funding Sources
The Commission. TI)A
claimants and Measure A
recipients ref) heavily on
various funding sources
including federal. state and
local monies. Project funding
availability is dependent on the
economy and federal and state
policies. ScI1=help County
transportation agencies arc
exploring options for voter -
approved extensions of local
sales tax measures
The Commission must
continually assess project
funding availability and
monitor sales tax growth. Debt
financing of future projects is
limited. Two-thirds voter
majority is required to extend
Measure A beyond 2009.
Expenditure/expense funding
for cities/agencies is often
dependent on other federal.
state and local monies.
Assess budgeting. controls and
review project expenditures
for allowahility under
transportation plans and grant
awards. Review compliance
with TI)A and Measure A
provisions.
BUSINESS ISSUES
('ET \P
('ash Management
In 1999. the County of
Riverside commenced the
Riverside Count Integrated
Plan. a three-part planning and
implementation program
related to transportation.
hahitat conscr\ation. and a
new General Plan. The
C'ommunit\ and 1 ironmental
Transportation i\cueptahilit�
Process (CI:TAP) is one part
of this program. and its central
purpose IS to examine the need
and opportunities for the
development ul transportation
corridors in western Riverside
Count.
The Commission is responsihlc
for making investment
decisions for its cash and
tmesunents.
The County is coordinating
this part of the multi -year
comprehensive planning
project with the Commission
as well as an ads isor,
committee. The Commission
Mils( evaluate the need for
potential locations for new or
expanded highway and transit
corridors in western Riverside
County in concert with hahitat
and other public infrastructure
needs.
The Commission must halance
its safety. liquidity. and yield
investment ohjectives and
ensure that investments are
made in accordance with state
laws and Commission policies.
Ascertain proper accounting
and reporting for capital costs
and related dcht. if an 13e
alert for the effects of changes
impacting revenues and
expenditures.
Compliance with investment
ohjectives. state laws and
policies. Determine that
disclosures in the financial
statements are appropriate.
000044
6 J ERNST &YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.
BUSINESS RISK ASSESSMENT UPDATE (continued)
(Understanding Internal/External Factors
Business Implication
Audit Implication
BUSINESS ISSUES
(continued)
Technology
The Commission operates in
an environment that requires
the Commission to continue to
assess the security and
adequacy of information
systems.
Maintain operations during
disasters. Prevent unauthorized
use of system and related data.
Adequacy of access and
programming control.` on El )I'
controls affect the nature and
extent of audit testing..
TECHNICAL ISSUES
Property Held
for Development
Debt
Fraud Consideration
(S -1S 82)
G-1SB Statement
No. 34
The Commission has property
purchased for right-of-way
acquisition. of which a portion
may not he used for project
construction.
The Commission. the
Riverside Transit Agency and
the Sunl.ine Transit Agency
maintain various types of deht.
SAS clarifies auditor
responsihilities for detecting
baud
Issuance of (iASl3 Statement
No. 34 requires governmental
Iinancial statements to include
management's discussion and
analysis. hasic financial
statements and required
supplementary information.
Identification of strategy for
excess property is necessary to
maximize the Commission's
investment.
Evaluate financial lcasihility
scenarios. Commission
requires understanding of and
adherence to deht covenants
and operating ability to service
deht. Arhitrage calculations
are required.
Management should he aware
of the risk factors related to
the Commission in order to he
ahle to address them.
The new reporting model
provides hasic financial
statements including hoth
government -wide and fund
tinancial statements. It also
requires reporting oI
infrastructure assets and deht
in the government -wide
financial statements. This
statement must he
implemented by fiscal 2002.
Adequate disclosure in the
financial statements.
Compliance with deht
covenants and proper
accounting and reporting.
Auditors must document their
assessment of the risk and their
response to the risk factors.
Review the Commission's
implementation plan and
discuss implementation issues.
000045
7 J ERNST & YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
COMMUNICATION WITH THE AUDIT SUB -COMMITTEE
REGARDING OUR RESPONSIBILITIES
Pursuant to our 2000 contract. you have engaged us to conduct an audit of the Commission's general purpose
financial statements and audits of the TDA claimants and Measure_ A recipients transportation/transit financial
statements for the year ended June 30. 2000 in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the
standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of
the Lnited States. and Office of Management and Budget (OMB! Circular A-133. Audits of Stare,. Local
Governments. and Non -Profit Organizations. Our responsibilities for testing and reporting on internal control and
on compliance with applicable laws and regulations under those standards are described in the table below In
addition. the table contrasts our responsibilities in this engagement with other procedures that we could perform in
other financial -related audits.
Service That
We Will
Provide
Our Responsibility Regarding Internal Controls
Our Responsibility Regarding Compliance
with laws and Regulations
Financial
Statement
Audit—GAAS
We consider internal control to plan the nature. timing
and extent of audit procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements. We
report. nrall.x or in writing. an reportable conditions.
including material weaknesses. that we identif\ as a
result ul our audit procedures. Our report does not
provide assurance on internal control over financial
reporting.
