HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 1204 CC REG ITEM 10OG ity of MoorparlW�
TO: + The Honorable City Council "I
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works t
DATE: November 25, 1996 (CC Meeting: 12 -4 -96)
SUBJECT: Consider Engineering Study Evaluating Alternative Methods
to Add a Left Turn Lane to the East Leg of the
Intersection of Peach Hill Road and Spring Road
This presents the subject study for consideration, recommends
selection of one of the design alternatives and recommends
proceeding with the project design.
On September 4, 1996, the City Council authorized the City Engineer
to proceed with the preparation of the subject intersection
capacity study. The authorized scope of that work is summarized as
follows:
• Conduct an intersection capacity study to reevaluate existing,
as well as future "post build- out," traffic conditions and /or
congestion.
• Prepare several design alternatives (with construction cost
estimates) to add a left turn lane, said effort to possibly
include alternatives ...
- with or without additional street right -of -way, and
- with or without widening the curb -to -curb street dimension.
The City Council also appointed Councilmember Perez to work with
the property owners on each side of the street to determine the
project design most compatible with the uses and improvements on
those properties.
� K �
A copy of the subject capacity study is attached as Exhibit 1.
Ph_W1d3 000156
Peach Hill Road Widening
December 4, 1996
Page 2
B. Traffic Design
The subject study assesses current and future traffic volumes
and traffic patterns. The report concludes that circulation
would be improved if one additional lane was added for
westbound traffic at the subject intersection. The study
states that an exclusive LEFT TURN lane was preferred.
C. Design Concepts
The study offers four design concepts. A narrative
description, along with a diagram for each alternative, is set
forth in the study. These four alternatives are generally
described as follows:
1. Widen Peach Hill Road to the South: This alternative would
widen Peach Hill Road on the south side of the street to
provide the street cross section initially recommended by
the City Engineer in 1990. The resulting street
improvements would be as following:
a) three twelve feet (121) wide travel lanes;
b) two five feet (51) wide Bike Lanes; and,
c) two six and one -half feet (6�1) wide sidewalks.
The curb -to -curb dimension would change from forty feet
(401) to forty -nine feet (491). The street right -of -way
width would change from fifty -three feet (531) to fifty -nine
feet (591).
2. Widen Peach Hill Road to the North: This alternative would
provide the same street design by constructing the street
widening on the north side of the street.
3. Place Bike Path South of the South Curb, with a 12' Wide
Left Turn Lane: This alternative would acquire additional
street right -of -way on the south side of the street to
facilitate the construction of a separate Bike Lane for
eastbound bicycle traffic, which would be located south of
the sidewalk on the south side of the street. It will be
necessary to construct a retaining wall to accommodate this
new Bike Path. This alternative also calls for moving the
curb on the south side of the street one foot to the south
to enable the placement of full width travel lanes. The
final striping plan would call for three twelve feet (121)
wide travel lanes plus one five feet (51) wide Bike Lane.
The total curb -to -curb dimension would be forty -one feet
(41').
pb —Wid3 y VV151
Peach Hill Road Widening
December 4, 1996
Page 3
4. Place Bike Path South of the South Curb, with an 1Z' Wide
Left Turn Lane: This alternative is the same as Alternate
#3 except the curb would not be moved. The final striping
plan would call for two twelve feet (121) wide through
lanes, one eleven feet (11' ) wide left turn lane and one
five feet (51) wide Bike Lane. The total curb -to -curb
dimension would remain forty feet (401).
D. Widening on Both Sides of the Street
The City Council discussed the possibility and /or feasibility
of taking property from both side of the street so as to
distribute any adverse impacts equally upon both properties.
The Engineer was not asked to develop a design alternative for
this concept. It was determined that such a design alternative
would be cost prohibitive in that curb, gutter and sidewalk
would have to be removed and replaced on both sides of the
street instead of only one.
