HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 1211 CC ADJ ITEM 10Or� J do
c�'�L�_��� GENDA REPORT
TO: The Honorable City Council I
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works
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.
DISCUSSION
A. Re,Rort
A copy of the subject capacity study is attached as Exhibit 1.
ptL_wW 0001501
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 (53' ) 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 121 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').
ph- wid3 151
Peach Hill Road Widening
December 4, 1996
Page 3
4. Place Bik e
Left Turn
#3 except
plan woul d
lanes, on
five feet
dimension
Path South of the South Curb, with an 11' Wide
Lane: This alternative is the same as Alternate
the curb would not be moved. The final striping
call for two twelve feet (121) wide through
e eleven feet ( 111 ) wide left turn lane and one
(51) wide Bike Lane. The total curb -to -curb
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- 74,800 92,000
of -way acquisition)
Design, Contract Administration 18,700 23,000
and Inspection (25 %)
Total 93,500 115,000
F. Recommended Alternative
ph -wid3
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;
(W(D1;5z
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 Comercial /Industrial properties within the Carlsberg
development. The base year amounts 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.
pl�-vid3
153
C04A
November 14, 1996
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:
IN C
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:
I ` ✓an Ness W "as
i)p`fices �!r 4p!��le Y�il;.
'U dos td,
V/C LOS
AM .71 C
PM (3:00 - 4.00) .69 B
PM (6 :00 - 7:00) 42 A UVo
r;: f
TABLE 7
Lculilx�u:Sl,riul; h P'.Xh J fill
Muutfuuk
VMuuwi lot 1but s,h y 10-10196
0��1100Q1
AM PCri ld
IL-00 -12:15
NH
3
SD
I I
F.H
WR
PM Period
Nit
sit
Elf
Wit
12:11 - 12.1(1
4
4
1
0
12:OU- 12.•15
51
55
i9
9
l.:SO -12 (S
4
6
1
0
12:15 - 11:.1(1
33
81
49
6
12:45• - I:UU_
2 13
1 24
.1
0
0
12:10 -12:45
42 12.•15 -1:011
40
XI I76
67
73 270
42
42 172
12
11111 -I;IS
3
6
4
_0
O
1:(111 -11�
19
70 -
{7 ..
7
4
m
6511
1:11 - -1:111
1:10 1:45
5
2
4
1
U
1:15 -1:0
44
S;
42
2
1
17
0
1 6
0
0 0
1:30 1:45
35
73
.46
1(I
2UC1-215
1
34 1:5- -O - -
-40 IKn
-el( _161k
161
In
12
-- -
6)6
215 -?:30
2
1
2
I1
0
2:11(1 -1.:11
41
74
S0
S
2:10 -2:45
2
1
1
0
0
2.15 --2:10
51
57
66
8
0
x:30 -145
40
62
61
3
2:45 -3:00
1 6
0
0 4
U 1
0 0
--
- 11 2:4 '9-3 :0(I
57 199
85 270
sy ?it.
4
In
721
1
0
Q
3110 -•3: 15
Hl
88
73
- - --
3:IS -3 :i0
1
1
2
1
1;15_1:30
84
R6
721
1.11
430-3:45
1
1
S
0
72
127
75
9(1
3:45 -4:00
1 .i
l 4
l 9
_ u 1
la 34% -4:00
Ii 289
422
M ZJ4
y
94 4
337
13..2
0
4 00 -3:15 _17
_121
07 ......_-
,1 _.
.
4:15 -410
0
0
3
0
4:15 -- 4:30
82
114
6a
l2
430 -4:45
2
3
15
0
4:30 -4:45
63
111
Si
20
4 ;15 -5:110
2 5
_ _ ... .
4 8
12 33
0 0
46445 -5.111)
I(b .',lW.
1(11 431
hi 2.46
55
170.