Financial
Statement
\udit—
(.mernment
luditing
Standards
We design our audit to provide reasonable
assurance or detecting fraud that is material to
the financial statements and illegal teL that have
a direct and material effect on the financial
statement amounts.
111 addition to the GAAS responsihilities. we are
required to issue a written report on our consideration
of internal control and identil\ repurtahle conditions.
including material weaknesses. it an Our reports do
not pro'idc assurance on internal control o,er financial
reporting
In addition to the GAAS responsihilities. we
design our audit to provide reasonahle
assurance of detecting material misstatements
resulting from noncompliance with provisions of
contracts or _grant agreements that have a direct
and material effect on the financial statements
We issue a written report on the results of these
procedures: however. our report does not
express an opinion on compliance
O\IB Circular
X-133
We consider internal control over federal award
program compliance Our tests of controls include the
controls n cr all major federal programs (aggregate
expenditures of all major programs arc to encompass at
Ic.tst _'s')) of total federal program expenditures). We
report on such consideration and testing and disclose
reportable conditions including material weaknesses we
idcntilx Our report does not provide assurance on the
internal control over compliance.
We perform procedures for the purpose of
expressing an opinion whether major federal
programs (aggregate expenditures of all major
programs are to encompass at least .2;';; of total
federal program expenditures) have been
administered in compliance with applicahlc laws
and regulations.
8
000046
J ERNST & YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.'
COMMUNICATION WITH AUDIT SUB -COMMITTEE
REGARDING OUR RESPONSIBILITIES (continued)
Service That
We Will
Provide
Our Responsibility Regarding Internal Controls
Our Responsibility Regarding Compliance
with Laws and Regulations
Examination-
Lel el
Attestation
We could he engaged to examine management's written
assertion as to the design and operating ef'f'ectiveness or
internal control. The engagement would he conducted
in accordance with AICI'A standards for attestation
engagements and would include an evaluation of the
design of the entity's internal control. and performing
tests of relevant internal control policies and procedures
to evaluate their operating effectiveness.
We could he engaged to examine management's
written assertion regarding compliance The.
engagement could he conducted at the financial
statement level or could result in a
determination as to whether all federal programs
have been administered in accordance with
applicahle laws and regulations. The
engagement would he conducted in accordance
with AICI'A standards for attestation
engagements and would include obtaining an
understanding of the specific compliance
requirements. obtaining an understanding or the
design or the entity's internal control over
compliance. and testing compliance with
specified requirements.
.agreed -upon
Procedures
Le', el
attestation
c could he engaged to perform agreed -upon
procedures related to management's written assertions
as to the design and operating effectiveness of internal
control. The ohicctkc of the agreed -upon procedures is
to present specific findings to assist users in c‘aluating
management's assertions. Our procedures enera%
mas he as limned or extensive as the users' desire as
long as the users la) participate in estahlishing the
procedures to he performed and (hl take responsihilit\
for the sullicienc\ of such procedures for their
purposes
We could he engaged to perform agreed -upon
procedures related to management's written
assertions regarding compliance. The objective
01 the agreed -upon procedures is to present
specific findings to assist users in evaluating
managements assertions. Our procedures
gencrall he as limited or extensive as the
users' desire as long as the users ta) participate
in cstahli.shmg the procedures to he performed
and (Ft) take responsihility for the sufficiency or
such procedures for their purposes.
000047
9 J ERNST &YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS
Professional standards require the auditor to communicate to the audit committee or an equivalent group to ensure
that it is provided with additional information regarding the scope and results of the audit that may assist the group
in overseeing management's financial reporting and disclosure process. Summarized below are these required
communications related to our financial statement audits:
Area
Comments
Auditors' Responsibilities under Generally
Accepted Auditing Standards (GRAS)
The general purpose financial statements are the responsihilit)
of management. Our audits were designed in accordance with
GAAS and Govern/nen! Auditing Standards (GAS). which
provide for rcasonahle. rather than absolute. assurance that the
general purpose financial statements are free of material
misstatement. We have a responsibility to opine on whether the
general purpose financial statements are fairly stated in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. As a
part nl our audits. we ohtain a sufficient understanding of
internal conuol to plan our audits and to determine the nature.
timing and extent or testing to he performed.
We have issued an unqualified opinion on the Commissions
general purpose financial statements for the year ended
June 31). 2)))))). We have issued or anticipate issuing
unqualified opinions on the financial statements of the TUA
claimants and Measure A recipients. Management did not
place any restrictions on the scope of our audits.