E. Project Cost Estimate
The study includes construction cost estimates for the above
described alternatives. Using those construction cost
estimates a summary of total project costs for each alternative
is as follows:
Design Al
Element 1 2
Construction (includes right- 741800 92,000
of -way acquisition)
Design, Contract Administration 18.700 23,000
and Inspection (25 %)
Total 93,500 115,000
F. Recommended Alternative
ternatives
3 4
94,000 58,000
23,500 14,500
117,500 72,500
Staff recommends selection of Alternative Number 1. Although
more costly than Alternate #4, Alternate #1 is preferred for a
number of reasons. Unlike Alternate #4, Alternate #1 has
certain benefits described as follows:
• the revised street configuration (with three travel lanes)
would be constructed to City Standards;
• the Bike Lane would be in the street where it would be
easier and safer to use;
• the need to have bicycle traffic cross the sidewalk (and
pedestrian traffic) at two locations would be eliminated;
ptX_wid3
0152
Peach Hill Road Widening
December 4, 1996
Page 4
the need for relatively high retaining walls would be
eliminated; and,
the creation of a large landscaped parkway (possibly to be
maintained by the City) would also be eliminated.
G. Fiscal Impact
1. Funding Source: The widening of Peach Hill Road east of
Spring Road will improve traffic safety and reduce traffic
congestion. It is recommended, therefore, that these
improvements be funded by monies to be derived from a
Development Fee to be paid by Conejo Freeway Properties in
connection with the development of the Carlsberg
development.
Note: Revenues in excess of $324,339 are anticipated to be generated by a fee to be levied upon
both residential properties and Commercial /Industrial properties within the Carlsberg
development. The base year mounts for these fees are as follows: Residential: $1,587
per lot; Commercial /Industrial: $4,443 per acre. The fee will be adjusted monthly at the
annual rate of six percent (6 %). All fees must be paid within ten years of the date the
first building permit is issued.
2. Advance: It is recommended that this project be funded by
a loan from the Gas Tax Fund to be repaid from the revenues
derived from the above described Development Fee.
3. Budget Amendment: It is recommended that the amendment of
the FY 1996/97 Budget be deferred until the project design
has been completed and all necessary right -of -way has been
obtained. It is further recommended that design costs
continue to be charged to Miscellaneous Engineering Studies
[Acc. No. 240.801.0000.000.9199] until that action is taken.
[Note: This line item account number is funded by the Gas Tax Fund.] When the budget
is amended design and other related costs to date for this
project will be transferred to the Capital Project Account
Number established for this project.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Approve a project to add the subject left turn lane using
Design Alternate #1.
2. Direct staff to proceed with the project design.
3. Re- confirm the appointment of Councilmember Perez to assist
staff in working with the adjacent property owners on the
project design and the acquisition of required additional
street right -of -way.
p2—wid7
1
CAAi
November 14, 1996
C y t F- c' f ATFSf [N ..
Mr. Kenneth Gilbert
Director of Public Works
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
Subject: Capacity Study, Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate
for the Intersection of Spring Road and Peach Hill Drive
Dear Mr. Gilbert:
Based on Charles Abbott Associates' (CAA's) September 17, 1996 proposal, we have
performed the subject work. This letter report documents our findings and conclusions.
CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
A 24 hour traffic count along with peak hour turning movements were taken on October
10, 1996. Those counts showed a total traffic volume of 13,706 vehicles passed
through the intersection on that date_ School was in session and no major events
occurred which would invalidate the count numbers. The fifteen minute counts for the
24 hour period are shown in Table 1. As can be seen from the table, the morning peak
hour is from 8:30 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. The evening peak hour is from 6:00 p.m. until
7:00 P.M. However, the traffic volume from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. is 99% of the
6:00 p.m. peak.
The dual afternoon peaking is due to school related traffic at 3:00 p.m. and commuter
related traffic at 6:00 p.m. The study examined both afternoon peaks. Table 2 shows
Levels of Service (LOS) calculations. The results of existing traffic show current LOS
for the intersection to be as follows:
V/C LOS
AM .71 C
PM (3:00 - 4:00) .69 B
PM (6:00 - 7:00) 42 A 000154.
