Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09201994 - TC.3 CORRECTED COPY. PLEASE TC.3 DESTROY PREVIOUS ISSUE. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS :©�. Contra _ - FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Costa_ •� County DATE: September 20, 1994 SUBJECT: SECOND CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FOR CONSULTING SERVICE FOR THE GREATER EAST BAY RAIL OPPORTUNITIES COALITION (GEBROC) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Authorize the Director of Community Development to amend contract with Wilbur Smith Associates for additional services and activities performed for the Greater East Bay Rail Opportunities Coalition (GEBROC) . This amendment would increase the contract payment limit from $40, 225 _; to $59,;240'., an additional $19, 015, and extend the contract term from April 30, 1994 to December 31, 1994. FISCAL IMPACT No impact to County General Fund. Funding for these services will be paid through the County's Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) grant from the State of California. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS In August, 1993 , the Board of Supervisors authorized the Director of Community Development to enter into a consulting services agreement with Wilbur Smith Associates to provide services for the Greater East Bay Rail Opportunities Coalition. The work program;: under this agreement included defining commuter rail service' alternatives for the I-80 and SR-4 corridors and then developing and recommending a commute rail operating plan for each of the corridors. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: 8 YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) Supervisor Gayle Bishop, Chair Supervisor Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON SEP 2 0 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Patrick Roche, CDD (510/646-2835) ATTESTED SEP 2 0 1994 cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF C. Raynolds, PWD THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Auditor-Controller AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Caltrans District 4 (Via CDD) BYAA& 4 , DEPUTY Maw GEBROC/WSA2ND.BO CON'kRACT AMENDMENT WITH WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FOR CONSULTING SERVICE FOR THE GREATER EAST BAY RAIL OPPORTUNITIES COALITION (GEBROC) September 20, 1994 Continued Page -2- BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (con't) In March 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to Wilbur Smith Associates' contract increasing the payment limit an additional $3755, from $36,470 to $40,,225 and, in addition, extended the contract term from January 1, 1994 to April 30, 1994. This first amendment reimbursed Wilbur Smith Associates for additional labor costs incurred while assisting in the preparation of a special ISTEA demonstration funding authorization for an I-80 commuter rail project. A second amendment to the Wilbur Smith Associates contract is recommended in order to complete additional work items requested by the Greater East Bay Rail Opportunities Coalition and to conduct energy savings analysis as required under the terms of the PVEA grant. The second amendment also extends the contract from April 30, 1994 to December 31, 1994 which allows the consultant to prepare a third iteration (final version) of the operating plan. The second amendment would raise the contact limit from the existing payment limit of $40,225 to $59,;,240.'. The increase of $19, 015 in payment reflects an additional 195.5 hours of consultant services and other direct costs for the following: a) Attend and prepare material for up to 4 additional public meetings: 17. 5 hours; b) Prepare Energy Savings/Air Quality Analysis for commute rail scenarios described in Draft GEBROC Commute Rail Operating Plan, as required under PVEA grant conditions: 136 hours; C) Complete final report GEBROC Commute Rail Operating Plan (third iteration) : 42 hours; d) Other Direct Costs totalling $600. 00. The Transportation Committee has reviewed and approved the second amendment to the contract with Wilbur Smith Associates for GEBROC related consulting services. See Exhibit A for a description and status report on GEBROC activities to date. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION Should the Board of Supervisors reject this request, the consultant would not be compensated for some expenses incurred since April 30, 1994, and, the work program for the Greater East Bay Rail Opportunities Coalition would be significantly disrupted. Also, rejection of this requested contract amendment would impair the County's ability to complete work which is a condition of the PVEA grant from the State of California. Exhibit A STATUS REPORT TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GREATER EAST BAY RAIL OPPORTUNITIES COALITION (GEBROC) SEPTEMBER, 1994 I. BACKGROUND In June 1992, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company proposed to make capacity available on 73 miles of their East Bay trackage for operation of a commuter rail service. Southern Pacific's proposal included options for two or four round trips per day from Suisun/Fairfield in Solano County to West Oakland and from Bentwood in Contra Costa County to West Oakland. Southern Pacific proposed that a public authority sponsor operation of rail service and enter into an agreement with Southern Pacific to pay for track lease, track maintenance, capital upgrades, and liability coverage. GEBROC has been evaluating Southern Pacific's East Bay Commute Rail Proposal since 1992. These efforts have focused on questions regarding the operational and financial feasibility of Southern Pacific's proposed commuter rail service. GEBROC retained Wilbur Smith Associates to conduct an analysis and cost comparison of Southern Pacific's 1992 proposal. This report recommended further analysis on several key issues before the East Bay counties make any commitment toward the Southern Pacific proposal. These issues included project justification, identification and formation of an operating agency, funding, service planning, and contract negotiations with Southern Pacific. This study resulted in the adoption of GEBROC Resolution 93-1 which established seven conditions under which the three East Bay counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano) might consider a joint commuter rail service project. II. PVEA FUNDED WORK COMPLETED TO DATE BY GEBROC Since its formation, GEBROC has commissioned several studies examining the potential of commuter rail service in the East Bay. These efforts have been funded through a Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) grant to Contra Costa County. PVEA funds have also been used to assist organizational and advocacy activities for GEBROC. To date, these studies and activities include the following: ■ ANALYSIS OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CO. EAST BAY COMMUTE RAIL PROPOSAL (March 1993 , Wilbur Smith Assoc. ) : An analysis and cost comparison of the 1992 Southern Pacific Commute Rail Proposal with other commuter rail operations in the country. This study resulted in the adoption of GEBROC Resolution 93-1 under which the three East Bay counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano) would consider a joint commuter rail service project. ■ PHASE I REPORT: RAIL OPPORTUNITIES, NEEDS ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION STUDY (May 1993, Korve Engineering) : This report presents findings and recommendations of a needs assessment and evaluation study for rail opportunities in seven freeway travel corridors in the East Bay. The study concluded that the Interstate 80 Corridor (through Solano, Contra Costa, and Alameda Counties) was the most promising of the seven corridors to immediately implement commuter rail services. ■ GEBROC JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (Spring 1993, W.R. Gray & Company) : W.R. Gray & Co. coordinated the negotiation of Joint Powers Agreement which formed the Greater East Bay Rail Opportunities Coalition. 1 ■ TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: PATRONAGE FORECAST ON THE I-80 CORRIDOR COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT (Oct. 1993, Korve Engineering) : Presented forecasts of patronage for the proposed commuter rail service using the Southern Pacific tracks parallel to the I-80 freeway corridor. On the basis of these results, GEBROC then directed that an operating plan be developed to tailor a service concept for the commuter market identified in the estimate. ■ NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COMMUTER RAIL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PROPOSAL (January, 1994) : In response to a Congressional request, W.R. Gray & Co. , Wilbur Smith Associates, and GEBROC staff collaborated in preparing a special ISTEA demonstration proposal entitled, "Northern California Commuter Rail Demonstration Project". ■ DRAFT REPORT: GEBROC COMMUTE RAIL OPERATING PLAN (May 1994, Wilbur Smith Assoc. ) : Two draft iterations of a report which describes an operating plan for commute rail service in the I-80 and State Route 4 corridors in Solano, Contra Costa, and Alameda Counties. It defines train schedules, station stops, rolling stock, and maintenance facilities, to support commuter rail operations. The report also includes details on capital and operating costs and concludes with a discussion in institutional and implementation matters. The report was prepared to address the conditions listed in Resolution 93-1. III. SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES { THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY BLANK. SEE ATTACHED TABLE ON PAGE 3 FOR SUMMARY ON PVEA EXPENDITURES } IV. NEXT STEP FOR GEBROC: MERGER WITH MTC'S ACR-132 COMMITTEE (?) The original mission of GEBROC was to evaluate opportunities for using the East Bay's network of railroad rights-of-way for commuter service in several travel corridors