Significant Accounting Policies
Initial selection of and changes in significant accounting policies
or their application and new accounting and reporting standards
implemented during the year must he reported
The significant accounting policies used by the Commission
are described in Note 1 to the general purpose financial
statements. There were no changes in significant accounting
policies of new accounting or reporting standards. except for
the following:
• GASI3 issued Technical 13ulletin (Tl3) No. 110-1. which
amended TI3 No 99-1 and 9}i-1 and rescinded the
requirement for Year 21100 disclosures.
Management Judgments and Accounting
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements requires the use ul
accounting estimates. Certain estimates are particularly
sensiu\c due to their significance to the statements and the
possibility that future events may differ significantly from
management's expectations.
Significant Audit Adjustments
There are no areas requiring significant judgments or
accounting estimates in the 20)))) general purpose financial
statements.
10
Commission: There was one audit adjustment related to an
overstatement of accounts payahle of $232.St11). There were
no audit adjustments passed.
000048
J ERNST & YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS (continued)
Area Comments
Significant Audit Adjustments (continued)
TDA Claimants/Measure A Recipients: Various audit
adjustments we're recorded by the TI)r\ claimants and
Measure A recipients. Such adjustments were primarily
related to he2inrting fund balance. deterred re‘cnue and
capital grants equity. There were three audit adjustments
passed. which were immaterial. related to an understatement •
of interest income at two cities and one n enc�
Other Information in Documents None
Containing Audited Financial Statements
Disagreements with Management on Financial Accounting None
and Reporting Matters
Major Issues Discussed with Management None
Prior to Retention
Consultation with Other Accountants None
Serious Difficulties Encountered in None
Performing the Audit
Material Errors. Fraud and Illegal Acts None
Significant Disclosures Not Made None
Most Recent Ernst & Young LLP
Peer Review, Results
GAS requite, the independent auditor to communicate the most KPMC Peat Marwick I.1.P completed the 1998 peer review of
recent pccr re%iC % results to its governmental clients. Ernst K Young. The peer review results are contained in an
unqualified Peer Rerieo Report. which indicates that the
quality control policies and procedures for l:&Y's accounting
and auditing practice are being complied with in such a
manner as to provide the firm with reasonahlc assurance of
conforming with professional standards.
Management Advisor} Services None
000049
11 J ERNST&YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
COMMENTS ON THE 2000 COMMISSION FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
Condensed Operations for Five Years
• Sales tax revenues have increased consistently since the early 1990's recession.
• Reimbursement revenues fluctuate as federal and state funding sources relate to eligible projects.
• Other sources are higher in 1998 and 1996 due to proceeds from bond issuances.
Program expenditures increased in 2000 due to increased local streets and roads and transit disbursements as
well as regional arterial expenditures. Program expenditures decreased in 1999 due to a significant decrease
in regional arterial program activity.
• Debt service expenditures increased in 1998 as a result of the retirement of commercial paper in the amount
of 544.000.000.
• Other uses primarily represent operating transfers to cover debt service payments.
Revenues and other sources:
Sales tax
Reimbursements
Interest
Other
Suhtotal
Other sources
Total revenues and other
sources
Expenditures and other uses
Administrative
Program
Debt service .
Intergovernmental
distributions
Capital outlay
Subtotal
Other uses
Total expenditures and
other uses
Net increase (decrease)
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
2000
1999 1998
1997 1996
S 127.061.082
6.542.447
5.059.048
7.372.191
146.034.768
32.056.359
178.091.127
3.03 1.640
98.323.375
30.527.304
518.609
50.319
13 2.451.247
32.056.359
164.507.606
13.583.521
115.873.240
S 129.456.761
5 109.996.653
5.334.206
4.741.631
6.688.885
126.761.375
33.127.698
159.889.073
2.954.923
87.155.032
30.525.757
397.302
113.241
121.146.255
33.127.698
154.273.953
5.615.120
110.258.120
S 115.873.240
12
$ 99.596.564
9.754.287
5.471.073
6.190.293
121.012.217
5 91.393.623 S 88.208.264
5.514.049 8.114.912
6.869.873 7.740.317
5.896.496 5.274.781
109.674.041 109.338.274
96.146.074 26.316.886
217.158.291
2.813.814
104.875.560
74.344.388
309.000
306.660
182.649 422
34.716.863
217.366.285
(207.994)
106.882.232
135.990.927 216.220.506
2.677.290 2.732.131
105.374.197 106.225.072
25.208.531 25.327.762
305.095 367.936
53.677 1-4-4.537
133.618.790 134.797.438
26.316.886 92.254.390
159.935.676 227.051.828
(23.9-14.749) (10.831.322)
110.466.114 134.410.863 145.242.185
5 110.258.120 S 110.466.114 $ 134.410.863
000050
JERNST&YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
COMMENTS ON THE 2000 TDA CLAIMANTS AND
MEASURE A RECIPIENTS FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
Balance Sheet Items
The following have a fund balance representing at least three years of unspent monies:
• County of Riverside Article 8 monies of $680.415. representing allocations since 1994.