I Van Ness V�rr��
14 k,
TABLE I
1.ac1�Ix�u:SJsring h Pcaelt J fill
muorpatk
VMuuhs lot lour soil y 10.1 6
WWI
AMPeriinl
NH
SD
kH
WR
PMP.ri"d
NH so
Ll3
WH
12.00 -12:15
3
11
1
0
12:(X1 - 12:15
51
55
39
9
12:13 - 12:3()
4
4
1
0
1115 -12:10
33
81
49
6
J2.45
4
6
I
0
12:30-11.45
40
67
42
12
12:45 - I:(lll
2 I.4
1 24
0 S
-
- 0 0
42 12:•;5 - I:UU
- -I:(K)
5U
176 73 270
42 172
7
658
IiMI -I IS
1
6
4
11
-1:13
.49
70
47•-
4
-14
4
1
9
1:15 -130
44
53
42
2
1:30 1.4S
2
3
0
0
1:3(1 1:45
.11
73
36
10
;D-
.1_1
{ 17
1 6
0 1)
34 1:45- 2:0(1 _
- -40
138 QH >t,r
4b I/il
lti
32
616
0
2:110 -T.: IS
41
74
i0
-5 --
-
215 -?:�(1
2
2
I
0
215- 2:10
31
57
66
8
2:30 -2:45
2
I
(1
t1
«:30 -3:45
40
621
61
3
2:0-3:M
1 6
0 4
U 1
0 t)
11 2--4t_1 :0u
.57
189 85 279
uj 2;6
4
in
721
311D -•3: I;
NI
10!
7.3
--
3:15-3:30
1
I
2
1
1 :15 -1:10
H4
Ab
T3
13I
7:30 -3 :i5
1
1
5
0
330 -3:4,
72
127
75
99
3:43 -4:00
1 3
1 4
I K
0 1
.
Id) ;.0-40)
-'400
-11
2m9 '121 422
(A Z?41
94
i 47
1.U2
o
-4:15
�S7
- 07
`1_
91
4.15 -4:30
0
0
,1
0
4:13•-4:30
82
114
6a
12
4-10 -4:43
2
3
15
0
4:30 -4:45
6.1
111
ii
20
4:45 -50 _
2 5
4 8„
12 33
0 0
46 4 45 -.1IN)
116
2m 1(N Of
69 1 36
55
170
1125
3.OQ -5:15
6
4
10
0
5110 -tali
68
- - -- 129 --
49 --
71
Sall
9
2
28
0
1.15 - 5:30
80
109
70
12
3 :30 -5:45
11!
16
36
1
530 - 5:41
82
158
Sh
4
)1 i
5:43 -40
14 49
10 32
- _
41 121
I) 1
1(X 5.45 -6.0)
78
305 115 $,1
Tl :17{7
d
1R:
�iiY
_1
18
0
tD) 6.15
107
57
b _.-
6:I5-6:40
17
19
31
0
6.15 -na11
Kt
145
64
2
&M -OV
72
37
69
1
6 3111 6:45
RI
106
74
3
) 34
6:45 -- 7:00
M 8"
29 106 -
d2 220
.4 4
413 6.45 -• 7iA) _
a
30% 111 -4 71
70 270
5
16
'!%4
'1:U0 -7:!.5
20
4S
68
1
7:00 7: IN
w
I21)
73
177
7:15 -730
27
41
W
1
7:15 -7:30
61
115
M
21)
730- •7:45
16
74
]is
1
7_40 -7.4�
41
97
56
IS
7.0 -Hi10
46 1:17
--
227
1(n) 471
8 -
743 7:45 -801
.12
IW 91 124
57 240
13
84
946
8.-00 -8:15
tit
54
13b
If)
aeil ► -K. IC
29
72 -
43
--
- --
4'6' A 15 -8:.1n
62
A0
I(X)
33
14:15 -9:1A
21
69
31
ti
315 &.'<0 -8 :43
70
107
112
100
8:70 - 3:45
20
56
24
1()h
419 K4. _9'(10._
110 277
84 325
99_447
-
12.5 1,61(
1,117) AA, __ 9:0(!
