Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 4, 1997 Budget & Finance040912 Riverside County Transportation Commission BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE (COMMISSIONERS MICHAEL BARRY, WILLIAM KLEINDIENST, JACK VAN HAASTER) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 12:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1997 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. 4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL ITEMS. 5A. Proposed FY 1997/98 Budget. Overview The Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the proposed FY 1997/98 budget last month. The public hearing and action was deferred to the June meeting. Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt the proposed FY 1997/98 budget. 5B. UCR Audit Study. Overview Dr. Eric Rollands of UCR will make a presentation and submit his findings and recommendations to the Committee on the audit process of funding recipients. 5C. Measure A Loan to City of Perris. Overview The City of Perris is requesting the Commission for a loan of $1,900,000. Staff is recommending approval of the loan and authorize staff to negotiate the details of the agreement with Perris, subject to Legal Counsel and final Commission review. 00000:L Budget and Finance Agenda June 4, 1997 Page 2 5D. Measure A Loan to City of San Jacinto. Overview The City of San Jacinto is requesting the Commission for a loan of $ 1,300,000. Staff is recommending approval of the loan and authorize staff to negotiate the details of the agreement with San Jacinto, subject to Legal Counsel and final Commission review. 5E. Quarterly Financial and Cost/Schedule Reports. Overview Presented for receive and file are: 1) Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (unaudited) and the Highway and Rail Projects quarterly budget report for quarter ending March 31, 1997; and, 2) Cost and Schedule status of Measure A contracts through the month ending April 30, 1997. The reports were prepared by Bechtel staff. 6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. 6A. State Route 79 (Lamb Canyon) Repair of Distressed Fill Slopes. Overview In order to document findings, monitor work, and direct reconstruction of Route 79 repair of distressed fill slopes, staff is recommending amending the agreement with Converse Consultants for geotechnical support and the County of Riverside for survey support services. 6B. Award Amendment 3 to URS Greiner for Landscaping Design for the Yuma Interchange. Overview This contract award to URS Greiner is to prepare the PS&E for the landscaping design for the Yuma Interchange project. This is to restore landscaping that existed prior to the construction of the project. 00 Budget and Finance Agenda June 4, 1997 Page 3 7. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN. 7A. FY 1998-2004 Short. Range Transit Plans. Overview The FY 1998-2004 Short Range Transit Plans for the county bus operators and Commuter Rail are presented for the Commission's review and approval. Staff has reviewed the plans of the operators for compliance with the unmbe transit needs responses, reasonableness of estimated cost and ridership increases, compliance with fare revenue to operating cost ratio requirements, and justification for capital projects. 7B. FY 97/98 Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests. Overview That the Commission approve, pursuant to its existing Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Policy: 1) payment of $1,175/month for the period July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998 to the existing Riverside/Fullerton, Riverside/EI Segundo, and Moreno Valley/EI Segundo buspools, and one additional buspool upon receipt of a written request for subsidy support; and, 2) continuation of the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. 7C. San Bernardino Associated Governments FY 97/98 Commuter Assistance Program Contract. Overview Under contract with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), the Commission has implemented and managed a Commuter Assistance Program serving San Bernardino County residents and employers for the past four years. At the request of SANBAG, Commission and consultant staff developed a FY 97/98 workplan and budget for the continuation of the Program including Option Rideshare and Inland Empire Commuter Services. Staff seeks Commission approval to execute a contract with SANBAG for the FY 97/98 workplan and budget. 8. Adjournment. 00 0 0 MINUTES Ot t1004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 97-04 BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MAY 7, 1997 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairperson Jack van Haaster called the meeting of the Budget/Finance Committee to order at 12:30 p.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside, California 92501. Members Present Michael Barry Will Kleindienst Jack van Haaster 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. M/S/C to approve the meeting minutes of April 2,1997. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. There were no public comments. 4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS. 5A. UCR Audit Study. Dr. Eric Rolland, UCR Professor, presented a preliminary study of the auditing procedures used by the RCTC to the committee. He discussed the issues raised by recipients which brought about the this proactive study of the procedures, and the methodology used for the study. Comparisons were made with other jurisdictions, and how their auditing procedures were handled. Dr. Roland then presented concerns raised by the jurisdictions and the possible solutions to these concerns. On the whole, most jurisdictions found the audit process satisfactory. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer, made the committee aware that the study is not complete but expects UCR to present a completed report to the Commission next week. M/S/C that the Committee refer the UCR Audit Study to the Commission for discussion, recommendation and possible action. a 5B. Recurring Contracts 1997/98 Proposed Budget. M/S/C that the Commission approve the submitted list of recurring contracts and authorize the Executive Director to execute contracts not to exceed the listed amount, and where applicable, subject to Legal Counsel review. Commissioner Barry voted no. 0t` 5C. Proposed FY 1997/98 Budget. Dean Martin highlighted revenue sources, major capitol projects for the upcoming budget year, and objectives added to the goals which were approved at the last meeting. Commissioner van Haaster requested that the budget figures include whether or not the project is on -target and justification for budgeting additional funds. Commissioner William Kleindiest requested that "regional passenger rail° be included in the budget text. M/S/C that the Commission review the budget, solicit public comments and continue the public hearing till June for final adoption. 5D. Resolution No. 97-08 Authorizing the Issuance of Sales Tax Revenue Senior and Junior Bonds. M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Approve Resolution No. 97-08 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds)1997 Series A, Authorizing the Issuance of Junior Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds)1997 Series B, and Other Matters Related Thereto; and, 2) authorize a reduction in the commercial papers facility from $75,875,000 to $51,500,500 once the commercial paper notes are refunded. 5E. Termination of City of Murrieta Loan Commitment. Commissioner Van Haaster requested a summation of this project and staff should show as a notation whether this was beneficial to both the City of Murrieta and the RCTC for Commission review. M/S/C that the Commission receive and file. 5F. Investment Report for Quarter Ending March 31, 1997. M/S/C that the Commission receive and file the Investment Report for the quarter ending March 31,1997. 5G. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports. M/S/C that the Commission receive and file the Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports. 5H. GFOA Distinguished Budget Award M/S/C that the Commission receive and file this report. 51. SCAG Overall Work Program Guidelines; Discussions with CVAG and WRCOG Rg/ated to FY 1997-98 Work Items. M/S/C that the Commission, subject to concurrence by CVAG and WRCOG, include funding from SCAG in RCTC's FY 1997-98 Budget for selected items. 6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. 6A. Update on Request from the City of Perris to Accelerate Improvements to State Route 74 Between 1-15 and 7th Street in the City of Perris. 0030 M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Approve the expenditure of Measure A funds to perform preliminary engineering and environmental analysis of a new East/West alignment of State Route 74 south. of the City of Perris, and; 2) Direct staff to investigate the status of existing consultants assigned to the Measure A State Route 74 projects and bring back recommendations on how best to proceed with these studies as either continuation of previous work or to issue a Request for Proposals and select a new team of consultants. 6B. Entering Agreement with the County of Riverside to Provide GIS Information to Support the State Route 79 Realignment Study in the Hemet/San Jacinto Area. M/S/C that the Commission authorize the RCTC Chair to enter into an agreement with the County of Riverside to provide GIS information that is required to perform the State Route 79 realignment studies and approve the requested annual fee of $15,000, subject to Legal Counsel review and approval. 6C. Amendment 5 to Agreement RO 91-01 with URS Greiner to Prepare Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) for the SR 91 Noise Watts. MUSIC that the Commission award Amendment 5 to URS Greiner's Contract RO 91-01 to perform utility coordination and right-of-way engineering for an amount of $87,622 for a new contract amount of $1,960,559. The extra work funds will remain at $78,688.40 and the new contract not exceed amount will be $2,039,247. A standard contract amendment will be used to execute Amendment 5. All other terms and conditions of the original agreement and previous amendments will remain in effect. 6D. Amendment to FY 1997-2001 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Blythe. M/S/C that the Commission approve the amendment to the FY 1997-2001 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Blythe as submitted. 7. RAIL. 7A. Metrolink Fiscal Year 1997/98 Preliminary Budget M/S/C that the Commission adopt the Metrolink FY 1997/98 Preliminary Budget and approve an RCTC budget allocation to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority in an amount not to exceed $3,650,000. 7B. Potential Dedication of RCTC Land in the City of Penis for a Bus/Rail Maintenance Facility The Commissioners questioned whether this dedication of land would take away from the Commission's matching sources. This item was forwarded to the full Commission for discussion without recommendation. 8. TRANSIT/RIDESHAREBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN. 8A. FY 1998 Measure A Specialized Transit Program for the Western Riverside County., 000007 M/S/C that the Commission extend the length of the existing contracts with the non-profit providers by 90 days and provide a three-month allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit funds based on FY 97 allocation levels. 8B. Medtrans Services — Request to Retain Non -Expended Allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit Funds. M/S/C that the Commission approve Meditrans Services retaining its balance of FY 1996 allocated Measure A Specialized Transit Funds totaling $6,981 for use in the purchase of a new agency phone system, with any balance remaining after the capital purchase being used for operating assistance. 8C. FY 1993-94 SB 821 Program Extension for the County of Riverside. M/S/C that the Commission grant the County of Riverside a twelve-month extension to June 30,1998 to complete the FY 1993-94 SB 821 Santa Ana River Bikeway Phase IIIB Project as requested. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Budget/Finance Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 0 � �c�n0.4.01 Z. 6\ty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission i 000008 AGENDA ITEM 5A OU009 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 4, 1997 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Proposed FY 1997/98 Budget Staff hereby presents to the Commission the Proposed FY 1997/98 Budget. The Commission's administrative code requires a public hearing prior to adoption of the budget. The code further requires that a budget must be adopted no later than June 15th. The public hearing was appropriately noticed and the hearing held on May 14, 1997. The June 1 1 th meeting will be a continuation of that public hearing. Staff has made some changes to the Budget from the draft that was presented in May. Significant changes, with the exception of graphics(with some added and others updated) have been highlighted in bold type or deleted by strikeout. For those intimidated by the size of the budget, I would suggest focusing on the Executive Summary. A few simple changes have been made to the Executive Summary which staff believes makes it a more user friendly section of the Budget. The remainder of the budget document will provide a greater level of detail for the more ambitious. Financial Assessment Project Cost Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Included in Program Budget Approved Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable See attached Year Programmed Year of Allocation Year • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the Proposed 1997/98 Budget. Attachment 000010 AGENDA ITEM 56 ©V• 01 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 4, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: UCR Audit Study . Staff approached the Commission in March with concerns of some funding recipients that the Commission's audits are disruptive, duplicative, and expensive. Although not yet formally contacted by any agency, staff decided to be proactive recognizing that there might be legitimate issues that warranted a closer look. Staff agreed to study the issue and return in sixty days with a response. To complete the study, staff felt it best that an independent consultant be engaged. To that end, UC Riverside was contacted for assistance. Eric Rollands, PH.D, an Assistant Professor at UCR, made a presentation to the Committee last month. At that time, the