• City of Blythe Measure A monies of S2.279.307. representing allocations since 1998.
City of Cathedral City Measure A monies of $2.034.785. representing allocations since 1998.
City of Indio Measure A monies of $4.663.824. representing allocations since 1994.
• City of Moreno Valley Measure A monies of $8.380.147. representing allocations since 1998.
• City of Palm Desert Measure A monies of 56.852.669. representing allocations since 1998.
• City of Perris Measure A monies of $1.522.260. representing allocations since 1998.
• City of Riverside Measure A monies of $23.713.910. representing allocations since 1996.
• City of San Jacinto Measure A monies of $1.766..86-1: representing allocations since 1998.
Per discussion with management and/or review of budget -to -actual analysis. most of the unspent
monies relate to project delays resulting from environmental. right-of-way acquisition. contractual
and other project delay issues.
The following cities/entities have a fund deficit at June 30. 2000:
• City of Banning Transit Fund has an operating deficit of $1.606. which will he funded through
fiscal year 2001 allocations or by transferring funds -from the City's General Fund.
• • City of Blythe Article 8 Fund has a deficit of $170.055. which will be funded by the City
requesting funding for the fiscal year 2000 expenditures from RCTC. as the request is required
before any such allocation will be awarded.
• Care -A -Van Transit System. Inc. Unrestricted Fund has a deficit of $16.617. which will be
funded through fiscal 2001 allocations.
• City of Corona Dial -A -Ride Fund has an operating deficit of $11.689. which will be funded by
transferring funds from the City's General Fund.
• County of Riverside Article 3 Fund has a deficit of $30.1 14. which will be funded through
future grant applications and claims with RCTC.
000051
13 J ERNST &YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
COMMENTS ON THE 2000 TDA CLAIMANTS AND
MEASURE A RECIPIENTS FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (continued)
Income Statement Items
For your information. the following cities/agencies allocate indirect costs and other overhead
allocations to TDA or Measure A funds:
• City of Banning
• City of Beaumont
• City of Blythe
• City of Calimesa
• City of Corona
• City of Lake Elsinore
• Family Services Association
• Inland AIDS Project
• Transportation Specialists
• Volunteer Center of Riverside Count
• City of Temecula
• City of Riverside
Compliance Findings
The following cities charged overhead allocations to the indicated funds based on estimated costs.
which were not supported by actual costs. These costs were identified as questioned costs:
City of Beaumont — Transit Fund $46.000
City of Beaumont — Measure A Fund $17.000
City of Blythe — Measure A Fund $403.000
City of Calimesa — Measure A Fund $11.000
City of Lake Elsinore — Measure A Fund $3.000
City of Riverside — Special Transit Fund $142.000
City of Riverside — Measure A Fund $157.000
The City of Corona Dial -A -Ride Fund maintained a fare ratio of 19.8% and. therefore. was not in
compliance with the minimum fare ratio requirement of 20%. The City of Corona's management
intends to transfer funds from the City of Corona's General Fund to be in compliance with the
minimum fare ratio requirement
The City of Palm Desert had approximately $71.000 of Measure A expenditures that were not on the
approved Measure A five-year expenditure plan. They were identified as questioned costs. The City
intend, to request that the submitted five-year expenditure plan be revised to include these
expenditures.
The City of Riverside had approximately $11.000 of Measure A expenditures that were not on the
approved Measure A five-year expenditure plan. They were identified as questioned costs. The City
intend, to request that the submitted five-year expenditure plan be revised to include these
expenditures.
000052
14 J ERNST &YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
Mr Riverside County Transportation
Commission
Focus: 2000
Value Results
000053
15 J ERNST &YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
THE VALUE SCORECARD
In addition to providing you with the results of our audits. this meeting provides a forum to refine your expectations
regarding our services going forward. We include below some recent examples of value-added assistance provided
to the Commission and seek your input as to additional value we can bring to the Commission.
Issue
Description of Assistance Value
Knowledge
Transfer
GFOA Certificate
.accounting Assistance
Puhlic Sector Training
Project Assistance
Preaward Audits
Provide assistance in preparation of the general
purpose financial statements for submission
obtain the (il OA Certificate.
The Commission has received the (ilOA
to Certificate on financial reporting excellence
annually since the 1993 CAI:R. The
Commission has applied for the CSMIO
Certificate on financial reporting excellence for
special districts for its 311111) CAI:R.
Review significant and/or unusual accounting
transactions for proper accounting and
reporting.
External resource to ensure that transactions are
recorded and reported properl).
Provide annual technical update sessions for Management prepared to comply with future
financial personnel. accounting and reporting developments.
Performing agreed -upon procedures related to
review of internal control and accounting
s):stems 01 contractors for projects to he
tcderalh funded
Commuter. Assistance Performed agreed -upon procedures relating to
Program the financial records and internal control over
inventor) and recipient eligihilit�. including
meeting with the Contractor regarding overhead
allocations.