IIlS
5;00 -5:1!
b
4
10
0
5:00 -i:IS
61ti _ _
L24 ._.._
49
_
75
3:15 - s:30
9
2
29
0
5.15-530
t10
109
70
12
5:30 -5 :45
111
111
36
1
3:30 -5:41
82
1511
50
4
11( •
1:45 -6.00
14 .49
10 _ 32
41 121
u 1
IWO 5.45 -6:00
78 391
115 s, r
d-
IR2
•i4y�
aax) 0 15
77
107
17
6
6:15 -6 :i0
17
19
SE
0
6:15 -a: 1u
HS
145
69
2
6.30- 6:43
7.2
37
69
1
6:311 6:45
R2
106
74
3
6:45.7;00
;i 141
2V IOb
- - --
02 220
3 4
413 6.45 - 7_111
a 3 !1111
0471
7>> 276
5
16
13,1 j
!WL
7:110 -7:15
20
45
6$
1
7:00 7:1S
w
120
73
17
7:15 -7311
27
41
118
1
7:15 -730
61
115
S6
29
7 :30-• 7:41
36
74
its
1
7:40- 7.45
47
97
a
15
7;45 -8.00
46 117
---
- 67 21._7
1111) 171
s 8
741 7:45 -8.1x1
.32 159
91 1.21
13 24f)
13
$4
946
800 -8 :15
4�,
p,5
54
136
10
,11x1 —x. Ic
29
72 _
43
11.3 -
---
li 15 -R:.in
62
80
100
33
11:15 -K :.0
21
to
31
41
&3(1 -8 :0
70
107
112
1(11
RAO -S ;45
29
S$
2i
106
3d9 li4� _9110
110 277
84 325
99 447
-
1 Z 268
131'1 S:J _q :0(1
24 1(l!
66 264
21 123
77
249
741
?3Z 9;00-9:15
Al
78
101
122
4:00 •9.15
33
bi
2S
1S --
IS 9Y 15 -9:.10
74
$1
I l0
118
V:15 -9: KI
u
67
2S
27
8(I
77
719
10�
4:3(1 -41.�
19
31
27
t7
4:45_101,110
671 VA
76 312 -
811 38K
87 432
1415 9.45- 1(1:1111
- —1&(X)
11 117
32 191
14 94
0
42
416
10:00 -10:11
(16
68
74
76
-11115
10
12
14 - --
- 2
10:15 - W.10
65
65
70
71
10:15 -10: 3(1
15
1(1
1 J
0
10:45
59
66
77
611
10:.10- IO:AS
12
17
J7
0
1015 -1100
66 2%
SS ;57
71 3(li _
r
65 2110
-
1096 10:45 - I 1 (1)
1 S 52
9 68
13 3!
0
2
197
68
4tl
1 I :0(1- l 1 t S-
t 1
I
4
--
11:15 -113(1
61
68
55
54)
11:1- 11:111
0
4
6
i
11:.16 -11.45
59
59
0
32
] I :3(I•- 1 1..11
5
7
1
0
11:45 -121x)
62 257
,51 242_
36 2Alh
28 t S$
$61 1.1_'.45 -11.(x 1
3 29
4 42
A 24
Z
S
qy
Tidal Vol
1342
1�511j
2111
1152 6214 2211
_ _
3h( ).7 2148 - - -(091
7472
Daily '1;,uh
3w3 5222 43W 224:3
L1370o
Buz
2
UtJtJ1.�
w
C
C
C
Lei
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
VVBRT
0
AM
PM
(3:00 - 4:00)
PM
(6:00 - 7:00 )
AM
PM
{3:00 - 4:00 )
PM
{6:00 - 7:00)
220
214
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 1
1600
157
197
190
.11*
.12*
12*
NBLT
1600
17
120
109
.01
.08*
YELLOW
V/C
LOS
.10
.71
C I
.10
.07*
.10
.69
.42
B I
A
*V /C 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 = 13,706
1994 Counted ADT = 7,000 (not including Peach Hill)
1994 Modeled ADT = 10,500
TOTAL ADT ADT SPRING ROAD ONLY
1996 Counted 13,706 8,825
1994 Counted - 7,000
1994 Modeled 10,500 7,000
This appears to be good correlation with the MTAM Model.
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 0001,57
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 tum 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:
Vic 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:
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 8120/96 staff report.