relying on conventional passenger rail technology. GEBROC has completed most of its original mission resulting in a body of knowledge that indicates a commuter rail service using the Southern Pacific's tracks parallel to Interstate 80 between Dixon, CA and West Oakland could provide commuters in the I-80 corridor with a viable public transit option. Although the analysis completed to date by GEBROC supports the concept of using Southern Pacific tracks parallel to I-80 for a passenger rail service aimed at commuter travel in the corridor, the financial realities of 1994 are such that the region cannot afford to fund a new, dedicated commuter rail service in the I-80 corridor, as originally conceived in Southern Pacific's 1992 proposal. Additionally, the worsening statewide transportation funding crisis has made it impossible to predict if future funding for a project of this kind would be available any time soon. Given these fiscal realities, GEBROC members are exploring other institutional, financial and operational means to provide commuter rail service in the I-80 corridor. Members of GEBROC and the MTC'S ACR-132 Policy Advisory Committee are seriously exploring a possible merger of GEBROC's commute rail planning function with the ACR-132 Committee's intercity rail program since they both share a common interest in developing passenger rail service in the same rail corridor. This potential merger would mean that GEBROC activities and the County's PVEA grant would in effect be transferred to another interregional planning body, perhaps the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. A final decision on such merger will require concurring actions by member agencies of GEBROC, including the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. 2 SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES PVEA GRANT STATUS (as of August 31, 1994) CONTRA COSTA COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT ENCUMBERED ACTUAL FISCAL CONTRACT EXPENDITURES CONSULTANTS YEAR AMOUNT TO DATE W.R. Gray & Co. (a) 91-92 $25,000.00 $23,589.03 $1,403.97 92-93 $24,800.00 $24,800.00 $3,705.00 $3,705.00 93-94 $38,000.00 $41,732.03 $12,000.00 subtotal $101,305.00 $95,010.03 Korve Engineering 91-92 $0.00 $0.00 92-93 $219,990.00 $175,172.15 93-94 $39,900.00 $88,170.13 subtotal $259,890.00 $243,342.28 Wilbur Smith & Associates (a) 91-92 $0.00 $0.00 92-93 $29,480.00 $29,480.00 93-94 $40,255.00 (b) $40,255.00 subtotal $69,735.00 $69,735.00 Video Production Vendors 91-92 $0.00 $0.00 92-93 $35,743.00 $34,743.75 93-94 $0.00 $0.00 subtotal $35,743.00 $34,743.75 OTHER EXPENSES Alameda Co. CMA 91-92 $25,000.00 $0.00 92-93 $0.00 $0.00 93-94 $0.00 $0.00 subtotal $25,000.00 $0.00 TOTAL TO DATE $491,673.00 $442,831.06 xm•.xxwn,xmvxxl:•}}:•}}v!? +:!!?}�?{: .'!{k:r 41�r',w•M,{Y,•:............y......,,}}}:^.?+'M!!n}}:A\4!G;:.^..............'.....Mn:•+}Y.•;^}}}}:+.{?}Y}T:?:•}:}>:vi}}' }Y,•'^}:•}Y}::x{n;.}}}};.;.r.}}; ::.v:?:::.w::::.:v::^:v....•• .:... •}::r.{...vi i.•rr: ....V'.v'.•'.•'M+xTYk}'.•.•.•.+.•�:?....vr.........::..::. x.. ......::...:....::. :•.}n:.::{a:`• .....>�•,w:v;�.. .. .i.�. j{:i:;{}q•''}}i;i;:?:+}:}: :}: "' .....,.:;}.>: :ti;:i�i:'i :.,v}:.u....,.+.Vv,......:x.xftviiiUCi:{?{S�Yv{ii1?v,roOC,L+iWP�%A,�vN06hYIX-00h�•%. ]}iJ\V.WJ>C•:h4t?<:f\4RS.Wih:%n�•; .:...•Li •+.M yG::.•ti!:;;:ii....\4...k...)JJ.{4m JX,� ••• .C1Y Afvvv..v..d...n.......... TOTAL PVEA GRANT $750 000.00 � Y$750,000.00 %!!IX^}:M{{?+R. ..`4. .Y•}fat.•. ...�i%Cr.,�agoa,:;C..•^�.•..+ ........... •:nKr•:G:x:C....:.....Y...?...:+`.'S...,Y,..... .C!K!!:•S 'C!^.'ra.'?!.:!'!..•i`$5{{{{{{..;;.}•:?y{,vif'•:;':{!: ..............:....... ?.}:k.::}}.v..............r.::::::::::::::•::::•::::::.::::.{,.,....n......•v.......................:::.,•::;::::::::+:..v:;v:::::::::•:Aw;:}:•i:•i}i:•ii}}:•i};{v.}}}i}Y..}i}}:.}:'i:} {<tii`f.<4k::Kiii:win:rvfJvv>ititi<�}44:Swntif%:4d(+<+it t+<ii}^i+CClwi+v .v:�i:4GN{tiK+«i+i:i}}}};w::n}v.}�v>}t:4Fi.J.�S�'•': iKt<t}.t4:i?4ii1nt44i:Y+.ii'ik�i:2i.."'+ ��[CC<iitCY'.Kt:'.C:kt+•,}}•,};.`.>{;>•v' PVEA FUNDS REMAINING $2581327.00 ��i IX $307,168.94 wyn;.}:•}}:?•}:!.,v,+i:{M• i.%^}CS•:,'!{{?... r{.;{.,vp}}xp,.. ^X!H/ .?hX•'!•:+.. ..{.%S^ .SSM!r.,v,{{q:•:.?h:..h:!+f.?•:!M{^:m,,•X0:{+f..:•};v{.}}:•:•}:YN..•:+.+.i!!:p;?.:+�R^CM:+JIJ.!fl?{.:!!{{{nw^•{.v{n;{xx{xq} :`y,: :�>:� ::�:'• #i :%%<''+.'t�Si:%:�i ii�Y}:i:}.`;:iiSii>i5ri:%iii SiSiiif:�ii'•.....:}}}:;o}:•}:•>:•::•>:•}:`.•iiririiii rir>::`�:>::{:}`:iii5:� •�i::<i:%•`.�::::>:;.`•;:�::;;<:;:;5:�::�:f:4;i:�i::::i ::�:�ffr:::::i;:«: �:R:?:}�i•;Siii`•:�SSiiiii:%�i;5iiri::?iiiiiiii:%:::i: .,,,,,•:::^„•::.•+'.:.,,,,r.,,::;{oao:,.r::.,•.,,,,,•::.,,{x„•.,?;:.:::;:,,kw.w.Nc„a• ,,.,xxxx„w.{;{u:?u{{w{... �.,x...,� : ..,,.;...., ... ................ ...... �M.......:;{{:x{a.}:w::{,c:{,.}.c:u;•:zurµ:2•^,�.,.:,.:.?�:: k..a•:.u2uibi{r.;:::t.::::?!„k,{rw:::�:iac{a: PERCENT FUNDS EXPENDED 66% 59% Notes: (a) active contract (b) Proposed 2nd contract amendment (9/20/94) would increase total encumbered pay limit to $59,240 3 I