,Arbitrage and
erification
Calculations
Proactive Ideas
Perform arbitrage calculations required h) law
and refunding verification calculations required
for debt financings.
Specialized industry resource with experience in
government contracting to ensure that the
Commission is in compliance with federal
guidelines.
Contractor compliance with Commuter
Assistance incentive Programs and adequate
internal control over inventory
Independent analysis and calculations.
Provide suggestions relating to possible Suggestions are included on the following page.
improvements in operations.
16
000054
J ERNST & YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.'
VALUE IDEAS - SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Riverside County Transportation Commission
• Improve communication between the finance and planning and programming departments related to changes
in Local Transportation Fund unclaimed apportionments and allocations available for bicycle and pedestrian
projects to ensure that reserved fund balances are accurate.
• Install a firewall between the Commission's local area network and the County's wide area network to
restrict access to the Commission's network and to prevent hacking from the County's network.
• Implement a procedure to remove system access of terminated employees immediately after termination and
perform a periodic review of all network and application accounts to ensure access is restricted to authorized
and current employees.
• Provide a secure room for the Commission's servers to restrict access to authorized individuals.
Develop and implement a formal business continuity plan to minimize the financial and operational impacts
to Commission operations in the event of a disaster.
TDA Claimants/Measure A Recipients
• Adopt policy relating to consistent application of overhead allocations for TDA claimants and Measure A
recipients
• Adopt policy relating to Article 3 claimants timely remittance of any unspent Article 3 funds.
• Revise Measure A five-year expenditure plan requirements to include description of specific projects rather
than general street improvement projects
000055
17 J ERNST & YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
Looking Ahead to
Next Year
000056
18 J ERNST &YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
TEAM CONTINUITY
From listening to management and the marketplace. we know that great value is placed on having a superior service
team distinguished by relevant credentials and continuity of service.
There continues to be a high level of continuity among the members of the team. Their enthusiasm and commitment
to the Commission ensure responsive. innovative and forward -looking service focused on its business issues.
The value of the audit arises from and depends heavily on the integrated teaming of management and E&Y.
Throughout the year. the E&Y audit team is in constant communication with management to facilitate efficiency
and continuous improvements in our audit efforts for the Commission.
Sarah Anderson, Coordinating Partner
• Partner in charge of our Southern California Public Sector practice
Over 2S years of experience
Over 10 years serving the Commission
Jim Williams, Independent Partner
• National Director Public Sector Services. Governmental Accounting and Reporting
Over 30 years of experience
Over 8 years serving the Commission
Theresia Trevino, Audit Senior Manager
• Known for her experience in Governmental Accounting and Reporting
Over 17 years of experience
Over 10 years serving the Commission
Cynthia Morningstar, Audit Senior Manager
• 11 years of experience specializing in public sector transportation
Over 10 years serving the Commission
,Julia Cox, Audit Senior Manager
• 10 years of experience
10 years serving the Commission. primarily on audits of TDA claimants and Measure A recipients
Other Specialists as Needed
• As we have in the past. we continue to draw upon key industry specialists in such areas as economics,
indirect cost plans. arbitrage. information systems. and government contracting to provide the technical
resources needed to bring value to the engagements.
Ernst & Young continues to serve you with a multi -disciplinary team of professionals who offer both Public Sector
industry expertise and a long history of involvement with the Commission. Their enthusiasm and commitment to
the Commission ensure responsive. innovative and forward -looking services focused on its business issues.
000057
19 J ERNST & YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
GASB ISSUES AND PRONOUNCEMENTS
GASB Statement No. 33 — Accounting and Financial Reporting for
Nonexchange Transactions
This statement provides accounting and reporting guidance for nonexchange transactions (e.g.. most taxes. grants
and donations). This statement identifies and provides guidance on the following four classes of nonexchange
transactions: derived tax revenues. imposed nonexchange revenues. government -mandated exchange transactions
and voluntary nonexchange transactions. This statement is effective for financial statements for periods beginning
after June 15. 2000
GASB No. 34 — Basic Financial Statements — and Management's
Discussion and Analvsis — for State and Local Governments
This statement establishes financial reporting standards for state and local governments. Under the revised
requirements. governmental financial statements will include managements discussion and analysis (MD&A).
basic financial statements and required supplementary information.
MD&A introduces the financial statements by giving readers a brief. objective and easily readable analysis of the
governments financial performance for the year and its financial position at year end. including an analysis of
budgetary changes and results. Additional information to be included in MD&A consists of a description of capital
asset and lone -term debt activity as well as currently known facts. decisions or conditions that are expected to have
a material effect on the government.
l nder GASB No 34. governments will generally provide basic financial statements including both government -
wide and fund financial statements. The government -wide financial statements will provide information about the
primary government and its component units without displaying funds or fund types. The financial statements will
distinguish between the governmental and business -type activities of the primary government. All information will
he reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. The government-
ide financial statements will not include fiduciary activities. The fund financial statements will provide
information about the primary government's fund types. including fiduciary funds and blended component units.