study was not completely finished. Dr. Rollands will present the completed study to the Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission discuss the audit study findings and recommendations and take possible action. Attachment 00 I1111G. , ,..,a.JY I11Y1 Evaluating Auditing Processes at Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California A Report Prepared by: Helen Park, MBA Cand. Jim Merino, PhD. Erik Rolland, PhD. The A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management University of California Riverside, CA 92521 (909) 787-6448 June 2, 1997 r/Orri. Glirt rtuuail4 i0:./acn rteoyort udle. 0/4/b/ IitI t IAy.J4"NI I. Introduction and Overview Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is engaged in annual allocations of state money and voter -approved sales tax funds to various local jurisdictions and not -for -profit agencies in Riverside County. The use of state funds within these agencies ("recipients") must be audited annually. This report consists of seven parts apart from the introduction: a statement of the problem, our solution methodology, a discussion of RCTC's issues and requirements, a survey of best practices, the results and analysis of a survey of local funding recipients, and our conclusion and recommendations. This report concludes with two appendices summarizing the results of our interviews with transportation commissions in other counties in California and with local funding recipients. II. Problem Statement There are several types of funds that are allocated to recipients annually: TDA, planning, local streets and roads, bicycle and pedestrian, transit funds, and infrastructure improvement funds (Measure A money). The recipients of these funds are audited with respect to performance every three years. These performance audits are initiated and controlled by the RCTC (as mandated by law). All recipients must also be audited for fiscal purposes annually. Currently, RCTC initiates, controls, and funds this fiscal audit. The fiscal audit is currently performed by Ernst & Young, at a cost to RCTC of about $210,000. For many of the recipients, this annual audit is performed within the recipient agencies in addition to the recipients' general annual audit. Some concerns have been voiced from the recipients regarding the RCTC audit, where the recipients are primarily interested in finding new and less disruptive/costly ways of performing the required RCTC audit. For a few of the recipients, the fiscal audit performed by RCTC is the only audit performed. However, some of these recipients have expressed strong desires to control the fiscal audit themselves. Since the fiscal audit is currently controlled by the RCTC, the RCTC feels that they are in a good position to oversee compliance and financial situations at the recipient organizations. The audit is also used by the RCTC to allocate resources to the recipients for the following fiscal year. By giving up control over the fiscal audits, RCTC feels that they may lose control over issues related to compliance, as well as lose insight into the funding needs of the recipients. It is undesirable for the RCTC that the recipients take over control of these audits. In response to the complaints raised by some of the funding recipients, the RCTC wishes to evaluate current audit procedures. These complainants feel that the audits are unnecessarily disruptive and involve a duplication of effort with their own audits. They also feel that having a separate audit is indicative of a lack of trust on the part of the RCTC. Some recipients have also expressed their concerns about the high costs of the current audit procedures. 2 i ,.iu I. uin Rvuai iv i u. Faun i\cuya�i �i.Oa.Jr 11v. r �yc III. Methodology To better assess the RCTC's current audit procedures, and to collect the information necessary to formulate any recommended improvements to these procedures, we have decided on a three part approach to this problem. First, we discussed audit issues and requirements of fiscal control and completeness of audit information with the RCTC. Second, we conducted a best practices survey by interviewing other counties and transportation agencies in the state of California about their audit procedures. Third, we interviewed the local funding recipients. We attempted to ascertain: 1) How widespread are the complaints? 2) What are the real issues behind these complaints? IV. Issues at RCTC The RCTC performs an annual fiscal audit for all of their funding recipients. Certain requirements need to be met by these audits, whatever procedure is used. These requirements include fiscal control, accountability, and completeness of information. For some of the recipients, the RCTC audit is used in allocating funds: for these recipients, the requirements assume particular importance. Given that these requirements are met, the RCTC wants to be fair, efficient, and spend tax money as wisely as possible. Any change in the audit procedure must address these issues. The RCTC's current audit procedures meet the requirements for control and accountability. It has several pros and cons: Pros: 1) Good control. 2) Possible economies of scale, since all audits are performed by the same firm. 3) Uniformity of audit reports/procedures. Cons: 1) Possible high costs. 2) Ex--tra or duplicate effort for the recipients. The RCTC also wants to assess the value of the internal audit it performs on funding recipients. An RCTC employee is detailed to work with the recipients throughout the year, collecting financial information. The intent that this information will facilitate the audit process for the independent auditor (Ernst & Young). The Commission thinks that this internal audit is unnecessary, but wants an outside opinion regarding this matter. 3 I..1.1.. gun 1w11a.15.. r V. Best Practices This section attempts to establish "best practices" of audit schemes among other California Transportation Commissions, as well as from other governmental agencies that are bound by regulations similar to those of the RCTC. The following table summarizes our findings: From this table, we identify four different audit schemes: Table 1. County Agency Audit Schemes A®ari(s astet' Fiscal Audit Typedilark Allorded #dicdpiats CoiUAxipe t CwtyAuils Special Finis Accepts Redpents'Aidt &leas Cities fa- A rit Given to Gouaty 1 Rs'IC" $21Q000 TA Wit, Msas reA 37+oirrrisim $5,676 X 2IAMIL* $25g00o ma, Trarit .- $2,841 X 3 CCTA* $141000 Ttanipation Road, MaaaaeM 31-Carty $4,375 X 4 SECAG S34230 T1A MaareD 19 $1,E05 X S Kentnai $5$000TDA 14 $4,143 X 6 San Mtn°CA* S30,02041003Trarit MasueA 1(CAitself) NA X 7 Remo CCG 537,00033;000T ek. 18 $1,778.1,833 X 8 San BAG SS2,000 '1IIL\ Tragt MeasueI »aunty g2,733 X 9 Alarreda CFA $14C00 /Amore B 14- Carty $1,067 X 10 San DACE $16Q000 TDA $gxstiatA 60 $? 657 X 11 C—nra ae aCTA $3Q000 1134, MaistreG Tlr_A 18+C_arty $1,579 X * These agencies operate their own transit systems. 1) The most common practice is similar to RCTC's: the County Transportation Commission audits its recipients. 2) Alameda County Transportation Agency accepts its recipients' audits. 3) Orange County Transportation Agency also accepts its recipients' audits and in addition, randomly selects a few cities each year for a more detailed audit. 4) The recipients in Contra Costa County provide audit reports to the Contra Costa Transportation Agency. San Mateo County, Orange County and LA County are unusual in that they operate the transit systems themselves. Thus, there is no division between the county agency and the funding recipients. ` A direct comparison among the counties of their audit costs is difficult since local requirements vary so widely. Even so, the RCTC's audit costs seem to be quite high. However, this may be due to the fact that these are smaller agencies and have fewer recipients to audit than the RCTC. Unlike some of the RCTC's recipients, the recipients 4 vvvr, rwcyau UGIC. t%/Tl �rl I, SIC. I I.�p,JY NVI royo .. �, ,_ of other counties in California find it convenient to have the county audit their special funds. In fact, one county expressed its good working relationship with their recipients in that they act as a liaison between the cities and the state. Furthermore, these agencies believe that their recipients have no reason to complain since the special audits are paid for by the county. Since they have not received any criticisms about their audit program from their recipients, they have not considered changing the current audit system. Many indicated that they would consider making revisions to their audit procedures if it would improve the system for the cities as well as the county. For instance, some counties are willing to accept the recipients' audit if it includes specific information that is needed by the county to adequately assess the use of the funds that they distribute. VI. Results and Analysis As a result of our interviews with the local funding recipients, we found that there were very few cities or operators with any complaints. However, those who did complain brought up some valid issues and among those complaining are some of the largest funding recipients. The issues raised fall into three categories: personal, geographical, and more fundamental questioning of the audit process and intra-organizational designs/relations. Personal issues: 1) Lack of trust. Some recipients feel that the audits, as currently structured, are "imposed" on them and indicate that the RCTC views them as either untrustworthy or unable to exercise appropriate fiscal control. 2) Lack of communication. In addition to a perceived lack of trust, some recipients also feel that insufficient communication with the RCTC and Ernst & Young exacerbates the difficulties they have with fiscal audits. 3) Who chooses the audit firm? Perhaps a better statement of this issue is: Who is the "customer" of this audit process? Is it the RCTC or the recipient? Geographical issues: 1) Smaller recipients seem to consistently get inexperienced auditors. They feel that Ernst & Young uses them as a training ground for novice auditors. 2) The Desert Area seems to have a feeling of being less important when compared to the Western County Area. More fundamental issues: I) Too much of recipients' time spent dealing with audits and related tasks. It is burdensome for these recipients to assist the auditors in finding things such as receipts and expenditures, as well as canceled checks. 2) Common question: Why can't recipients submit their own audits, provided that all required information is given to the RCTC? Recipients are willing to pay for a portion of this combined audit. This might save the RCTC money and the recipients time and trouble. 5 .1, ttJuail� 1.�. �o�n ttc�yoit VGIC. U/4.Ji 11f (4e. 11..7.7.J4 "4, rage o 1 e i i VII. Conclusion Based on our findings, we have come to the following conclusions: Personal and geographical issues could be easily resolved by the RCTC, with minimal cost. This can be accomplished by improving communications between the RCTC and the funding recipients and by establishing procedures in a manner that will resolve personal and political issues at an early stage. Some other issues that deserve farther examination are the cost of the RCTC audits and possible improvements to the structure of the audit. While the audit costs of the various counties are not directly comparable, the RCTC's audit costs are too expensive. V III. Recommendations We have come up with the following recommended actions to address the issues raised by the RCTC and the recipients. 1) Bring recipients into the process to the extent that they are direct customers of the auditing firm. This may help alleviate problems associated with inexperienced audit teams, and also allow the recipients to communicate more effectively with the auditors. This may also help ensure that any complaints recipients might have are taken more seriously. 2) Recipients should be involved at an early stage of the request for proposal. This will improve communications between the RCTC and the recipients. Allowing recipients timely input into the process will address issues concerning the scope and consistency of the audit. 3) Recipients should be given the option to make the RCTC's audit an "add on" to their own audit, provided the RCTC's requirements are met, or they can keep the audit procedures as is. This choice would not be made every year: for example, every three or five years. Recipients who complained about high costs and duplication of effort would presumably choose the "add on" option, eliminating this duplication and at the same time, reduce costs for the RCTC. If the RCTC desires, they can randomly select a few recipients from those combining their audits each year to confirm the audits' validity. This procedure is similar to that of the Orange County Transportation Authority. • The RCTC has stated that this recommendation is feasible provided that the following three requirements are met. • 1) RCTC needs access to the audit process (work papers, etc.). • 2) The management letter process should be open to the RCTC. • 3) They provide a list of qualified audit firms, from which the recipients can select. 6 I vuI. �wua11.. I V...a..n ncc.ya.� ..a.c..., u1 � �..+...w IBC. rayc u We have somewhat diverging information regarding the current nature and scope of the internal audit. If the main purpose of this audit is to prepare material to assist in the annual fiscal audit, we believe that the internal audit is unnecessary, superfluous, and should be eliminated. However, it should be noted that the current internal audit function could be converted into a customer relations function. Under this scenario, there would be no internal audit, but rather the role of this person would be one of a liaison between the RCTC and its recipients. This person could also be assisting the recipients in any matter related to the fiscal audits. 7 rron"i: aril< MOuarla i0: .,acK rceayan trace: Ji tii�r nfr�o: I.Oq:Jy Nvl r uyc a ‘..11 is Appendix A. Interviews with other California Transportation Commissions Table 2. County Agency Contacts %Al I 7WI nowt iMuua• 1 SaIIhern Califrda o - •. A-sodatiat ofGovmmats (213) 236-1800 .-.w........