24
10 66 :M
21 12,1
TI
249
741
39Z 9:00-9:11
)(1
713
101
122
9:00 •9.13
14
bt
29
15 -
--
3 !Y is -9:.;0
74
N1
110
1 I
Q:1r -9:W
t1
67
2y
V
1=19311 -9:45
80
77
99
1OS
9:30 -415
19
31
27
U
9 :45_1010
68 303
76.312- _
88 -3811
97 432
1435945-1001
- -
11
x7 12 193
-
14 94
U
it
416
10:00 -10:14
66
68
79
76
10:0(1 -!b I%
111
is
_
14
- 2 -
-
10.15 - I0: 30
65
65
76
71
to:! s - -10: W
15
70
11
U
,10:.40 -10:43
59
66
77
6H
10:30- WAS
12
17
17
0
10:43 -110)
ba 25a
38 :57
71 3(11
_ 65 2Nt1
_
1096 10:4s - I I (x)
1%
12 v 8N
B «
U
t
197
I I.,00. 11:15
75
N1
69
48
_
11:00 -1111
11
-
11:15 -1130
61
68
55
SO
11317 - 11:10
9
y
6
3
11:;0 -11.45
59
59
43
i2
l 1:3(17- 1 1.43
5
7
1
0
11:45 -1:0)
62 2.57
55 211
17 17_
36 241n
2R 158
863 11:45 - iL M
i
29 4 41
A 24
Z
S
qy
Too Vol
1302
lssy
2111
1152
6214
2211
x'64
2148 - -(091
74)r.
Uaily'1'4 au(c
3vt14
51''2
4360
2.143
L11.71)d
rs
2
VVV*.b
w
TABLE 2: LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
for AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic
at Spring Road and Peach Hill Drive
APPROACH
TRAFFIC
MOVEMENT
EXISTING
CAPACITY
PEAK HOUR
VIC
WBRT
0
AM PM
(3:00 :00)
PM
(6 :00 7:00
AM
PM
(3:00 - 4:00
PM
(6:00 - 7:00)
220 14
7
WB
1600
104 97
2
.28*
.26*
.01
WBLT
0
100 97
4
SBRT
1600
124 251
268
.08
.16
.17
SB
1600
99 166
173
.06
.10
.11
SBLT
1600
153 28
29
.10*
.02
.02
EBRT
1600
63 60
66
.04
.04
.04
EB
1600
153 14
11
.10
.01
.01
EBLT
1600
198 210
199
.12*
.13*
.12*
NBRT
1600
125 36
34
.08
.08
.02
NB
1600
157 197
190
.11*
.12*
12*
NBLT
YELLOW
V/C
LOS
1600
i 7 120 OS .01
.10
.71
C
.08*
.10
.07*
.10
.69
.42
B
A
*WC components
These current levels of service are within the City of Moorpark's standard, which is to
maintain a level of service of C or better.
Peak hour volumes may not accurately reflect operations for shorter periods of time due
to the short duration peaking both in the AM peak and the 3:00 P.M. peak hour, which
results from the operations of the nearby school. When V/C and LOS are calculated for
15 minute peaking, the following levels are found:
V/C LOS
AM .75 C
PM (3:00 - 4:00) .73 C
These LOS are also within City standards. Even with acceptable LOS, there are
operational problems with the intersection. With the traffic volumes and the fact that
Peach Hill east of the intersection has only one traffic lane, significant queues of
vehicles can result. With a one minute traffic signal cycle time, it can be expected that
the west bound queue on Peach Hill Drive on average, would be 9 vehicles with a
range of 3 to 15 vehicles during the AM and PM peaks.