Go\ernments will present separate financial statements for each fund category — governmental. proprietary and
fiduciary — and will no longer present a combined balance sheet. General capital assets and general long-term
liabilities will he reported only in the government -wide financial statements as assets and liabilities of governmental
activities Governmental fund financial statements will focus on fiscal accountability and will report the flows and
balances of current financial resources using the modified accrual basis of accounting. Proprietary and fiduciary
fund financial statements will report operating results and financial position using the economic resources
measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. A single set of notes will serve the basic financial
statements
GASB No 34 will become effective in three phases based on a government's total annual revenues in the first fiscal
year ending alter June 15. 2000. as follows: fiscal years beginning after June 15. 2001 for governments with total
annual revenues of $100 million or more: fiscal years beginning after June 15. 2002 for governments with total
annual revenues between $10 million and $100 million: and fiscal years beginning after June 15. 2003 for
governments with total annual revenues below $10 million.
The model also includes required reporting for infrastructure assets. Reporting alternatives include historical cost -
based depreciation and a modified approach if the government maintains such assets at or above an established
condition level. Retroactive infrastructure reporting will also become effective on a phase -in approach.
000058
0 J ERNST &YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
FISCAL 2001 AUDIT PLANNING
Planning for the audits will be developed in cooperation with management. As a balanced effort. it will give full
recognition to the existing internal control as well as a thorough assessment of the business and control risks. Risk
responsive. it will address both your and management's expectations and provide for the best utilization of external
audit resources.
We will continue to meet with management throughout the year to review current developments and challenge the
continuing adequacy of the plan. Any significant changes to the plan will be promptly communicated to you as the
occur.
Major items that should be considered for early involvement include:
• Timing of year-end audit procedures based on closing the general ledger. preparing all audit schedules and
completing the draft of the financial statements. including all footnote disclosures.
• Assistance provided by Commission's Program Manager in connection with TDA/Measure A audits.
• Consideration of city/agency intent to select own auditors for TDA claimant and Measure A recipient audits.
Coordinate with Commission staff to determine adequacy of work performed. compliance programs and
reporting requirements. and extent of reviews to be performed.
000059
21
J ERNST & YOUNG
FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH."
ERNST & YOUNG LLP
: 2001 Ernst & Young LLP
All Rights Reserved.
Ernst & Young is
a registered trademark.
No. 0101-034740
www.ey.com
000060
AGENDA ITEM 13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Projection
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) The projected Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionments for
Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley and Western Riverside County
areas; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Local Transportation Fund projection consists of revenues generated from a
quarter cent of the statewide sales tax. These LTF funds are principally used to fund
transit requirements within the County. The Transportation Development Act
legislation, that created LTF, requires the County Auditor Controller to annually
estimate the amount of revenues expected to be generated from the sales tax. That
estimate then becomes the basis for geographic apportionment and claimant allocation.
While the County is the taxing authority and maintains custodial responsibility over the
LTF revenues, the Commission by statute, is charged with administration of the LTF
funding process. The practice has therefore been for Commission staff to develop the
revenue estimate and then submit it to the County Auditor Controller for concurrence.
Once the Commission and the County have agreed on a revenue amount, staff
prepares the statutorily required apportionment. Apportionment is the process that
assigns revenues to the three major geographic areas (as defined by TDA law) within
the County. They are Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley and Western Riverside
County. The revenues are divided based on their respective populations. The
apportionments occur after off -the -top allocations for administration (distributed to the
County, Commission and SCAG), and set -asides for planning activities (3%) and
bicycle and pedestrian projects (2%).
Attached is the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 LTF apportionment based on a revenue
estimate of $43,975,000. The County has reviewed the estimate and concurs with
it. The estimates are based on revenues to date projected to the end of the year and
then inflated 3.0%, the lower of estimates furnished by local economists.
Attachment
000061.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
2001-2002 APPORTIONMENT
Budget
FY 2001-2002
Projections
Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $0
Est. Receipts $43,975,000
TOTAL
Auditor $43,975,000
$12,000
RCTC Administration $400,000
RCTC Planning (3%) $1,319,000
SCAG Planning $95,000
BALANCE $42,149,000
SB 821 (2%) $842.000
BALANCE AVAILABLE $41.307.000
Budget
Population FY 2001-2002
Population % of Total Apportionment
Western 1,184,597 77.79% $32,132,000
Coachella Valley 311,091 20.43% $8,438,000
Palo Verde Valley 27 167 1.78% 5737,000
1.522,855 100.00% $41,307,000
NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change
F \users\fi n a n ce\LT RA p p00
00006?