000158
110
C
C
C
TABLE 3: INTERSECTION CAPACITY
USING
MTAM 2000 TRAFFIC
APPROACH
TRAFFIC
MOVEMENT
EXISTING
CAPACITY
PEAK HOUR
WC
IMPROVED
CAPACITY
V/C
km
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
WBRT
0
339
330
1800
.22
.21
WB
1600
160
149
.41*
.39*
1600
.10*
.09*
WELT
0
154
149
1600
.10
.09
SBRT
1600
191
387
,12
.24
1600
.12
.24
SB
1600
153
256
.10
.16
1600
.10
.16
SBLT
1$00
236
43
.15*
.03
1600
.15*
.03
EBRT
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
YELLOW
V!C
LOS
1600 26 55 .02
.10
1.00
E
.03*
.10
.91
1600 .02
.10
.69
.03*
.10
.61
E
B
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 8/20/96 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 8/20/96 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,
John C. Whitman
Traffic Consultant
Assistant City Engineer
7
:L6c
FIGURE I
CONCEPTUAL WIDENING
PEACH HILL ROAD EAST
OF SPRING ROAD - SOUTH SIDE
W
Q
O
O
Z
IS5W 5' 12' 12'� 12' ' S5' - -j
1.5
12 12' 12'+
11
SECTION A -A
0001cl
FIGURE 2
CONCEPTUAL WIDENING
PEACH HILL ROAD EAST
OF SPRING ROAD - NORTH SIDE
W
J
a
V
V)
O
O
Z
w
51112'11:! 12' ,
% V, '
E
S/W S/W R
5' S' 12' 12' 12' S'
5 1.5'
'
SECTION A- /A
o() :LGz
FIGURE 3
INDEPENDANT BIKE LANE WITH WIDENING
PEACH HILL ROAD EAST
OF SPRING ROAD
I L
VARIES
R S/w S / BL
S' 5' 12' 12' 12 5 5 _
�_L_--- _1__- _�______
1.5 SECTION A- A 1.5
10
ON
G WALL
R S/w LP
S/W
51 5. t 5' 1115 5' S'
15� B -B
FIGURE 4
INDEPENDANT BIKE LANE AND NO STREET WIDENING
PEACH HILL ROAD E
asr
OF SPRING ROAD
�i
l /
W
V) !/ /
O
O
Z ,
RETAI ING WALL
r/
i 1J 11 i
r
12' 1' 12+�
A A
41 1
()MIL(;4 VARIES
R S/W S /WR BL
LJ 1 �J
1.5' SECTION A -A 5
N
C
C
TABLE 4: COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATE CONCEPTS TO ADD A
LEFT TURN LANE TO PEACH HILL DRIVE EAST OF SPRING ROAD
ALTERNATE 3:
WIDEN
TO THE
ALTERNATE 4:
ALTERNATE 1:
ALTERNATE 2:
SOUTH AND
CONSTRUCT
UNIT
WIDEN
TO THE
WIDEN
TO THE
CONSTRUCT
INDEPENDENT
COST ITEM
COST
SOUTH
NORTH
INDEPENDENT
BICYCLE LANE
BICYCLE LANE
UNITS
COST
UNITS
COST
UNITS
I 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
$2,700
1
$2,700
4. Sidewalk
$3.50 1SF
1820
$6,370
1820
$6,370
1820
$6,370
80
$280
5. Curb and Gutter
$15.00/1-F
300
$4,500
300
$4,500
300
$4,500
40
$600
S. Base Course
$20.001 TON
114
$2,280
114
$2,280
74
$1,480
55
$1,100
7. Pavement
$35.00/TON
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
i 9. Street Lights
$1,000/EA
0
2
$2,000
0
0
10. Utilities
11. Retainin Wall
$20.00 /SF
270
$5,400
270
$5,400
12. Landsca in
$4.00 /SF
750
$3,000
1 2400
$9,600
2400
$9,600
13. Fire Hydrant
$2,200/EA
1
$2,200
14. Driveway
$750 /EA
2
$1,500
Approach
15. Traffic Signal
$17,000 /EA
1
517,000
1
$97.000
1
$17,000
1
$5,000
16. Controller
$5,000/EA
1
$5,p00
17. Signal Loops
$360 /EA
8
$2,800
8
$2,800
8 1
$2,800
8
$2,800
18. Striping
$2,500 /EA
1
$2,500
1
$2,500 1
1
$2,500
1 1
$2,500
19. Right of Way
$10.00 /SF
1800
$18,000
1800
$18,000
1800
$18,000
1500
$15,000
SUB - TOTAL:
;59,545
$73,845
$75,037
$18,758
546,132
$11,533
CONTINGENCY 25%): $14,961
518,386
TOTAL:
$74,806
591,931
$93,796
$57,665
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 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
Owly;
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)
5615,000
EFFECT OF PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCES
FUND
CURRENT
SUPPLEMENTAL
REVISED
PROJECTED FY %/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(ja