•••... Ricardo Olivarez ....G Principal in Finance MUSK AMMO' (213) 236.1865 2 Los Angeles Mdrapditan Ttanspatatim Canmmm 5213) 922.2000 TerryMat9tmato CFO (213) 922.2473 3 San Bernardino Assort anal of Governments (909) 884.8276 Susan Van-Ncte CFO (909) 8E4.8276 X124 4 Sal Diego AmoaatimofGovernments (619)595-5300 And'eD atdzjian CFO (619) 595-5389 5 Crange Camty Ttanspatatim Aitharity (714) 5606282 Bob Duffy Internal kicker (714) 560.5669 6 Ventura TtanspatatimCmmissim (805)654-2888 Barter aLcpez Chid Deputy Andtar (805)654.3191 7 Santa Barbara Amodatim ofGovemmatts (805) 568.2546 lambency Sdtade Accounting Officer (805) 568.3218 8 Kern Ccundl ofGove nments (805) 861.2191 Darrel Iiildetrand Administrative Officer (805) 861.2191 9 San Francisco Camty Ttansportatim Arahcrity (415) 5576850 Pamela Y. Granger Direttcr of Mgt &Finance (415) 5576850 10 San Mateo Ccunty• ranspatatim Authrity (415) 5086219 Keith Meyers Anita (415) 5086212 11 .Alameda Cmnty Transpatafim Arffirity (510) 893-3347 George Fang Administrative & Finance Mgr. (510) 893-3347 12 Cmtra Costa CountyIlmspottatim Authrity (510) 938.3987 Jeff Davis CFO 510 256-4725 X125 13 Santa Clara Valley TtanspataticnAuthority (408)321.2300 Steve Blum Mgr. dIinmdal Aabtmtirg (408) 321.5634 14Fremo Council ofGovernments (209)442-0515 LesVeshears DiratrofFinance (209)233-4148 15 Sacramento Council of Govmunmts (916) 457-2264 Bufrd Shupe CFO (916) 457- 64 8 1-1ul�i. gun f�uac�w i... ..can n ;.ynu 1) Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Commission • Annual fiscal audit made by Coopers & Lybrand LLP * Cost of annual fiscal audit: $250,000 per year • MTC allocates Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to the cities in Los Angeles County * Number of recipients: 88 cities (municipalities) of which 16 are transit operators. * MTC conducts a performance audit for each of the TDA recipients to establish compliance with local ordinances. * Budget allocation is determined generally by population. 2) Southern California Association of Governments • SCAG's primary source of funding comes from federal grants. SCAG determines the use of these funds in a manner which they find the most appropriate. Since SCAG has no legal obligation/ relationship with the county, they are not required by law to issue funds to the county. However, they do contract with sub -recipients whereby the public entities (sub - recipients) are given specific requirements for the use of these funds. 3) Orange County Transportation Authority • Annual fiscal audit made by Ernst & Young LLP (Riverside Office) * Ernst & Young audits for Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Orange County Transportation District (OCTD). Six cities are selected at random to verify that each of these cities meet the requirements and are in compliance with local ordinances. * Cost of annual fiscal audit: $140,000 per year (Measure M included) - this audit is for the OCTA. * Cost of Measure M audit: $34,000 per year * Ten cities are randomly selected for audit. (The cities already audited by Ernst & Young are eliminated from this selection process.) This audit procedure was implemented 4 years ago. * Number of recipients: 31 cities plus County of Orange. (15% of transportation and road money are allocated to the cities.) * Measure M applies to freeway reconstruction, transit ways, and urban rail systems. * Local accounting firm of Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio, and Associates audits Measure M recipients. • Single Audit Act 9 rrom. cnK rc.mano rce>gan L.)aie: 0/4/d i ale. I1:Oy:34 Nlvi rayc * If funds are covered under the Single Audit Act and are of significant amount, OCTA will accept the recipients' audit. In this case, the cities will contract with independent CPAs (no in-house audits are accepted.) * Measure M is a local fund and therefore the Single Audit Act does not apply. • Additional comments * Although audits are burdensome, recipients have not complained about the county's audit. Complaints may arise if they discover a finding. In general, there are no problems with current audit procedures. 4) Santa Barbara Association of Governments • SBAG is a state special district separate from the county. • SBAG recently renewed contract with Nasis, Hicks, Harris, and Co. * Nasis, Hicks, Harris, and Co. does fiscal and compliance audits for Measure D recipients. • Measure D- local sales tax revenue. (The voters approved the increase in the amount of sales tax revenue for Measure D.) • Number of recipients: * Measure D: 8 recipients * TDA funds: 11 claimants • Cost of fiscal audit: * General purpose audit: $16,905 * Measure D audit: $4710 * TDA audit: $12,675 * Total: $34,290 • Single Audit Act (applies to federal funds only): * Requirement that if an agency receives federal funds ($300,000 or more), general procedures are taken to see if that agency is in compliance with federal statutes. * Single Audit is more detailed to determine exactly how the federal funds are used. * General Requirements: * Not allowed to spend on political activities * Drug -free workplace * Reports on compliance * Certain civil rights procedure (i.e., if money is received for construction activities then the Davis Bacon Act applies. Under the Davis Bacon Act, fair wages must be paid to the construction workers.) • Additional comments: SBAG would consider accepting the recipients' audit if their audits cover all the required information. 10 rrorn. criK RGuanG I G. JaI.K Reagan ua[e: CIPTi i ume: 11 :oy:o4 rvvi rays I. 57 Kern Council of Governments • Fiscal and compliance audit made by Brown, Armstrong, Randall, and Reyes. (COG signs a contract with independent accounting firm about every five years.) • Brown, Armstrong, Randall, and Reyes also audits TDA fund recipients. • Number of recipients: • 11 cities • 1 county • 2 special districts (These special districts subcontract with other cities. The county audits these cities in addition to the 14 other recipients.) • Cost of fiscal audit: $58,000 per year (includes COG audit) • Single Audit Act: * Passed in the mid 1980s * Applies to cities' general purpose audit * TDA funds ( 1/4 of 1 cent of sales tax) -Since this is a local fund, the Single Audit Act does not apply. 6) San Mateo County Transportation Authority • Annual fiscal audit made Deloitte and Touche LLP. * Cost of fiscal audit: $30,000-$40,000 per year • Sales tax fund: * V2 of 1 cent of sales tax- transit * Measure A- road and railway • There are two transit systems in San Mateo County * The county has a monopoly over the transit system in that they operate both systems. (TDA funds, 1/2 of 1 cent of sales tax, go directly to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority whereby the cities do not receive any TDA funds. The cities do however receive Measure A funds.) • Cities receive funding from the State Board of Equalization • County receives: * Federal funds * State funds * Local sales tax funds * Fare box (money collected from the buses.) 7) Fresno Council of Governments • Annual fiscal audit made by Brown, Armstrong, Randall, and Reyes. * Cost of fiscal audit: $32,000-$33,000 per year (includes transit audit and general purpose audit.) 11 I. urn iwnai i... n..n Acnyau IG. . i.J.9.JR MW1 rage I VI Io • TDA funds are allocated to the cities and counties of Fresno. • Number of recipients: 18 total * 2 urban transit operators * 1 rural transit operator (transit for 15 small cities) * 1 social service transportation • Non -transit funds are consolidated into 1 audit (audit made by Brown, Armstrong, Randall, and Reyes) • Transit operators: * Brown, Armstrong, Randall, and Reyes audits two of these transit operators. * The other two transit operators contract with their own independent accounting firms. • Additional comments: * If the auditors discover a finding, the Fresno Council of Governments act as a liaison between the city and the state. Whenever possible, they backtrack to find the missing invoices so that it does not show up in the final report to the state. For this reason, the cities generally find it convenient for the county to audit them. 8) San Bernardino Association of Governments • McGladrey & Pullen responsible for general purpose audit, single audit, state transit fund audit, and local transportation fund audit. • :Meyers and Meyers has jurisdictions over Measure I compliance. • San BAG administers the disbursement of transit funds and Measure I funds. * Measure I: * Point of generation (transaction tax of purchase) * For example, if a resident of San Bernardino purchases a car in Los Angeles, the sales tax stays in LA and the transaction tax goes to San Bernardino.) * Population • Number of recipients: 29 cities and the county itself • Cost of fiscal audit: San BAG- $29,000 Recipients- Valley communities: 32,000 Mountain and Desert communities: 21,000 Total: $82,000 12 it �11l uual..aun i><aya(1 •Ja.G. WYlra9G iY vI �.. 9) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority • State special district (separate from the county as of January 1, 1995) • Fiscal audit made by Peat Marwick LLP. * Cost of fiscal audit: $70,000 per year. 10) Alameda County Transportation Authority • Annual fiscal audit made by Deloitte & Touche LLP. * ACTA has been using the services of Deloitte & Touche since the inception of the program. However, they will be implementing a request for proposal (RFP-a bid for contract) this year. * Cost of fiscal audit: $16,000 per year • Measure B * 1/2 of 1 cent of sales tax * This is a 15 year program which will expire in 2002. • ACTA allocates transit funds and Measure B funds to the cities * Number of recipients: 14 cities and the county itself * ACTA contracts with recipients stipulating requirements for use of these funds. Therefore, ACTA accepts the recipients' audits. Recipients contract with independent accounting firms and the auditors' letters to ACTA address appropriate use of these funds. A copy of the recipients' audits is sent to the county by December 31 (6 months after closing). There are no penalties imposed on late audits. • The county does NOT engage in performance audits. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) conducts performance audits for recipients of the TDA funds. However, this performance audit is NOT on behalf of the county. 11) San Diego Association of Governments • Annual fiscal audits made by a joint effort of two accounting firms: * Coopers & Lybrand * Calderon, Jaham, and Osborne • Cost of fiscal audit: $160,000 per year (60 audits) • Proposition A or Transnet: 1/2 of 1 cent of sales tax • TDA: 1/4% of gas tax • Number of recipients of Proposition A and TDA funds: * 25 Proposition A * 25 TDA * 10 San DAG • Recipients contract with independent accounting firms to perform their general purpose audits. 13 rl.Ju1. Gln nuuGiw Iv. vti6,1% f\Gayol• VGLG. O/Y/J/ III11G. 1 i.1J.`lY /1V1 • Additional comments: This audit procedure has been used for the past 7 years. So far, there has not been any problems. 12) Contra Costa County Transportation Authority • The county receives state fund known as the TFCA (Transportation For Clean Air) and allocates 95% of this fund to the various cities within Contra Costa County. All the recipients (including the county) of this fund are subject to audit by Air Quality District. • Measure C: 1/2 of 1 cent of sales tax (18% goes to the cities) • TDA funds: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) allocates these funds. • Number of TFCA and Measure C recipients: 18 cities and the county itself * The county does not audit these recipients. Rather, they simply ask for a report (generated by the city finance director) stating the use of these funds. • Road projects: * City project --> city audits (external auditors) * County project ---> county transportation authority audits • Contra Costa County Transportation Authority has been asked by Caltrans and the county to perform their audit. Other cities contract with independent accounting firms. • Cost of annual fiscal audit: $30,000 per year (includes general purpose audit and Single Audit for the CTA) 14 IN nuuau,. Iu. ..uun Zoaym� �JGIE. 01 t. :i I Ii1lC. I (.�.Y.JY rv✓, rat9= 10 u� iJ Appendix B. Interviews with RCTC funds recipients 1) Banning • The city of Banning had no problems with RCTC fiscal audits, and had no issues to raise concerning them. She singled out Ernst and Young for praise since they have gone out of their way to make the audits as non -disruptive as possible. The same person has done the audits for the past few years, and this auditor has developed a good working relationship with city officials. 2) Calhnesa. • The Calimesa audits have been conducted by inexperienced personnel, and that this caused problems (disruption, taking up too much of officials' time). More than a one-time occurrence, she had to deal with novice auditors fairly regularly. She also suggested that maybe RCTC could combine their audit with the normal city audit. 3) Corona • The city of Corona had nothing but praise for the local office of Ernst and Young. He felt that city officials had a good working relation with the accountants, and that the auditors put some effort into planning the audit so as to minimize any costs to the city. A former auditor himself, Mr Kankel said that he would have been critical of any problems had they arisen. 4) Coachella • The City of Coachella has an interim finance director. RCTC has not been there during the past three months that she has been there. Since she has not been exposed to the RCTC audit, no comments can be made at this time. 5) CVAG • Problems: - Having two audits per year is very disruptive. - Measure A audits are very costly for the RCTC. - Lack of communication and trust with the RCTC. • CVAG's Recommendations: RCTC should contract with Ernst & Young to develop program specific audits to be incorporated with the annual fiscal audit. If implemented, CVAG could give the program specific audit reports to RCTC. This will not only reduce the high costs of Measure A audits for RCTC, but it will also lessen the disruptions caused by audits. 15 rwualeu a r,coyoi� r�yc 6) Desert Hot Springs • Currently the City of Hot Desert Springs is not receiving any funds from RCTC. However, they are audited for the funds that are remaining. They feel that the audit takes too long considering the fact that they are auditing such a small amount. 7) Indian Wells • They want auditors who are experienced since they will be more familiar with the audit procedures. The audits done by RCTC are too detailed: "They want to audit every penny!" • Recommendations: The scope of the audit needs to be determined more clearly by RCTC. RCTC should take into consideration the materiality level. Perhaps a five year review rather than an annual audit should be made for immaterial amounts. For instance, the City of Indian Wells is audited for the $6000 that they receive. This amount is relatively small when compared to other cities. They find that the audit is merely a waste of time and money for RCTC. She again stressed that first-time auditors cause tension and frustration for all members involved in the audit procedure. 