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The current traffic count was compared with the 1994 Moorpark Traffic Analysis Model
(MTAM) traffic volumes These numbers are:
1996 Counted ADT =
1994 Counted ADT -
1994 Modeled ADT =
TOTAL ADT
1996 Counted 13,706
1994 Counted -
1994 Modeled 10,500
13,706
7,000 (not including Peach Hill)
10,500
ADT SPRING ROAD ONLY
This appears to be good correlation with the MTAM Model.
8,825
7,000
7,000
The MTAM models both a Year 2000 partial build out and a Year 2010 complete build
out. The projected ADT's from these model years are as follows:
Percent Increase
ADT from 1996 Count
MTAM 2000 21,000 vpd +53%
MTAM 2010 12,500 vpd -9%
4 000157
The MTAM projections are based on predictions of increasing land use and additions to
the street network. The significant reduction in ADT from the MTAM 2000 to MTAM
2010 is largely due to the projected completion of Science Drive from Tierra Rejada
Road to Los Angeles Avenue and the connection of Peach Hill Drive to Science Drive,
providing a very attractive nearby alternate route for Spring Road traffic.
Table 3 shows the intersection capacity for the MTAM 2000 traffic. Both the AM and
PM peak hour LOS is computed to be LOS = E, which does not meet city standards.
By adding both a right and left turn lane on Peach Hill Drive to the east of the
intersection, the LOS for AM and PM could be increased to LOS - B which is within city
standards.
An intersection capacity analysis for full build out, as portrayed by MTAM Model 2010
would show LOS B or better, because the reduced traffic volumes would result in an
improvement in the level of service from the 1996 counts level of service calculations.
Because the intersection congestion will only exist until Science Drive is constructed
(current activities on the Carlsberg property will result in Science Drive being in place
prior to full City build out), another less costly and least disruptive option for increasing
capacity in the intersection was evaluated. That option is .to add only one lane on
Peach Hill Drive, which could be either an exclusive left turn or an exclusive right turn
lane. The exclusive left turn lane is the best option operationally. If left turn traffic were
combined with through traffic, through traffic would be impeded by left turning vehicles,
unless the signal were timed with a split phase. The split phase timing would reduce
the overall intersection capacity. If only a left turn lane is installed on Peach Hill, east of
Spring Road and the right turns share a lane with through movements, then the V/C
and LOS for AM and PM peaks would be as follows:
V/C LOS
AM Peak .88 D
PM Peak (3:00 - 4:00) .79 C
Although this solution does not achieve the city standard of LOS C in the AM peak, we
recommend this solution as being the most cost effective and least disruptive.
ALTERNATE CONCEPTS
Four alternate concepts were developed to allow for the addition of a left turn lane on
Peach Hill Drive east of Spring Road. The four alternates are as follows:
1. Widen Peach Hill Drive by 6 feet to the south, resulting in two -12 foot travel
lanes, a 12 foot turning lane and two-5 foot bike lanes, for a total width of 46
feet curb to curb and 59 feet of right of way per the 8/20/96 staff report.
5 0001.58
M
C
C
Ll�
TABLE 3: INTERSECTION CAPACITY
USING
MTAM 2000 TRAFFIC
APPROACH
TRAFFIC
MOVEMENT
EXISTING
CAPACITY
PEAK HOUR
V!C
IMPROVED
CAPACITY
V!C
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
WBRT
0
339
330
1600
.22
.21
WB
1604
160
149
.41*
.39`
1600
.10*
.09*
WBLT
0
154
149
1600
.10
.09
SBRT
1600
191
387
.12
.24
1600
.12
.24
S6
1600
153
256
.10
.16
1600
.10
.16
SBLT
1600
236
43
.15*
.03
1600
.15*
.03
SBRT
1600
97
92
.06
.06
1600
.06
.06
EB
1600
236
22
.15
.01
1600
.15
.01
EBLT
1600
305
323
.19'
20*
1600
.19'
20*
NBRT
1600
193
55
.12
.03
1600
_12
.03
NB
1600
242
303
.15*
.19
1600
.15•
.19'
NBLT
1600
26
55
.02
.03*
1600
.02
.03•
YELLOW
.10
1.00
E
.10
.10
.10
VIC
.91
.69
.61
lOS
E
e
B
2. Widen Peach Hill Drive by 6 feet to the north, resulting in two -12 foot travel
lanes, a 12 foot turning. lane and two -5 foot bike lanes, for a total width of 46
feet curb to curb and 59 feet of right -of -way per the 8/20196 staff report.