1/16/01 - 12:44 PM
AGENDA ITEM 14
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Darren M. Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative
Affairs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Proposed Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) San
Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) 2001/2002 State
and Federal Legislative Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) The Proposed 2001/2002 State and Federal Legislative Program; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Over the past two years, the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the San
Bernardino Associated Governments have worked cooperatively in the Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs arena. The two agencies have a shared arrangement for the
Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs position and jointly fund contracts
for both federal and state advocacy services. The respective governing bodies also
approved the biennial legislative program covering the 106`h United States Congress
and the 1999-2000 Session of the California State Legislature. Beyond the cost
savings realized by the joint services, the shared arrangement has proven successful
by creating a unified Riverside County/San Bernardino County transportation presence
and policy position in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. Further the cooperative
effort has shown the Inland Empire delegation of the U.S. Congress and the State
Legislature that the two transportation agencies work together to develop solutions to
the Inland Empire's transportation challenges.
Attached are the 2001/2002 State (Attachment A) and Federal (Attachment B)
Legislative Programs for review . The programs include carry-over items from prior
year's legislative programs and several new initiatives. The 2001/2002 State Program
includes the following new initiatives:
000063
•
At the direction of the SANBAG Board, sponsor legislation to amend the
Civil Procedure Code to require public agencies to pay legal expenses only
to a party who owns or has interest in property to be acquired by the
public agency. (State Program 4.C)
Support legislation that ensures equity of benefit from the investment of
State passenger rail funds to all passenger rail lines, including commuter
rail systems. (State Program 1..J)
In response to a request from the Riverside County Board of Supervisors,
seek legislation to name the SR 60/91/215 interchange after Mr. Robert
(Bob) Wolf. While not included in the attached RCTC/SANBAG Joint
Legislative Program, RCTC staff will proceed according to Commission
direction.
The Federal Program remains predominately unchanged from the 1999/2000 Program
and maintains a focus on positioning RCTC and SANBAG at the forefront of the initial
discussions for the re -authorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St
Century. While TEA -21 stretches through the 2002/03 Federal fiscal year,
transportation policy discussions are already taking place in Washington, D.C. and
throughout the country.
Attachments
000061
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT
Riverside County Transportation Commission and
San Bernardino Associated Governments
2001-2002 State Legislative Program
The following legislative program was developed as a joint partnership between the Riverside
County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs.
2. Support increases in transportation revenues and funding sources that enhance the ability of
RCTC and SANBAG to implement their transportation plans.
3. Maximize flexibility in the use of existing transportation revenues.
4. Streamline administrative and regulatory processes.
STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
1. Protect current funding levels for transportation programs.
A. Support state budget and California Transportation Commission allocation to fully
fund projects for San Bernardino and Riverside County included in the State
Transportation Improvement Programs and the Strategic Plans of both counties.
B. Oppose any proposal that could reduce either San Bernardino or Riverside County's
opportunity to receive transportation funds, including diversion of state
transportation revenues for other purposes. Fund sources include, but are not limited
to, the State Highway Account (SHA), Public Transit Account (PTA), and
Transportation Development Act (TDA) and any ballot initiative sources.
C. Support full funding regional programming process to provide for regional
determination and programming for the use of all current funding sources and to
provide total flexibility for all current and future STIP programs.
D. Support state policies that assure timely allocation of transportation revenue,
including allocations of new funds available to the STIP process as soon as they are
available.
1
000065
E. Continue to support AB 2766 vehicle license fee funding in the South Coast Air
Basin, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), to the cities
and the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Committee (MSRC); support
MSRC's independence as a committee.
F. Support legislation or the development of administrative policies to allow a program
credit for local funds spent on accelerating STIP projects through - right-of-way
purchases, or environmental and engineering consultant efforts.
G. Sponsor legislation that will allow the state to advance and/or loan funding to local
agencies for projects that are funded through sales tax programs but delayed due to
cash flow problems.
H. Support current local program funding and flexibility of the State's Transportation
Demand Management program.
I. Support legislation and/or budgetary actions to assure a fair share of State revenues
of intercity rail (provided by Amtrak, Metrolink or other operators) funding for
Southern California and San Bernardino and Riverside County.
J. Support legislation that ensures equity of benefit from the investment of State
passenger rail funds to all passenger rail lines including commuter rail systems.
K. Support legislative efforts to restore the ability of counties to enact or reenact local
option transportation sales taxes.
?. Support increases in transportation revenues and funding sources that enhance the ability of
RCTC and SANBAG to implement their transportation programs and plans.
A. Support or seek legislation and administrative financing/programming policies and
procedures to assure an identified source of funding and an equitable distribution of
the funding for bus and rail services in California.
B. Seek legislation to assure that dedicated state intercity rail funding is allocated to the
regions administering each portion of the system and assure that funding is
distributed on an equitable basis.
C. Support or seek legislation to assure a dedicated source of funding, other than the
State Highway Account for local street and road maintenance and repairs.