8) Moreno Valley • The interim finance director has only been on the job for three months, but is not aware that RCTC fiscal audits have been a problem. He hadn't heard of any issues concerning these audits being raised by his colleagues. 9) Murrieta • Murrieta had no problems with the RCTC fiscal audits, and thought the procedures were fair. 10) Palm Springs • Current audit system is an improvement from two years ago. • Problem: Ernst & Young sent the City of Palm Springs an auditor who was a recent college graduate. Since he was inexperienced with the audit procedures, he needed help with everything. It was very hard to get any work done due to him continually asking so many questions. In general, audits are at an acceptable level and have become somewhat routine. Although audits cause some disruptions, they have been built into the system. 16 1 1- .uailu I�.. UatC. O/YIJ/ �i�llc. I.JJ.JY N41 11) Rancho Mirage • RCTC's audit is very extensive. Although the audit takes only one or two days to complete, it is very laborious for them to assist the auditors in finding receipts and expenditures, as well as canceled checks. • Recommendation: Extend the city's audit to include information required by RCTC. Since adding a program to the city's current audit will result in extra fees, they suggest that RCTC simply pay for these charges. This will not only save the city time, but it will also save RCTC money. 12) Riverside (City) • Riverside City had no serious problems to report concerning fiscal audits. She mentioned that in June of 1995 Ernst and Young sent an inexperienced team, which led to difficulties, but last year the audit team was more experienced. She thought the general audit procedure was reasonable. 13) RTA • The RTA Board is not happy about the current audit procedures because they are unable to choose the auditors themselves. Involving RTA in the selection process of auditors during the request for proposal will not resolve the problems RTA is having. • Reasons: * Audits should be done by the auditors chosen by RTA, otherwise it will result in complications. * RTA is unable to effectively communicate with the auditors hired by the RCTC. RTA feels that they would have better communications with their own auditors. * The bottom line: Auditors respond to the people who are paying them. * The current audit guidelines lack consistency. Many changes have been made over the past seven years. Therefore, Ernst & Young audits different things every year. • RTA's Recommendations: Determining the scope of work will facilitate the audit process. Allowing RTA to choose their own auditors will enhance the quality of the audit as well as lead to better communications between the agency and the auditors. 14) Sunline Transit Agency 17 ray. c • Sunline has been in operation for 20 years. Their transit system covers all of the cities in Coachella Valley. Recently, they opened another division in Indio. In terms of their fiscal audit, they have not experienced any problems. In fact, they find the auditors from Ernst & Young very helpful since they handle the entire audit. They spoke of the auditors from Ernst & Young very highly. Sunline commented that RTA is unsatisfied with the current system solely because they do not have any control over the audit. Sunline suggested that we talk to RTA if we are interested in hearing about problems regarding the current audit procedures. 18 ATTENDANCE ROSTER NAME BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, June 4, 1997 tJ r Or �a L- � 63ec�L REPRESENTING 54/L1A� 04/4101 I 1(4,6 0/4t, C--177 r7 /" C1�i'� CAS TELEPHONE ?4 -d ff.5-0 P-3.1,9-7Za27 7G o i.vuauu iv. ....��. �...e.yn.• FACSIMILE COVER PAGE va.,. v,-f..., it I ic. i.au.J.r rvv, ray, To : Jack Reagan Sent : 6/4/97 at 11:59:20 AM Subject : Report on Audit Procedures From : Erik Rolland Pages : 19 (including Cover) Dear Mr. Reagan: Enclosed please find the latest copy of the report on the audit procedures at RCTC. The report may change slightly before the meeting tomorrow (Wednesday). Best regards, Erik Rolland AGENDA ITEM 5C 6 00a91 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 4, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Measure A Loan to City of Perris The Commission in 1992 adopted a set of guidelines which would allow local jurisdictions under certain conditions to obtain loans from the Commission to accelerate the construction of local streets and roads. The guidelines require that the jurisdiction be solvent, in compliance with Measure a policies, any publicly issued debt be investment grade, and that revenues generated be equal to twice the level of debt service. Under the provisions of those guidelines the City of Perris appears to qualify for a loan from the Commission. Attached is a request from the City for a loan of $1,900,000. Representative(s) from the City will be present to discuss the planned purpose for the loan proceeds. Staff anticipates using the Commission's standard advance agreement. Legal Counsel is in the process of drafting those agreements. The agreement will require monthly principal and interest payments and will be mature in 2009, the end of the current Measure A. Project Cost ' Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Included in Program Budget Approved Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable $1,900,000 (Annual administrative fees inicuded in the Commission's administrative overhead). Commercial Paper (taken out with subordinate bonds if and when issued). Y N/A No Included in Proposed 1997/98 Budget Year Programmed Year of Allocation Year 003014 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the City of Perris loan request for $1,900,000 and authorize staff to negotiate the details of the agreement with the City, subject to Legal Counsel and final Commission review. Attachment 000015 Habib M. Motlagh City Engineer Mr. Dean Martin Cheif Financial Officer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave., Ste. 100 Riverside, Ca 92501 Re: Measure "A" P8-000 P8-265 March 11, 1997 The City Council at their regular meeting of March 10, 1997 approved and authorized the joint financing proposal as indicated in your memo dated January 31, 1997. Please Call me if you need additional information. Habib Motlagh City Engineer c: City Manager 00_301b 03422:- CITY OT PERRIS TEL: (909) 943-6504 Habib M. Motlagh City Engineer M E M O R A N D II M TO: Dean Martin R.C.T.C. FROM: Habib Motlaghk.' City of Perris DATE: March 17, 1997 SUBJECT: Measure "A" Financing (P8-000, P8-265) Attached please find the original minute order of Council's action regarding the above project. We have previously submitted a letter requesting joint financing. Please call if you require additional information. MARCH 1997. CITY OF PERRIS OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS CITY OF PERRIS ) I, MELISSA MORALES, DEPUTY CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF PERRIS, HEREBY CERTIFY THE ATTACHED TO BE A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF A PORTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PERRIS HELD 10 MARCH 1997. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF PERRIS THIS 13TH DAY OF DEPUTY CITY CLERK 11. D. M/S/C (TORRES/DENNEY) to approve staff's recom- mendation to authorize staff to work with RCTC to initiate joint financing and to agendize approval of the necessary documents and agreements at a future City Council Meeting. Ayes: Torres, Denney, Yarbrough and Landers Noes: None Absent: Long F 6 �0; AGENDA ITEM 5D 0000/J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 4, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Measure A Loan to City of San Jacinto The Commission in 1992 adopted a set of guidelines which would allow local jurisdictions under certain conditions to obtain loans from the Commission to accelerate the construction of local streets and roads. The guidelines require that the jurisdiction be solvent, in compliance with Measure A policies, any publicly issued debt be investment grade, and that revenues generated be equal to twice the level of debt service. Under the provisions of those guidelines the City of San Jacinto appears to qualify for a loan from the Commission. Attached is a request from the City for a loan of $1,300,000. Representative(s) from the City will be present to discuss the planned purpose for the loan proceeds. Staff anticipates using the Commission's standard advance agreement. Legal Counsel is in the process of drafting those agreements. The agreement will require monthly principal and interest payments and will be mature in 2009, the end of the current Measure A. Financial Assessment Project Cost $1,300,000(Annual administrative fees inlcuded in the Commission's administrative overhead) Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Commercial Paper(taken out with subordinate bonds if and when issued). Y Included in Program Budget N/A Included in Proposed 1997/98 Budget Approved Allocation Year Year Programmed Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required No Financial Impact Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the City of San Jacinto loan request for $1,300,000 and authorize staff to negotiate the details of the agreement with the City, subject to Legal Counsel and final Commission review. e 00'0� 034103 S A_ _N JACINTO Finance Department March 5, 1997 Mr. Dean Martin, Chief .Financial Officer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue - Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 . 1 7 : ft C_ Re: Measure "A" Loan Dear Mr. Martin, Pursuant to your letter dated January 31, 1997, and the follow up memo dated February 19, 1997, the City Council at their meeting of Tuesday, March 4, 1997 approved and authorized the Measure "A" Loan (see attached copy of minute order). We would appreciate being advised of the steps necessary to complete this project. Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Habiotlagh City Engineer City of San Jacinto • 312 Fast Main Street • San Jacinto, Califomia 92583 909/654-7337 • FAX 909/654-3728 Pnnted on Recycled Paper i 6 00 I, Pamela L. Lee, City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto, do hereby certify that the following is an excerpt of the draft minutes of the regular City Council meeting of March 4, 1997: .0 CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL A MOTION was made by Councilmember Smedley, seconded by Councilmember Cornett to approve the consent calendar, items 5.1 through 5.4, 5.6 through 5.7, and 5.10 through 5.11 as presented. Items 5.5, 5.8 and 5.9 were pulled for separate discussion and action. Motion carried on a 5-0 vote. 5.8 Measure "A" Loan Removed from consent calendar for separate discussion and action. 5.9 Ramona Expressway funding Re -Allocation - Measure A Funds Removed from consent calendar for separate discussion and action. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION: 5.8 Measure "A" Loan At the hour of 7:35 P.M. Councilmember Williams left Council Chambers. Councilmember Smedley wanted to bring up the ramifications of the staff recommendation. Did not feel the item should be on the consent calendar. Noted the issue involved a commitment of the City's share of Measure A funds for many years. Requested the City Engineer explain what the issue was. - City Engineer Motlagh advised that RCTC had offered small cities to join in the bonding of Measure A funds to implement street improvement projects. Noted the City could use those dollars, which would normally be received by the City monthly, to rehabilitate pavement throughout the City. The bonding would involve half of the funds ($1.3 million), for the next twelve years. The other half of the funds would continue to be received by the City for smaller projects. With favorable action, the funds would be received about July, 1997. Staff would bring back projects to add, delete or modify and proceed with construction. At the hour of 7:40 P.M. Councilmember Williams returned to Council Chambers. 1 di 023 Councilmember Smedley noted that the Measure A funds would run out in a few years and wanted to be sure the public understood that staff was talking about mortgaging half of the Measure A tax increment for the next twelve years in order to address street repairs now. Wanted future Councils to understand, when the funds were finally paid, the streets would probably be in disrepair again. City Engineer Motlagh noted that it would cost twice at much. to make repairs later and with this option the 'City would get more bang for the buck using dollars today. Mayor Conner noted it would be scary to use all the Rinds, which was why the County was only offering half of the funding in this fashion. That would leave the remaining half available for emergency situations. Voiced concern about meeting the deadline and noted he would like to review the Five Year Measure A Plan to make sure other priorities had not been overlooked. City Engineer Motlagh noted, if approved, staff would bring back a list of projects at a future date. A MOTION was made by Councilmember Smedley, seconded by Councilmember Williams, to authorize staff to negotiate with RCTC for the bond sale of approximately $1.3 million in Measure A Funds for 50% of the twelve year allocation. Motion carried on a 5-0 vote. 5.9 Ramona Expressway funding Re -Allocation - Measure A Funds Councilmember Smedley noted this was again a change in the commitment of City funds not yet received, and specifically matching funds for future completion of the Ramona Expressway Gap. The funds would be reapplied to other areas. If any other agency were to come up with funding, then the City would not have the matching funds. City Engineer Motlagh noted the City had received a $400,000 grant from the County for the Gap. The estimated cost was $2.6 million and the City's portion would be $1.8 million. Unless the City could match the funds the County has urged the grant be put into another project. Staff was recommending the funding be reallocated for the Mountain Avenue and Ramona Expressway rehabilitation or risk losing the funds to another agency project. The City would have to have RCTC staff support for the request and have the matter formally agendized. The request was supported by the City Transportation Committee. 