3. Widen Peach Hill Drive by 1 foot to the south, resulting in two-12 foot travel
lanes, a 12 foot turning lane and one -5 foot bike lane and construct a bike
path south of the street on an independent alignment.
4. Construct a bike path south of the existing curb and gutter and re- stripe
Peach Hill Drive, resulting in two- 12.foot travel lanes, one -11 foot turn lane
and one -5 foot bike lane. The 11 foot turn lane would not meet the standard
of the 8/20196 report.
Sketches of the alternates are shown as Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4.
ALTERNATE COST ESTIMATE
Table 4 summarizes cost estimates for the 4 alternates for increasing capacity at the
Peach Hill - Spring Road intersection.
It appears that alternate 4 is the most cost effective concept to increase intersection
capacity.
We would be happy to answer any questions or to discuss this study with you.
Sincerely,
Nock.—
John C. Whitman
Traffic Consultant
Assistant City Engineer
vcox6c,
FIGURE 1
CONCEPTUAL WIDENING
PEACH HILL ROAD EAST
OF SPRING ROAD - SOUTH SIDE
W
J
U
V)
O
t-
O
r
1
L 'L
s5W 5' 12. 12' 12' '2' 'SSW - --1
-- I-____-1 - -- -- _ -
r
15 SECTION A- A 15
1z 1z' 1
,I
A ' A
00Vtu
11
FIGURE 2
CONCEPTUAL WIDENING
PEACH HILL ROAD EAST
OF SPRING ROAD NORTH
SIDE
LLJ
0
0
11 r S/W
SSW
5'
--j
5* 12' 12'
12' 5- !j'
5'
SECTION
A-A
15 12 1 12'5
A
3
4 A
Is.
()Oolcaz
FIGURE 3
INDEPENDANT BIKE LANE WITH WIDENING
PEACH HILL ROAD EAST
OF SPRING ROAD
<4
VARIES
R S/W S /Sys BL
5 5' 12' 12' 12' 5' I
-4 �r__L___-- 1-- __�______
1.5'
SECTION A- A
10
NG WALL
R LP
S/W S/W
1I5' S� 15' -1- 15' 5' S'
1.5. SECTION B -B '
000lLc-
FIGURE 4
INDEPENDANT BIKE
LANE
AND NO STREET WIDENING
PEACH HILL ROAD
EAST
OF SPRING ROAD
w
"
Q
I,�
U
"
V)
/
p
O
it ,r
RETAI ING WALL
12'
I
�lr 12+'
A
''
A
4j
VV0 VARIES 000164 R
S/w S/w BL
5' 5' 12' 11' 12' S' 5'
1. 5'
SECTION A -A 5
N
C
G
r 7
TABLE 4: COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATE CONCEPTS TO ADD A
LEFT TURN LANE TO PEACH HILL DRIVE EAST OF SPRING ROAD
COST ITEM
UNIT
COST
ALTERNATE 1:
WIDEN TO THE
SOUTH
ALTERNATE 2:
WIDEN TO THE
NORTH
ALTERNATE 3:
WIDEN TO THE
SOUTH AND
CONSTRUCT
INDEPENDENT
BICYCLE LANE
ALTERNATE 4:
CONSTRUCT
INDEPENDENT
BICYCLE LANE
UNITS
COST
UNITS
COST
UNITS
COST
UNITS
COST
1. Demolition
$1,500/EA
1
$1,500
1
$1,500
1
$1,500
1
$1,500
2. Earthwork
$4.00/CY
90
$360
90
$360
103
$412
73
$292
3. Catch Basin
$2,700 /EA
1
$2,700
1 1
$2,700
1
$2,700
4. Sidewalk
$3.50 /SF
1820
$6,370
1820
$6,370
1820
$6,370
80
$280
5. Curb and Gutter
$15.00I1-F
300
$4,500
300
$4,500
300
$4,500
40
$600
6. Base Course
$20.00 TON
114
$2,280
114
$2,280
74
$1,480
55
$1,100
7. Pavement
$35.00frON
41
$1,435
41
$1,435
45
$1,575
36
$1,260