D. Seek legislation to increase revenues to support the call box programs in Riverside
and San Bernardino Counties.
E. Support legislation to provide funding for innovative, intelligent/advanced
transportation, goods movement, and air quality programs which relieve congestion,
2
00006E
improve air quality and enhance economic development.
Support legislation creating the Passenger Rail Improvement, Safety and
Modernization (PRISM) program so long as funding comes from new sources of
revenue.
3. Maximize flexibility in the use of existing transportation revenues.
A. Seek a fair share for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties of any state
discretionary funding made available for transportation grants or programs.
B. Support legislation to ensure that funding for transit operations is commensurate with
existing and new demands placed on public transit by air quality and congestion
management programs, Ca1WORKS (welfare to work reform) the American with
Disabilities Act, including the use of social service funding sources.
C. Support income tax benefits or incentives that encourage use of alternative fuel
vehicles and alternative modes of transportation without reducing existing
transportation funding levels.
D. Monitor and, where appropriate, support studies of market -based pricing measure to
relieve traffic congestion. improve air quality or fund transportation alternatives.
E. Support legislation to finance cost effective conversion of public transit and
paratransit fleets to alternative fuels.
4. Streamline administrative and regulatory processes
A. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms to enhance Caltrans project
delivery, such as simultaneous Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
engineering studies, and a reasonable level of contracting out of appropriate
activities to the private sector.
B. Support legislation to make the process for determining unmet transit needs a
biennial action.
C. Sponsor legislation to amend the Civil Procedure Code to require public agencies
to pay legal expenses only to a party who owns or had interest in property to be
acquired by the public agency.
F:\users\preprint\js\2001-2002 State Program.doc 1/10/01
3
000067
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT
Riverside County Transportation Commission and
San Bernardino Associated Governments
2001-2002 Federal Legislative Program
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs.
2. Protect and enhance flexibility in use of transportation revenue.
3. Reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory requirements.
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs.
A. Support efforts to bring transportation appropriations to authorized levels.
B. Seek a fair share for San Bernardino and Riverside County of any federal funding
made available for transportation programs and projects.
C. Support legislation to secure adequate budget appropriations for highway, bus,
rail, air quality and mobility programs in San Bernardino and Riverside County.
D. Support continued Federal commitment of funds to support public transit, to
assure that California and the western states receive a fair share of the AMTRAK
funding resources as compared to the North East Corridor.
E. Seek specialized funding for goods movement projects of international and
national significance that are beyond the funding ability or responsibility of local
and state transportation programs and budgets.
F. Seek funding for airport ground access and other airport development needs in
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
2. Protect and enhance flexibility in use of transportation revenue.
A. Support legislation that will modify federal project development requirements for
transit projects to make them more consistent with the process employed for
highway projects.
000069
B. Support legislation to exempt commuter rail services operating within existing
railroad right-of-way from federal new start and alternative analysis requirements
in order to utilize federal funding.
C. Support efforts to pursue funds to facilitate timely conversion of public sector
fleets to alternative fuels to meet federal fleet conversion mandates.
D. Support tax benefits and/or incentives for transportation demand management
programs and alternative fuel programs to promote the use of alternate modes of
transportation.
E. Support increased federal funding for Alameda Corridor improvements in Los
Angeles County and Alameda Corridor East improvements in San Bernardino and
Riverside County and increase opportunities for San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties to access these funding sources. Seek continued federal funding of
Maritime Administration studies focusing on an "Inland Rail Port" in San
Bernardino County and Riverside County.
F. Support legislation that ensures coordination of transportation and social service
agency funding (i.e. Departments of Aging, Rehabilitation, and Welfare).
G. Support legislative or administrative policies that promote a "regional" approach
to airport development and usage of Southern California Logistics, San
Bernardino International, and Ontario International airports and the March Joint
Use Airport.
3 Reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory requirements.
A. Support administrative or legislative action to ensure consistency among the
Federal congestion management and the State's Congestion Management Program
requirements.
B. Monitor and, where appropriate, support studies of market -based pricing
measures to relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality and/or fund
transportation alternatives.
C. Seek Federal authorization allowing states, where appropriate to pursue options to
privatize various aspects of transportation to increase the efficiencies and
effectiveness of their available resources through private sector participation.
D. Due to the elimination of Federal transit operating subsidies, support legislation to
also eliminate Federal requirements and regulations regarding transit operations.
E. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms to enhance Caltrans project
delivery, such as simultaneous Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
2
engineering studies, and a reasonable level of contracting out of appropriate
activities to the private sector.
F. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms that result in cost savings to
environmental clearance processes for transportation construction projects.
G. Continue to streamline federal reporting/monitoring requirements to ensure
efficiency and usefulness of data collected and eliminate unnecessary and/or
duplicative requirements.
F:\users\preprint\js\2001-2002 Federal Program.doc 1/10/01
0 (1 n
3