2 0 0002 Mayor Conner noted that former County Supervisor Kay Ceniceros was sitting on the Transportation Committee. Suggested that Supervisor Veneable could pursue the issue again. Felt the $1.8 million cost of the project was not fair to place upon the City, forimproving a state highway. A MOTION was made by Councilmember Smedley, seconded by Councilmember Williams, to authorize reallocation of $400,000 Measure A Grant to pavement rehabilitation of the Ramona Expressway and Mountain Avenue, within City limits. Motion carried on a 5-0 vote. WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND AND SEAL this 10th day of March, 1997. 3 i t 0 0 /CI AGENDA ITEM 5E 000026 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 4, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial and Cost & Schedule Reports Attached are Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (Unaudited) and the Highway and rail projects quarterly budget report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 1997. Also, attached is the cost and schedule status of the Measure A Contracts. The contracts are segregated by Measure A Plan category and includes Highway, Rail and other Plans and Programs. The cost information includes Commission authorized funds to date, contractual commitments to date, current monthly expenditures, and total expenditures to date. The cost and schedule reports are through the month ending April 30, 1997 prepared by Bechtel Civil, Inc. Detailed supporting material for all contracts and Cooperative Agreements is available from Bechtel staff. Staff will be available at the meetings to answer any questions. Financial Assessment Project Cost Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Included in Program Budget Approved Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable X Year Programmed Year of Allocation Year STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file Attachments BUDGET-V�AL I UAL EXPENDITURES Administration: Salaries and benefits 764,425 1,129,114 364,689 • Professional services (Excludes General Legal) 450,291 511,610 68 /� General Legal services 83,855 61,319 ggy� Office lease 100,000 16,145 84% 171,167 208,830 37,663 82% Operations/Overhead expenses 332.086 630.450 298364 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 53.% Programs/Projects 1,801,824 2,580,004 778180 70Y• Salaries and benefits I'323,462 477,779 154,317 68% Professional services (Excludes General Letal) 242,975 536,460 293,485 General Legal services 546,284 663 45% Projects -General 546,284 1,663,500 117,216 82% Highway Engineering 581,563 53% Highway Construction 480,630 1,402,017 921,387 34% Highway Special Studies 9,840,790 14,325,616 4,484,826 69% Highway ROW 306,405 950,000 643,595 Rail Engineering 3,231,303 5,686,575 2,455,272 57 %• Rail Construction 80,137 223,000 142,863 36% Ralf ROW 21,467 135,000 113,533 610,988 1�90�1� 16Y• SCRRA Capital Contribution679,178 47% Comm46,544 62,059 15,515 75% Commuter assistance -Excludes SANBAG 459,085 1,156,065 696,980 • Regional Arterial 13,199,442 40165 913 40/• Special transp./transit(Includes SCRRA Rain 4,127 003 26,966,471 33% Streets & Roads 5,939,068 1,812,065 69% 16,395,019 21,852,698 5,457,679 75% Project Operations, Mdntenance & Towing 1,000,910 2,00'3,109 1,008,199 STA Disbursements 919511 SOy . TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS 1300.000 380,489 71% 52,497,818 99,422,450 46,924,632 53% Intergovernmental Dhtributions(WRCOG) 191,278 304,000 112,722 ' 63% Capital Outlay: 38,619 246,778 208,159 16Y• TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF TILE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FILb:97-3Qh For Nine Months Ending March 31,1997 28-May-97 09:45 AM REVENUES Remaining Percent Sales Tax Revenues -Measure A Mtn! Mat Balance Mutton Other Soles Tax Revenues 43,181,960 56,500,000 13,318,040 76% 4,165,609 5,369,425 1,203,816 Federal, State,Local (1 Other Governments Revenues 4,165,609 5,369,425 78% Other Revenues 3,850,692 56% Interest Income 961,086 2,876,881 1,915,795 33% �,� TOTAL REVENUES 5,309.479 6, 1.011.521 84% 58,442,989 79,742,852 21,299,863 73% REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Operating transfers ht (out) (25,963,959) (25,963,959) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES) AND REVENUES OVER(UNDER) EXPENDITURE (22,050,509) (48,774,339) Contingencies 2,500,000 8,362,332 FUND BALANCE -July 1,1996 125.196 281 125196.281 FUND BALANCE -March 31,1997 100,645,772 68:059,610 54 529.539 102.553.231 48.023.693 3,913,450 (22,810,380) (26,723,830) Debt Proceeds 0 51% -17% 28-May-97 OF TIIE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • Weston 09:45 AM For Nine Months Ending March 31, 1997 State Western County Western Eastern Transit Coachella County Commercial Combining Central SAFE / FSP County County Assistance Cont. Coati. Pager Total REVENUES Sales Tax Revenues -Measure A 1,525,500 0 30,202,036 11,454,425 0 0 0 0 43,181,960 Other Sales Tax Revenues 4,165,609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,165,609 Federa4 State,Local d Other Governments Revenues 31,274 599,244 304,641 0 891,483 0 41,770 2,956,443 4,824,854 Other Revenue 248,858 366,449 72,843 0 0 0 135,491 137,446 %1,086 Interest Income 130189 54135 486.716 592.695 41.702 3.021.437 909.482 70916 5309.479 TOTAL REVENUES 6,101,430 1,022,027 31,066,235 12,047,119 933,185 3,021,437 1,086,751 3,164,805 58,442,989 EXPENDITURES Administration: Salaries and benefits 677,765 86,660 764,425 Professional services(E:cludes General Legal) 440,108 10,183 0 0 0 0 0 0 450.291 General Legal services 80,180 3,675 0 83,855 Office lease 160,897 10,270 171.167 Operations/Overhead 307.779 24307 Q Q Q Q 332.4116 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 1,666,729 135,095 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,801,824 Programs/Projects Salaries and benefits 32,518 290,944 323,462 Professional services(Eicludes General Legal 139,472 41,309 59,893 2,300 242,975 General Legal servlees %,306 5,004 440,044 0 0 4,930 0 0 546,284 Projects -General 0 0 652,512 5,505 0 7,845 0 0 665,862 Highway Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 244,828 171,325 64,477 480,630 Highway Construction 0 0 0 .0 0 287,179 849,197 8,704,413 9,840,790 Highway Special Studies 0 201,007 105,398 0 0 0 0 0 306,405 Highway ROW 0 0 51,100 0 0 2,089,410 48,345 1,042,448 3,231,303 Rail Engineering 0 0 80,137 0 0 0 0 0 80,137 Rail Construction 0 0 21,467 0 0 0 0 0 21,467 Rail ROW 0 0 610,988 0 0 0 0 0 610,988 SCRRA Capital Contribution 46,544 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46,544 Commuter assistance -Excludes SANBAt3 405 1,353 457,327 0 0 0 0 0 459,085 Regional Arterial 0 0 0 143,712 0 13,055,730 0 0 13,199,442 Specialized Transp/Trens(Includes SCRRA Rail) 1,994,475 0 1,051,619 1,080,9039 0 0 0 0 4,127,003 Streets 8 Roads 0 0 12,038,575 4,356,445 0 0 0 0 16,3913,019 Project Maintenance, Operations S Towing 295,889 705,015 6 0 0 O 0 0 1,000,910 STA Disbursements Q Q Q Q 919.511 Q Q Q 41i.511 TOTAI PROGRA1WS/PROJECTS 2,605,610 953,688 15,860,011 5,586,571 919,511 15,692,222 1,068,868 9,811,338 52,497,818 L/F Disbursements 191,278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191,278 Capital Outlay 32,182 6,437 38,619 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 4,495,799 1,095,220 15,860,011 5,586,571 919,511 15,692,222 1,068,868 9,811,338 54,529,539 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Debt Proceeds 0 0 Operating transfers in (oat) (910,000) 0 (17,962,080) (8,094,011) 0 92,132 0 910,000 (25,963,959) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES) AND REVENUES OVER(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 695,631 (73,192) (2,755,856) (1,633,462) 13,674 (12,578,653) 17,883 (5,736,533) (22,050409) Contingencies 250,000 10,000 490,000 0 0 500,000 1,000,000 250,000 2,500,000 a FUND BALANCEJady 1,1996 v 4.292128 2325.167 18102.76Q 33386188 1.432.881 32.493.145 21.532.22Q ulna/ maim FUND BALANCE -March 31,1997 4,737,859 2,241,975 14,956,904 31,752,726 1,446,555 19,414,492 20450.103 3.545.159 100.645.772 r ►�?. • STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES -GENERAL, SPECIAL REVENUE, AND CAPITAL, PROJECTS FUNDS BUDGET VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS FOR NINE MONTHS ENDING MARCH 31,1997 REVENUES Federal. Local. State. & Other Government Right of way acquistions for the southside platform totaling $1.2 million will be reimbursed to the Commission from state rail bonds. Approximately half that amount has been billed to the state and we are awaiting payment. The remaining amount will be billed once escrow closes on the Atco Rubber property. It was also anticipated that some rail construction would have started for which the Commission would be reimbursed. However, it now appears that construction will not begin until FY98. SAFE fees are paid by the state two months in arrears. By year end the full amount will be reflected by adjusting accruals. Other Other revenue includes reimbursement from the Coachella Valley for TUMF participation in debt service for the 93 bonds. The budget amount of $1.4 million will be billed to CVAG prior to year end. EXPENDITURES Professional Services Includes audit fees which typically are more heavily spent in the first half of the year when audit field work is completed and the financial statements issued. Staff fully expects to be on budget by the end of the fiscal year. General Legal Services Although budget was adjusted at mid year, it appears that legal costs associated with eminent domain actions may nonetheless exceed the estimated amount. Since a number of cases have now been settled, the final quarter may see lower billings from counsel. However, 60% of these Route 791egal costs for the Lamb Canyon project will be reimbursed by Caltrans. 00 Capital Outlay Significantly under budget and will remain so by year end. Call box expansions($179,000) planned in the budget will not occur till 97/98. General Note: The first half of the fiscal year is primarily directed toward completing end of the year(i. a :, 95/96) activities. Therefore, numbers for the first half of the year typically are considerably under budget. Most of the categories will begin to reflect more accurately in relation to the budget by third quarter of the fiscal year. However, as of third quarter, a number of consultants are behind in billing the Commission. Staff fully expects billings to be reflected by year end after adjusting for accruals. 00 003i RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS QUARTERLY BUDGET REPORT PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1997 COMMIISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMIITED EXPENDITURE FOR EXPENDITURES TO PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. DESCRIPTION QUARTER ENDING DATE THRU ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION MARCH 31,1997 MARCH 31,1997 CITY OF CORONA $5,212,623 $5,212,623 CITY OF MURRIETTA $17,000,000 $2,379,711 ROUTE 60 $3,839,295 $3,411,944 ROUTE 74 $8,183,914 $8,183,914 ROUTE 79 $35,279,404' $35,279,404 ROUTE 86 ROUTE ill PROJECTS ROUTE 91 I-215 PROJECTS INTERCHANGE IMPROV.PROGRAM PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES PROGRAM PLAN 6 SVCS. PARK-N-RIDE 6 INCENT.PROG. COMMUTER RAIL ............... TOTALS $20,115,078 $6,700,115 $14,727,459 '$41,244,832 $8,823,675 $12,329,736 $7,958,890 $6,729,966 $97,640,801 285;705 788 NUMBER OF INVOICES PROCESSED Eta QUARTER NUMBER OF INVOICES PAID FOR QUARTER $16,182,436 $6,438,616 $14,445,411 $40,396,501 $8,090,175 $12,031,436 $7,958,890 $6,729,966 $97,413,218 $264,154,245 810 575 100.0% 14.0% 88.9% 100.0% 100.0% 80.4% 96.1% 98.1% 97.9% 91.7% 97.6% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 92.4% $1,305,042 $1,735,191 $580,434 $2,930 $683,230 $288,882 $292 $332,409 $209,035 $5,137,445 $5,212,623 $1,377,000 $2,839,778 $7,553,278 $33,455,729 $15,927,436 $4,538,009 $11,031,474 $40,176,236 $4,858,857 $11,164,020 $5,840,538 $6,783,822 $95,289,183 $246,047,983 ter) RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION April 30, 1997 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Cooperative Agreement - City of Perris Construction & ROW (R09012) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ./ROW (R09111,9301,9302, 9306,9337) Lambs Canyon Pro). (R09423,9429,9522,9730, 9732) Winchester Rd Widening (R09728) S08115TAL ROUTE 78 ROUTE 86 PROJECTS Construction & Mitigation (R09213) SUBTOTAL. ROUTE 88 ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538) 9635 SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111:: ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Magnolia to Mary HOV & Serfas club Sndwis (R09101, 9308, 9415, 9524,9726) McKinley Undercrossing (R09326) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535) alt SUBTOTAL ROUTE 81 $8,183,914 $8,183,914 $9,096,360 $23,752,638 $3,000,000 $35,848,988 $20,115,078 s2o,115,078 $6,700,115 $8,700,115'. $10,812,508 $1,614,951 $2,300,000 $14,7ST,469 $8,183,914 $8.183,914 $9,096,360 $23,224,744 $3,000,000 $35,321,104 $16,182,436 $16,182,438 $6,438,616 $8,438,618 $10,530,460 $1,614,951 $2,300,000 $14,445A11 Page 1 of 3 100.0% 100.07E 100.0% 97.8% 100.0% 88.5% 80.4% 80.49E 96.1 % 96.1%; 97.4% 100.0% 100.0% 98.1% $ $645,790 $187,417 $833.207 $0 $99,300 $99 300 $363,148 $363148 $7,553,278 67,653,278 $8,739,670 $22,764,744 $2,784,522 $34,288,938. $15,927,436 818,92143ft $4,637,309 $4,837,308 $8,808,150 $1,425,897 $1,160,575 $11,394,822 92.3% 92.3 Jf. 96.1 % 98.0% 92.8% 87.1% 98.4% 98.4% 72.0% 72.0 83.6% 88.3% 50.5% 78.9% 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) CECERT (R09627) Right -of -Way (RO 9004,9009 ) SUBTOTAL 1-215 INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM Yuma IC Final Design (PS&E) (R09428) Yuma IC Constr. Mgmt (R09631) Yuma IC Construction (R09636) SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE BECHTEL PROJECT MGMT SERV. (R08900 thru R09700) SUBTOTAL BECHTEL PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES Program Studies (R09006,9119, 9307) Mapping Control/QA (R09007) SUBTOTAL PROGRAM PLAN d,;WC% i PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9418, 9526, 9528, 9601 - 9613, Impress) (9701-9712) SUBTOTAL PAI!tK44-RIDE COMMUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering (RO 9323, 9324, 9420,9430,9731) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (R09424, 9521/27/31/32,9620/437,0009, 9720) SUBTOT L7OOMMUTERRAIL TOTALS RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION April 30, 1997 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE $6,726,504 $50,000 $34,468,328 $41,244,832 $1,257,000 $1,023,500 $6,600,000 $8,800,500 $12,329,736 $12,328,730 $5,275,161 $2,683,729 $7,ass ,890 $7,529,966 $7,5Z9,068 $5,564,413 $92,776,388 ri$98:340,801 8281,860,289 $5,878,173 $50,000 $34,468,328 $40,395,101 $1,257,000 $890,000 $6,100,175 v1,247,175 $12,031,436 1$12,831438 $5,275,161 $2,683,729 $7,059090 $7,529,966 : $7,5290Ss $5,564,413 $92,548,805 398,113218 $254,848,687 87.4% 100.0% 100.0% 97.9% 100.0% 87.0% 92.4% 92.9% 97.6% 97.841 100.0% 100.0% 100 e% ................ 