8. Signs
$100/EA
4
$400
4
$400
12
$1,200
8
$800
9. Street Lights
$1,000 1EA
0
2
$2,000
0
0
10. Utilities
11. Retaining Wall
$20.00 1SF
270
$5,400
270
$5,400
12. Landscaping
$4,00 /SF
730
$3,000
2400
$9,600
2400
$9,600
13. Fire Hydrant
$2,200/EA
1
$2,200
14. Driveway
Approach
$7501EA
2
$1,500
15. Traffic Signal
$17,000 /EA
1
$17,000
1
$17.000
1
$17,000
1
$5,000
16. Controller
$5,000/EA
1
$5,000
17. Signal Loa
$3601EA
8 $2,800
8
$2,800
8
$2,800
8
$2,800
18. Striping
$2,500 /EA
1
$2,500
1
$2,500
1
$2,500
1
$2,500
19. Right of Way $10.00 /SF
SUB
1800 $18,000
- TOTAL: $38,x45
1800 $18,000
$"3,545
1800
$18,000
175,037
1500
$15,000
548,132
CONTINGENCY 25%):
$14,961
$18,386
518,759
$11,533
TOTAL:
$74,806
$91,931
$93,796
$67,665
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1996197 ADOPTED
BUDGET FOR THE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION 8A FUND
(FUND 203)
WHEREAS, on June 19, 19%, the City Council adopted the Budget for Fiscal Year
1996/97; and,
WHEREAS, a staff report has been presented to the City Council requesting a budget
amendment in the aggregate amount of ($1,005,000); and,
WHEREAS, Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof, describes said budget
amendment and its resultant impacts to the budget line item(s) and projected year end fund
balance(s).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That a Budget amendment in the amount of ($1,005,000) to Fund 203, as
more particularly described in Exhibit "A," is hereby approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December 1996.
ATTESTED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Moorpark, California
OUCy1,%
Resolution No. 96 -
Exhibit "A"
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BY ACCOUNT NUMBER
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
CURRENT
APPROPRIATION
SUBJECT
APPROPRIATION
/ (REDUCTION)
REVISED
APPROPRIATION
203.801.8005.000.9903
$800,000
$(760,000)
$40,000
203.801.8004.000.9903
$820,000
$(320,000)
$500,000
203.801.8030.000.9903
$0
$75,000
$75,000
TOTALS:
$1,620,000
$(1,005,000)
$615,000
EFFECT OF PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCES
FUND
CURRENT
SUPPLEMENTAL
REVISED
PROJECTED FY 96/97
APPROPRIATION
PROJECTED FY
YEAR END BALANCE
96/97 YEAR END
BALANCE
203 (Local
$(19,344)
$(1,005,000)
$985,656.00
Transportation 8A)
TOTALS:
$(1,005,000)
Note: The $- 19,344.00 in Current Projected FY 96/97 Year End Balance is a preliminary figure
resulting from the FY 95/96 audit. The final audit results are pending completion by the auditors.
Once certified audit figures have been provided, the Budget Summary by Fund document included
with the FY 96/97 Budget shall be updated.
00(j3'r e