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.8% 97.3% Page 2 of 3 $24,027 $24,027 $5,005 $112,073 $674,983 $792,081 $77,403 $77,4031 4o $275,667 $278,eel $78,352 $100,304 $178,858 $2,843,489 $5,683,900 $48,035 $34,468,328 $40,209,283 $1,204,153 $541,776 $3,904,989 S5,850,918 $11,241,423 $11241,423 ................ $3,201,593 $2,636 945 $5 040,530 $7,059,489 $7o59,4se $4,880,740 $90:581,544 $95,482,284 $230,250,498 96.7% 96.1 % 100.0% 98.5% 95.8% 60.9% 64.0% 68,5% 93.4% 03.4% 60.7% 98.3% 73,4% 93.8% ;.93.9% 87.7% 97.9% 97.3111 93.8% RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % EXPENDITURES PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE A LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION COMMITMENT April 30, 1997 ADVANCES BALANCE COMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT. CITY OF MURRIETA Loan Agreement 1-15/1-215 Interchange improvements (R09334) (Loan Agreement is Terminated) SUBTOTAL MURRIETA>LOAN (1) CITY OF CANYON LAKE Final Design and Construction of Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements (R09422) SUBTOTAL. CANYON LAKE LOAN CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & Storm drainage structure (1) SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA TOTALS $17,000,000 07,000,000' $1,600,000 $1,600000 $5,212,623 sa $0 $23.813.623 NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. $0 $1,377,000 1. 37/ 000 $1,600,000 st000,000 $5,212,623 ss,xf�,sx $8,189,623 $0 $1,457,148 81,467ms $4,588,984 s4,se8,sa4 86046,132 $15,623,000 $15,623,000 $0 !CO'. $0 $o S16,623,000 Page 3 of 3 8.1 % 8.1% 100.0% 100.0%' 100.0% ao.o% 34.4% Status Mo. Ending 04l30/97 wr) CI) r AGENDA ITEM 6A 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 4, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 79 (Lamb Canyon) - Repair of Distressed Fill .Slopes Award of the following Amendments to Complete Repair Efforts: 1) Amendment 8 to Agreement RO 9306 with Converse Consultants to Provide Geotechnical Support; and, 2) Amendment 4 to Agreement RO 9522 with the County of Riverside to Provide Repair of the distressed fill slopes is continuing in Lamb Canyon. The exploratory testing that has been performed by trenching indicates that the problems with the fill slopes are related to a failure of the contractor to perform the work in accordance with the project specifications. The distressed fill slopes are a very small part of the completed highway project and are typically in isolated areas that are over some of the drainage facilities. Staff intends to seek repayment of all costs associated with the repair work that are directly attributable to the failure of the contractor to construct the fill slopes in a manner consistent with the contract specifications. In order to document the findings, monitor the work, and direct reconstruction of the distressed fill slopes, Staff is requesting that two contracts be extended to provide assistance in the above tasks. The first contract is with Converse Consultants for geotechnical support. Converse Consultants is directing and evaluating the exploratory trenching that is necessary at each failure location in order to determine the cause of the fill slope failure. Converse Consultants is also providing the necessary soil testing to evaluate the adequacy of the repairs. The status of the Converse Consultants contract is attached. Staff is recommending that $20,000 be added to the extra work amount for use by Staff to direct the necessary testing of the distressed fill slopes. The second contract is with the County of Riverside for Survey Services. The County . of Riverside Survey department is providing all surveying for the Lamb Canyon project. They will be restaking the toe of the fill slopes during the reconstruction efforts so that the design slope profiles can be obtained for the embankments. Staff is recommending that $20,000 be added to the extra work amount for use by Staff to direct the necessary field surveys that will be required to reconstruct the fill slopes and document the before and after condition. The contract history is attached for your reference. The work performed by both of the above consultants will be used by Staff to seek reimbursement from the contractor for faulty workmanship at these areas of fill slope distress. Financial Assessment Project Cost Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Included in Program Budget Approved Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable $40,000 increase ($20,000 to RO 9522 and $20,000 to RO 9306) Measure A Year Programmed Year of Allocation Year STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the following amendments: 1. Amendment 8 to Agreement RO 9306 with Converse Consultants to add $20,000 of extra work for a new not to exceed contract value of $538,141. 2. Amendment 4 to Agreement RO 9522 with the County of Riverside to add $20,000 of extra work for a new not to exceed contract value of $904,997. 01n02 AGENDA ITEM 6B Oilt;039 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 4, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Amendment 3 to URS Greiner for Landscaping Design for In September, 1994 the Commission awarded a consulting services contract to URS Greiner to prepare the Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the Yuma Interchange Project (the Project). The defined scope did not include the replacement of landscaping that existed prior to the construction of the Project. Caltrans has requested that RCTC restore the landscaping as soon as the Project is complete. The Yuma Interchange project is currently under construction and will be complete by the forth quarter of this calendar year. The most economical means of developing the plans, specifications and cost estimate for the bid package that would be required to reconstruct the Yuma Interchange landscaping would be to use the design engineer, URS Greiner. URS Greiner has submitted an estimate of $106,200 to complete the PS&E for the Yuma landscaping project. A summary of the proposed cost estimate is attached for your information and review. The contract currently has $12,622 of unauthorized extra work remaining. Staff recommends increasing the unauthorized extra work by $7,378 to make $20,000 of unauthorized extra work available to complete the landscaping task. The table below is a complete summary of the contract status. Contract RO 9428 1 Base Agreement (11 /1 /94) $1,099,975 2 1st Amendment - Error and Omission Insurance for Subs to be with Prime (3/30/1995) no change 3 Extra Work - Utility Coordination (3/10/95) $46,999 4 Extra Work - Prepare Seismic Retrofit Strategy Plan (11 /8/95) $859 5 Extra Work - Seismic Retrofit Design (11 /8/95) $18,997 0u+?► 4 Contract RO 9428 6 Extra Work - Additional Electrical Design (11 /22/95/ $20,548 7 2nd Amendment - Construction Engineering Support (8/14/96) $72,386 Subtotal (Current Contract Amount) $1,259,764 8 Amendment 3 (new) -- Landscaping Design $106,200 remaining unauthorized extra work $12,622 proposed additional unauthorized extra work $7,378 Proposed New Total Contract (not to exceed) $1,385,964 Financial Assessment Project Cost $106,200 + increase unauthorized extra work by $7,378 to $20,000 Source of Funds Measure A, Cities of Norco and Corona ::::::.:::::x:;:::.:•:•w:::..:;<:;'r:�:.::::.:.:.{}tr•.:v4.^..0;4: •h:•.?}.:'{.+• : .ii _f..�k; .,:: >::•r::.....v} :.:.::: }W;,I, :.:v .vv:::::.: ' . ' ` .+^ '' p}�'''':''. vv. •�� /iti?r:;�4�"'dry 0••.f:o'yv +;.•},:,.X.,\,, "t.}4..5•, }i.::S::,M:y"vvfi:: {::y•::(4::n:.{v % Included in Fiscal Year Budget y .. Year Included in Program Budget y Year Programmed Approved Allocation y Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required n Financial Impact Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: i That the Commission approve Amendment 3 to Agreement RO-9428 for an amount of $106,200, and that the unauthorized extra work be increased by $7,378 to $20,000 for a new total not to exceed contract value of $1,385,964. 0on04 AGENDA ITEM 7A t4� RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 4, 1997 TO: Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1998-2004 Short Range Transit Plan The Riverside County FY 1998-2004 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) covers the three areas of the county, the Western County area, the Coachella Valley area, and the Palo Verde Valley area, and is comprised of plans for the municipal operators, the Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and Regional Commuter Rail. Staff has reviewed the plans of the operators for compliance with the unmet transit needs responses, reasonableness of estimated cost and ridership increases, compliance with fare revenue to operating cost ratio requirements, and justification for capital projects. The Plan was also reviewed by the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee. Western Riverside County Operators The Western County operators have been working over the last few months to develop their seven year transit plans in line with the 80% bus/20% rail funding allocation planning process approved by the Commission. The bus operators have coordinated their planning efforts to ensure their plans for service can be met within estimated revenues. The same was done with the commuter rail plan. The Western County Short Range Transit Plan Committee, comprised of policy and staff representatives from each of the operators, met , twice to review the proposed seven year plan. Riverside Transit Agency is projecting a 4.99% increase in operating costs ($972,316) and a 12.1 % increase in service hours over their budgeted FY97 figures. The increase in service will be seen with the initiation of route changes to serve the Riverside General Hospital, which will be opening in Moreno Valley in March 1998. RTA is planning to provide direct service from the Riverside Plaza to Riverside General via a new Route 20. Routes 17 and 19, both serving Moreno Valley, will also experience route modifications to accommodate service to the hospital. RTA will provide a service link between Lake Elsinore, Murrieta and Temecula by setting up a transfer between their Routes 7 and 8 (Lake Elsinore) and Route 23 (Murrieta/Temecula). (This service improvement was actually approved for implementation in FY 1997). RTA is also planning to increase service on two Pass area services, Routes 35 and 36. These two routes were initiated in FY 1995 to provide a link from the Pass area to Moreno 00'004 � Valley and Calimesa/Yucaipa, respectively. They currently operate Monday, Wednesday and Fridays; RTA is proposing to provide service Monday through Saturday, effective March 1998. Staff's concern with this service improvement is that the routes currently have very low performance, carrying an average of 3.6 and 2.2 passengers per service hour. While we understand that the limited three days per week service may be affecting ridership, doubling the service hours on the line may not generate a large increase in ridership. We would recommend that the Commission request a report back on performance six months after the initiation of the service improvement. RTA's capital budget totals $11,969,300 and includes requests and "earmarks" for $5,668,000 in Section 5309 (formerly Section 3) discretionary funds for the construction of a 2nd operating facility. Additionally, RTA has identified the replacement of 3 full size coaches, 11 paratransit vans, 2 mini -buses and the purchase of 2 CNG equipped maintenance support vehicles. Along with various maintenance, operations, and office equipment, $250,000 is identified to expand their Information/Dispatch Center. RTA has been making changes to their contracted dial -a -ride operations to remove dispatching responsibilities from their contractors and pulling this function into the RTA offices in order to provide centralized dispatching and reduce costs. The Commission has supported this effort over the past two years with funding totaling $150,000 for the purchase of mobile data terminals and dispatching equipment. Additionally, in FY 1997 the Commission approved $1.5M to replace RTA's radio communications system for their entire system. RTA has reported to their Board that the changes have resulted in improvements to their customers as well as cost savings to the system. Staff recommends that the Commission request RTA to provide a report on their new dispatching system along with information on the cost savings to the agency. The municipal operators are planning minor service improvements in FY 1998. The City of Banning is requesting funding to operate the Cabazon route for two additional hours per day to accommodate requests made at the unmet needs hearing. The Beaumont Dial -A - Ride currently carries 10 passengers per service hour, very high for a demand -responsive service. They are planning to initiate a fixed -route within their city in order to better serve their riders. This improvement can be made within their existing level of service hours. Details on the routing will come back to the Commission once more planning is completed by the City staff. The City of Riverside Special Services will be adding service hours in the afternoon to accommodate service demand. Additionally, they are planning to offer an express route from Riverside to the Riverside General Hospital for those seniors and persons with disabilities unable to use fixed -route service. The City of Corona is planning a status quo operation in the next fiscal year. Capital improvements for the municipal operators include replacement of vehicles which have met their useful life and other minor office and shop expenses. The Commuter Rail Plan includes the addition of a morning off-peak train to Los Angeles as well as funding for operation of Saturday service on the Riverside Line. The preferred Saturday service level is two round trips beginning mid-FY98, however this improvement is contingent upon funding support from Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. One 00(t) 4 I additional evening train from Irvine to Riverside is also planned for the next fiscal year. Coachella Valley Operators When the Commission reviewed the FY 1997 Short Range Transit Plans for the Coachella Valley area, there was concern expressed about the allocations of Local Transportation Funds in the Valley and the level of coordination occurring between the two operators in the area, SunLine Transit Agency and the City of Rancho Mirage Dial -a -Cab. The Commission directed the two agencies to work together over the year to determine the best use of Local Transportation Funds to meet the.transit needs of the residents in the Coachella Valley. The City of Rancho Mirage has operated a small taxi -based transportation service since 1977 with funding from Local Transportation funds and fare revenues. For the past several years, the City has had to also subsidize the program with general fund monies in order to meet the state mandated farebox recovery ratio of 20% for general public service. Due to the need for the program to come into full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the growth in demand for the service, it was anticipated that the Dial -A -Cab program budget would need to expand in FY 1998. In order to meet the Commission's direction and to determine the future needs of the program, the City decided to conduct a thorough review of their transit operation and obtained a private consultant to conduct a transportation planning study. Staff from SunLineTransit and the Commission were included in the meetings held with the consultant to review of the study findings. The results of the study showed that the system was serving a relatively small number of residents with a high level of service. Additionally, recent changes with the city's contract provider necessitated a greater level of city staff commitment to oversee the program. The study and the time committments led the city staff to recommend that the program be discontinued effective July 1, 1997. The City Council approved the staff recommendation and is recommending that the Local Transportation Funds previously allocated to their system be allocated to SunLine Transit Agency. RCTC staff concurs with this recommendation. SunLine Transit, is proposing an operating budget of $9.7M in FY 199, a 5.4% increase over the current year. A 2.7% increase in service hours is planned with the addition of 3,620 additional fixed -route service hours. The increased hours are planned for Line 80 which serves Indio. No increases are planned for their special services (ADA dial -a -ride and social service transportation). For the first time in four years, SunLine's seven year plan includes some major increases in service levels. As you will recall, SunLine made major cuts to their services a few years back as a result of declining revenues. Salary levels for all staff were also placed on hold for a three year period. At that time, the SunLine Board made the decision that when revenues started to grow, service would be reinstated in the order it was removed. 0 0 045 Revenue levels for the Coachella Valley have been increasing slowly over the past few years. A surplus of local transportation funds is expected in FY 1997 and additional increases are projected for FY 1998. The Line 80 improvement planned for FY98 is the first step in the reinstatement of service. Additional improvements are planned for Line 24 later in the year (an SRTP amendment is expected). SunLine is also programming $300,000 per year for SunLine's capital projects are clearly outlined in Table 4 of their Plan and include purchases for facility, office, maintenance, and computer equipment. The plan on purchasing two replacement paratransit vehicles as well as two expansion vans for use in services between Indian Reservations and job sites on and off the reservations. This project will be funded with CMAQ funds. Additionally, Sunline will be budgeting $300,000 per year for capital bus replacement in anticipation of needing to replace their fixed route vehicles in the near future. Palo Verde Valley The Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency is proposing only a minor increase in service levels on their dial -a -ride system in FY 1998. The system has been operating one full time vehicle and a second van during peak periods. As a result of comments received through the unment needs process, this second vehicle will be placed into service more often to accommodate service demand. Additionally, the system has budgeted for the operation of up to three round trips from Blythe to Loma Linda to meet the health needs of residents in the area. This is in direct response to a comment received from the County Headstart Program based in Blythe. Also included in the Plan is the continuation of the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project. Financial Assessment Project Cost Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Local , State, and Federal Transit funds, and fare revenues. Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 98 Approved Allocation * Year of Allocation 98 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable *Local Transportation Fund Allocation will be requestdd at July meeting. 0 0 046 STAFF RECOMMENDAHON:That the Commission: 1) Approve the FY 1998-2004 Short Range Transit Plans for the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Riverside, the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and Commuter Rail, as presented; and 2) Request that the Riverside Transit Agency provide a report on the cost *savings resulting from the implementation of their Paratransit Dispatching System and the performance of Routes 35 and 36 six months after service improvements are implemented.. AGENDA ITEM 7B RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 4, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Program Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 97/98 Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests As part of the Measure A Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their home to work commutes along the Route 91 corridor. The Commission adopted the Measure A buspool subsidy in October 1990 and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1,175 ($25/seat/month) in support of commuter buspool operations. The subsidy rate has not changed since inception of the policy. To provide additional guidance, the Commission established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff to report to the Commission when a buspool's ridership falls to 25 or below and seek direction regarding the continuation of the buspool's subsidy. A ridership summary chart for FY 96/97 subsidized buspools is attached as Exhibit A To renew their annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to request continuation funding for the new fiscal year from the Commission in writing. Attached as Exhibit B are the FY 97/98 request letters from the following three existing buspools: RIVERSIDE/FULLERTON BUSPOOL: Begun in the early 1980's, the Riverside to Fullerton - Hughes buspool route includes stops in the Woodcrest, La Sierra and Corona areas. The average monthly ridership for the current fiscal year is 30 passengers with the lowest single monthly ridership being 27 and the highest 34. As Hughes pays its employees a $21 transit subsidy, the monthly pass cost for Hughes employees is $65. Any non -Hughes employee passengers pay $86. The monthly pass cost is low in comparison to similar buspools due to the fact it is the longest running buspool and there is a close family relationship between the buspool contractor, Hunt Transportation, and its driver. The cgntract provider has accessible coaches available for use on the route if a person with disabilities purchases a monthly buspool pass. f RIVERSIDE/EL SEGUNDO BUSPOOL: Begun in June 1995, the Riverside to El Segundo - Hughes buspool route includes stops in the park and ride lots at Galleria at Tyler Mall and Corona Community Church. The average monthly ridership for the current fiscal year is 47 passengers with the lowest single monthly ridership being 46 and the highest 49. As Hughes pays its employees a $21 transit subsidy, the monthly pass cost for Hughes employees is 00r,n4 $114. Any non -Hughes employee passengers pay $135. The contract provider, Mark IV, has accessible coaches available for use on the route if a person with disabilities purchases a monthly buspool pass. MORENO VALLEY/EL SEGUNDO BUSPOOL: Begun in February 1996, the Moreno Valley to El Segundo - Hughes buspool route originates at the Moreno Valley Mall and travels directly to its destination. The average monthly ridership for the current fiscal year is 45 passengers with the lowest single monthly ridership being 42 and the highest 47. As Hughes pays its employees a $21 transit subsidy, the monthly pass cost for Hughes employees is $119. Any non -Hughes employee passengers pay $140. The contract provider, Mark IV, has accessible coaches available for use on the route if a person with disabilities purchases a monthly buspool pass. Like all of the commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage commuters to use alternative modes of transportation, the Measure A $25/seat/month subsidy is administered as a "user side subsidy". Unlike all of the other incentives, the buspool subsidy is provided for a 12 month period. This annual subsidy remains cost-effective in comparison to the typical public transit subsidy rate of 80%. While the monthly cost of each existing buspool varies according to the number of route miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission's monthly subsidy represents an average rate of (to be inserted)%. When taking other factors into consideration such as the reduction of vehicles on Route 91 during morning peak periods, the number of vehicle miles saved and the elimination of mobile source emissions, the annual buspool subsidy is an effective use of Measure A commuter assistance funds. The three existing buspools have completed all requirements for funding as set forth by the Commission including submittal of: 1) monthly ridership reports; 2) semi-annual operations status reports; and 3) annual funding continuation request. These reports allow staff to monitor the activities of the buspools to track ridership levels, monitor marketing efforts, and ensure availability to persons with disabilities. The Commission's proposed FY 97/98 budget, presented under another item in this agenda, contains a line item in the amount of $56,400 to provide buspool subsidies. Based on the established monthly $1,175 buspool subsidy policy, the funds are sufficient to support the three existing buspools and one new buspool should a written request for funding assistance be received. b Financial Assessment Project Cost $56,400 included as part of the RCTC FY 97/98 Proposed Budget Source of Funds Measure A n 5 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve, pursuant to its existing Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Policy,: 1) payment of $1,175/month for the period July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998 to the existing Riverside/Fullerton, Riverside/EI Segundo, and Moreno Valley/EI Segundo buspools, and one additional buspool upon receipt of a written request for subsidy support; and, 2) continuation of the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. 0 i 00 5 EXHIBIT A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Commuter Assistance Program 1746 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92517 Buspool Ridership Report 5/15/97 ailitanalWari salP.00WA.ak4s4.:4'i.,..04414,044kotN, v., .,-,...,,,,,,ar,, -msakmm,,. -,s..., ka.,. :Mk'15,i'" '•`'i is.'' , n'e /V,"&. A. - W,t,4. ., .. . M. ) t ' i .,.:.'; , ''' . sa • ',k4 ... ,» • •,.- %lam „...». R RIVERSIDE - RIVERSIDE - MORENO VALLEY - i F FULLERTON EL SEGUNDO EL SEGUNDO (Hunt) (Mark IV) (Mark IV) (TOTAL REPORTING PERIOD RIDERSHIP July, 1996 28 47 , 44' 119 August, 1996 27 47 431 117 September, 1996 30 47 45 ' 122 October, 1996 32 46 42 120 November, 1996 30 48 46 i 124 December, 1996 29 48 47 124 January, 1997 32 49 43 124 February, 1997 33 48 45 126 March, 1997 30 46 45 121 April, 1997 30 46 44 120 May, 1997 34 46 47 127 , Total Ridership 335 518 491 Average Monthly Ridership 30 47 451 Page 1 EXHIBIT B HUGHES AIRCRAFT 14 May, 1997 Tanya L. Love Consultant Staff RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Commute Assistance Program P. O. Box 51540 Riverside, CA 92517-2540 Dear Tanya: RIVERSIDE/CORONA - EL SEGUNDO BUSPOOL In compliance with the requirements of Riverside County Transportation Commission, Hughes Aircraft Company is requesting an extension of funding for the period of 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998. The net monthly cost to Hughes employees is $114 ($160 • $21 HAC subsidy & $25 RCTC subsidy) and the bus averages 47 subscribed riders per month. RIVERSIDE/CORONA BUS SCHEDULE AM DEPARTURE AM DEPARTURE AM ARRIVAL PM DEPARTURE PM ARRIVAL PM ARRIVAL RIVERSIDE GALLERIA MALL CORONA PARK & RIDE LOT HUGHES, EL SEGUNDO HUGHES, EL SEGUNDO CORONA PARK & RIDE LOT RIVERSIDE GALLERIA MALL 4:20 AM 4:30 AM 5:30 AM 3:20 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM As required by RCTC, Mark IV has coaches available which can accommodate the physically disabled. The Hughes Commuter Transportation Center regularly markets rideshare information, including vanpools and buspools, to our employees. In addition, vanpool/buspool lists are provided to Employee Transportation Coordinators at other iocai companies through our association with industry groups such as ACT, the South Bay Transportation Forum and the Westchester/LAX Transportation Management Association. Thank you Tanya for all the great work and assistance provided to us by RCTC. If you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 616-1461. Sincerely, IRCRAFT MPANY °CDC. Rose Farooq, Team Leader Commuter Transportation Center c: J. Crawford, Riverside/Corona Bus Coordinator I Hughes Alrcraft Company 2000 East El Segundo Boulevard PO Box 902, EI Segundo, CA 90245-0902 (310) 616-1375 t0't � `i 0 +.. 5 , s 14 May, 1997 Tanya L.Love Consultant Staff RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Commute Assistance Program P. O. Box 51540 Riverside, CA 92517-2540 Dear Tanya: RIVERSIDE - FULLERTON BUSPOOL HUGHES AIRCRAFT In compliance with the requirements of Riverside County Transportation Commission, Hughes Aircraft Company is requesting an extension of funding for the period of 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998. The net monthly cost to Hughes employees is $65 ($111 - $21 HAC subsidy & $25 RCTC subsidy) and the bus averages 30 subscribed riders per month. RIVERSIDE BUS SCHEDULE AM DEPARTURE AM DEPARTURE AM ARRIVAL PM DEPARTURE PM ARRIVAL PM ARRIVAL LA SIERRA PARK & RIDE LOT CORONA PARK & RIDE LOT HUGHES,FULLERTON HUGHES,FULLERTON CORONA PARK & RIDE LOT LA SIERRA PARK & RIDE LOT 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:30 AM 4:40 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM As required by RCTC, Hunt Transportation has coaches available which can accommodate the physically disabled. The Hughes Commuter Transportation Center regularly markets rideshare information, including vanpools and buspools, to our employees. In addition, vanpool/buspool lists are provided to Employee Transportation Coordinators at other local companies through our association with industry groups such as ACT and the Fullerton Transportation Cooperative. Thank you Tanya for all the great work and assistance provided to us by RCTC. If you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 616-1461. Sincer�i,) HUGHESrAIRCRAFT COMPANY Rise Farooq, Team Leader Commuter Transportation Center c: C. Seidel, Riverside Bus Coordinator a Hughes Aircraft Company 2000 East El Segundo Boulevard PO Box 902, El Segundo, CA 90245-0902 (310) 616-1375 06005 14 May, 1997 Tanya L. Love Consultant Staff RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Commute Assistance Program P. O. Box 51540 Riverside, CA 92517-2540 Dear Tanya: MORENO VALLEY - EL SEGUNDO BUSPOOL HUGHES AIRCRAFT In compliance with the requirements of Riverside County Transportation Commission, Hughes Aircraft Company is requesting an extension of funding for the period of 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998. The net monthly cost to Hughes employees is $119 ($165 - $21 HAC subsidy & $25 RCTC subsidy) and the bus averages 45 subscribed riders per month. MORENO VALLEY BUS SCHEDULE AM DEPARTURE AM ARRIVAL PM DEPARTURE PM ARRIVAL MORENO VALLEY MALL HUGHES, EL SEGUNDO HUGHES, EL SEGUNDO MORENO VALLEY MALL 4:15 AM 5:25 AM 3:20 PM 5:00 PM As required by RCTC, Mark IV has coaches available which can accommodate the physically disabled. The Hughes Commuter Transportation Center regularly markets rideshare information, including vanpools and buspools, to our employees. In addition, vanpool/buspool lists are provided to Employee Transportation Coordinators at other local companies through our association with industry groups such as ACT, the South Bay Transportation Forum and the Westchester/LAX Transportation Management Association. Thank you Tanya for all the great work and assistance provided to us by RCTC. If you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 616-1461. Sincerely, AIRCRAFT PANY Rose Farooq, Team Leader Commuter Transportation Center c: F. Peevy, MV Bus Coordinator B Hughes Aircraft Company 2000 East EI Segundo Boulevard PO Box 902, EI Segundo, CA 90245-0902 (310) 616-1375 AGENDA ITEM 7C 0lisn 5,1 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON • DATE: June 4, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Program Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: San Bernardino Associated Governments FY 97/98 Commuter Assistance Program Contract For the past four years, San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) has contracted with the Commission to develop, implement and manage a commuter incentive project for San Bernardino County commuters. The project, known as was developed as a "sister" incentive project to the Commission's Measure A commuter incentive project, Advantage Rideshare. Additionally, SANBAG and the Commission jointly established beginning in FY 95/96 when it was determined by the two agencies that the Inland Empire would assume direct responsibility for the provision of local employer rideshare services as opposed to contracting with Southern California Rideshare, a division of Southern California Association of Governments. Together, Option Rideshare and Inland Empire Commuter Services make-up SANBAG's Commuter Assistance Program. Based on SANBAG staff's review of the two project's performance this current fiscal year, the Commission was asked to develop and submit a FY 97/98 workplan and budget for continuation of their Commuter Assistance Program. The proposed budget, attached as Exhibit A, was prepared by staff in cooperation with the Commission's transportation demand management consultant, Inland Transportation Services (ITS), who administers and staffs the Program under the direction of the Commission. Attached as Exhibit B is the proposed contract between SANBAG and the Commission which defines the terms and conditions regarding project goals, budgets, reporting, invoicing and payment for services rendered. The SANBAG prepared contract is being reviewed by Commission staff and Legal Counsel. The contract is scheduled for Board action by SANBAG at its June 7, 1997 meeting. Staff seeks Commission approval to •enter into the contract with SANBAG as part of the Commission's continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG in the delivery of coordinated commuter and employer rideshare services. The project budgets detailed in Exhibit A assume the same labor rates for ITS services rt 0 g 1' q i� 1 ! V / as set forth in the Commission's draft FY 97/98 budget. Also included in the Option Rideshare budget is funding for the development and production of marketing materials by Geographics. Work performed by Geographics for SANBAG will also be at the same labor rates as set forth in the draft FY 97/98 budget. As the SANBAG contract budget is not part of the Commission's proposed budget, staff seeks approval to incorporate the ITS and Geographics costs in the Commission's consultant agreements with the two firms in an amount not to exceed $464,705 (labor) and $1 1,000 (expenses) for ITS and $65,000 for Geographics. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) approve, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, the SANBAG/RCTC contract to continue implementation and management of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program for FY 97/98; 2) authorize the Chairperson to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) approve the incorporation of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program consultant costs in the Commission's contracts with Inland Transportation Services and Geographics in an amount not to exceed $464,705 (labor) and $11,000 (expenses), and $65,000 respectively for services to fulfill RCTC's contractual obligations to SANBAG. 0000 5 Exhibit A SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program FY 97/98 Line Item Consulting Labor Consulting Expenses Marketing Materials/Incentives Office Equipment Office Supplies Photocopy Services Postage CertificatesNouchers/Subsidies Promotional Events Telephone Workshops Office Services Equipment Maintenance Mailing Services Computer Support/Maintenance Program Development/Oversight Broadcast Fax Total Option Rideshare Out -of -County $115, 050.00 $3, 500.00 $15, 000.00 $2,000.00 $1,250.00 $750.00 $2,500.00 $50,500.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 $100.00 $750.00 $250.00 $3, 000.00 $1, 000.00 $0.00 $200,650.00 Option Rideshare In -County $90,262.00 $3, 000.00 $15, 000.00 $2,000.00 $1,250.00 $750.00 $2,000.00 $83, 500.00 $2,000.00 $3, 000.00 $0.00 $100.00 $750.00 $250.00 $3, 000.00 $1, 000.00 $0.00 IECS $227,143.00 $4,500.00 $35, 000.00 $4, 000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,250.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $3,500.00 $1,500.00 $100.00 $1,000.00 $750.00 $3, 500.00 $0.00 $1, 000.00 $207,862.00 $289,743.00 4 ©00051) 5/27/97 EXHIBIT B AGREEMENT # 98-001 BETWEEN San Bernardino Associated Governments AND Riverside County Transportation Commission THIS CONTRACT is entered into as of this day of June 1997, in the State of California by and between SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS referred to herein as "SANBAG", and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, referred to herein as "RCTC". WHEREAS, SANBAG approved allocation of federal Surface Transportation Program and Traffic Systems Management funds for trip reduction services and Measure I funds to fund commuter incentive programs. WHEREAS, SANBAG requires professional and consulting services with respect to the provision of commuter services within San Bernardino County. WHEREAS, RCTC has managed the bi-county Inland Empire Commuter Services program since November 3, 1993, and has the expertise and resources necessary to manage such services for SANBAG. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: A. Contract Services 1. RCTC will select a Consultant to administer, market, and implement a commuter services program in coordination with RCTC's commuter services program and in coordination with the regional ridesharmg core services' program in compliance with and as specified in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. RCTC shall assure that its Consultant perform its services within the budgets set forth in Attachment A. 3, RCTC shall provide SANBAG with a bi-monthly report of progress relative to tasks identified in Attachment A to this Agreement and in such detail as may be approved by SANBAG. B. Compensation. 1. It is understood that SANBAG funding for the program under this Agreement, will not exceed $730,505 and is being provided from the following sources: a) $475,352 from federal Imermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Surface Transportation Program (ISTEA-STP) funds, b) S121,153 from Traffic Systems Management (TSM) funds, and c) S134,000 from San Bernardino's local 'A cent sales tax, Measure I finding. It is agreed 1 that SANBAG Measure I funds will reimburse RCTC for the cost of purchasing direct commuter incentives under the Option Rideshare programs. STP and/or TSM funds shall not be used for direct commuter incentives and invoices submitted to. SANBAG shall clearly delineate this program expenditure. It is agreed that in the event funds set forth in (a) and/or (b) above do not become available to SANBAG for this Agreement, SANBAG shall pay to RCTC from other sources any amounts required to cover RCTC's costs to the date of Agreement termination. 2. SANBAG shall pay RCTC on a cost -reimbursement basis, based upon invoices which delineate charges based on tasks identified in Attachment A. All invoices shall be provided to SANBAG no more frequently than on a monthly basis. 3. SANBAG shall be fully responsible for obtaining cost reimbursements of STP and TSM funds. 4. SANBAG shall review all billings submitted by RCTC for accuracy and process payment based thereon to RCTC in a timely manner. 5. RCTC shall maintain during the terms of this Agreement and for three years thereafter accounting records which cover the receipt and disbursement of all funds provided for the programs administered and implemented under this Agreement. Such records shall be made available for inspection during normal business hours by duly authorized representatives of SANBAG, Caltrans and the United States Department of Transportation. C. Term. 1. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1997, and terminate on Tune 30, 1998 unless it is extended by a written amendment approved by the parties. 2. Either pay may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other for any reason, including, but not limited to, changes in legislation, rules and regulations impacting trip reduction programs. SANBAG shall pay for any service provided up to the effective date of the termination. 3. The Executive Director of both RCTC and SANBAG shall have the authority in his sole discretion to give notice of termination on behalf of their respective agencies. D. Indemnification and tnsuangx 1 a) It is understood and agreed that neither RCTC nor any officer, employee, consultant or agent thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, SANBAG shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless RCTC, and all its officers, employees, consultArrtS and age from all claims, suits or actions of every name, land and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement. 2 a� � r)f) 6 t b) It is understood and agreed that neither SANBAG nor any officer, employee, consultant or agent thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, RCTC shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless SANBAG, and all it officers, employees, consultants and agents from all Maims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. 2. Commercial General Liability Insurance. RCTC's Consultant shall maintain occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than S1,000,000 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall; a) Name SANBAG, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and Consultants, as insured with respect to performance of Services. Such insured status shall contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection to the above -listed insured. b) Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering SANBAG, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and Consultants. c) Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3. Business Automobile Liability Insurance RCTC's Consultant shall maintain business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than S1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non - owned automobiles. 4. Workers' Comnensation Insurance. RCTC's Consultant shall maintain workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than S1,000,000 per accident. E. Rights_of SANBA.V. The Executive Directors of both SANBAG and RCTC shall have full authority to exercise their respective entity's rights under this contract. F. Tndependent Contractor. RCTC and its Consultant shall be an independent contactor in performing service under this contract. 0062 IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE AUTHORIZED PARTIES HAVE .BELOW SIGNED AND EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE: SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS Jon D. NJikels, President REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, Norman R. King, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR SANBAG Ronald D. Reitz, Deputy County Counsel 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Bob Buster, Chair REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Jack Reagan Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR RCTC Best, Best & Krieger Counsel RCTC REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer t