Loading...
02 February 5, 1997 Budget & FinanceRIVERSIDE CO TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE (COMMISSIONERS MICHAEL BARRY, BOB BUSTER, WILLIAM KLEINDIENST) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 1:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1997 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 4, 1996. (Due to lack of quorum, there was no January 2, 1997 Budget/Finance Committee meeting.) 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. 4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS. 5A. City of Murrieta Loan. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to execute the Amended Restated Installment Sale Agreement subject to minor modifications as deemed appropriate subject to review by Legal Counsel. 5B. .Annual Audit Review by Ernst & Young. Overview The Transportation Development Act (TDA) statutes and the Measure A ordinance requires that the Commission annually perform audits of fund recipients. The same statutory requirements exist for the Commission based on both statutory provisions and legal requirements embodied in the various bonding documents. This item is for receive and file. 5C. Uncommitted Carryover Detail. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission determine if the funds should be spent on a project (based on the priorities identified in the Strategic Plan), or be used for current year expenditures (i.e., reduce the current year projected issuance). 5D. Local Transportation Fund Estimate for 1997/98. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the areas apportionments based on the revenue estimate provided by staff and the Auditor Controller of the County of Riverside. Page 2 Agenda - Budget/Finance Committee February 5, 1997 • 5E. Sponsorship of UCLA Arrowhead Symposium. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize the expenditure of $5,000 from its 1996-97 Conference Budget to co-sponsor the 1997 policy/research 5F. Investment Report for Quarter Ending December 31, 1996. Overview Presented for receive and file is the quarterly investment report as required by state law and Commission policy. The report has been reformatted to confinn to new state law requiring disclosure of market value and a projection of six month cash flows. The County's Investment Report for the month ending December 31, 1996 is also presented. 5G. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports. Overview The presented material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending December 31, 1996. Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and cooperative agreement is available from Bechtel staff. This item is for receive and file. 6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. 6A. Award of Contract to Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF) to Perform Corona By -Pass (Tollroad) - Preliminary Feasibility Assessment. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the award of a contract, with a not to exceed amount of $169,220 to Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates. The standard RCTC model agreement will be used. A 20% extra work amount will be provided to address any project contingencies that might develop during the course of performing this study. The proposed authorized amount total including extra work will be $203,064. 6B. State Route 79 Realignment Study near the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission award a contract to CH2M Hill, with a not the exceed amount of $75,000 to perform an alignment study for State Route 79 near the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. There are currently no extra work funds available for this project. The standard RCTC model consultant agreement will be used for the contract with CH2M Hill. Minor changes to the model agreement are permitted subject to review and approval of the Executive Director and Legal Counsel. • • • Page 3 Agenda - Budget/Finance Committee February 5, 1997 6C. Prepare Project Report and Environmental Documents for State Route 74 Realignment Along the Proposed Ethanac Regional Corridor. Overview Staff is recommending 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 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 a continuation of previous work or to issue Request for Proposals and select a new team of consultants. 7. RAIL. 7A. Presentation of Electronic Security Surveillance Report and Request for Direction from Commission on How to Proceed with Findings. Overview That the Budget and Finance Committee discuss the information and options provided and direct Staff on how to proceed. 7B. San Jacinto Branchline Track Improvement Study; Policy and Program Implications. Overview This item is to request the Commission: 1) to review the business plan to determine if a short -line rail operation on the San Jacinto Branchline would be financially viable; and, 2) If determined to be viable, consider if RCTC should seek and accept hte transfer of freight use rights from BNSF as a condition of additional capital improvements as documented by the November 14, 1996 agenda item. 7C. Inland Empire High Speed Rail Corridor Refinement. Overview RCTC's rail consultant, Carl Schiermeyer, has prepared an action plan to more specifically define a corridor alignment and to build an Inland Empire consensus with which to further influence the State effort. The work plan proposes a cost of approximately $54,000 utilizing Schiermeyer Consulting. Committee members, consisting of RCTC and SanBAG representatives, have requested shared funding ($30,000 each agency) of the project. 7D. Loan to Intercity Rail Joint Powers Board. Overview This item is to determine funding to complete work program analyzing the fiscal aspects of administering intercity rail within Southern California. Staff will present at the Budget/Finance Committee meeting the recommendation on funding from the TAC scheduled to meet on February 4, 1997. 8. ADJOURNMENT. • MINUTES • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA T/ON COMMISSION 96-11 BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE December 4, 1996 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER. Vice -Chairperson Bob Buster called the meeting of the Budget/Finance Committee to order at 12:06 p.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside, California 92501. Members Present Michael Barry Bob Buster William Kleindienst 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. M/S/C to approve the meeting minutes of November 4, 1996. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. There were no public comments. 4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. There were no additions/revisions. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS. 5A. Sponsorship of Inland Empire Quarterly Economic Report. Commissioner Will Kleindienst asked how the Inland Empire Quarterly Economic Report is being developed and whether it covers the entire county, and what is the difference between a sponsorship versus a subscription. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer responded the report deals with the entire County, the report focuses on western and eastern areas of the county. If there is particular data the Commission wants to look at in the eastern county, there would be no problem in obtaining that information. The sponsorship allows the ability to have input and that RCTC logo on the newsletter would allow control of its distribution. M/S/C that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to expend the funds necessary to become an ongoing annual sponsor of the Inland Empire Quarterly newsletter. 5B. Restructure of the City of Murrieta Loan Agreement. Dean Martin stated that the Commission committed to loaning the City of Murrieta up *Dean Martin and Jack Reagan participated via telephone. Page 2 Minutes - Budget/Finance Committee December 4, 1996 to $17,000,000 to finance interchange improvements needed for an adjacent mall development project. Plans have changed and the City is now requesting that the commitment be lowered to $6,000,000. There are a number of transportation improvement projects the City would like to move forward with and to accomplish this, the City plans to issue debt backed by gas tax revenues. Commissioner Buster asked if the request is equal to any criteria used to fund other entity, and Dean Martin stated the portion secured by the Measure A revenues is completely consistent with existing finance and guidelines. The rest of the loan is not consistent with the guidelines but staff is taking a level of security that exceeds what those guidelines require. Commissioner Michael Barry asked and Commissioners Kleindienst and Buster concurred that staff bring back additional information on what projects the loan will be used, how the loan will be secured and the loan payment terms. M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Provide conceptual approval to lowering the commitment to the City of Murrieta to finance certain transportation improvements from $17,000,000 to $6,000,000; and, 2) authorize staff to work with Legal Counsel and the City of Murrieta to draft a loan agreement and bring back to the Commission in sixty days or less with additional information on what projects the loan will be used, how the loan will be secured and loan payment terms. 5C. Investment Report for Quarter Ending September 30, 1996 Dean Martin asked that this item be deferred until the County of Riverside Investment Report is obtained. 5D. Uncommitted Carryover from 95/96. Dean Martin stated that RCTC Chair be requested an accounting of what portion of the carryover from 95/96 for highways and commuter rail was uncommitted. After analyzing the difference, the amount uncommitted is $5.8 million. Correspondence was received from Patricia Larson, Executive Director, Coachella Valley Association of Governments, with some suggestions on how the uncommitted carryover funds are to be handled. At this point, there needs to be additional research. He believes that most of the uncommitted carryover is western county funds. This information will be presented to the Commission at the December 11th meeting. The Committee, since all of the information is not available, determined not to forward a recommendation to the Commission. 5E. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports. M/S/C that the Commission receive and file. 6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. 6A. FY 1996-2000 Measure "A" Five Year Capita/ Improvement P/an for the City of Murrieta. Page 3 Minutes - Budget/Finance Committee December 4, 1996 M/S/C that the Commission approve the FY 1996-2000 Measure A Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Murrieta as submitted. 6B. FY 1997-2001 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the County of Riverside. M/S/C that the Commission approve an amendment to the FY 1997-2001 Measure A Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the County of Riverside as submitted. 6C. Measure "A" Streets and Roads Funding Compliance Issues. Dean Martin said the Commission, at the August 14, 1996 meeting, recommended that staff develop definitive courses of action available to the Budget/Finance Committee for recommendation to the Commission and bring back for consideration. Correspondence was received CVAG suggesting one other alternative, "make excess funds available to loan to CVAG for its Regional Arterial Program." Commissioner Kleindienst asked if the request from CVAG was satisfactory to staff and Jack Reagan responded that the request could be included with the No. 4 staff recommendation. M/S/C that the Commission adopt as policy the following definitive courses of action available to the Budget/Finance Committee: 1) Withhold funds until the excess fund balance plus the funds being withheld are below the three (3) year level; 2) require the jurisdiction to return any amounts in excess of three (3) years revenues if they cannot demonstrate an immediate project need; 3) loan funds to other jurisdictions for a limited period of time with a definitive or established repayment schedule; or, 4) make excess funds available to loan to the Commission for its rail and highway projects or to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments for its Regional Arterial Program. 6D. Yuma Drive Interchange Project. M/S/C that the Commission approve the use of Edison to perform the installation of the subject conduits for the Yuma project and authorize staff and Legal Counsel to prepare and enter into an agreement with Edison to perform the work for an amount not to exceed $19,000 with an extra work amount of $4,000. 7. TRANSIT/PARK-N-RIDE/BICYCLE. 7A. City of Banning - Request to Reprogram Local Transportation Funds. M/S/C that the Commission amend the City of Banning's FY 1997 Short Range Transit Plan to include the projects outlined and approve reprogramming $4600 in Local Transportation Funds for these project. 7B. SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program - Request from the City of Perris to Spend Carryover Funds. Page 4 Minutes - Budget/Finance Committee December 4, 1996 M/S/C that the Commission authorize the City of Perris to spend the balance of $17,174 in FY 1995-96 SB 821 funds on its extended Downtown Sidewalk Improvement Project. 8. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS/SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES. 8A. Intelligent Transportation Systems - Proposed Projects. Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director Planning and Programming, said staff will be working largely with SanBAG and that the letter of support will endorse all five projects. M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Approve up to $107,680 of FY 1996-97 unallocated SAFE funds as local match for the Intercad, Smart Call Box and Truck Kiosk projects, with the understanding that staff will seek federal approval of other sources of funds as match. The other sources of matching funds could be private, other local, and in -kind (e.g. staff time); and, 2) authorize staff to submit a letter of support for the ITS project proposals, endorsing all five projects, which identifies the amount of matching funds from RCTC (if approved). 8B. Assignment of Contract From GTE Call Box Group to Comarco Wireless Technologies. Hideo Sugita asked that this item be pulled from the agenda. M/S/C that this item be pulled from the agenda. 9. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Budget/Finance Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m. spectfully submitted, 5-4--.40 N t K nha�� �Y Clerk of the Commission • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM #5A • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 5, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: City of Murrieta Loan The Commission granted conceptual approval to reduce the $17,000,000 loan commitment to the City of Murrieta to $6,000,000. Staff was instructed to negotiate a new agreement with the City for subsequent approval by the Commission. Staff, along with Legal Counsel, have completed that process, using the old agreement as the basis and making the changes necessary to provide adequate protection to the Commission while granting the City the needed financial support to complete the desired project. The attached amended agreement incorporates much of the protection that existed in the original agreement. Those protections include a perfected security interests in all of the City's Measure A revenues, the entire Surface Transportation Program (STP) discretionary allocation of $2.2 million, and all the developer fees generated by the Southwest Bridge and Thoroughfare Assessment District. It is further supported by the full faith and credit of the City of Murrieta as evidenced by a ground lease secured by certain city park properties. The agreement calls for repayment of all loaned Measure A funds by the end of the Measure with monthly principal and interest payments. The STP portion must be repaid as soon as the funds are received from the state. Any interest that accrues on the STP portion over and above the amount received from the State must be repaid with either Measure A or developer fees. The City is required to remit all developer fees to the Commission as received for pay down of any amounts not covered by the other two funding sources (i.e., Measure A and STP). The Commission has relinquished its security interests in the gas tax revenues as the City will be bonding against those revenues to provide additional project funding. Once the developer fee and the STP portions of the loan are repaid in full, then the Commission will release all security interests including the City's general fund, and the remaining loan will simply be a regular Measure A loan. The only exception contemplated by this agreement is that the City is only bing required to maintain a 1.5 coverage ratio instead of the 2.0 ratio required by the Commission's financing policy. Staff feels that this is a reasonable and prudent concession given the significantly reduced exposure from a lowered commitment amount. The City of Murrieta will be present to address concerns and questions including providing a complete project description and plan of finance. FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: -0- (Cost of debt will be offset by interest payments from the City) Source of Funds: Commercial Paper (may be taken out with long term debt issue) Included In Current Year Budget (YIN): No. Budget amendment is not proposed as it is not anticipated that the Commission will actual begin funding till FY 98 Budget Adjustment Required: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize the Executive Director to execute the attached Amended and Restated Installment Sale Agreement substantially in form as attached subject to minor modifications as deemed appropriate subject to review by Legal Counsel. • • • • • AMENDED AND RESTATED INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENT RELATING TO CERTAIN I-15/I-215 FREEWAY INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS Dated as of February 1, 1997 by and between RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION as Seller and THE CITY OF MURRIETA as Purchaser RVPUBURR\17249 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS SECTION 1.1. Definitions 2 SECTION 1.2. Exhibits 5 ARTICLE II REPRESENTATIONS, COVENANTS AND WARRANTIES SECTION 2.1. Representations, Covenants and Warranties of the City 5 SECTION 2.2. Representations, Covenants and Warranties of the Seller 6 ARTICLE III SALE OF PROJECT; TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT; INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS; TITLE TO THE PROJECT SECTION 3.1. Sale 7 SECTION 3.2. Title 7 SECTION 3.3. Term of Agreement 7 SECTION 3.4. Installment Payments 7 SECTION 3.5. Obligations of the City 9 SECTION 3.6. Pledge of Pledged Revenues; Deposits to Pay Acquisition and Construction Costs and Installment Payments 9 SECTION 3.7. Limitations on Parity Obligations • 10 ARTICLE IV ESTABLISHMENT OF FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS; ACQUISITION OF THE PROJECT SECTION 4.1. Establishment of Funds and Accounts 10 SECTION 4.2. Establishment of Pledged Revenues Fund 10 SECTION 4.3. Assignment of City's Right to Receive Measure A Funds 11 SECTION 4.4. Establishment and Application of Reserve Fund 11 SECTION 4.5. Acquisition and Construction of the Project 11 SECTION 4.6 Payment of Acquisition and Construction Costs 12 SECTION 4.7. Investment of Reserve Fund 12 RVPUBURR\17249 -i- • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) ARTICLE V MAINTENANCE OF PROJECT; TAXES; INSURANCE; AND OTHER MATTERS SECTION 5.1. Maintenance of Project, Utilities, Taxes and Assessments 12 SECTION 5.2. Modification of Project. 13 SECTION 5.3. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance 13 SECTION 5.4. Fire and Extended Coverage Insurance 14 SECTION 5.5. Insurance Proceeds; Form of Policies 14 SECTION 5.6. Advances 14 SECTION 5.7. Self -Insurance 14 ARTICLE VI DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION AND EMINENT DOMAIN; USE OF NET PROCEEDS SECTION 6.1. Eminent Domain 14 SECTION 6.2. Application of Net Proceeds 15 ARTICLE VII DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES; ACCESS SECTION 7.1. Disclaimer of Warranties 16 SECTION 7.2. Access to the Project 16 SECTION 7.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants 16 ARTICLE VIII ASSIGNMENT AND SALE SECTION 8.1. Assignment by the City; Sale or Lease of the Project 17 SECTION 8.2. Assignment of Installment Payments by Seller 17 RVPUBURR\17249 -11- ARTICLE IX EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES SECTION 9.1. Events of Default Defined 17 SECTION 9.2. Remedies on Default 18 SECTION 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive 18 SECTION 9.4. Agreement to Pay Attorneys' Fees and Expenses 18 SECTION 9.5. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver 18 SECTION 9.6. Application of the Proceeds 18 SECTION 9.7. Liability Limited to Pledged Revenues 19 ARTICLE X MISCELLANEOUS SECTION 10.1. Notices 19 SECTION 10.2. Binding Effect 19 SECTION 10.3. Severability 19 SECTION 10.4. Amendments, Changes and Modifications 19 SECTION 10.5. Net Contract 20 SECTION 10.6. Further Assurances and Corrective Instruments 20 SECTION 10.7. Execution in Counterparts 20 SECTION 10.8. Applicable Law 20 SECTION 10.9. Seller and City Representatives 20 SECTION 10.10. Captions 20 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT A-1 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT REQUEST FORM B-1 RVPUBURR\17249 • AMENDED AND RESTATED INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 1st day of February, 1997, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a county transportation commission, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, as seller (the "Seller"), and the CITY OF MURRIETA, a general law city duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, as purchaser (the "City"); WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has determined that it will be in the best interests of the City for the City to provide for the acquisition from the Seller of certain improvements and additions to the City's roads and streets (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, in order to finance the acquisition and construction of the Project, the City and the Seller entered into an Installment Sale Agreement dated as ofNovember 1, 1992 (the "Installment Sale Agreement"), whereby the City agreed to acquire the Project from the Seller and obligated itself to make installment payments in the amounts and on the dates set forth therein (the "Installment Payments"); and WHEREAS, the Seller and the City desire to amend and restate the installment sale agreement in its entirety; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration the parties hereto agree that the Installment Sale Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS SECTION 1.1. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this Section shall, for all purposes of this Installment Sale Agreement, have the meanings herein specified. "Acquisition and Construction Costs" means the amounts paid or to be paid for the design, acquisition, construction, installation, delivery or financing of the Project and includes: reimbursement to the City for any payments made by or on behalf of the City for the design, acquisition, construction, installation, delivery or financing of the Project prior or subsequent to the execution of this Installment Sale Agreement; the costs of the preparation of any environmental impact reports, the costs of site preparation necessary for the construction or installation of the Project; and all other fees or expenses, including administrative, engineering, legal and financial costs, RVPUBURR\17249 -1- incurred in connection with the design, acquisition, construction, delivery, installation and financing of the Project. "Agency Agreement" means the Agency Agreement dated as of November 1, 1992 between the Seller and the City, as it may be modified, amended or supplemented from time to time. "Bridge and Thoroughfare Revenues" means all revenues which the City is entitled to receive with respect to the Southwest Area Road and Bridge Benefit District except those amounts payable with respect to projects other than the Project pursuant to that certain Agreement Between the County of Riverside and the City ofMurrieta on Administering the Southwest Area Road and Bridge Benefit District dated February 4, 1992. "Business Day" means a day on which banks located in the City of Los Angeles, California or the City of New York, New York are not required or authorized to remain closed. "City" means the City of Murrieta, a general law city duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. "City Representative" means the City Manager of the City or any other person designated by the City Manager of the City to act on behalf of the City with respect to this Agreement. "Fiscal Year" means any period of twelve (12) consecutive months established by City as its fiscal year and shall initially mean the period commencing July 1 of one year and ending on June 30 of the following year. "Independent Counsel" means an attorney duly admitted to the practice of law before the highest court of the state in which he maintains an office and who is not an employee of Seller, the Fiscal Agent or the City. "Installment Payment" means any payment required to be paid by the City to Seller under Section 3.4 of this Agreement. "Installment Sale Agreement" or "Agreement" means this Installment Sale Agreement, and any duly authorized and executed amendment hereto. "Insurance and Condemnation Fund" means the fund designated in Section 6.2 hereof. "Lease" or "Lease Agreement" means that certain Lease Agreement between the Seller, as lessor, and the City, as lessee, dated as of November 1, 1992. "Measure A Funds" mean all of those moneys which the City is entitled to receive from the Seller under Ordinance No. 88-1 of Seller approved by the voters in the November 8, 1988 Consolidated General Election. RVPUBURR\17249 - 2 - • • "Net Proceeds" means any insurance proceeds or condemnation award in excess of $10,000, paid with respect to the Project or the Property, remaining after payment therefrom of all expenses incurred in the collection thereof. "Parity Debt" means indebtedness or other obligations (including leases and installment sale agreements) issued or incurred by the City and secured by a pledge of and lien on any of the Pledged Revenues equally and ratably with the Installment Payments. "Payment Date" means the date upon which any Installment Payment is due and payable being January 1 and July 1 of each year commencing with the first January 1 or July 1 following the Completion Date. "Permitted Investments" mean those investments set forth in Government Code Section 53630 et seq. "Pledged Revenues" mean, collectively, Bridge and Thoroughfare Revenues, STP Revenues and Measure A Funds. "Prepayment" means any payment applied towards the prepayment of the Installment Payments pursuant to Section 3.4(b) or Section 3.4(c) of this Agreement. "Project" means the capital improvements as more fully described in Exhibit A attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by reference. "Property" means the Property leased from the Seller to the City under the Lease Agreement. "Reserve Fund" means the fund by that name established pursuant to Section 4.4 hereof. "Reserve Requirement" means $430,000 or, at the election of the City, the largest Installment Payment coming due on any single Payment Date. "Seller" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission created pursuant to Sections 130053 and 130053.5 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California. "Sellers Cost of Borrowed Funds" means "Seller Rate" means the Seller's Cost of Borrowed Funds plus .50%. "Seller's Representative" means the Chairman of the Seller, the Executive Director of the Seller, the Chief Financial Officer of the Seller or any person authorized to act on behalf of the Seller under or with respect to this Agreement, as evidenced by a certificate conferring such authorization executed by the Chairman of the Seller or the Executive Director, given to the City or the City Representative. RVPUBURR\17249 - 3 - " $TP Revenues" means all those moneys which the City is entitled to receive under the Surface Transportation Program established pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §133 and administered pursuant to Section 182 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. "Term of this Agreement" or "Term" means the time during which this Agreement is in effect, as provided for in Section 3.3 of this Agreement. SECTION 1.2. Exhibits. The following Exhibits are attached to, and by reference made a part of this Agreement: EXHIBIT A: The description of the Project. EXHIBIT B: The Payment Request Form. ARTICLE II REPRESENTATIONS, COVENANTS AND WARRANTIES SECTION 2.1. Representations, Covenants and Warranties of the City. The City represents, covenants and warrants to Seller as follows: (a) The City is a municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the State of California, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of said State. (b) The Constitution and laws of the State of California authorize the City to enter into this Agreement and to enter into the transactions contemplated by and to carry out its obligations under this Agreement, and the City has duly authorized and executed this Agreement. (c) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions hereof, nor the consummation of the transactions contem- plated hereby, conflicts with or results in a breach of the terms, conditions or provisions of any restriction or any agreement or instrument to which the City is now a party or by which the City is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. (d) The City has duly authorized and executed this Agreement in accordance with the laws of the State of California. (e) The City will use its best efforts to take all actions or refrain from taking any action as appropriate to ensure that the City will maintain its eligibility to receive Measure A Funds, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Revenues and to obtain and maintain eligibility for funding of the Project with STP Revenues. RVPUBURR\17249 - 4 - • • • (0 The City shall deposit all Bridge and Thoroughfare Revenues and STP Revenues received by it with the Seller to be used to pay Installment Payments or to prepay the outstanding Principal Component pursuant to Section 3.4(c) as provided herein. (g) The City will keep, or cause to be kept, proper books of record and accounts, separate from all other records and accounts of the City, in which complete and correct entries shall be made of all transactions relating to the Project, the Pledged Revenues, the Pledged Revenues Fund, the Installment Payment Fund and the Construction Fund. Such books of record and accounts shall at all times during business hours be subject to the inspection of the Seller or its representatives authorized in writing. The City will cause to be prepared and filed with the Seller annually, within one hundred and eighty (180) days after the close of each Fiscal Year during the Term of this Agree- ment so long as STP Revenues and Bridge and Thoroughfare Revenues are pledged to the payment of the Installment Payments, complete financial statements with respect to such Fiscal Year which statements shall be accompanied by a certificate or opinion in writing of an independent certified public accountant or firm of independent certified public accountants. The City shall promptly provide or cause to be provided to the Seller such financial, statistical and other factual information as the Seller from time to time may reasonably request in writing. The Seller shall pay any costs of the City to reproduce any such information, other than the cost of providing annual financial statements. (h) During the Term of this Agreement, other than the Lease Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, the City shall not issue any leasehold obligations with an aggregate annual obligation exceeding the greater of $500,000 or seven percent (7%) of the operating revenues of the City as shown on the City's most recent audited financial statements without the prior written consent of the Seller which consent may upon its sole discretion be denied for any reason whatsoever. SECTION 2.2. Representations, Covenants and Warranties of the Seller. The Seller represents, covenants and warrants to the City as follows: (a) The Seller is a county transportation commission, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. (b) The laws of the State of California authorize the Seller to enter into this Agreement and to enter into the transactions contemplated by and to carry out its obligations under this Agreement, and the Seller has duly authorized and executed this Agreement. (c) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions hereof, nor the consummation of the transactions contem- plated hereby, conflicts with or results in a breach of the terms, conditions or provisions of any restriction or any agreement or instrument to which Seller is now a party or by which Seller is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. RVPUBURR\I7249 - 5 - (d) Except as provided herein, the Seller will not assign this Agreement its right to receive Installment Payments from the City, or its duties and obligations hereunder to any other person, firm or corporation. ARTICLE III SALE OF PROJECT; TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT; INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS; TITLE TO THE PROJECT SECTION 3.1. Sale. The Seller hereby sells, bargains and conveys the Project to the City, and the City hereby purchases the Project from the Seller, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. SECTION 3.2. Title. The City and the Seller agree that title to the Project shall be deemed conveyed to and vested in the City upon the delivery of this Agreement. The Seller and its officers shall take all actions necessary to vest in the City all of the Seller's rights in and title to the Project. SECTION 3.3. Term of Agreement. The Term of this Amended and Restated Installment Sale Agreement shall commence as of 1, 1997 and shall end on the date which the final Installment Payment is made, unless there is an Event of Default hereunder. SECTION 3.4. Installment Payments. (a) Obligation to Pay: Time of Payment. The City, shall pay to the Seller, or its assignee, as the purchase price of the Project, Installment Payments comprising a Principal Component and an Interest Component determined as provided in this Section. The City shall pay to the Seller a total Principal Component equal to the amount disbursed to the City by the Seller pursuant to Section 4.6 hereof together with interest thereon from the date of disbursement to the City calculated at the Seller Rate. $2,300,000 of the Principal Component shall be payable in installments semiannually on each Payment Date in amounts which, when added to the Interest Component payable on such Payment Dates (calculated at an assumed rate per annum equal to the then current Seller Rate) produces substantially equal payments, which fully amortizes $2,300,000 of the Principal Component over the period which begins on the first Payment Date after the date hereof and ends July 1, 2009. The remaining Principal Component shall be due and payable July 1, 2009 subject to mandatory prepayment pursuant to Section 3.4(c) hereof. In addition to the repayment of the Principal Component, the City shall pay to the Seller on each Payment Date an Interest Component calculated against the unpaid Principal Component, which shall be calculated at the Seller Rate. Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, in no event shall any interest rate charged hereunder exceed that permitted under then current law for transactions of this sort. At the sole option of the Seller, the per-annum interest rate used to calculate the Interest Component of the Installment Payments may be reduced to the extent necessary to satisfy covenants of the Seller relating to the tax- exempt status of interest on obligations of the Seller. The City acknowledges that the preceding sentence is solely for the benefit of the Seller and that any reduction in the interest rate pursuant RVPUBURR\17249 - 6 - • • thereto is solely at the discretion of the Seller and that the City shall have no claim or right by virtue of the Seller's exercise or failure to exercise the option provided thereby. There shall be applied as a credit (provided there are no delinquent Installment Payments) against the Installment Payments payable on any such Payment Date an amount equal to the sum of: (i) The amount of interest or income earned on the Reserve Fund since the preceding Payment Date; plus (ii) The amount, if any, previously deposited by the City with the Seller to be applied to payment of Installment Payments (not described in (i) above); plus (iii) The amount, if any, paid by the City to the Seller as Base Rental under the Lease Agreement during the Fiscal Year in which the Installment Payment is coming due. In the event that the total amount of credit exceeds the Installment Payment due on any Payment Date, the amount of such excess shall be applied as a credit against subsequent Installment Payments. The Installment Payments shall be paid solely from Pledged Revenues, and the credits provided for in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) above. (b) Option to Prepay. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Section, the Seller hereby grants an option to the City to prepay the Installment Payments, in whole or in part on any date. Said option shall be exercised by the City by giving written notice to the Seller of the exercise of such option at least thirty (30) days prior to such a Payment Date. Such option shall be exercised by the City by paying to the Seller, cash plus accrued interest on the principal amount to be prepaid to the date of prepayment, together with any Installment Payments then due but unpaid. (c) Mandatory Prepayment. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Section, the City hereby agrees that, the City shall transfer to the Seller immediately upon receipt, all STP Revenues and all Bridge and Thoroughfare Revenues to be applied (1) first, to pay any accrued but unpaid Interest Component of the Installment Payments; (2) second, to replenish any deficiency in the Reserve Fund; and (3) third, as a prepayment of the outstanding Principal Component in excess of $2,300,000 otherwise due hereunder on July 1, 2009. (d) Payment in Lawful Money: No Set -Off. Each Installment Payment or prepayment shall be paid by the City in lawful money of the United States of America, which at the time of payment is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts to or upon the order of the Seller at the notice address of the Seller set forth in Section 10.1 or at such other place as the Seller shall designate in writing to the City. Any Installment Payment accruing hereunder which shall not be paid when due shall bear interest from the date when the same is due hereunder until the same shall be paid at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum provided that unpaid and overdue Interest Component payable with respect to Principal Component in excess of $2,300,000 unpaid because there were insufficient STP Revenues or Bridge and Thoroughfare Revenues to make such payment shall be added to the Principal Component due July 1, 2009. Notwithstanding any dispute between RVPUBURR\17249 - 7 - the City and the Seller, or any other party, the City shall make or cause to be made each and all Installment Payments when due and shall not withhold or permit to be withheld any Installment Payments pending the final resolution of any such dispute, and the City shall not assert or permit to be asserted any right of set-off or counterclaim against its obligation to make Installment Payments as set forth herein. SECTION 3.5. Obligations of the City. The obligations of the City to make the Installment Payments from Pledged Revenues and to perform and observe the other agreements contained herein shall be absolute and unconditional and shall not be subject to any defense or any right of set-ol ; counterclaim, or recoupment arising out of any breach of the Seller of any obligation to the City or otherwise with respect to the Project, whether hereunder or otherwise, or out of indebtedness or liability at any time owing to the City by the Seller. Until such time as all of the Installment Payments shall have been fully paid or prepaid or secured, the City (i) will not suspend or discontinue any payments provided for in Section 3.4 hereot (ii) will perform and observe all other agreements contained in this Agreement and the Lease, and (iii) will not terminate the Term of this Agreement or the Lease for any cause, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, failure to complete the acquisition, construction, improving and equipping of the Project, the occurrence of any acts or circumstances that may constitute failure of consideration, eviction or con- structive eviction, destruction of or damage to the Project, the taking by eminent domain of title to or temporary use of any or all of the Project, commercial frustration of purpose, any change in the tax or other laws of the United States of America or of the State of California or any political subdivision of either thereof or any failure of the Seller to perform and observe any agreement, whether express or implied, or any duty, liability or obligation arising out of or connected with this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Section shall be construed to release the Seller from the perfor- mance of any of the agreements on its part herein contained and in the event the Seller shall fail to perform any such agreements on its part, the City may institute such action against the Seller as the City may deem necessary to compel performance or sue for damages so long as such action does not abrogate the obligations of the City contained in the first sentence of this paragraph. The City may, however, at the City's own cost and expense and in the City's own name or in the name of the Seller, prosecute or defend any action or proceeding or take any other action involving third persons which the City deems reasonably necessary in order to secure or protect the City's rights of possession, occupancy and use hereunder, and in such event the Seller hereby agrees to cooperate fully with the City and to take such action as is necessary to effect the substitution of the City for the Seller in such action or proceeding if the City shall so request. SECTION 3.6. Pledge of Pledged Revenues: Deposits to Pay Acquisition and Construction Costs and Installment Payments. The City hereby agrees that the payment of the Installment Payments shall be secured by a pledge, charge and lien upon all of the Pledged Revenues. The payments of the Installment Payments shall be, and except as otherwise provided herein hereby are, secured by a pledge, charge and first and prior lien upon the Pledged Revenues, and except as otherwise provided herein all of the Pledged Revenues are hereby pledged, charged, assigned, transferred and set over by the City to the Seller for the purpose of securing payment of the Installment Payments, and the Pledged Revenues and any interest earned on such funds and revenues, shall constitute a trust fund for the security and payment of the Installment Payments. The City hereby further covenants that other than as permitted herein RVPUBURR \ 17249 - 8 - • • • it will not further encumber or create a lien on such funds and revenues superior to the pledge of such funds and revenues created hereunder. In order to provide for the payment of the entire cost of the Project and the timely payment of Installment Payments when due, the Treasurer of the City (or his authorized successor, for the purposes of this Agreement) shall pay upon receipt all Bridge and Thoroughfare Revenues and STP Revenues to the Seller for application as provided herein and has, by virtue of the provisions hereof and assignments contained herein, caused the Measure A Funds to be retained by the Seller for application as provided herein. The pledge of STP Revenues and Bridge and Thoroughfare Revenues provided herein shall secure the payment ofPrincipal Component in excess of $2,300,000 and the Interest Component accruing with respect thereto and at such time as the Principal Component due hereunder shall be less than $2,300,000 such pledge and lien on STP Revenues and Bridge and Thoroughfare Revenues shall cease and terminate and the City will be under no continuing obligation to deposit such amounts with the Seller and may use such moneys free of the limitations of this Agreement. It is the intention of the parties that Installment Payments are to be repaid from and secured by Pledged Revenues in the following amounts and priorities: (1) the first $2,300,000 disbursed hereunder shall be secured by and repaid from measure A Revenues; (2) the next $2,200,000 disbursed hereunder shall be secured by and repaid from STP Revenues; and (3) the remaining $1,500,000 disbursed hereunder shall be secured by and repaid from Bridge and Thoroughfare Revenues and if Bridge and Thoroughfare revenues are insufficient, Measure A revenues not needed for payment under clause 1 above. SECTION 3.7. ,imitations on Parity Obligations. Parity Debt may not be issued or incurred by the City during the Term of this Agreement without the consent of the Seller which consent may, at the sole discretion of the Seller, be denied for any reason whatsoever. ARTICLE IV ESTABLISHMENT OF FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS; ACQUISITION OF THE PROJECT SECTION 4.1. Establishment of Funds and Accounts. The following funds and accounts shall be established and shall be administered by the Seller in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. SECTION 4.2. Estahlishment of Pledged Revenues Fund. There is hereby established as a separate fund to be held by the Seller designated the "Pledged Revenues Fund," to the credit of which deposits shall be made and disbursements shall be made as set forth below. The City shall within five (5) business days of receipt of any Pledged Revenues transfer all such moneys to the Seller for deposit into the Pledged Revenues Fund; provided, however that the City shall not be required to deposit Measure A Funds into the Pledged Revenue Fund in any fiscal year in an amount greater than the Installment Payments coming due during such fiscal year relating to Principal Component not exceeding $3,800,000. The Seller shall receive on behalf of the City RVPUBURR\17249 - 9 - Measure A Funds pursuant to the City's assignment as set forth in Section 4.3 hereof, and shall, upon receipt, deposit such Measure A Funds in the Pledged Revenues Fund. The Seller shall hold the moneys in the Pledged Revenues Fund in trust pending application of such moneys to the payment or prepayment of Installment Payments as provided herein or disbursements of such moneys to the City, as herein provided. In any Fiscal Year when the Seller has received from the City or otherwise moneys for deposit in the Pledged Revenues Fund sufficient to pay the Installment Payments coming due in that Fiscal Year (less any credits authorized pursuant to Section 3.4(a) hereof) the Seller shall apply such moneys to the payment of Installment Payments; furthermore, if the City elects to increase the Reserve Requirement, Pledged Revenues in excess of the amounts necessary to pay Installment Payments shall be transferred to the Reserve Fund until such time as the amount therein is equal to the Reserve Requirement. Any moneys remaining in the Pledged Revenues Fund after the transfer to the Reserve Fund and application to the payment of Installment Payments required above have been made shall be utilized to effect a mandatory prepayment pursuant to Section 3.4 hereof. SECTION 4.3. Assignment of City's Right to Receive Measure A Funds. The City hereby assigns its right to receive Measure A Funds to the Seller for the Term of this Agreement, and Seller hereby assents to such assignment and agrees to transfer all Measure A Funds which are required to be deposited into the Pledged Revenue Fund and would otherwise, but for the assignment contained herein have been conveyed to the City, to the Pledged Revenues Fund to be applied as provided herein. SECTION 4.4. Establishment and Application of Reserve Fund. There is hereby established a special fund designated the "Reserve Fund," which shall be held by the Seller and which shall be kept separate and apart from all other funds and money held by the Seller. The Seller shall administer such fund as provided in this Section 4.4. Such fund shall be maintained by the Seller until the Installment Payments are paid in full. There shall be deposited in the Reserve Fund amounts received by the Seller from the City designated for such purpose. If on any Payment Date the amount on deposit in the Installment Payment Fund is less than the principal component and interest component payments due on such date, then the Seller shall transfer from the Reserve Fund for credit to such Installment Payment Fund sufficient amounts to make up such deficiency. In the event of any such transfer, the Seller shall, within five days thereafter, provide written notice to the City of the amount and the date of such transfer. In addition, upon written direction of a City Representative the Seller shall transfer from the Reserve Fund such amounts as are specified in such direction for deposit in such account or accounts as are specified in such direction, if upon such deposit of such amounts, no Installment Payments will remain owing under this Installment Sale Agreement. Amounts to the Installment Payment Fund in excess of the Reserve Requirement shall be applied on each Payment Date to the payment of Installment Payments coming due. For purposes of determining the amount on deposit at any time in the Reserve Fund the Fiscal Agent shall value all Permitted Investments therein at the lesser of par or cost of such investments (exclusive of accrued interest). RVPUBURR\1'7249 `10- • • • SECTION 4.5. Acquisition and Construction of the Project. Pursuant to the Agency Agreement, the Seller has appointed the City to act as Seller's agent with respect to acquisition and construction of the Project and the City agreed to acquire and construct the Project. The City shall cause such acquisition and construction to be completed and to enter into such contracts or purchase orders as are necessary therefor, all in compliance with applicable public works, prevailing wage laws and competitive bidding requirements applicable to both City and Seller and all other applicable law, including those pertaining to the satisfaction of stop notices, as more fully set forth in the Agency Agreement. All bidding documentation and contracts for the Project shall be reviewed and approved by the Seller, and, in addition to any other provisions required by the Seller, shall include indemnification and insurance protecting the Seller from liability arising from the construction of the Project. Payment of the cost of acquiring and constructing the Project shall be made from the moneys made available by the Seller and which shall be disbursed for this purpose in accordance and upon compliance with Section 4.6 hereof. In the event that the amounts available pursuant to Section 4.6 hereof shall at any time be insufficient to provide for the payment of any Acquisition and Construction Costs when due, the amount of such deficiency shall be paid by the City from any legally available source of funds. SECTION 4.6 Payment of Acquisition and ConstructiogCosts. The Seller shall disburse moneys, from time to time, to the City for the reimbursement or payment of Acquisition and Construction Costs, upon receipt and approval of a Certificate of a City Representative in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit `B", together with appropriate invoices, bills or other satisfactory evidence of costs for which disbursement is being sought, which shall: (i) set forth the amount required to be disbursed, the purpose for which the disbursement is to be made, that the disbursement is for costs which may be validly incurred under this Agreement, and the person to whom the disbursement is to be paid; and (ii) certify that no portion of the amount then being requested to be disbursed was set forth in any Certificate of a City Representative previously filed requesting disbursement. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, no disbursements shall be made bythe Seller to the City in excess of $6,000,000. SECTION 4.7. Investment of Reserve Fund. All moneys in the Reserve Fund shall be invested by the Seller solely in Permitted Investments, as directed by the City. Permitted Investments may be purchased at such prices as the City shall determine. Moneys in the Reserve Fund shall be invested in Permitted Investments maturing not later than the date on which it is estimated that such moneys will be required for the purposes specified in this Agreement. The Seller shall sell or present for redemption, any Permitted Investments so purchased whenever it shall be necessary to provide moneys to meet any required payment, transfer, withdrawal or disbursement from the Reserve Fund. RVPUBURR\17249 -11- ARTICLE V MAINTENANCE OF PROJECT; TAXES; INSURANCE; AND OTHER MATTERS SECTION 5.1. Maintenance of Project, Utilities, Taxes and Assessments. The City covenants to operate, maintain and preserve the Project in good repair and working order. The City shall also pay or cause to be paid all taxes and assessments of any type or nature levied, assessed or charged against the Project or the respective interests or estates of the Seller and the City therein; provided that with respect to special assessments or other governmental charges that may lawfully be paid in installments over a period of years, the City shall be obligated to pay only such installments as are required to be paid during the Term of this Agreement as and when the same become due. The City shall not be required to pay any federal, state or local income, inheritance, estate, succession, transfer, gift, franchise, gross receipts, profit, excess profit, capital stock, corporate, or other similar tax payable by the Seller, its successors or assigns, unless such tax is made in lieu of or as a substitute for any real estate or other tax upon property comprising the Project. The City may, at the City's expense and in its name, in good faith contest any such taxes, assessments, utility and other charges and, in the event of any such contest, may permit the taxes, assessments or other charges so contested to remain unpaid during the period of such contest and any appeal therefrom unless the Seller shall notify the City that, in the opinion of Independent Counsel, by nonpayment of any such items, the Project or any part thereof will be subject to loss or forfeiture, in which event the City shall promptly pay such taxes, assessments or charges, or provide the Seller with full security against any loss which may result from nonpayment, in form satisfactory to Seller. SECTION 5.2. Modification of Project. The City shall, at its own expense, have the right to remodel the Project or to make additions, modifications and improvements thereto. Such additions, modifications and improvements shall not in any way damage the Project or cause it to be used for purposes other than those authorized under the provisions of state and federal law; and the Project, upon completion of any additions, modifications and improvements made pursuant to this Section, shall have a value at least equal to the value of the Project immediately prior to the making of such additions, modifications and improvements. If any such additions, modifications or improvements to the Project result in the amount remaining available under Section 4.6 being insuffi- cient to complete the Project or pay any Acquisition and Construction Costs when due, the amount of such deficiency shall be paid by the City from any legally available source of fiends. SECTION 5.3. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. The City shall maintain or cause to be maintained, throughout the Term of this Agreement, insurance policies, including a standard comprehensive general liability insurance policy or policies, in protection of the City, its officers, agents and employees, and Seller. Said policy or policies shall provide for indemnifi- RVPUBURR\1'7249 -1.2- • cation of said parties against direct or contingent loss or liability for damages for bodily and personal injury, death or property damage occasioned by reason of the construction or operation and maintenance of the Project. Said policy or policies shall provide coverage in the minimum liability limits of $1,000,000 for personal injury or death of each person and $3,000,000 for personal injury or deaths of two or more persons in a single accident or event, and in a minimum amount of $250,000 (subject to a deductible clause of not to exceed $200,000) for damage to property resulting from each accident or event. Such public liability and property damage insurance may, however, be in the form of a single limit policy in the amount of $3,000,000 covering all such risks. Such liability insurance may be maintained as part of or in conjunction with any other liability insurance coverage carried by the City, and may be maintained in the form of self-insurance by the City. The Net Proceeds of such liability insurance shall be applied toward extinguishment or satisfaction of the liability with respect to which the insurance proceeds shall have been paid. SECTION 5.4. Fire and Extended Coverage Insurance. The City shall procure and maintain, or cause to be procured and maintained throughout the Term of this Agreement (but during the period of construction of the Project only if such insurance is not provided by the contractors) insurance against loss or damage to any structures constituting any part of the Project, including the Project by fire and lightning, with extended coverage insurance. A maximum deductible amount of $100,000 for any one loss shall be allowable. Such insurance shall be in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the replacement cost of the Project. Such insurance may be maintained as part of or in conjunction with any other fire and extended coverage insurance carried or required to be carried by the City, and may be maintained in the form of self-insurance by the City. The Net Proceeds of such insurance shall be applied as provided in Section 6.2(a) hereof. SECTION 5.5. Insurance Proceeds_ Form of Policies. The City shall pay or cause to be paid when due the premiums for all insurance policies required by this Agreement. All such policies shall provide that the Seller shall be given thirty (30) days' notice of each expiration thereof, and any intended cancellation thereof or reduction of the coverage provided thereby. The Seller shall not be responsible for the sufficiency of any insurance herein required and shall be fully protected in accepting payment on account of such insurance or any adjustment, compromise or settlement of any loss agreed to by the City. The City shall cause to be delivered to the Seller annually on or before July 1 a Certificate of a City Representative stating that the insurance policies required by this Agree- ment are in full force and effect. The Seller may conclusively rely upon such Certificates as evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements under this Agreement. SECTION 5.6. Advances. If the City shall fail to perform any of its obligations under this Article, the Seller may, but shall not be obligated to, take such action as may be necessary to cure such failure, including the advancement of money, and the City shall be obligated to repay all such advances as soon as possible, with interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of the advance to the date of repayment. SECTION 5.7. Self -Insurance. With respect to insurance required by this Article V and maintained by the City in the form of self-insurance, the City shall comply with the provisions of Section 5.04 of the Lease. RVPUBURR117249 -13- ARTICLE VI DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION AND EMINENT DOMAIN; USE OF NET PROCEEDS SECTION 6.1. Eminent Domain. If the entire Project shall be taken permanently under the power of eminent domain (or sold to a government agency threatening to exercise the power of eminent domain), the Term of this Agreement shall continue until the Seller has been paid in full, including all interest. If less than the entire Project shall be taken permanently, or if the entire Project, or any part thereof, shall be taken temporarily, under the power of eminent domain, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and shall not be terminated by virtue of such taking, and the parties waive the benefit of any law to the contrary. SECTION 6.2. Application of Net Proceeds. (a) From Insurance Award. The Net Proceeds of any insurance award resulting from any damage to or destruction of the Project by fire or other casualty shall be deposited by the Seller in a temporary fund designated the "Insurance and Condemnation Fund" promptly upon receipt thereof and, if the City Representative notifies the Seller in writing of the City's determination that the replacement, repair, restoration, modification or improvement of the Project is not economically feasible or in the best interests of the City, together with a certificate of an independent engineer and/or financial consultant to the effect that such action will not have a material effect on the operation of the Project, then such Net Proceeds shall be promptly applied to the payment of Installment Payments or prepayments. All such Net Proceeds deposited in the Insurance and Condemnation Fund and not so transferred shall be applied to the prompt replacement, repair, restoration, modification or improvement of the Project by the City, upon receipt by the Seller of a requisition or requisitions acceptable to the Seller signed by the City Representative stating with respect to each payment to be made (i) the requisition number, (ii) the name and address of the person, firm or corporation to whom payment is due, (iii) the amount to be paid, and (iv) that each obligation mentioned therein has been properly incurred, is a proper charge against the Insurance and Condemnation Fund, and has not been the basis of any previous withdrawal, and specifying in reasonable detail the nature of each such obligation. Any balance of the Net Proceeds of any insur- ance award remaining after the replacement, repair, restoration, modification or improvement of the Project has been completed shall be applied to the payment of Installment Payments or prepayments. (b) From Eminent Domain Award. The Net Proceeds of any eminent domain award or settlement resulting from any event described in Section 6.1 hereof shall be deposited in the Insurance and Condemnation Fund and shall be held and applied by the Seller in the same manner set forth above in Section 6.2(a). RVPUBURR\17249 - 14 - • ARTICLE VII DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES; ACCESS SECTION 7.1. Disclaimer of Warranties. THE SELLER MAKES NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE VALUE, DESIGN, CONDITION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT OR ANY PART THEREOF OR AS TO THE FITNESS OF THE PROJECT FOR THE USE CONTEMPLATED BY THE CITY OF THE PROJECT OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR ANY OTHER REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT OR ANY PART THEREOF. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE SELLER BE LIABLE FOR INCI- DENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN CONNECTION WITH OR ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, OR THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, EXISTENCE, FURNISHING OR FUNCTIONING OR CITY'S USE OF THE PROJECT. SECTION 7.2. Access to the Project. The City agrees that the Seller and any Seller Representative, and the Seller's successors or assigns, shall have the right at all reasonable times to enter upon and to examine and inspect the Project. The City further agrees that the Seller, any Seller Representative, and the Seller's successors or assigns shall have such right of access to the Project as may be reasonably necessary to cause the acquisition and construction of the Project and the proper maintenance of the Project in the event of failure by the City to perform its obligations here- under. SECTION 7.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants. The City shall and hereby agrees to indemnify and save the Seller, its successors and assigns harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, penalties and liabilities, including legal fees and expenses, arising out of (i) the use, maintenance, condition, management, disposition or sale of the Project, or from any work or thing done on the Project by the City or its contractors, (ii) any breach or default on the part of the City in the performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement, (lip any act or negligence of the City or of any of its agents, contractors, servants, employees or licensees with respect to the Project, (iv) any act or negligence of any assignee or sublessee of the City with respect to the Project, or (v) the acquisition and construction of the Project or the authorization of payment of the Acquisi- tion and Construction Costs by the City. No indemnification is made under this Section or elsewhere in this Agreement for willful misconduct, negligence, or breach of duty under this Agreement by the Seller, its officers, employees, successors or assigns. The indemnity provided for in this Section shall survive termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE VIII ASSIGNMENT AND SALE SECTION 8.1. Assignment by the City: Sale or Lease of the Project. This Agreement may not be assigned by the City, and the Project and may not be sold, leased or otherwise disposed RVPUBURR\17249 - 15 - of by the City during the Term of this Agreement, except for any portion of the Project which may be transferred or conveyed to CalTrans. SECTION 8.2. Assignment of Installment Payments by Seller. The Seller may assign or pledge its rights to receive Installment Payments hereunder; provided that the recipient of such assignment or pledge shall have no rights hereunder other than to receive the Installment Payments so assigned or pledged. ARTICLE IX EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES SECTION 9.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be "events of default" under this Agreement and the terms "event of default" and "default" shall mean, whenever they are used in this Agreement, receipt by the City of written notice from the Seller of any one or more of the following events: (i) Failure by the City to pay any Installment Payment or other payment required to be paid hereunder at the time specified herein for payment. (ii) Failure by the City to observe and perform any covenant, condition or agreement on its part to be observed or performed, other than as referred to in clause (i) of this Section, including, but not limited to, failure by the City to observe or perform any covenant, condition or agreement contained in Section 3.7 hereof, for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice specifying such failure and requesting that it be remedied has been given to the City by the Seller; provided, however, if the failure stated in the notice cannot be corrected within the applicable period, the Seller shall not unreasonably withhold its consent to an extension of such time if corrective action is instituted by the City within the applicable period and diligently pursued until the default is corrected. (iii) The filing by the City of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, or failure by the City promptly to lift any execution, garnishment or attachment, or adjudication of the City as a bankrupt, or assignment by the City for the benefit of creditors, or the entry by the City into an agreement of composition with creditors, or the approval by a court of competent jurisdiction of a petition applicable to the City in any proceedings instituted under the provisions of the Federal Bankruptcy Statute, as amended, or under any similar acts which may hereafter be enacted. (iv) An event of default shall have occurred under the Lease Agreement. SECTION 9.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any event of default referred to in Section 9.1 hereof shall have happened and be continuing, Seller, may, at its option and without any further demand or notice: RVPUBURR\17249 -16- • • • (a) declare all principal components of the unpaid Installment Payments, together with accrued interest at the rate set forth herein from the immediately preceding Payment Date on which payment was made, to be immediately due and payable, whereupon the same shall become due and payable; and (b) take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or desirable to collect the Installment Payments then due or thereafter to become due during the Term of this Agreement, or enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement or covenant of the City under this Agreement. provided that, under no circumstances may the principal component of the unpaid Installment Payments be declared due and payable upon the occurrence of an event of default described solely in subsection 9.1(iv) hereof. SECTION 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to Seller is intended to be exclusive and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right or power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle Seller to exercise any remedy reserved to it in this Article IX, it shall not be necessary to give any notice, other than such notice as may be required in this Article or by law. SECTION 9.4. Agreement to Pay Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. In the event either party to this Agreement should default under any of the provisions hereof and the non -defaulting party should employ attorneys or incur other expenses for the collection of moneys or the enforcement or performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on the part of the defaulting party herein contained, the defaulting party agrees that it will on demand therefor pay to the nondefaulting party the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other expenses so incurred by the non -defaulting party. SECTION 9.5. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the other parry, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other breach hereunder. SECTION 9.6. Application of the Proceeds. All amounts paid by or on behalf of the City shall be paid to the Seller for deposit in the Pledged Revenues Fund for application to the payment or prepayment of Installment Payments or deposit to the Reserve Fund or otherwise as provided herein. SECTION 9.7. Liability Limited to Pledged Revenues. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, the City's liability to pay the Installment Payments and other amounts hereunder shall be limited solely to Pledged Revenues as provided in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 hereof and other amounts transferred by the City to the Seller for application as provided herein. In the event RVPUBURR\17249 -17- that the Pledged Revenues shall be insufficient at any time to pay an Installment Payment in full, the City shall not be liable to pay or prepay such Installment Payment other than from such funds and revenues. ARTICLE X MISCELLANEOUS SECTION 10.1. Notices. All notices, certifications or other communications provided for in this Agreement shall be given by first class mail or personal delivery to the party entitled thereto at its address set forth below. All such notices, certifications, or other communications which are given by mail shall be deemed to have been received upon deposit in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid and addressed as follows: Address of the City: Address of Seller: City of Murrieta 26442 Beckman Court Murrieta, California 92562 Attention: City Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue Riverside, California 92501 Attention: Executive Director The Seller and the City, by notice given hereunder, may designate different addresses to which subsequent notices, certifications or other communications will be sent. SECTION 10.2. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon Seller and the City and their respective successors and assigns. SECTION 10.3. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. SECTION 10.4. Amendments. Changes and Modifications. This Agreement may be amended or any of its terms modified with the prior written consent of the City and Seller. SECTION 10.5. Net Contract. This Agreement shall be deemed and construed to be a "net contract" and the City hereby agrees that the Installment Payments shall be an absolute net return to the Seller, free and clear of any expenses, charges or set -offs whatsoever. SECTION 10.6. Further Assurances and Corrective Instruments. The Seller and the City agree that they will, from time to time, execute, acknowledge and deliver, or cause to be RVPUBURR\17249 -18- • • • executed, acknowledged and delivered, such supplements hereto and such further instruments as may reasonably be required for correcting any inadequate or incorrect description of the Project or for carrying out of the expressed intention of this Agreement. SECTION 10.7. execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. SECTION 10.8. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. SECTION 10.9. Seller and City Representatives. Whenever under the provisions of this Agreement the approval of the Seller or the City is required, or the Seller or the City is required to take some action at the request of the other, such approval or such request shall be given for the Seller by a Seller's Representative and for the City by the City Representative, and any party hereto shall be authorized to rely upon any such approval or request. SECTION 10.10. Captions. The captions or headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions or Sections of this Agreement. RVPUBURR\17249 -19- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Installment Sale Agreement as of the date first above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF MURRIETA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Alex Clifford, Chair Mayor REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: Jack Reagan, Executive Director REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: By: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission RVPUBURR\17249 - 2 0 - • • • as revised, viz., EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The Project is fully described in two CALTRANS-sponsored reports ("Reports") I. PROJECT STUDY / PROJECT REPORT; IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY ON INTERSTATE 15 AT MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD INTERCHANGE; 08-Riv-15-9.5. II. PROJECT STUDY / PROJECT REPORT; IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY ON INTERSTATE 215 AT MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD INTERCHANGE; 08-Riv-215-9.5. Copies of the current Reports are, by reference, included herein and made a part hereof. Subsequent revised Reports, if any, and/or final Reports fully approved by CALTRANS will be furnished to the Riverside County Transportation Commission and to the City of Murrieta. Such revised reports and/or final Reports will supersede in their entirety any prior reports furnished pursuant to this Exhibit A, and will by reference be included herein and made a part hereof. The parties acknowledge and agree that subsequent revised Reports and/or final Reports may differ from earlier Reports, but that any such differences will not, either individually or in the aggregate, result in Reports that are materially different from the current Reports. RVPUBURR\17249 A-1 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT REQUEST FORM (Attach duplicate original of Payee's statement(s) or invoices(s)) PROGRESS PAYMENT FULL/FINAL PAYMENT The Seller is hereby requested to pay, as indicated above, pursuant to the Amended and Restated Installment Sale Agreement dated as of February 1, 1997 by and between the Seller and Purchaser, to the person, corporation or other entity designated below as Payee, the sum set forth below such designation, in payment of the Acquisition and Construction' Costs described below. The amount shown below is due and payable under a purchase order, contract or other authorization with respect to the Acquisition and Construction Costs described below, which Acquisititon and Construction Costs were validly incurred under the Amended and Restated Installment Sale Agreement and has not formed the basis of any prior request for payment. Payee: Address: Amount: $ Description of Acquisition and Construction Project Costs or portions thereof and authorized to be paid to the Payee: To the best of the undersigned's knowledge, information and belies; moneys remaining available under Section 4.6 of the Amended and Restated Installment Sale Agreement should be sufficient to make this payment. Executed by a City Representative Signature: Dated: Title: Name: Payment Request No. Dated: Approved by Seller's Representative Signature: Name: Title: 1 All capitalized terms used in this Payment Request Form shall have the meanings set forth in the Amended and Restated Installment Sale Agreement. • • RVPUBURR\17249 B-1 AGENDA ITEK it5A Project Type: Circulation Priority: A-17 Project Name: 1-2 1 5 INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTION AT MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD; WIDENING OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD BETWEEN I- 15 AND 1-2 1 5 AND 1-2 1 5 TO EAST CITY LIMITS AT WARM SPRINGS CREEK Description: Scope of Project: • Benefit: • Full I-215 interchange improvements including six -lane bridge and two loop on -ramps and signalization. Improve north side of MHSRd to four lanes and left turn pocket between I-15 and I-215 (0.5 miles); plus MHSRd to four lane and left turn pocket from I-215 to Warms Springs Creek (1.4 miles). Bridge at Warm Springs Creek to be widened from two to four lanes. Right-of-way acquisition for fee title and construction easements as necessary. Most ROW acquired as of December 1996, but need few more fee title parcels, plus construction easements over six parcels. Caltrans approval required for interchange - expected February 1997. Enhance interchange capacity, increase safety, reduce emissions, promote economic development. Anticipated Construction: June/July 1997 —October 1998 Other Comments: South half ofMHSRd between I-15 and I-215 pending ROW dedication from Donahue/Schriber and Bosekers. Construction estimate $1.4M. I-15 interchange improvement is anticipated to follow if full funding at $7.1M is realized. City has tentative $2.2M RCTC STP discretionary funding pending reauthorization of ISTEA by Congress in September 1997. Total Project Cost: To Date $2,800,000 $600,000 $6,300,000 S12,700,000 1996-1997 1997-1998 Funding Sources: Future O&M Costs: 1998-1999 $3,000,000 Bonds backed by Gas Tax Development Mitigation Pledged Revenues $3,000 annually 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001 + $5,700,000 $3,600,000 $ 600,000 Location Map: (To be provided) 21 • • Project Type: Circulation Priority: C-55 Project Name: I- 15 INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTION AT MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD Description: Full I-15 interchange improvements including south bound loop on -ramp, six lane bridge over I-15 and signalization. Scope of Project: ROW acquired as of 12/96 PS&E. Caltrans approval pending (2/97). Actual construction of project could start late fall 1997 if 1) ISTEA reauthorization by Congress in 9/97 so $2.2M authorized by RCTC STP discretionary funds can be obligated, and 2) balance of $7.1M is somehow funded. Expect citizen pressure to complete this interchange since I-215 interchange is expected to be completed in 10/98. Benefit: Enhance interchange capacity, increase safety, reduce emissions, promote economic development. Anticipated Construction: To be determined Other Comments: Depending what ultimately develops at the "mall" site, staff feels the north bound loop on -ramp should be looked at for feasibility to construct. This loop on -ramp was not a part of requirement for mall as approved originally by County. Interchange operation unquestionably will be enhanced with this on -ramp. Total Project Cost: $7,100,000 To Date 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 z001 + $0 (To be determined) Funding Sources: $2.2M authorized by RCTC STP discretionary funds, but awaits ISTEA reauthorization by Congress in September 1997. Balance of funding to be determined for $7.1M project. Future O&M Costs: To be determined Location Map: (To be provided) 59 FUNDING PROPOSAL PRELIMINARY DA FEES $ 7,754,600 SUPPLEMENTAL DA FEES (County/City Agreement) $ 528,000 GAS TAX BOND PROCEEDS $ 5,600,000 ISTEA $ 2.200.000 $16,082,600 RCTC LOAN'/OR MEASURE A ADVANCE $ 2.367.400 $18,450,000 Loan commitment of $4,567,400 needed with ISTEA dollars of $2,200,000, $450,000 Road & Bridge fees and $2,000,000 of future Measure "A" dollars as collateral. • AGENDA ITEM #56 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 5, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Annual Audit Review by Ernst & Young Transportation Developoment Act (TDA) statutes and the Measure A ordinance requires that the Commission annually perform audits of fund recipients. The same statutory requirements exist for the Commission based on both statutory provisions and legal requirements embodied in the various bonding documents. All of these audits must be performed by an independent third party. The Commission has retained the firm of Ernst and Young to complete these audits. Annually Ernst & Young reports in detail to the Budget and Finance Committee its audit results on both the Commission and all funding recipients. The auditors will make a presentation to the Budget and Finance Committee including any compliance findings and suggestions for improving operational efficiency. FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: Not Applicable Source of Funds: Not Applicable Included In Current Year Budget (YIN): Not Applicable Budget Adjustment Required: Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Report to the Budget and Finance Committee February 5, 1997 1996 Audit Results =� ERNST&YOUNG LLP February 5, 1997 Budget and Finance Committee Riverside County Transportation Commission ■ Suite 600 3750 University Avenue P.O. Box 1270 Riverside, California 92502 Dear Members of the Budget and Finance Committee: • Phone: 909 276 7200 Fax: 909 787 8184 We are pleased to present the results of our audit of the general purpose financial statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") and the audits of the financial statements of Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants and Measure A recipients. At our planning meeting with management for the 1996 audit, we presented our audit plan, which included a commitment to understand and deliver on the Commission's expectations. Our approach for the Commission was designed to combine a historical perspective with a focus on the Commission's current and emerging business issues. This report to the Budget and Finance Committee summarizes our audits, the scope of our engagement, the reports issued and various analyses and observations related to the Commission's financial position and results of operations and the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients results of operations and compliance with Laws and Regulations. This document also reviews communications required by our professional standards, as well as current accounting issues that will affect the Commission. The completion of this year's audit was accomplished through the effective support and the assistance of the Commission's finance and administrative personnel. As always, we strive to continuously improve the quality of our audit services. This meeting is a forum for you to provide feedback on ways we can continue to meet and exceed your expectations. We appreciate this opportunity to meet with you. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (909) 276-7221 or Theresia Trevino at (909) 276-7263. Very truly yours, i I Sarah J. 1c'. erson Partner Ernst & Young LAP is a member of Ernst & Young nternational, Ltd. 1 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Focus: 1996 Audit Results Summary of What We Agreed to Do 3 Business Risk Assessment Update 5 Required Communications 7 Comments on the 1996 Commission Financial Statements 11 Comments on the 1996 TDA Claimants and Measure A Recipients Financial Statements 13 Article 4 Schedule 16 Article 3 Schedule 17 Article 8 Schedule 18 Measure A Schedule 19 Measure A Allocations 96 vs. 95 21 Measure A Specialized Transit 22 Focus: Value Results Value Ideas — Suggestions for Improvement Transportation Commission Value Ideas — Suggestions for Improvement Value Ideas — Suggestions for Improvement — Riverside County 23 — Riverside Transit Agency 26 — SunLine Transit Agency 29 Looking Ahead to Next Year GASB Issues and Pronouncements 31 Fiscal 1997 Audit Planning 33 Appendix Audit Process 34 Innovating the Audit 35 Measuring Value 37 2 • • • SUMMARY OF WHAT WE AGREED TO DO Riverside County Transportation Commission Our Approach As discussed with management during the planning meeting, our audit plan represented an approach responsive to the assessment of risk for the Commission. Specifically, we designed our audit to issue reports and letters on the following: • General Purpose Financial Statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. • Financial Statements on the Local Transportation Fund. • Single Audit and related compliance and internal control reports. • Management letter. • Debt compliance letter. Areas of Audit Emphasis The principal areas of audit emphasis were as follows: • Evaluation of the Commission's investment policies and compliance with SB Code 564. • Evaluation of the Commission's accounting for the 1996 refunding. • Evaluation of litigation, claims and assessments. • Evaluation of the Commission's accounting for project expenditures. • Analytical review and inquiry into the nature of various account balances. • Review of compliance with the provisions of Measure A, including level of administrative salaries and benefits. • Evaluation of the Commission's internal controls (cash receipts, cash disbursements, payroll). • Compliance with Laws and Regulations. TDA Claimants and Measure A Recipients Our Approach We designed our audits to issue reports and letters on the following: • Transit and Transportation Financial Statements of TDA claimants and Measure A recipients. • Related compliance and internal control reports under Government Auditing Standards. Management letter. Areas of Audit Emphasis The principal areas of audit emphasis were as follows: • Audit and evaluation of TDA expenditures. • Evaluation of Measure A expenditures in relation to approved Measure A five-year capital improvement plans. • Evaluation of deferred revenues and capital grants equity, as applicable. • Analytical review and inquiry into the nature of various account balances. • Analytical review of actual results and budget amounts. • Review of compliance with the provisions of TDA and Measure A. There were no changes to our planned approach or audit areas of emphasis. • 4 • • BUSINESS RISK ASSESSMENT UPDATE Industry Issue Funding Sources The Commission, TDA claimants and Measure A recipients rely heavily on various funding sources including federal, state and local monies. There con- tinues to be a possibility of a decrease in funding, primarily at the federal and local level. The Commission must continually assess project funding availability and moni- tor sales tax growth. Debt financing of future projects is limited. Expenditure funding for TDA claimants and Measure A recipients is dependent on federal, state and local monies. Assess budgeting controls. Business Issue Reorganization The Commission continues to evolve and be proactive and is considering possible reorganization issues. Cash Management Technology The Commission is respon- sible for making investment decisions for its cash and investments. The Commission operates in an environment that requires the Commission to continue to access the security and adequacy of information systems. Possible reorganization pre- sents the Commission with operating, legal and account- ing challenges. The Commission must bal- ance its safety, liquidity, and yield investment objectives and ensure that investments are made in accordance with state laws and Commission policies. Maintain operations during disasters. Prevent unauthorized use of system and related data. Impact on financial state- ments. Compliance with invest- ment objectives, state laws and policies. Determine disclosures in financial statements are approp- riate. Adequacy of access and programming controls on EDP controls and related effect on nature and extent of audit testing. 5 Technical Issues Property Held for Development Debt The Commission has prop- erty purchased for right-of- way acquisition, of which a portion may not be used for project construction. The Commission, the Riverside Transit Agency and the SunLine Transit Agency maintain various types of debt. Identification of alternative Adequate disclosure in the uses for excess property is financial statements. necessary to maximize the Commission's investment. Additionally, periodic ap- praisals are needed to identify property values. Financial feasibility scenarios. Compliance with debt covenants and proper ac- counting and reporting. • 6 • • REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS Government Auditing Standards (GAS) and Statement of Auditing Standards No. 61 requires the auditor to ensure that the Budget and Finance Committee receives additional information regarding the scope and results of the audit that may assist the Committee in overseeing management's financial reporting and disclosure process. Below we summarize these required communications. Auditors' Responsibilities under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) The general purpose financial statements are the responsibility of management. Our audits were designed in accordance with GAAS and GAS, which provide for reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance that the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement. We have a responsibility to opine on whether the general purpose financial statements are fairly stated in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Our audit of the federal financial assistance was performed in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984. As a part of our audit, we obtained a sufficient understanding of internal controls to plan our audits and to determine the nature, timing and extent of testing performed. We have issued an unqualified opinion on the Commission's general purpose financial statements for the year ended June 30, 1996. We have issued unqualified opinions on the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients. Management did not place any restrictions on the scope of our audit. Significant Accounting Policies Initial selection of and accounting policies or new accounting and during the year must be changes in significant their application and reporting standards reported. The significant accounting policies used by the Commission are described in Note 1 to the general purpose financial statements. There were no changes in significant accounting policies. The Commission refunded a portion of the 1991 Sales Tax Bonds with the $61,765,000 1996 Refunding Bonds. This refunding is properly accounted for in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 7 The Commission restated the beginning balance of its equity investment in joint ventures by approximately $14,433,000 to account for its equity in the rail, passenger and locomotive cars owned by SCRRA. Management Judgments and Accounting Estimates The preparation of financial statements There are no areas requiring significant requires the use of accounting estimates. judgments or accounting estimates in the 1996 Certain estimates are particularly sensitive due general purpose financial statements. to their significance to the statements and the possibility that future events may differ significantly from management's expectations. Significant Audit Adjustments No audit adjustments were recorded. Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements Prior year's general purpose financial statements were used in connection with the current year financings. We were not engaged to perform any services in this regard. Disagreements `with Management on Financial Accounting and Reporting Matters None. Major Issues Discussed with Management None. Prior to Retention Consultation with Other Accountants None. 8 • • • Serious Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit None. Material Errors, Irregularities and Illegal Acts None identified and management represented there were none. Significant Disclosures Not Made None. Reportable Conditions None. Single Audit Findings The Commission had no single audit findings. Riverside Transit Agency had two Single Audit Findings relating to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Reporting and Civil Rights cases which were subsequently settled in the Agency's favor. SunLine Transit Agency had one Single Audit Finding relating to the National Transit Database Reporting. Most Recent Ernst & Young LLP Peer Review Results Government Auditing Standards require the independent auditor to communicate the most recent peer review results to its governmental clients. KPMG Peat Marwick LLP completed the 1995 peer review of Ernst & Young. The peer review results are contained in an unqualified Peer Review Report, which indicates that the quality control policies and procedures for E&Y's accounting and auditing practice are being complied with in such a manner as to provide the firm with reasonable assurance of conforming with professional standards. Management Advisory Services • Ernst & Young has been engaged to perform real estate advisory services during fiscal 1997. The estimated fees are $18,000. 10 • • • COMMENTS ON THE 1996 COMMISSION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS • Increase in cash and investments in the current year was due to reimbursements from California Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) for rail station construction costs expended in the prior year and commercial paper proceeds. • Loans receivable decreased due to expected repayments and the forgiveness of the $1.4 million loan to the City of Perris. • Investments held by trustee decreased due to a significant use of the 1993 bond proceeds expended for regional arterial as the program moves into the Right of Way (ROW) and construction phase. • Additional commercial paper notes were issued in 1996 to cover current year highway expenditures and rail station construction costs. • Accounts payable increased due to regional arterial expenditure reimbursement invoices submitted by CVAG. • Regional arterial program expenditures increased as the program has entered into ROW and the construction phase. • Bond proceeds of $66 million were received and related payments to escrow agent were made from refunding of 1991 bonds. Condensed Balance Sheet Assets: Cash and investments Receivables Other assets Restricted assets Property, plant and equipment Other debits Total assets Liabilities and fund equity: Liabilities, accounts payable and other liabilities Long-term debt Fund equity: Investment in general fixed assets Retained earnings Reserved fund balance Unreserved fund balance (primarily in special revenue and trust and agency funds) Total fund equity Total liabilities and fund equity Totals (Memorandum Only) 1996 Totals (Memorandum Only) 1995 $ 61,376,493 25,814,977 1,093,432 66,246,364 98,242,664 257,572,370 510,346,300 21,582,148 257,572,370 98,242,664 16,636 119,854,484 13,077,998 231,191,782 $ 510,346,300 $ 52,463,366 28,759,995 1,117,648 81,901,282 98,465,572 252,411,474 515,119,337 18,990,396 252,411,474 98,465,572 9,710 135,920,893 9,321,292 243,717,467 $ 515,119,337 11 Condensed Operations for Five Years Revenues and other sources: Sales tax Reimbursements Interest Other Subtotal Other sources Total revenues and other sources Expenditures and other uses: Administrative Program Debt service Intergovernmental distributions Capital outlay Subtotal Other uses Total expenditures and other uses Net increase (decrease) Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 1996 $ 88,208,264 8,114,912 6,261,936 5,274,781 107,859,893 106,882,232 214,742,125 2,732,131 106,225,072 25,327,7.62 367,936 144,537 134,797,438 92,254,390 227,051,828 (12,309,703) 145,242,185 $ 132,932,482 1995 $ 79,733,751 12,947,846 8,220,527 4,666,051 105,568,175 41,862,035 147,430,210 2,723,025 94,808,303 23,379,723 377,927 177,527 121,466,505 26,862,035 148,328.540 (898,330) 146,140,515 $ 145,242,185 1994 $ 75,988,389 17,502,554 5,122,385 3,646,794 102,260,122 45.678,660 147,938,782 2,919,130 128,693,373 21,860,166 395,000 1,176,549 155,044,218 30,678,660 185,722,878 (37,784,096) 183,064,629 $ 145,280,533 1993 $ 73,715,652 8,603,749 4,523,680 3,420,632 90,263,713 217,904,746 308,168,459 2,506,676 156,415,021 39,801,081 314,500 337,583 199,374,861 57,471,596 256,846,457 51,322,002 131,742,627 $ 183,064,629 1992 $ 69,260,082 961,678 7344,774 2,408.559 80,375,093 16,936,705 97,311,798 2,541,878 81,657,341 9,480,467 435,060 302,302 94,417,048 16,936,705 111,353,753 (14,041,955) 145,784,582 $ 131,742,627 • 12 • • • COMMENTS ON THE 1996 TDA CLAIMANTS AND MEASURE A RECIPIENTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Balance Sheet Items The following cities/entities had cash overdrafts in the respective funds at June 30, 1996: City of Lake Elsinore Measure A fund — $201,586 City of Coachella Article 3 fund — $10,116 Riverside General Hospital Specialized Measure A transit fund $66 Various amounts are owed to the Commission at June 30, 1996, including accrual of 1996 audit fees for remaining Article 8 monies for the Cities of Corona, Murrieta, Riverside and the County of Riverside. In addition, $8,372 is owed to the Commission from the City of Banning for excess TDA and STA capital allocations received in a prior year. The Senior and Disabled Citizens Coalition Measure A Fund has a fund deficit of $5,406 at June 30, 1996. The fund deficit will be funded with fiscal year 1997 allocations. Care -A -Van Measure A Transit System has a fund deficit of $4,901 at June 30, 1996. The fund deficit will be funded by increasing fund raising efforts in fiscal year 1997. The following cities have a fund balance representing at least three years of unspent monies: • City of Corona Article 8 monies of $125,083, representing allocations since 1993. • City of Riverside Article 8 monies of $236,597, representing allocations since 1991. • City of Beaumont Measure A monies of $712,410, representing allocations since 1991. • City of Blythe Measure A monies of $2,347,491, representing allocations since 1993. • City of Desert Hot Springs Measure A monies of $6,618, representing allocations since 1992. • City of Murrieta Measure A monies of $31,853, representing allocations since 1993. • City of Norco Measure A monies of $1,767,372, representing allocations since 1992. 13 Income Statement Items The following cities/entities allocate indirect costs and other overhead allocations to TDA or Measure A funds: • The City of Banning allocates interfund costs, such as administration, personnel, attorney costs, insurance, fleet maintenance, financial and computer costs to the Article 4 Transit fund. • The City of Beaumont allocates administrative overhead costs to both the Article 4 and Measure A funds. Family Services Association allocated overhead based on income of the program and any separate reporting requirements. • Meditrans allocates overhead costs based on vehicle service hours, which agree to the Measure A match requirements. • Volunteer Center of Greater Riverside allocates salaries based on the percentage of full-time equivalents for the program. Other Items The City of Rancho Mirage has a 55% fare ratio in FY 96 due to the City general fund contributions to cover the cash shortage resulting from increased demand for the Dial -A -Ride service. The City of Desert Hot Springs is appealing a lawsuit with a developer which resulted in a $4,700,000 judgment entered against the City in August 1994. Although the judgment does not directly involve the Transportation Funds, an unfavorable outcome to this contingency would so significantly impact the City that the planned operations of the Transportation Funds could be indirectly affected. Currently, the City only receives Article 3 monies. Management is unable to determine the outcome of the appeal or the impact, if any, on the Transportation Funds. City of Palm Desert adopted GASB 22, Accounting for Taxpayer Assessed Tax Revenues in Governmental Funds" resulting in a cumulative effect of adoption of $136,002. • • 14 • • • Internal Control Findings City of Indian Wells — preparer of checks also mails out the signed checks. Signed checks should be mailed by an individual other than the preparer in order to maintain a proper segregation of duties. Compliance Findings City of Banning has not filed the Annual Street Report to the California State Controller's Office for the year ended June 30, 1996. As such, receipt of the City's Gas Tax monies has been postponed until the Annual Street Report is filed with the California State Controller's Office. Therefore, the MOE calculation for FY 96 indicates $-0- for the current year local discretionary expenditures. The City met the MOE requirements in the current year through prior year carryover funds. City of Riverside has $185,000 of Measure A expenditures that were not on the approved 5 year plan. They were identified as questioned costs. The City intends to request that the submitted budget be revised to include these expenditures. City of Cathedral City commingled Article 3 monies in the Measure A fund. The City does adequately identify the revenue sources and related expenditures. City of Lake Elsinore commingled Article 3 monies in the Measure A fund. The City does adequately identify the revenue sources and related expenditures. Cash Flow Concerns City of Lake Elsinore has continued to experience City-wide financial pressures regarding the debt incurred related to the baseball stadium. Subsequent to year end, the City refinanced the debt using the City's lake as collateral There has been significant press coverage relating to the City's financial matters. City of Perris has experienced an unusually high rate of turnover of City personnel. Various open items include the City's inability to reconcile cash at June 30, 1996 and other items. 15 • 6170'£80'3 8Z9'LEE'17$ 9ZZ179l$ —$ 600'E80'Z 8Z6'6017'Z bL9'£8 - -$ 006'LZ6'L$ Z99'0L$ — WE'09$ bbt98l$ LLZ'E8L$ 80L'LL$ 17/9'90 L96'8E L 82.9'8 L9- E'09$ OL9'6EL$ 179Z1717$ 0£8'n b9Z' L6Z$ (119'09l) 9E9'lLb LLZ'O6L' L E96'ESZ (906'ZL9' L ) E6Z'£lb'L ZOZ'90Z (£96'E9Z) OZb'0l L (OOL'ZL) 000'096' L l 1.9'9£ EZ6'60 L 000'9LZ 000'096'0 Lb8' L EZ$ Z98'ELE (9L0'Zbl) Z6L'EE9'Z b68'69 L (1.OL'9E8'Z) 066'90E17L 1700'E9 660' L b L (b68'69L) 09L'L9Z ZE9'L£ 00- 0'0Z 9L0'E L LEZ'£££ E9- 0'LLL Z69'9L9 1,017'6EL'Z L — $ LE- £'90 L (L££'90 L ) 9 L 6'OLO' L Z l- 0'8 90- 6'Z90' L —$ (L9L'9) L9L'9 l9L'9 OOZ'6E OOZ'6£ (869'996'8) (L69'bbl'LL) (99Z'LLL'L) (6017'Z£) LLS'689'01. E99'69Z'OZ 0£9'69Z'L 9EZ'ZL Z99.0 L'9 9Ll'099'LL £6Z'ESL'L 9£Z'ZL 686'8LL'Z L8£'6£L'Z LEE '90L — EL9'E06'13 ZL8170L'E$ SLE'Z9$ —$ —$ —$ (899'Z l) 96- 0'L 1.01- 7'06 EZb'Eb Z9 L'£$ (E£L'L) 969'0 L 69 L'E8 (960'L) (lbb'06) (99L'0£) (09Z'ZL) £09'9L 1,06' L l b 689'96E 0817'96E 068 £L- 9'91 (669'£8) 9E0'96 099'99 960'L ZZ9'9 89L'8 990'0L 09- 8'9 0 0 0 ' Z Z 000'98 £ZZ'L8Z L170'8L£ LE- Z'Z ES- Z'b6E (Zb£'Z09) (1791'9Z0) (80L'8917) L99'999 9£0'8917 LE9'Z99 OZb'SLb EL9'0170 9Z6'890 Lbb'06 EZb'Eb L L9'£8 98L'6£$ 9E0'ZLS 6L9'99$ Z89'1,9$ 68L'£8$ Awa6y psueal aununs Aoua6y ;!sued ap!sianla agnssi a3(lssl ap!siam8 86e.111,1 oyouea AalleA euwoo ;uowneas 6u!uueg ;o Apo ;o Apo apiaA (Ned ;o Apo ;o ;o Apo corks' consSl corms, a3flssl ldVdel agnssl • s;uawa;e;s le!oueuu 9661 :aamos 9661 '0£ aunt anuanai pana;ap le;ol le;!deo 6u!;eJadO :966L '0£ aunp;e anuanal pa»a;a0 9661, '0E aunt s6u!wea pau!e)ab 9661. ' L AInf le (;!o8ap pa;elnwnooe) s6u!wea pau!e4a8 s6upea paule;ai u! (aseanap) aseanu!;aN Apadwd pamnb3e;uei6;o uogez!powe pue uonepaidap >peg ppy spun;;uei6 le;!deo Aq pasmgw!ai asuadxa;saia;u! >peg ppy (ssol) awoou! ;aN sanuanai 6ul;eiado-uou le;ol Auadwd 6u!;eJado;o lesods!p uo (ssol) uleO Ja41O asuadxa ;saga;ul awoou! ;sa.1a;ul 99LZ 9y Lo!.;s!o;uawa6eum Amen° i!y g6noiyl ssed y ainseavy ;!sue.; paz!leloads y ainseaw aoue;s!sse 6u!;eiado !ammo Ob'W0 `dl3 9Z uo!;oaS yl3 g L uo!;aaS yl3 6 uo!PaS `dl3 pun; uol;epodsuei; leoon :sanuanaJ 6uneiado-uoN ssol 6ul;eiadO sasuadxa 6ul;eiado le;o1 sasuadxa 6u!;endo Jay;O uogez!powe uol;e!oaidaa :sasuadxa 6u!;eiadO sanuanai 6u!;eJado le;ol L6/LZ/L 96/OE/9 papu3 JeaA alnpayoS ti 3101121`d 09Z66 u(!;oaS • Section 99234 As of : 1 /27/97 Revenues Intergovernmental allocations: Article 3 Other Revenue Interest income Total revenues Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Operating transfers in Excess of revenues and operating transfers over (under) expenditures Fund balances (deficit) at July 1, 1995 Fund balances at June 30, 1996 Deferred revenues al June 30, 1996 Source: 1996 Financial Statements • ARTICLE 3 SCHEDULE Year Ended 6/30/96 ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED DRAFT DRAFT ISSUED City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of County of City of City of Banning Calimesa Cathedral City Coachella Corona Indio Moreno Valley Norco Riverside Riverside Perris Temecula $16,705 $22,022 $31,458 $7,454 $30,537 $36,358 $15,704 $5,761 $11,201 $159,995 $50,000 $42,300 1,784 - - - 1,921 - _ _ - 286 36 3,871 4,645 18,489 22,022 31,458 7,454 30,537 36,644 15,740 7,682 15,072 164,640 , 50,000 42,300 43,489 22,022 - 45,670 9,318 30,690 42,200 29,328 7,682 15,072 164,640 50,000 42,300 (25,000) (14,212) (1,864) (153) (5,556) (13,588) - _ _ - 25,000 - 14,212 1,864 - 5,556 13,588 - - (153) 28,165 - - - 153 $28,165 $- $- $- $- - - - (b) $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $7,775 $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $125,111 $105,374 (a) $- (a) Projects not completed in current year, carryover to next fiscal year. (b) Fund Balance related to operating transfer in anticipation of FY 97 project. (a) (a) 17 • • • s;uawa;e;g le!oueu!3 9661, :aomog VaJe apJan died ay; Jo; suogeoolle g alowv 0/4009J o; senu!;uoo to a41 :9661 u!;!pne ue 6uu!nbaJ saoueleq pun; 6u!uu!6aq papuadxaun o; anp papiooa'seen 96 A3;o;lpne ay; Jo; OOLL$ Jo eel pne uy (e) (e) (e) (e) (q) VVE'L6E$ L69'9EZ$ t+ll'ZL$ £80'9ZL$ —$ (q) (e) sle;ol — OL8'9£L — — — L661 — Z179'EZ — — — Z66L — PZPV L — 1798' 16 — E661 88L'LEZ 6Lb'OL — ZL61/1. — P661 VOZ'09 L — 69£'L9 L8L' L L — 9661 Z9E'6$ ZbZ'LV$ 99L'V$ OL17'9$ 996' L$ 9661 :pomade.' JeaA Aq aoueleq pun3 VVE'L6£$ L69'9EZ$ L'ZL$ E80'9Z1$ 996'L$ 966L 'OE °LW le saoueleq pund OLE'EZV 98V'L6L 9EE'ti£L 8E9'ZPZ Z09'Ebl 966L 'L Alnp;e saoueleq pun3 (996'9Z) ZLL'6£ (ZZZ'Z9) (9917'LLL) (9E9'LPL) 8LE'9£ OEL'8 LL6'99 9Z6'£Zl Mt?'LEZ sam;lpuedxa (Japun) nano senuanai jo sseox3 samppuadxe le;o1 Z9E'6 ZileLb 99L'b OLV9 998'68 sanuaneJ lemol Z9E'6$ 9l9' L L 99L'17$ OLt7'9$ OLV 9 awoou! ;saga;ul — LZ9'9£$ — — — anuana.11ay;0 — — — — 98£'E8$ (e)8 elo!IN :suogedolle le;uawwano6Ja;ul senuanau appan!a ap!sJamu e;aumlN euaoo aWig ;o Alunoo ;o Apo ;o Apo ;o Al!O ;o 1A/2:10 aanssl conSS, conSSl corms, L6ILZ/l :Jo sy 96/0E/9 Papua JeaA alnpayoS 8 310112JV (e)00(766 uol;oas MEASURE A YEAR END 6/30/96 As of 1/27/97 ISSUED DRAFT ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED City of City of City of City of City of City of City of Desert City of CitBanning Beaumont Blythe Calimesa Cathedral City Corona CVAG Hot Spring Hemet Ind anyVVells Indioof Cityf Lakelof Revenues ty Elsinore Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A $345,030 $151,462 $586,621 $68.487 $683,165 $1.634,294 $1.397,394 Interchange Improvement - - _ _ - $825,763 $115.212 $589.295 $401,017 County Flood Control _ - - - - _ _ SLTPP reimbursement - - - 5,456 32 174 - - - - ISTEA reimbursement _ _ - - - _ _ STLPLG - - SB 300 - - - 13,718 - 157,051 _ _ _ - - 214,900 Pass Through Revenues _ - 7,462,387 Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee Reimbursement from CVAG - - - - 637,448 Reimbursement from other - - governmental agencies - - - Gas Tax 16,721 - - - Total expenditures Excess (deficiency) of revenues over 64,267 69,045 247,744 482,939 1,081,512 2,122,780 27,189,509 47,714 1,371,425 178,830 377,920 957,304 (under) expenditures 292,323 113,860 444,375 (78,871) 285,864 (129,802) 2,518,018 (47,090) (463,530 (60,965) 296,601 (324,457) Other financing sources (uses) - - - 6,013 Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures 292,323 113,860 444,375 (78,871) 291,877 (129,802) 2,518,018 (47,090) (463,530) (60,965) 296,601 (324,457) Cumulative effect of adoption of new accounting pronouncement _ Fund balances at July 1, 1995 112,696 598,550 1,903,116 178,407 851,343 3,082,437 17,108,610 53,258 1,759,562 144,798 1,603,020 340,632 Fund balances at June 30, 1996 $405,019 $712,410 $2,347,491 $99,536 $1,143,220 $2,952,635 $19,626,628 $6,168 $1,296,032 $83,833 $1,899,621 $16,175 2,199,259 Developer fees Project reimbursement from bond proceeds - - - 18,090,503- Other revenue - - - 308,342 12,331 Interest income income 11,560 31,443 105,498 8,065 34,432 169,459 538,418 $624 81,995 2,653 85,226 16,930 Total revenues 356,590 182,905 692,119 404,068 1,367,376 1,992,978 29,707,527 624 907,895 117,865 674,521 632,847 Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances - $240,500 - $12,180 $186,042 Reserved for specific projects - - - $6,168 _ $Jg 289 _ Reserved for continuinga - - 1,588,007 _ _ _ appropriations - - $2,347,491 - 725,065 - - Designated for continuing appropriations _ - _ - - - - Designated for future projects _ _ _ - - - $1,257,749 Designated for debt service payments - - $19,626,628 .Unreserved, undesignated fund balance 405,019 471,910 - $99,536 405.975 - 1,178,586 - Totalfundbalances $405,019 $712,410 $2,347,491 $99,536 $1,143,220 $2,952,635 $19,626,628 $6,168 - $1,296,032 $83,833 $1,899,621 $16,175 Fund balance by year of total revenues received 199 1995 $356,590 $182.905 $692,119 $99,536 $1,143,220 $1,992,978 48,429 34,408 598,715 - 959,657 $19,626,628 $624 $907,895 $83,833 $674.521 $16,175 1994 - 156,564 538,781 _ - 1,792 388,137 - 681.046 1993 - 158,285 517,876 1.193 538.054 1992 - 159,147 _ _ _ - - 1,959 1991 21,101 _ - 600 - Totals $405,019 $712,410 $2,347,491 $99,536 $1,143,220 $2,952,635 $19,626,628 $6,168 $1,296,032 $83.833 $1,899,621 $16,175 Source: 1996 Financial Statements 19 As of 1/27/97 ISSUED MEASURE A YEAR END 6/30/96 ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED DRAFT ISSUED ISSUED DRAFT ISSUED ISSUED City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of County of City of City of 1996 Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Palm Desert Palm Springs Perris Rancho Mirage Riverside Riverside San Jacinto Temecula Total Revenues Measure A Interchange Intergovernmental allocations: Measure $1,837,231 - $462,274 $343,931 $1,069,327 $943,596 $228,495 $383,794 $4,025,493 $4,602,766 $322,872 $797,980 $21,815,499 Interchange Improvement - - - - - - - 1,001,796 - - $1,001,796 County Flood Control 637,797 - - - - - - - - - $637,797 SLTPP reimbursement 335,967 - - - - - - 203,467 - - 577,064 ISTEA reimbursement 906,460 - - - - - - - _ _ _ 1,121,360 STLPLG - - - - - - - - _ _ _ $170, 769 SB 300 - - - - 806,859 - - - - - - $806,859 Pass Through Revenues - - - - - - - - - - 7,462,387 Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee - - - - - - - - _ _ 2,199,259 Reimbursement from CVAG - - - - 1,603,319 1,870,367 - 318,864 - - 4,429,998 Reimbursement from other governmental agencies - - - - - 315,579 39,089 - 27,383 - 398,772 Gas Tax - - 453,636 - - - - - - - 453,636 Developer fees - - 347,595 - - - - - - - - 347,595 Project reimbursement from bond proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - 18,090,503 Other revenue 58,849 - - - 265,335 - - - 4,530 - 283,000 750 936,119 Interest income 258,341 3,087 95,637 78,944 214.172 60,241 2,997 14,396 513,456 60,543 25,330 128,363 2,541,810 Total revenues 4,034,645 3,087 1,359,142 422,875 3,959,012 3,189,783 270,581 920,521 5,545,275 4,690,692 631,202 927,093 62,991,223 Total expenditures 3,883,918 27,952 3,073,868 138,414 4,649,014 2,971,741 280,325 808,298 6,885,331 3,599,871 697,141 888,913 62,095,775 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures 150,727 (24,865) (1,714,726) 284,461 (690,002) 218,042 (9,744) 112,223 (1,340,056) 1,090,821 (65,939) 38,180 895,448 Other financing sources (uses) 266,364 - - - - - - - - - - 272,377 Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures 417,091 (24,865) (1,714,726) 284,461 (690,002) 218,042 (9,744) 112,223 (1,340,056) 1,090,821 (65,939) 38,180 1,167,825 Cumulative effect of adoption of new accounting pronouncement - - - - 136,002 - - - - - - $136,002 Fund balances at July 1, 1995 4,515,664 56,718 2,565,274 1,482,911 3,844,038 1,594,172 154,499 477,250 10,824,683 384,896 466,281 2.122,655 56,225,470 Fund balances at June 30, 1996 $4,932,755 $31,853 $850,548 $1,767,372 $3,290,038 $1,812,214 $144,755 $589,473 $9,484,627 $1,475,717 $400,342 $2,160,835 $57,529,297 Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances $174,028 $11,043 $166,354 - S2,224,211 $80,818 - $201,924 $1,389,948 - - $586,197 $5,358,702 Reserved for specific projects - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,588.007 Reserved for continuing appropriations - - - - 562,000 1,758,781 - - - - - 5,393.337 Designated for continuing appropriations - - - - - - - 387,549 - - - - 1,645.298 Designated for future projects - 20,810 684,194 - 503,827 - - - 4.237,252 - - - 5,446,083 Designated for debt service payments - - - - - - - - - - - - 19,626.628 Unreserved, undesignated fund balance 4,758,727 - - $1,767,372 - (27,385) $144,755 - 3,857,427 $1,475,717 $400,342 1,574,638 18471,242 Total fund balances $4,932,755 $31,853 $850,548 $1,767,372 $3,290,038 $1,812,214 $144,755 $589,473 $9,484,627 $1,475,717 $400,342 $2,160,835 $57,529,297 Fund balance by year total revenues received: 1996 $ 4,034,645 $ 3,087 $ 850,548 $ 422.875 $3,290,038 $1,812,214 144,755 $ 589,473 $ 5.545.275 $ 1,475,717 $ 400,342 $ 927,093 $45,273,086 1995 898,110 3,290 - 399,054 - - - 3,939,352 - - 816,632 8,774.622 1994 - 2,128 - 355,054 - - - - - - - 417.110 2.008.884 1993 - 23,348 - 361,935 - - - - - - - 1,063,403 1992 - - - 228,454 - - - - - - 388,201 1991 - - - - - - _ _ _ 21,101 Totals S4,932,755 $31,853 $850,548 $1,767,372 $3,290,038 $1,812,214 144,755 $589,473 $9,484.627 $1,475,717 $400.342 $2,160,835 57.529.297 Source: 1996 Finatements • • • As of: 1 /27/97 ISSUED City.of Banning DRAFT City of Beaumont ISSUED City of Blythe ISSUED City of Calimesa ISSUED City of Cathedral City ISSUED City of Corona ISSUED CVAG ISSUED City of Desert Hot Springs ISSUED City of Hemet ISSUED City of Indian Wells ISSUED City of Indio ISSUED City of Lake Elsinore ISSUED City of Moreno Valley ISSUED City of Murrieta - Interchange Fund ISSUED City of Norco ISSUED City of Palm Desert ISSUED City of Palm Springs DRAFT City of Perris ISSUED City of Rancho Mirage ISSUED City of Riverside DRAFT County of Riverside ISSUED City of San Jacinto ISSUED City of Temecula Totals Measure A Allocations 96 vs 95 Year Ended 6/30/96 Measure A 1996 345,030 151,462 586,621 68,487 683,165 1,634,294 1,397,394 825,763 115,212 589,295 401,017 1,837,231 462,274 343,931 (a) 1,016,245 943,596 459,033 383,794 4,025,493 4,602,766 322,872 797,980 Measure A Increase 1995 (decrease) 313,700 146,892 510,287 111,131 653,294 1,457, 389 939,890 771,285 109,492 577,084 357,963 1,708, 742 384,299 336,100 889,759 999,756 424,535 350,400 3,704,939 4,051,672 280,566 712,787 31,330 4,570 76,334 (42,644) 29,871 176,905 457,504 54,478 5,720 12,211 43,054 128,489 77,975 7,831 126,486 (56,160) 34,498 33,394 320,554 551,094 42,306 85,193 21,992,955 19,791,962 2,200,993 (a) Revenues for the City of Palm Desert reflect allocations made by RCTC during the respective fiscal years and thus will not agree to the revenues on the Measure A financial statements, due to the City adopting GASB No. 22. Source: 1996 Financial Statements 21 As of: 1 /27/97 Measure A Specialized Transit Year Ended 6/30/96 DRAFT DRAFT ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED Care -A -Van Riverside Senior 8 Disable Volunteer Transit Family Service Meditrans Services General Citizens Center of System Association Equipment Operating Hospital Coalition Greater Riverside Revenues Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A $89,000 $100,000 - $131,905 $46,476 $202,464 $84,067 Interest income 170 - - 237 714 175 - Fare revenue contribution 14,149 2,830 - - - - - Other contributions 81,407 87,282 - 8,744 - - Other revenue 3,918 22,436 - 1,845 3,195 - - Total revenues 188,644 212,548 - 142,731 50,385 202,639 84,067 Total operating expenses Excess of revenues over (under) expenses Nonoperating revenue: Family Service Assoc. Of Western Riverside Cnty - Senior Center Subsidy Add Back Depreciation of grant acquired property Excess of revenues and operating transfers over (under) expenses Fund balances (deficit) at July 1, 1995 191,217 212,548 $10,164 142,731 59,920 208,045 (2,573) - (10,164) - (9,535) (5,406) 9,535 84,067 (2,573) (10,164) (2,328) - 41,815 (5,406) Fund balances (deficit) at June 30, 1996 $(4,901) $- $31,651 $- ¢ $(5,406) $- (d) (e) Deferred revenues at June 30, 1996 Operating $- - - $- $7,051 $- Capital - $1,534 $12,755 - 273 - $- Total deferred revenues at June 30, 1996 $- $1,534 $12,755 $- $7,324 $- $- (b) (c) (a) For vehicle acquisition in FY 97. (b) For equipment purchases in FY 97 (c) The deferred operating revenue represents monies not yet spent, but which are expected to be used in FY 97 (d) Care -A -Van plans to reduce the deficit by increasing fund raising events during fiscal year 1997. (e) SDCC plans to reduce the deficit with allocations received for fiscal year 1997. Source: 1996 Financial Statements • • • • • Mr. Jack Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission DRAFT In planning and performing our audit of the general purpose financial statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) for the year ended June 30, 1996, we considered its internal control in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the general purpose financial statements and not to provide an opinion on internal control. During our audit, the following matters came to our attention that we believe merit your consideration: Investment Policy The California Government Code Section 53601 specifies several investment policy restrictions including the following: banker's acceptance limited to 370 days, commercial paper limited to 180 days, and repurchase agreements limited to 1 year. Based upon our review of the Commission's investment policy, the policy is general when it comes to investment restrictions. It states "five years or less if restricted by state law," we recommend amending the investment policy to include specific code restrictions. This would ensure Commission staff would be aware of each investment medium's time restrictions. The California Government Code SB 564 (Code) which was effective January 1, 1996, requires quarterly investment reports to be submitted within 30 days after the period. Based upon our review of the minutes and the quarterly reports submitted to the Board, we noted that the March 1996 quarterly report was submitted in June 1996 and the June 1996 quarterly report was submitted in September 1996. We recommend that the Commission submit these reports to the Board within the required 30 days to ensure that the Commission be in compliance with the Code. 23 • • • Page 2 The Code requires specific investment information to be included in the quarterly investment report. Upon our review of the quarterly investment reports submitted to the Board, we noted the reports excluded the following requirements: • Current market value of all investments; • Description of compliance with investment policy; • Statement noting adequate cash flows for six months. We recommend that the Commission include these items in its quarterly investment report to ensure that the Commission be in compliance with the Code and provide useful information to the Board. Collection of Outstanding City Loan During our audit procedures performed at the City of Murrieta (City), we noted that $1.3 million was loaned to the City by the Commission. Upon review of the loan agreement, repayment of excess funds was due and payable on July 1, 1995 and was to be transferred by the fiscal agent to the Commission. The Commission did not receive the funds until November 1995. Therefore, five months had passed before the Commission received these monies and an additional interest assessment could not be applied based upon the terms of the loan agreement. The Commission should review such loan agreements to determine when it is entitled to the repayment of outstanding loans from cities. This would ensure repayment within a timely period and allow the Commission to maximize its interest income. Maintenance of Effort In accordance with the laws and regulations of Measure A, recipients are required to maintain their continuous •commitment of local discretionary expenditures for streets and roads, known as Maintenance of Effort, to receive Measure A monies. During the course of our audits of Measure A recipients, we noted two recipients in which the cumulative excess of local expenditures at June 30, 1996 approximates the base year required amount of expenditures. The Commission should monitor those recipients who may not be able to meet the Maintenance of Effort requirement in the near future and consider reviewing and revising its policies regarding the disbursement of Measure A monies, including disbursement of Measure A monies to those recipients on a reimbursement basis. 24 • • • Page 3 DRAFT This letter is intended solely for the information and use of management, the Budget and Finance Committee, and the Board of Commissioners. We would be pleased to discuss the above matters or to respond to any questions, at your convenience. October 21, 1996 25 =� ERNST & YOUNG LLP a Suite 600 3750 University Avenue P.O. Box 1270 Riverside, California 92502 Phone: 909 276 7200 Fax: 909 787 8184 Ms. Susan Hafner, General Manager Riverside Transit Agency In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of Riverside Transit Agency for the year ended June 30, 1996, we considered its internal control to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and not to provide an opinion on internal control. The following suggestions, which resulted from our consideration of internal control, are submitted to assist in improving procedures and controls. Year End Closing Procedures A timely analysis of the Agency's accounts prior to closing the general ledger is a critical element of the year end closing process. We commend the Agency for implementing our prior year recommendations relating to several accounts including fixed assets, capital grant equity, retained earnings, certificates of participation debt service and capital grant funding during this process. The Agency should continue to review its periodic and year end closing procedures to ensure that transactions are recorded properly during the year and to eliminate all year-end audit adjustments, as continued improvements in the accuracy of interim and annual financial reporting would provide management with more useful financial data from which to make operating and financial decisions. Management's Response: Agency staff has worked diligently enhancing the timely analysis and reconciliation of all Agency accounts prior to closing the general ledger. Staff will continue to closely monitor the timeliness of analysis and proper recording of transactions. Policy and Procedures Manual The Agency should establish a formal policy and procedures manual relating to accounting for fixed assets, capital grants equity, certificates of participation, debt service payments, deferred revenue and retained earnings to provide the Agency with written procedures to follow consistently and in the event that key personnel leave the Agency Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd. 26 JERNST&YOUNG LLP • • Page 2 Management's Response: The policy and procedures manual for the accounting department are in the process of being finalized and will address not only the areas mentioned above but all other accounting functions. Self -Insurance The Agency is self -insured for workers' compensation and general liability. The Agency uses an outside administrator to provide claims management services for workers' compensation benefit claims and is a member of a public entity risk pool for general liability. An analysis of self-insurance liabilities is an important element in determining the adequacy of the reserves recorded by the Agency. We commend the Agency for obtaining an actuarial valuation of its workers' compensation and general liability programs as well as recording additional reserves for self-insurance throughout the fiscal year. The Agency should continue to utilize the services of the actuary and record additional reserves throughout each fiscal year in order to provide management with more useful financial data from which to make operating and financial decisions. Management's Response: The Agency plans to continue obtaining an independent actuarial valuation of its self funded insurance programs. The Agency will continue to take a prudent approach on recording additional reserves for its self funded insurance programs. Approval of Employee Overtime In order for overtime to be paid to employees, the employee must obtain approval by the department supervisor for scheduled and unscheduled overtime. Scheduled overtime is preapproved by the appropriate supervisor according to the bus route demands. Unscheduled overtime requires subsequent approval of an appropriate supervisor. During our review of the payroll approval process, we noted one occurrence of unscheduled overtime that was not properly approved by the appropriate supervisor. The unapproved overtime was not noted by management and, accordingly, the overtime was paid to the employee without proper approval by the Agency. We recommend that the Agency review and revise as deemed necessary the procedures and controls related to ensuring all overtime is approved. 27 JERNST&YOUNG LLP • • Page 3 Management's Response: Operations management has reviewed the overtime payment approval process with its Staff to emphasize the importance of proper approvals at all times for unscheduled overtime. The Agency is implementing a new bid dispatch system as a tool to enhance overall recordkeeping and the approval of time into the payroll system from the operations area. This letter is intended solely for the information and use of management, the Board of Directors, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the State Controller's Office, the California Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. August 27, 1996 p•Aeruat tyowILLP 28 • • The Board of Directors SunLine Joint Powers Agency, consisting of SunLine Transit Agency and SunLine Regulatory Administration DRAFT In planning and performing our audits of the financial statements of SunLine Transit Agency (Agency) and the SunLine Regulatory Administration (Administration) for the year ended June 30, 1996, we considered their internal controls to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the Agency and Administration financial statements and not to provide an opinion on internal controls. The following suggestions, which resulted from our consideration of internal controls, are submitted to assist in improving procedures and controls: SunLine Services Group During the audit, we noted that the Agency had recorded a receivable from SunLine Services Group (SSG) for approximately $266,000. The Agency assessed interest of approximately $8,000 related to the receivable from SSG. The use of Agency funds for SSG activity may lead to the Agency's ineligibility for funding from federal, state and local sources. The Agency should review the SSG receivable on a monthly basis to ensure timely collection of such funds so that the Agency's funding is not jeopardized. Additionally, the SSG activity is accounted for within the Agency's general ledger system We recommend that the Agency segregate its accounting of SSG activity to ensure that all SSG transactions are recorded in a separate general ledger. Management has informed us that it is in the process of installing a new software system that will recognize separate general ledgers for each entity. Information Systems Many information systems are designed to process transactions based upon storing two digits for the year of a transaction, rather than a full four digits. Systems that process year 2000 transactions with the year "00" may encounter significant processing inaccuracies and even inoperability. With the upcoming arrival of the year 2000, management should be aware of a business issue that may directly impact information systems and certain operational procedures at the Agency. Management has informed us that it is in the process of installing a new software system that will recognize the year 2000 and be able to accurately process transactions. 29 • This report is management. We would be convenience. Page 2 DRAFT intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Directors and pleased to discuss the above matters or to respond to any questions at your September 16, 1996 • • 30 • • GASB ISSUES AND PRONOUNCEMENTS Exposure Draft Proposed Statement on Certain Investments and External Investment Pools • Exposure draft issued March 13, 1996 with June 14, 1996 comment deadline and proposed effective date for years beginning after June 15, 1997 with early application encouraged. • Would require fair value reporting for most investments, including investment contracts. • Short-term debt (maturities up to 90 days) generally could be reported at amortized cost. • All investment income, including changes in fair value, reported on operating statements. GASB Financial Reporting Model Project • Entity -wide perspective for overall view. • Fund perspective for fund type/major fund information. • Management discussion and analysis. • Capitalization of infrastructure. GASB Statements No. 27 — Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Government Employees • Require new disclosures for various pension plans. • Effective for periods after June 15, 1997 SEC Final Rule (Amendments to Rule 15c2-12) • Applies to issuances of $1 million or more after July 3, 1995. • Submittal of annual information (for years ending after December 31, 1995) to Nationally Recognized Municipal Securities Information Repositories (NRMSIRs) and a State Information Depository (SID), if one exists. • The annual financial information will be required to "mirror" types of quantitative financial information and operating data in the final official statement. • Undertakings will specify accounting principles to be followed and if an audit is required. 31 • Undertaking will also be required to provide notice of "material events" to the Municipal Securities Rulemalcing Board or to the NRMS1Rs and SID if one exists. • If a limited undertaking occurs, it will exempt issuers with less than $10 million securities outstanding after offering from annual financial requirement. • Additional exemptions will be available if securities mature in 18 months or less or are in denominations of $100,000 or more. • Before recommending securities, municipal securities dealers will be required to review information. SEC Municipal Securities Disclosure Interpretative Release — Statement of the Commission Regarding Disclosure Obligations of Municipal Securities Issuers and Others • Contains lessons from County of Orange filings prior to bankruptcy. • Emphasizes that responsibility for disclosure rests with the governing body. • • 32 • • • FISCAL 1997 AUDIT PLANNING Planning for the audits will be developed in cooperation with management. A balanced effort will give full recognition to the existing internal controls, as well as a thorough assessment of the business and control risks. Risk responsive, it will address both your and management's expectations and provide for the best utilization of internal and external audit resources. We will continue to meet with management throughout the year to review current developments and challenge the continuing adequacy of the plan. Any significant changes to the plan will be promptly communicated to you as they occur. Major items that should be considered for early involvement include: • Timing of year-end audit procedures based on closing the general ledger, preparing all audit schedules and completing the draft of the financial statements, including all footnote disclosures. • Assistance provided by Commission's Program Manager in connection with TDA/Measure A audits. • The not -for -profit entities receiving Specialized Measure A monies are required to adopt FAS 116 "Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made," and FAS 117 "Financial Statements of Not -for -Profit Organizations" for the year ended June 30, 1997. 33 AUDIT PROCESS Co -Develop Expectations In setting mutual expectations, we agree on: 1) understanding the Commission's needs; 2) providing useful deliverables; and, 3) measuring the value of our relationship. This meeting with the Budget and Finance Committee allows us to validate and extend this agreement. Drivers Audit risk is influenced by business risk. Our audit begins with understanding factors which could affect the Commission's, TDA claimants' and Measure recipients' business conditions and risks, including stakeholder needs, industry trends, evolving standards, competitive strategy and market developments. Business Risk Assessment We monitor key issues and changes in the business environment to continuously update the Commission's, TDA claimants' and Measure A recipients' business risks profile. Through a formal assessment of business risk, we customize our audit procedures to those areas that signal vulnerability and risk. Methodology With a firm grasp of current and emerging business risks, we establish a "portfolio" of audit procedures. These include: core compliance procedures, analysis of processes that manage and control business risk, and procedures necessitated by events that occur throughout the year. The mix and emphasis evolves as the business evolves. Team We work to leverage the resources that exist within the Commission's Finance and Accounting Department. This teaming enables us to eliminate unnecessary duplication, increase audit quality and increase the cost-effectiveness of our relationship. Focus Our primary deliverables are assurance as described in our opinion on the Commission's general purpose financial statements and TDA claimants and Measure A recipients financial statements. Respecting the talents of management, and the sophistication of the Commission's processes and controls, we have the right team looking at the right things. Our results are objective and efficient, and provide a real-time view of the business. Client Satisfaction We monitor our success in meeting the Commission's needs and expectations through our client satisfaction improvement process. Value Scorecard The goal of a traditional audit is to render opinions on the Commission's general purpose financial statements and TDA claimants and Measure A recipients financial statements. Our goal is to deliver on all of your expectations and to be measured against these expectations. Beyond the attest objective, we expect to be evaluated on: 1) providing early warning alerts regarding financial information and controls; and, 2) providing meaningful business insight that helps the Commission succeed. • 34 • INNOVATING THE AUDIT In today's volatile business climate, management is pressured to do more with less; to manage more volatile risks; and to succeed in an increasingly competitive environment We believe, as auditors, we should help. The assurance process required evolves as your operations evolve. The Commission needs an audit that goes beyond the traditional role of "testing transactions" to encompass business issues that impact its financial, operational and competitive performance. We must increasingly understand, prioritize and balance the needs of key stakeholders, such as the Budget and Finance Committee, in light of prevailing standards, industry trends and dynamic markets. Our methodology must expand beyond financial statement risk to business risk, moving from automated tools toward knowledge sharing, refocusing our financial view of the Commission to encompass the key processes of the business. Worldwide, we are enhancing and reengineering our audit process to meet this challenge. Our changing view — broader, deeper, focused on continuous assessment of business risk — provides an enhanced view. Our expanding insight into the business will position us to generate more meaningful ideas for strengthening the Commission's system of internal controls. "Leading Practice" Audit Service Under the heading "Leading Practice" are attributes that accurately describe our current audit relationship with the Commission. The following are but a few examples that reflect our commitment to leading -edge service: • Stakeholder Needs — Our co -development process includes a disciplined and customized assessment of the needs and expectations of the Commission's stakeholders. This helps us determine more practically what management and the Board want from their audit relationship, and how the value of the relationship should be measured. • Industry, Markets and Strategy — Staying abreast of industry trends and market developments is critical to performing an effective audit, as such matters can have a significant impact on the Commission's, TDA claimants' and Measure A recipients' financial conditions and future economic viability. As this report illustrates, we work hard to understand the context of current and emerging business issues, and management's strategic response. • Standards — While we still focus on compliance with professional standards, increasingly, we are taking an advocacy position before the various standard -setting bodies. In the future, we intend to play an expanded role in shaping professional standards and the regulatory environment in which our clients operate. 35 • Risk Analysis — We take an operational view in analyzing risk by looking at the Commission's total business environment. • Control Orientation — Our focus has shifted from financial statement risk to business risk, by looking beyond the numbers to the underlying causes of potential vulnerabilities, and customizing our audit procedures to take into account those business risks that may materially impact the financial condition of the Commission, TDA claimants and Measure A recipients. Looking to the future, we are pioneering control self -assessment methodology. • Process Viewpoint — We take an organizational, rather than functional, view of the Commission's business processes. Business process analysis has been integrated into our audit to increase not only its effectiveness, but also to generate meaningful business insight through the audit. • Analytics — As this report illustrates, we are placing increasing emphasis on reviewing industry and competitive information on behalf of our clients. Benchmarking provides a useful tool for understanding the Agency's business environment. • Technology — We share knowledge interactively, using internally developed audit software tools to assist in the review and analysis of accounts. On-line access further minimizes our requests for paper documentation and our demands on the time of Commission personnel, and represents a significant step towards continuous auditing. • People — To maximize efficiency, your Ernst & Young audit team reflects a range of specialized expertise. We assign our people to specific audit tasks according to their skills and levels of expertise. • Relationship Management — The value-added assistance highlighted previously demonstrates that we continue to bring much more than audit expertise to the relationship. Our multi -service focus is illustrated by the depth and breadth of your service team Similarly, we have introduced to management many of our firm -wide experts, including Jim Williams (National Public Sector Partner) and Mike Muractore (Capital Markets Group). • Solutions — Our focus on business risk and insight in the audit provides a basis for generating ideas, solutions and results that can provide the Commission with meaningful results. • 36 • • MEASURING VALUE In setting mutual expectations with you and management, we strive for agreement on how to measure the value, to the Commission and the Budget and Finance Committee, of our relationship. There has always been an informal assessment of how we are doing. Our client satisfaction process has formalized an aspect of that. In the future, we will be more rigorous in reporting the value the Commission receives and quantifying results wherever possible and appropriate. This means we have to define value in your terms. We know that you expect us to deliver assurance regarding financial information, and provide "early warning" alerts for matters requiring your attention. In carrying out these expectations, we have been told by clients that they appreciate it when we adequately take into account the sophistication of their processes and the talents of their people in order to design a highly efficient and cost-effective audit. A healthy audit relationship also can be measured by its ability to contribute to stakeholder value and transfer knowledge through business insight. You now have an opportunity to refine and discuss your expectations regarding our services, to tell us what you value and how we might deliver on it. 37 • • AGENDA ITEM #5C • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 5, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Uncommitted Carryover Detail At the request of the members of the Budget and Finance Committee, I have prepared the attached schedule detailing the components of the uncommitted carryover amount of $5.8 million. The schedule will demonstrate that all of the carryover is for the Western County. All Coachella Valley funds are committed to projects. The Commission will now need to determine what projects to spend the funds on based on the priorities as established in the Strategic Plan, or if the funds should be used to fund current year projects (as opposed to issuing additional commercial paper). (Note: Current year budget includes $7.6 million in commercial paper issuances to cover highway and interchange projects.) FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: See Attached Source of Funds: See Attached Included In Current Year Budget (Y/N): See Attached Budget Adjustment Required: See Attached STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission determine if the funds should be spent on a project (based on the priorities identified in the Strategic Plan), or be used for current year expenditures (i.e., reduce the current year projected issuance). llldS W`d £04 I. 96/£Z/Z 6 OS ZZO`8IS 8L6184S 000'OOSS AVM 30.LHORI NHlIf1H OS 88S ZI63,4S 000`S4S NVA O/fl AMM 6 OS OS OS OS ON NOLLVOLLIN-11VMQNf10S 4 OS £0£`46S L69`SSIS 000`0SZS dYNIV1I3100HNHliflHNVA 4 OS 44L`9SS 9SZ'80IS 000`S9IS (VTIONOVYQ at Awn) ion'ILLSNOO 4 OS [SS81,9ZS) /IIVOUS £94`SS£S AOH VTIONOVNI 4 OS 4I6`9485 980`ESS 000'006S OI MIMI dlN VII NH1If1H 4 OS £6£'14S LO9`8ZS 000`OLS NVA ACIIUS QNV HotSd ELMO I OS Oen 6Z4`LSS 8LI`09S SYMMS ACI I.LS TIVMQNflOS W NISI 16111 I 0 OS 000`SSZS OS 000`SSZS 8S`HAV - 'Qg NoTIIQ NOLLOf1 usNOO 4 I6 H.Lf101I 98 H.Lf101I' OS 000`0SLS OS 000'0SLS (Inds Woo Po1rol!Isa/AVM OS 000`00S'IS OS 000`00S'IS 30 MOM (tads Woo PoW oPia) NOLLOfRLLSNOO 6 OS 000`0SLS OS 000`0SLS 0361806 poWwgBi) ONRT3HPIIONH 4 ONLN3CIIM (MOH N3d s3HONIM I OS pS pS OS OS OS OS pS 1 OS OS 000'9S 000`9S 1 • 113'I'I33I OZ 1110dM3N 0 OS OS 000`SOIS 000`SOIS NOLLVOLLIIVIV.LNHWN0111ANH OS NOSlIRINVS 4 OS OS 89£`89£8 89019ES '00731I " 1.Lfl *as 3CIV110/NA3 OS 941`£S 'SLITS 000'SIS WW1 AIM! NOANVOSEINV'I6 6 OS :LII`ZZES) LI9`L£4S 00S`SIIS ON AHAllaS (INV °Nasal.-TVRIH.LVYH OS ZLI`KU 8Z8`9894LS 000`IZ6`LS NOANVO 4 OS OS 9SZ`ZO8S 9SZ`ZO8S SITYW'I 1111DYQ'11.I.SNOO -NOANVO 4 OS OS 000`ZZS 000`ZZS SHINV'I '1411S 'Sal 'IVN NOANVO £ OS I40'£IS Z98`19S E061,LS .1- S£INIb I 0.110N3'111SNOO-NOANVOSHNIV1 DAION3IIISNOO-NOANVOSHNIV1I I f OS 8£E`OIS Z99`4SS 000'S9S NOANVO SITY1iV'I OS '000`Z£S) 004`SS 009'6S 000`SIS 6 6L 3.Lf10lI OS 000`L9S 000'SES SYVIt+'IO H.C4 SR11I3d 30 A.IIO 4 4L H.11101I S.LN3 96roE/9 YYVecilid X.VMH9JIII 96/S6 96/S6 NOLLMIOS3Q HSVHcI 4114IOO .13AoduBO Jonoku rD sonUToodx3 iunaf1H 3I1I0M 1O31011d • pounuwooufl PoIlloo 1o0 Q3SIA32I 96/0Z/I [ Y0I SINgI IISf ICIV 96/56 A3 • • indS • Wb CO: 14 • 96/EZ/Z • ££0`t9S L96`L09S 000`ZL9S MOD.LZIOdd[1S SNIVIIDOIM 000`OSS 000`OSS 000`OOIS sisuriade'dkanutilim=pp 98S`ZtZS 000`06S S£L`LS6S tZ£`06Z`IS IRON WVIIDO/Id OS 6LS`lS IZt`8tS 000`OSS ICUSAITHEIVSVHdMORD OS ;LI6IIS) LI6`09t8 000`oStS I DI VNI IA OS OS OS OS NOIS3Q TVNL3 1 ' VNTWO OS OS OS OS 'NOIIIAN3 (INV '1I0NH WI1HiId 0 OS t06`££IS 960` SIS 000`OZ£S NOIIIANMI AIM 0 SIZ H.mox OS oo0`ootS oS oo0`ootS Xf10atgf u OZ 301INOW 6 III 31f101I OS Dtli6S LSS`t£S 000`LZIS IIIOddflS M01I'AM 10 A.f.NHOD 6 OS OS OS OS '.LDDIILSNOD'Xf10CHgf1II O.L BONNOW t OS SLSIZS SZI`8£SS 000`094 xnocuanu oi. 301INONI I UM OS 000`0S£S OS 000`OS£S NO.LDNIHSVAA 6 OS OS NOIDNIHSVM t V.LNIna VI oS OS 000`OZIS 000'MS 1331ILI.S MOOD t S'PI3M NVIQNI OS OS NOANVD d33Q t OS OS 000`6I IS 000`6I IS V'IO.I/IOd/NOANVD d3313 I ZII3S3Q W'IWI OS ISS`St£IS 61+1`9191S 000i96`ZS W IVd Ilya 6 OS OS OS W'IV(1 awa t OS t00`SL£S 966`99S 000`ZttS ',viva 3ZV0 I AID IVIIGZHIV3 NOI.LDf1 astiOD "IIV2LL Alum, atm t OS tS8`tiS 9179`09S 00S`SLS "IIVZIL ANd.[1V 3N3D I OS 000`ZItS OS 000`ZItS AVM 3SIIINf1S t . SDNR1dS IVIVd OS II SS) Sl8`SIS 000`SIS "IV.I.N3WNOIIIAN3 0 96/0£/9 nRP 96/S6 96/S6 NOIMIIIDS3Q 3SVHd .LD3fOlId S.LN3WWOD ianokueD . JanokuseD sam puadxg igDu lg >MOM 96/0Z/I T W3I S.LNAJAI.LSXCIV 96/56 Ad .LHDQflg d HIIIISVHIAI paunuwoaun pewwwoD Q3SIA321 1lldS VYV E0:1. 96/EZ/Z1. Z££`6Ib`8S aanotusO •sseooid uopeuwepuoo io pod se moo Jouedng of pled peienooslp Aeuenbesgns 'A;uno3 poi pemesei uompusg.1oi M02I 60f`Zf9IS *sew pue eousnssl leanol 900`Z9L`ZS i6St'69i'LS) iuewglwwo0 peshbn 1e6� mud !8b0`LOLS)`4 io esneoeq spwwasmquuog peleBpnq ue41 nel sear Iseuetul ceded lepoiewwo0 E60`£OLS 00£`PWLIS E6E`LZO`SIS t00E`£0IS) tOOZ 46ZS) :00S`L6£S) • wntiM-ao?n>,S pgaQ 61.816SS ALBINOS) :000`OLOIS) eita4ov00-1cwpu! S616V•`6SS 806`6£i`ZS) ;ESY`SLO`ZS) ��M-p�el weuBad'spew! 6££`IS SI9`LTt•'IZS) T£0`8L0`OZS) � oto0-son�iI' as�!H ua1s-M-1. IeuolBei e41 041040101 Sean AsueBupuoo a1sS rra7P Csast peisoope de11eA elle43B00 000`066S OS 000'066S ,ipuno0 woIgM-buaupuo0 TLII'I£PS OIS`LTZ`LS ZT£`IS8`OZS £69`0£S`SZS pm, OS 06L'EIIS OIZ'IS 000`SIIS `.L0'ddSOIId 8I1•`9S OS Z8S'69S 000'9LS t HNIIA YlITVMOH ,Z1I$SZS) ZfE`4SZS OS OG ITI MIlIdll'3LN3 SS3Ild ad V.LNVS OS OS 000`SZS 000`SZS NOISN3IX3 NOVILL YE8`89S OS I+ NMOINAIOQ-H�S2IHAIII ',MS) OS 1•Z£'8ES 000`8ES OS f£8'LES EE8`LES I 0 NMOd.NMOQ -H�SHHAITI '2IEI OS Aarus OINDVE NVS OS `LOVSS) SS4'S86`IS 81,0`0861S ALINITOHSNIOLLVLS PLIVIIt • OS NIS Y18'ESIS 00011 1 OS OS £ZL`[ZS EZL`IZS NOI LV LS VNOII00 ZSHM OS 6 9£9017IIS 179E`6L8`IS 00066`IS OS 8S0`I9S 6ES`LIS L6S`8LS 6 I d.MOdCILIN-HCIIS2IHARI 96/S6 INV 11001Id'IIVII III fintx09 S,LNHWWOJ 96/0E/9 nnp 96/S6 NOLMIIIDSHO HSVHd �anotie 0 �no,uueD mmplpuodxg iaouria ZDHfOZId pamunuooufl pemusuo0 aaslnHx NRIOM 96/OZ/1I WTI SINHIN.LSf)fCIV 96/S6 Ad .—— — --- - • Inds • • WV E0: L L • 96/EZ/Z 6 1..i5t,'.i}ti.}:i�.:!�:•}::. :'.Y n:.}Xry•.; �X.ti} {nat;•i: is iii: ;•:::;•^: .BaiX J4::n:r:.Xi};{.:3i:•E ...d., .+i.Y i8h•i:h:w:i3:•'::!.: l.Xn:.n::{� >.Y. •:•:n}iX.Y.:ii�yryiY�:+.{.::.::{i:nuY.r:?}iii?: ::<•:. : a . �: �. a{r+:�sS:��"s;ho-wssssss>ssssis:'ss"•>:a:<•a ...�s4r�{..5 _ s:�..:,.,f�.�.�:;<.....:,�s8�s _ : ,>..��:..� �u,z.s;��,t:.rs.:.s>;�. ., . '' �f,Ess:>.�LZL� s• ..,.,b'sh:'s� ,�«.`�;3^2�;#5�� w� ..... ,..:a�wss. Z£ Z911 SS Ji paplwsuoaufi 000`ZSS`ZS) uoupnuutoo mou p ra 000`SZIS) laofotd 2u1ILIPI A I6/IL Moll 000`00ZS) 49111S oulPla11a1H olulaef IntS 000`OZ£S) bPunos aPlulPoN £81 110110aS 000`00'0 sous! unu lop 110ki O"urrl 000`009S) iaureg uag»Y1 tudueO aqunrl 000'8Iis) sou uoAreO gwr13o uopolduwO 000'680`1S) uoPappu lieppog L6/96 I swaupnuwoo pola8pnqun bau :ssrl 96/0£/9 Ngl 96/S6 96/56 NOLIAI1IOS3Q 3SVHd 1.03101Id S.LN3YsBAIOO ioeoAueO Jano6aueO somtpuadx3 .L3OOf1H pouplutoaufl peplwwoO Q3SIA311 )I1IOM 96/0Z/I I MITI SINE: I. MP:IV 96/S6 Ad .1.30411H V MISVHIAI AGENDA ITEM #5D • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSI DATE: February 5, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Local Transportation Fund Estimate for 1997/98 Annually, the County of Riverside (i.e., the Auditor Controller) is required by statute to estimate revenues for the Local Transportation Fund. The source of funding is a one quarter cent sales tax authorized to be levied on the entire county under the Transportation Development Act (TDA). Though this tax legally is collected by the County of Riverside, administrative and apportionment responsibilities rest with the Commission. The County of Riverside is also responsible for disbursement of the LTF funds once approved by the Commission. Although the legal requirement rests with the County to provide the revenue estimate, in practice RCTC staff has developed the estimate, and then submitted it to the County for revision and approval. In most cases the County has accepted the estimate of Commission staff. That estimate is then approved by the Commission, at which time it becomes the basis for apportiorunent to the three geographic areas of the County. Staff is awaiting the County's response and will provide that response along with an appropriation schedule at the meeting. FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: Not Applicable. Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Included In Current Year Budget (Y/N): For FY 1997-98 Budget Adjustment Required: Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the areas apportionments based on the revenue estimate provided by staff and the Auditor Controller of the County of Riverside. AGENDA ITEM #5D • NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change • LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1997/98 APPORTIONMENTS Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) Est Receipts TOTAL Auditor CTC Admin. CTC Planning (3%) SCAG Planning BALANCE SB 821 (2%) BALANCE AVAILABLE $1,100,000 $28,800,000 $29,900,000 $12,000 $300,000 $897,000 $85,000 $28,606,000 $572,120 $28,033,880 ANNUAL POPULATION APPORTIONMENT % of Total Western 76.2498% $21,375,766 Coachella Valley 22.0614% $6,1134,658 Palo Verde Valley 1 6889% $473 457 100.00% $28,033,880 • AGENDA ITEM #5E • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM' DATE: February 5, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Sponsorship of UCLA Arrowhead Symposium RCTC is a charter sponsor of the annual symposium, "The Transportation, Air Quality, Land Use Connection," conducted each year by the UCLA Extension Public Policy Program at its Arrowhead Conference Center. The target audience for the symposia are key staff and decision makers in various public policy arenas. RCTC staff participates with representatives of other agencies in both state and federal government, as well as the private sector, in designing a conference which attempts to explore the most timely issues in transportation. Commissioners and staff members have identified the Arrowhead symposia as an important collaborative effort addressing transportation research and policy implementation. UCLA has recently issued its request that RCTC again cosponsor the Arrowhead Symposium; this one scheduled for Fall/Winter 1997. Attached is the letter of solicitation and an overview of past symposia. FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: $5,000 Source of Funds: 1996-97 Conference Budget Included In Current Year Budget (Y/N): Yes Budget Adjustment Required: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize the expenditure of $5,000 from its 1996-97 Conference Budget to cosponsor the 1997 policy/research symposium on The Transportation, Land Use, and Air Quality Connection. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO January 14, 1997 Jack Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Trans. Commission 3560 University Avenue, Ste. 100 Riverside, CA 92501 dicta 7/710 UCLA 'd NTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUL J S7 UCLA EXTENSION LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 b pq»cy Program UCLA` " tension 10995 Le Conte Ave. #613 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310/825-7885 Fax: 310/206-5066 Subject: Request for RCTC Co -Sponsorship for Fall 1997 Arrowhead Symposium Dear Jack: We are pleased to report that at the conclusion of the December 96 symposium, there was unanimous support on the part of the Steering Committee to continue with the annual policy/research symposium series on The Transportation, Land Use, and Air Quality Connection. Other attendees also spoke enthusiastically about the value of this symposium series. The Steering Committee has urged us to send the co-sponsorship funding requests for the Fall, 1997 program to co-sponsors as early as possible. Since co-sponsorship funding is necessary for the UCLA Extension Public Policy Program to be able to proceed with the substantial planning and implementation work entailed with developing and convening the symposia, earlier commitments will also be helpful to us. This letter is therefore a formal request for $5,000 in co-sponsorship funding from the Riverside County Transportation Commission. This is the same amount of funding that you provided last year. We would greatly appreciate a firm funding commitment for the 1997 program from you by February 21. The actual disbursement of funds can occur later in this fiscal year, or after the start of fiscal year 1997/98, if this is more convenient for your budgeting process. The Steering Committee is scheduled to meet on January 31 in Oakland to begin planning the symposium for this Fall, 1997, and we look forward to meeting with you. There appears to be a rich array of possible topics to select from for the next program, as evidenced by some of the suggestions made at our meeting concluding this past December's symposium. Some of the possible topics already identified for the next symposium include: New proposed national ambient air quality standards Global climatic change Freight transportation Performance standards and efficiency measures Impacts of information technology on transportation, land use and air quality Public/private sector finance Reform of the state transportation system and STIP NAFTA and its impacts on the transportation system Update on ISTEA Reauthorization (at least one session to tie back to this past year's symposium) As with the previous Arrowhead symposia, we will endeavor to ensure that the upcoming program is uniquely tailored to convening key researchers, analysts, policymakers, practitioners and advisors to share research, policy concepts and implementation strategies for creatively addressing the complex issues involved in making progress on mobility, air quality and land use strategies. Our past symposia have served as a "fermenting ground" for a number of legislative bills, policy initiatives and implementation measures. They have allowed for interaction between the research, policy and practitioner realms, and they have provided a forum for policy influentials to engage one another outside the usual context of advocacy. Important, too, has been the opportunity for diverse people to interact and network together, both formally and informally, on critical issues confronting them. Attached is a more detailed profile of the goals, objectives and accomplishments of the symposium series that may be of interest to your broader organization. Again, thank you for the substantive and financial contributions that you and your organization have provided to this symposium series over the past several years. We look forward to your organization's involvement with this year's program, and to hearing from you by February 21 about your co-sponsorship. Your support has been, and continues to be critical to sustaining the symposium effort, and for demonstrating broad -based involvement.• LeRoy Graymer Director UCLA Extension Public Policy Program CC: Susan Cornelison Attachment Joanne Freilich Assistant Director UCLA Extension Public Policy Program • • • Annual Policy and Research Symposium Series on Transportation/Land Use/Air Quality Convened by UCLA Extension Public Policy Program Purpose and Goals 1991 was a landmark year in the areas of transportation and air quality policy. With the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments, transportation planners, state, regional and local governments, the private sector and environmentalists faced a major set of new policy demands and strategies. The State of California also was setting new policies that forced people to work out new "connections" among transportation, air quality, and land use policies. The Public Policy Program at UCLA Extension was created in 1979 to help bring research analysis to bear on major new and emerging policy issues confronting the public sector. In 1991, recognizing the complex demands that these new transportation and air quality policies would place on policymakers in. California, the program launched a symposium series designed to convene cross -disciplinary and cross jurisdictional groups and help them address those new policy and planning demands. Beginning in Spring 1991, with the participation of the transportation planning faculty in the Planning Departments at UCLA and UC Berkeley, the UCLA Extension Public Policy Program created an ongoing symposium series on The Transportation, Land Use, and Air Quality Connection. The Program enlisted financial support and help in planning this series, by bringing together many key public agencies, private sector groups, and environmental organizations together as cosponsors or "cooperating" organizations. The unique features of this endeavor were that academic researchers and key stakeholder agencies and groups opened a dialogue that has accomplished several aims: 1. Members of the research community, interacting with policy influentials, are afforded direct channels for sharing the results of their research and for learning more about how to enhance the relevance of their work at the same time. 2. People in the policy and practitioner realms are able to engage researchers in an interactive mode. They can probe, ask for less technical explanations, and genuinely learn what is relevant. Additionally, they have an opportunity to introduce researchers to the constraints and opportunities that exist in the policy world. 3. At the symposium, policy influentials can engage one another outside the context of day-to-day advocacy. People who often fight one another on specific policy issues in more official settings have a chance in a neutral arena devoted to discovering new information and ideas, to find potential common ground for tackling new and complex issue areas. 1 Who Participates? Each annual 2-1 /2 day symposium is limited to 125 participants to maximize in-depth dialogue, exchange of information, and the opportunity to work through strategies and options for policy deliberation. Symposia are held in the setting of UCLA's Conference Center at Lake Arrowhead, located about two hours from the campus, affording a retreat atmosphere for participants away from the day-to-day fray of policymaking and advocacy. The symposia are invitational, with participants nominated each year by the several cosponsors and cooperating organizations comprising the Steering Committee that help to plan the programs each year. Participants nominated and attending the symposia include those who have major responsibility for analyzing, influencing and/or implementing public policy in the transportation, air quality and land use areas, and encompass: • High level public officials and advisors from different levels of government • Representatives from the private business sector, such as builders and developers, utilities, private service providers, and other industry groups. • Key spokespersons for environmental organizations • Leading research experts who are conducting research in specific areas addressed by the symposia, and who are drawn from academic institutions throughout the U.S. and abroad, as well as researchers from private institutes and governmental agencies Participants are drawn from throughout the state, with some participants coming from other parts of the U.S. A few of the key policy leaders and academics who have participated include: Michael Huerta, Deputy Associate Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation; Dean Dunphy, Secretary of the California Business, Transportation & Housing Agency; James van Loben Sels, Director, California Dept. of Transportation; Lynne Edgerton, Boardmember, California Air Resources Board; Frank Francois, Executive Director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); Sharon Banks, General Manager, Alameda - Contra Costa Transit; Amory Lovins, President, Rocky Mountain Research Institute; Alan Altshuler, Professor, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government; Paul Peterson, Professor, Harvard University Dept. of Government; Gary Hack, Professor, MIT Dept. of Urban Studies & Planning; Peter Newman, Professor, Murdock University Institute for Science & Technology (Australia); Deborah Gordon, Union of Concerned Scientists, and John Hunter, Director of Governmental Relations, The Irvine Company. Added to this group are numerous elected and appointed officials from local and regional agencies, and key representatives of private sector organizations. Accomplishments of the Symposium Series These symposia have served as the "fermenting ground" and springboard for a number of activities. Legislative bills, policy initiatives and implementation measures have evolved from contacts and analysis shared at these retreats. For example, research presented at the 1992 program on "cashing out" employer paid parking led to development and passage of 2 • • • Assembly Bill 2109. Since then, the Clinton Administration has proposed the same policy as federal legislation. Another example involves several county transportation agencies in Southern California jointly undertaking a voter study to test attitudes about people's willingness to accept pricing incentives and disincentives related to automobile travel. The survey was inspired by European research presented at one of the symposia. Another example is a pilot program on remote sensing of high polluting vehicles that was implemented by Hughes Electronics following presentation of related research at the symposia. The symposium series has offered a unique forum for bringing different interests together in a neutral, facilitative atmosphere where information, strategies and perspectives can be discussed both formally and informally. The series has been successful in engaging people who might not otherwise have opportunity to interact, and through informal networking has led to agreements and new working relationships being established. For example, at the 1995 symposium, a key environmental organization was able to broker a working relationship with trucking firms that eventually led to a new alternative fuels program. This kind of cooperative problem solving results from information -sharing and a new trust among otherwise adversaries. UCLA Extension's Role UCLA Extension's Public Policy Program collaboratively plans, manages and implements the symposium series. The professional staff develops the cosponsorship funds to finance the series, collaborates with the sponsors and representatives of the research community to develop the program content, recruit speakers, and work up the format for the meetings. In its neutral role, it is in a unique position of facilitating the melding of academic researchers with members of the policy community. Extension has maintained a close working relationship with the UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research in the implementation and offering of this series. Former faculty member Dr. Martin Wachs has served as a co -coordinator in planning the content of each of the symposium programs, and in helping identify and recruit appropriate academics to the program -- from UCLA and several other institutions. Two other UCLA faculty members — Professors Donald Shoup and Brian Taylor, have also been active participants in helping to develop the series. Additionally, the University of California Transportation Center (UCTC), located at UC Berkeley, helps to link this effort to other UC campuses with strong transportation research groups. Professor Wachs has now succeeded Professor Melvin Webber as the Director of UCTC. Professor Webber has been part of the Steering Committee for this symposium since its inception. Symposia History The overreaching theme of the smyposium series examines policy issues related to the interconnections between transportation, land use, and air quality. Each year a different aspect of these connections has been examined at the annual symposia. The following are the topics that have been examined thus far during the series: ♦ 1991 - Overview of Strategies for Making Connections Between Transportation, Land Use and Air Quality ♦ 1992 - The Role of Pricing and Market -Based Strategies 3 ♦ 1993 - The Role of Land Use Strategies for Improving Transportation and Air Quality ♦ 1994 - Taking Strategies from Concept to Adoption to Implementation ♦ 1995 - Putting Advanced Technologies to Work: Promises, Prospects, and Policy Issues ♦ 1996 - ISTEA Reauthorization: Will It Refine, Redefine, or Forge New Policy Linkages? A report has been prepared after each symposium that summarizes the proceedings. The reports have been printed and then disseminated to not only the attendees, but .to a broader set of agencies and organizations here in California, other states, and Washington, D.C. • • AGENDA ITEM #5F • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 5, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Investment Report for Quarter Ending December 31, 1996 Attached is the quarterly investment report as required by state law and Commission policy. The report has been reformatted to confirm to new state law requiring disclosure of market value and a projection of six months cash flow. The County's Investment Report for the month ending December 31, 1996 is also attached for your review. FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: Not Applicable Source of Funds: Not Applicable Included In Current Year Budget (Y/N): Not Applicable Budget Adjustment Required: Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. Riverside Cou Transportation Commission Investment Portfolio Report Quarter Ending December 31,1996 Cash with County Treasurer Bank of America Operating Account $6,012,115.20 Imprest Account $116,074.94 ' Special Events Account $754.50 • Operating Pooled Bond Project Debt Reserve Funds Held Funds Funds Funds Funds In Trust Total Haricot Vale. $44,076,505.11 $5,378,045.77 $49,454,550.88 $49,454,550.88 Total Bank of America Operating $6,128,944.64 $6,128,944.64 $6,128,944.64 First American Treasury Obligation(First Trust California as trustee) $18,328,485.18 $11,463,652.73 $29,792,137.91 $29,792,137.91 CAMP $27.97 $4,022.16 $4,050.13 $4,050.13 MINA Investment Agreement $13,002,612.00 $13,002,612.00 $13,002,612.00 Federal National Mortgage Association Medium Term Note due 12/8/97 $7,978,717.19 $7,978,717.19 $8,032,644.20 (2) FDIC U.S. Treasury Money Market 510,282,775.87 $10,282,775.87 $10,282,775.87 S6,128,944.64 $54,359,280.98 $18,328,513.15 $32,449,004.08 $5,378,045.77 $116,643,788.62 $116,697,715.63 'Deposit of $116,393.11 incorrectly posted to this account was corrected subsequent to quarter end and transferred to the general operating account (1) Unless indicated otherwise, cost basis approximates market value. (2) Market valuation provided by First Trust California. Cash with County Treasurer: A copy of the Investment Portfolio Report for the County of Riverside Treasury prepared by Wayne Watts, County Treasurer is attached for review. (Note: Local transportation funds represent the funds held in trust). The County's annualized investment return for the quarter was 4.64 %. Bank of America Day to day operating funds of the Commission are held in an interest bearing demand deposit account with Bank of America. Funds are wire transferred from the County as needed, but no less than monthly. First American Treasury Money market account provided by First Trust Bank used to hold funds in transition between the Commission's various bond funds and to accumulate monies for the payment of semi-annual and annual debt service. Interest earnings averaged approximately 4.81% for the quarter. Funds from the maturing AMBAC(approximately $17,000,000) guaranteed investment contract were invested temporarily in this fund on December 31, 1996 until transferred subsequent to quarter end to Milestone Capital Treasury Obligation Fund. FGIC U.S. Treasury Money Market Fund Triple AAA rated(by Standard & Poors and Moody's) money market fund provided by Financial Guarantee Insurance Corporation. The fund invests in short term U.S. guaranteed obligations. The account manager for the Commission funds is Tom Courbat, former Finance Director for the County of Riverside. The rate of interest on the fund varies daily, but the effective 7-day yield for week ending December 27, 1996 was 5.00%. California Arbitrage Management Program(CAMP) A pooled fund established by a joint powers authority of California municipalities formed solely for the purpose of investing municipal bond proceeds. The fund is managed by Public Financial Management and pays a market sensitive rate of interest that varies on a daily basis. The annualized yield as of December 31, 1996 was 5.42%. MBIA Investment Agreement: The Commission's debt reserve funds for the 1993 Series A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds are held by MBIA, a AAA rated(by both Standard & Poors and Moodys) bond insurance company. The investment agreement earns 6.87% and matures January 1, 2000, and pays an interest rate of 6.87%. Collateralization and downgrade provisions are consistent with AMBAC. FNMA Medium Term Note: Debt reserve funds for the 1991 Series A bonds have been placed in an agency note backed by the U.S. government. The agency note matures December 8, 1997 and pays interest semi-annually at a rate of 6.45%. .103rgj MOUBUHjarga Ire Z. r i � / G C�/ Aq pauSls '966I `£i iagwanoN uo paidope se AOHOd 1uacu1sanur s‘uoissruiuiop aup twit aaugijduioa IIn3 ui alarm 966I I £ laquraaau Sutpua ialmnb aq) toy appul suoispap luaurlsanui Xug pup sumuusanu► °nog alp Jo III' aauejldcuop Jo juawams • • • 9Z d0 130Vd 965'681,'L5S 09£'S90'6SS 5S►'SOZ`l9S S£L'9981,9$ 99E`L9L'69$ S9CL96`£LS 33NY'IY8 HSYO ONIHN3 SIP'SIIYS) (66Z'SII$S) (66Z`51l'ZS) (66Z`SIl'ZS) (66Z`511'ZS) (66Z511$S) UNIONYNId NOW HSYOLIN SIP YI I ZS7 (66Z'SI IZS) 166Z5I I"ZS) 166Z"SI I"ZS) 166Z"SI I ZS) 166S5117S) lonalvdoa Nb OS OS OS OS OS OS osrodrg seam O$ OS OS OS OS OS aPaaaead PoeB OS OS OS OS OS OS sommApy eon ►L6YL8'6SS 659'081'l9S P5LbZE`E9S 6£0`Z86'99$ 999t/aILS 110`010'9LS 378Y7fyAY HSYO LIN EE0'65SYS L66'688`PS 88l'PPO'L$ P9Z'P£S'8S 00£1,0L`9S PZP /51,1S SLNENZSIIMISIOHSYO7Y101 008YIS OOS'LIS OOS`LIS 000..IS OOS`LS 008'9ZS toaoalsreyy Ltasdud 000'05IS 000`05IS 000'05l$ 000'05IS 000`05IS 000'05IS gao(ud oouelsPry Jammu° 000'00£`ZS 000Y9E'ZS I60'SZZ'PS 000'09£`P$ 000'098`ES SO5'591%1 (AD)Islaol+V leuellall 1786'Z5Z$ P96$OP$ P96'PLZS nurcua IMoos1 000'OSIS 000'OSIS OOObSIS 000`OSIS 000'OSIS 000`OSIS slae(ead oepstaedsoeat !weds OOObSS 000'EOIS 000'0IIS 000`SZE'I$ 000%11 000'SS Warw.! IIrB EEL`IEIS E£L'IEIS E£L'IEIS - 0001LS 000'ZLS 000tLS - 33YS V MA 008'60el$ 008`69£'IS 006`905`lS 000£8'1S 008'690t$ 9IVIESI$ eWrud SrrtlllH 000'05E 000'0SE 000.0SE OOObSE 000`09£ 000.05E (V v 0 NPrlarOsa0HIPuldr3 ag10 :SLN3W3SIIIIIISIa HSYO L001,£11,91 95911/L0` 09S ZP6`P9£'OLS S6Z`915'SLS 996'9851LS SSP'££51,8$ HSYO 378Y71YAY 7Y101 2091190'5S I0Y590S LOZ'S6P'SS Z£6'81,L`5S l0Z'6IVPS 61,L`9IL`5S $0IN3•11 9s13 IMI 000'08ES 000`9ZES ZPL`SLE'I S P8Z'0901S 00008S ZPL`Mit* anrasag aop0 I9E`PISS LZ6'9LS omomq swam 10,91010S IOZ'6E8'PS SOI1109'5$ MY/3911 I0Z'6£5`11 180'86P'£S arraeag n1 saleS 095'590`65S SSP'SOZ19$ NM AVM 5£L`9909$ MEV 99E'L9L`69$ 59L`L96'EL$ 6EL'9181ILS NVIN 83d NYf L661 aunt' mil1.farnurf mom woo Jo IuawatolS PaI•(oad MI 6P:10 L6-ugf-8Z :S1dI33311 HSYO 33NY'iY8 HSYO ONINNI038 • • • OFFICE OF THE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE MONTHLY DISCLOSURE REPORT ON INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO December 31, 1996: R. WAYNE WATTS TREASURER -TAX COI T F.CTOR TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Portfolio Composition, Risk Ranking, Market Value 1 2. Structured Notes 2 3. Bank Custodian 2 4. Liquidity Position of Portfolio 2, 3 5. Liquidity Structure of the Portfolio 3 6. Cash Flow Summary for the Next Twelve Months 4 7. Earnings Performance of the Portfolio 5 8. Specific Portfolio Practices Identified 6 9. Appendix 1: Structured Notes in the Portfolio as of December 31, 1996 10. Appendix 2: GAASB Risk Rankings as of December 31, 1996 11. Appendix 3: Detailed List of Portfolio Holdings as of December 31, 1996 • • • • • COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE OFFICE OF THE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR Disclosure Report on Pooled Fund Investment Portfolio December 31,.1996 Purpose: The following report will be provided monthly by the County Treasurer to the members of the Board of Supervisors, County Executive Officer, County Auditor - Controller, County Counsel, County Superintendent of Schools, members of the Investment Oversight Committee, and members of the public interested in the information. The report considers three essential areas involving the Treasurer's management of the portfolio; (1) the preservation of investment principal, the cost (i.e., book value) vs. the current market value of the securities in the portfolio, (2) the liquidity position of the portfolio, and (3) the current yield on the portfolio as of the report date. Portfolio: The following is the composition of the portfolio ranked in accordance with the perceived market risk of the securities within the portfolio. Also displayed is the book vs. the current market value of the securities in the portfolio as reported by Fund Services Associates Inc. Risk TYPE COST MARKET % 1.0 U. S. Treasury Bills 171,778,712 171,948,373 11.9% 1.0 U. S. Treasury Notes 307,273,542 306,933,736 21.2% 1.1 Federal Agency Securities 249,346,784 249,683,394 17.2% 1.1 Repurchase Agreements (Govt Coll) 125,000,000 125,000,000 8.6% 1.1 Money Market Fund (Govt Coll)5 50,000,000 50,000,000 3.4% 1.1 Collateralized Cert of Deposit 10,000,000 10,061,312 0.7% 1.2 Municipal Notes (Co Teeter Notes) 95,424,327 96,532,533 6.6% 1.2 Commercial Paper (A-1/P-1) 346,509,951 347,320,986 23.9% 1.3 Bankers Acceptances 83,939,921 84,066,499 5.8% 1.4 Medium Term Notes (US Corp) 10,199,831 10,203,223 0.7% 2.0 Reverse Repurchase Agreements 0 0 0.0% Totals 1,449,473,069 1,451,750,056 100.00% Paper Loss/Gain) 2,276,987 0.2% Grand Total 1,449,473,069 Footnotes: Generally, the level of risk takes into account two major components; the default or credit risk and the market risk associated with the security's exposure to changes in short-term interest rates. Risk rankings have been assigned with 1.0 being the lowest level of risk and 2.0 being the highest. D.S. and Federal Agency Securities directly backed by the United States Treasury are considered the safest. Next in order of safety are those Federal Agency securities that have an implied guarantee of the United States Treasury. The third category are those securities that have some form of government collateral backing (i.e., Repurchase Agreements, Money Market Funds, and Collateralized Certificates of Deposit). The fourth are those that have local government collateral backing (i.e., Riverside County's Teeter Notes). The fifth category constitutes an evaluation of the credit worthiness, capitalization, and the time duration of the investment in U. S. Corporate securities. The sixth category reflects the risks associated with the County having loaned securities to a brokerage firm in meeting temporary cash flow needs by way of Reverse -Repurchase Agreements and the fact that the County could be subject to margin calls should the collateral value fall below its loaned market value. Margin calls can affect the liquidity position of the Treasury in its ability to meet future expenditure requirements. While the above table may denote a current market value loss (i.e., a paper loss)on the portfolio, nonetheless, it is the Treasurer's policy to avoid actual losses in investment principal by holding securities to their maturity. The paper gain for November 30 1996 was $2,027,793 whereas the reported paper gain for December 31, 1996 is $2,276,987. The liquidity position of the portfolio is such that there is na contemplated need to sell securities prior to their maturity. Structured Notes (aka Derivatives): The table indicates $249,346,784 in Federal Agency Securities. Within this amount are two Federal Home Loan Bank bonds, classified as "derivatives", totaling $15,000,000 that carry an inverse -floating interest rate equation that resets quarterly or semi-annually. Both securities were purchased in October and November, 1993 and mature November loth and December 16, 1998 respectively. The County Treasurer has received the March 28, 1995 Audit Report on Orange County issued by the California State Auditor in which there is an expanded definition as to what constitutes derivatives. Page 18 of this report states that "Derivative securities generally are described as financial instruments whose value is based on, or derived from, some underlying asset, reference rate, or index." The audit report further defined derivatives as being any inverse floater, floating or variable rate security, step-up notes or range notes that have a structured formula in deriving interest income. Accordingly, the County Treasury did hold in the December 31st portfolio the following structured notes, (see Appendix 1). Bank Custodian/Security Lending: As of March 27, 1995, the Bank of New York was hired to be the County's custodial bank for that portion of the portfolio formerly serviced by Swiss Bank. Swiss Bank had served as the County's security clearance agent from July 13, 1994 to December 13, 1994, with the understanding that the County would participate in a security lending agreement as part of our banking relationship. Since The County Treasurer no longer believes this contractual arrangement to be in the best interest of the County, the contract was terminated on December 13, 1994 and the securities switched back to The Bank of New York. The County Treasurer has no intention of again entering into a security lending agreement due to risk, credit -rating concerns, and changes in state law. Liquidity Position: The Treasurer's investment policy guidelines dated December 4, 1995,4111 established the following liquidity target: That 50% of the securities in the portfolio have a maturity less than one year while the remaining 50% of the securities have a maturity of two to three years from the current calendar date. The Treasurer's policy statement has also limited future maturities to a maximum of three years. Should they exist, the following factors can adversely affect the liquidity position of the Treasury in meeting daily expenditure requirements: 1. The Treasury's susceptibility to margin calls on reverse -repurchase agreements. 2. The Treasury serving as a depository for governmental entities outside the County. 3. The Treasury serving as a depository for incorporated cities within the County. 4. The Treasury having leveraged the portfolio by buying securities from taxable tax and revenue anticipation note proceeds intended solely to enhance portfolio yield. None of these factors are present an the Treasurer -Tax Collector's portfolio. The Treasury is not susceptible to margin calls. There are no reverse -repurchase agreements. The Treasury does not solicit funds nor act as a depository for other governmental entities outside the County. The Treasury does not act as a depository for the incorporated cities within the County. The County has never entered into a Taxable TRANS note borrowing whereby the portfolio �s leveraged. Nor does the County Treasurer deposit funds for investment with any other county treasurer. An analysis of the actual cash receipts and expenditures for calendar years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 indicate that there are sufficient revenues generated from the December and April property tax collections together with monies received monthly from the State and Federal Governments to meet all the expenditure requirements for the calendar year without having to require that securities be sold prior to their maturity. Therefore, it is intended that the property tax receipts and revenues coaxing from the State and Federal Government be invested in short-term securities with maturities ranging anywhere from 1 to 180 days. Even at its' lowest point, the Treasury has grown in size during each of the past five calendar years. On November 10, 1992 the -2- • • securities in the portfolio totaled $911,496,631, on November 16, 1993 the portfolio totaled $966,310,212, on November 21, 1994 the portfolio totaled $973,007,611, on November 22, 1995 the portfolio totaled $1,103,921,221 and on Ocbtober 24, 1996 the portfolio totaled $1,027,999,515. It has been determined that the liquidity position of the Treasury is sustainable if the portfolio contains 30 to 50$ in short-term securities at all times. The present position of securities maturing within a year is 69.10%. The following schedule together with the "Summary Cash Flow Statement° demonstrates the Treasurer's ability to meet projected cash -flow requirements in the aggregate for the next twelve months. As of December 31, 1996 the liquidity position of the portfolio was: MATURITIES LESS THAN 1 YEAR 1,00.1,590,268 69.10% MATURITIES 1 TO 2 YEARS 342,458,474 23.63% MATURITIES 2 TO 3 YEARS 10,000,000 0.69% MATURITIES 3 TO 4 YEARS 0 0.00% MATURITIES 4 TO 5 YEARS 0 0.00% MATURITIES GREATER THAN 5 YEARS 95,424,327 6.58% WEIGHTED AVG MAT (434 DAYS) TOTAL 1,449,473,069 100.00% Footnote: The Treasurer's Investment Guidelines dated December 4, 1995 require that future maturities be limited to a maximum of three years. California law limits maturities within the portfolio to a maximum of five years unless express approval has been granted by the Board of supervisors to exceed the five year limitation. The Treasurer purchased the County's Teeter Notes after having secured the approval of the Board of Supervisors (i.e..$95,424,327). -3- SUMMARY CASH FLOW STATEMENT JANUARY 1997 THROUGH DECEMBER 1997 JANUARY BEGINNING CHECKING ACCOUNT BAL. $42.1 JANUARY ESTIMATED REVENUE $259.3 JANUARY ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($487.6 JANUARY MATURING INVESTMENTS $692.0 TOTAL $505.8 $505.8 FEBRUARY ESTIMATED REVENUE $241.1 FEBRUARY PLEDGE FOR SCHOOL TRANS ($19.5 FEBRUARY ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($367.2 FEBRUARY MATURING INVESTMENTS $69.9 TOTAL $75.7. $430.1 MARCH ESTIMATED REVENUE $216.6 MARCH ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($295.0, MARCH MATURING INVESTMENTS $74.8 TOTAL ($3.6 $426.5 APRIL ESTIMATED REVENUE $618.2 APRIL ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($293.3) APRIL MATURING INVESTMENTS $5.0 TOTAL $329.9 $756.4 MAY ESTIMATED REVENUE I $214.1 ($21.0 ($488.0) MAY PLEDGE FOR SCHOOL TRANS MAY ESTIMATED WARRANTS PAYMENT OF SCHOOL TRANS PLEDGE $0.0 MAY MATURING INVESTMENTS $0.0 TOTAL I ($295.3) $243.5 $461.1 JUNE ESTIMATED REVENUE JUNE ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($279.8) JUNE MATURING INVESTMENTS $88.2 JUNE PLEDGE FOR SCH TRANS ($1.8) PAY BACK OF COUNTY TRANS ($167.5) PAY BACK OF SCHOOL TANS ($12.5) TOTAL ($129.91 $331.2 JULY ESTIMATED REVENUE $208.9 JULY ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($294.0) $0.0 JULY MATURING INVESTMENTS 97/98 COUNTY TANS ISSUE $160.0 97/98 SCHOOLS TANS ISSUE $62.7 PAY BACK OF SCHOOL TANS 07/02/97 ($12.0) TOTAL $125.6 $456.8 AUGUST ESTIMATED REVENUE I $266.5 AUGUST ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($245.0) $0.0 AUGUST MATURING INVESTMENTS TOTAL $21.5 I $478.3 SEPTEMBER ESTIMATED REVENUE I $225.5 SEPTEMBER ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($240.0) SEPTEMBER MATURING INVESTMENTS $0.0 $14.5)c I $258.8 $463.8 TOTAL OCTOBER ESTIMATED REVENUE PAYMENT OF SCHOOL TRANS ($3.4) OCTOBER ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($273.8 OCTOBER MATURING INVESTMENTS $0.0 TOTAL ($18.4 $445.4 NOVEMBER ESTIMATEDREVENUE $286.4 NOVEMBER ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($310.2) $17.0 NOVEMBER MATURING INVESTMENTS TOTAL ($6.8) $651.4 $438.6 DECEMBER ESTIMATED REVENUE DECEMBER ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($239.9) DECEMBER MATURING INVESTMENTS $54.5 TOTAL $466.0 $904.6 -4- • • Earnings Performance of the Portfolio The average weighted yield of the pooled fund portfolio as of the last business day of the month during calendar years 1994, 1995, and 1996 was: 1994 1995 1996 JANUARY 4.02 5.26 5.09 FEBRUARY 4.20 5.28 5.03 MARCH 4.42 5.40 5.00 APRIL 4.35 5.48 5.06 MAY 4.49 5.47 5.04 JUNE 4.68 5.35 5.02 JULY 4.91 5.30 5.15 AUGUST 4.93 5.26 5.29 SEPTEMBER 4.95 5.25 5.30 OCTOBER 5.01 5.23 5.23 NOVEMBER 5.08 5.23 . 5.23 DECEMBER 5.43 5.24 5.33 AVERAGE YTD: 4.71 5.31 5.15 EARNINGS -5- Specific Portfolio Practices: Responses to questions pertain to the activities in the portfolio that occurred during the report month. Yes No Questions: _ _✓ 1. Did the Treasurer contract or utilize the services of any outside private investment manager? 2. Did the Treasurer contract or utilize the services of any investment advisor? (Yes to compile various portfolio reports and compliance audit) . ✓ 3. Are there any investment agreement contracts outstanding affecting the portfolio? ✓ 4. Are any securities held in bank custody subject to a bank "Security Lending Agreement"? ✓ 5. Are any securities on loan to a brokerage firm as a result of reverse - repurchase agreements made by the Treasurer?. 6. Is the Treasury susceptible to possible margin calls on loaned securities? 7. Did the Treasurer sell any securities prior to maturity in order to meet cash flow needs? ✓ 8. Did the Treasurer sell any security at a principal loss? 9. Does the Treasury hold any security that carries an inverse floating interest equation (i.e., a derivative)? 10. Did the Treasurer buy any CMO's (i.e., collateralized mortgage obligation)? v' 11. Did the Treasurer buy any shares in a mutual bond fund where the underlying value of the securities in the portfolio are subject to daily market value adjustments? 12. Did the Treasurer enter into any "covered call" or "put option contract"? ✓ 13. Did the Treasury establish any new account and/or accept deposits from any governmental entity not now a participant of the Treasury investment pool? 14. Has the County entered into any taxable TRANS for the purpose of'. further enhancing portfolio yield? Under penalty of perjury, I certify that the above information is true and correct as of the report date. :7ATALJ• /46 / f 7% R. Wayne Watts Date Treasurer -Tax Collector - 6- %V9'L Z0e96e04k LZetZ100I.4 1V101 aNVINO %MI ££S'Zgs!86 LZE'6ZVS6 %£901 d8S£4411 A4 £0-5k8 318VAIVA V31g31i ia! X1NO 018E4 %86'0 699}£9e114 0001.000'St 1V101 SZ1£0"108'Y OW000000S %0£82 80811:IN£-%8 86-9P14 2I11d:'!WI 81Hd 69068££4£:::86144 t£13£W9SV6 001/00`000 96Z6S'£ wan 81916£+1160;A04 86-04-44 11114:'ANI 81Hd 81Z68£E4£::::£6£44 12IOd 31V21 '.I.NI 31Va 3dA1 ON 10 3111VA 13H2IVW 3111VA M008 1N3821f13 . • • .VUIW2IOd 1S32131NI A1121R1VW" 3AI1VAIN3a 3dA133S dISf10 SNV81 I XIaN3ddV 9661 `I6 2138W3330 011041110d Mil NI S310N 03Nf1101121LS NO1331100 XVl'213ansv3211am. d0 301dd0 301S213AR! d0 A1Nf100 1` • APPENDIX 2 GAASB RISK RANKINGS TREASURER'S POOLED FUND INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO AS OF DECEMBER 31,1996 TYP CATEGORY #1 CATEGORY #2 CATEGORY #3 OFFICE CASH 262,889 REVOLVING FUND 1,475,154 CHECKING ACCOUNTS 63,180,605 U.S. TREASURY BILLS 171,778,712 U.S. TREASURY NOTES 307,273,542 FEDERAL AGENCY SECURITIES 249,346,784 REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS (GOVT COLL) 125,000,000 MONEY MARKET FUND (GOVT COLL) 50,000,000 COLLATERALIZED CERT OF DEPOSIT 10,000,000 MUNICIPAL NOTES (CO TEETER NOTES) 95,424,327 COMMERCIAL PAPER (A-1/P-1) 346,509,951 BANKERS ACCEPTANCES 83,939,921 MEDIUM TERM NOTES (US CORP) 10,199,831 TOTALS 1,389,735,958 64,655,759 60,000,000 GRAND TOTAL 1,514,391,717 TT'196`0Z TT'T'TS`S9 00'0 60' 026 `Z2 00'006`09 00'000`SL 22'224422 00' 000 `84 22'021 ` h 00'0^L`09 00'0 SS''1OZ `SS 49.9944117 SS'SS2`9 ZZ'Z i:L.`hL E3P'1,1,1,4Z0 Sh'L'<S•6Z 00'OhZ`6 T1'119`hT 00' 041, ` 6 T S' 29Z ` Z 62' TSZ` T'L 6h'S9`L TS'6A0.9 00'0::64h Z 20'2204L01 LS'Z42 `0 a 1SB831NI a.3n`Io3V 9E1' OJS `926 `6 134'44Z4TZ646T 00'0004Z6846T hh'176T46S616T 22'221`0Z6 `.6T 00'0017`10646T 00'0004908461 00'0094S26661 00'0004Z6046T Z0'661'64=417.1 00'0SZ`TZ641,1 Z9'910046461 84'44049 6`6T 2'0SL`2S646 49'991406646 00'0024616461 99'9994116461 TZ'TZ66626420 00' OZS' Z02 ` 1► 00'00S469041, O Z2S`Si90`OT 20'02441,9640 2 2 4200 `608 `Z1 8 13`24 `Z60 ` h 00' E4Z `622 `2 00'09` 1:80`2T 91,'TL94Z41742T 41,'21►1,400T `L 3oN:ini=1 s 3dAl Aix:mo_n J.S03 00'000400040T 00'000400040Z 00'000400040Z 00'000400040Z 00'000400040Z 00'000400040 00'000400040Z 00'0004000`0Z 00'000400040Z 00'000400241,T 00'00040004ST 00'000400040Z 00'000400040Z 00'000400040T 00'000400040T 00'000400040Z 00'000400040Z CZ'L99`hZ64ire 00 OAO`00^.`h 00'00040004S 00'00040004T1 TO'690420046 00'000400042T 09.6LT402141, 01,'OZO46924 00'00040004hT h6'46S4T6S42T 00.00040n244 09T1►'S OZlh' S 0682' S 9T99'S 00IP'S 09hZ'S OT2P' ;i 09TS'S 66Z1►' S OI►Sih'S Z OZ1►'S o9nc 'S ozhc.'s ►, 2'S 0906'S OZ01►' S OYZ2'S 96/LT/Z1 96/61/Z1 96/60/Z T' 96/T/ZT 96/0Z/ZT 96/0 T /Z 1 96/90/Z T 96/0Z/i T 96/SO/Z T 96/TT/ZT 96/1.0/Z T 96/12/Z1 96/ZT/ZT 96/?O/Z T 96/LZ /Z T 96/90/Z T 96/2 0/Z T T2ZI►'S 96/41/Z1 O%AP'S 96/1T/ZT l9G'42'r 96/61/Z1 9 6 c 'S 96/c.1/C:l' 0062'S 96/0Z/ZT 0662'S 96/61/Z1 0662 'S 96/61/ZT 0902'S 96/6T/ZY 096Z ' S 96/40/ T T oms..-n 96/90/TT 8V:-! (11DIA 46/ST/TA 0000'0 46/hT/TO 0000'0 46/hT/TO 0000'0 46/21/10 0000'0 46/21/TO 0000'0 46 21/TO 0000'0 46/2T/TO 0000'0 46/0T/TO 0000'0 46/UT/TO 0000'0 46/60/10 0000'0 46/00/TO 0000'0 46/40/TO 0000'0 46/0/TO 0000'0 46!20/TO 0000'0 46/Z O/TO 0000-0 46/ZO/TO 0000'0 46/ZO/TO 0000'0 L6/2T/90 0000'0 46/60/90 0000'0 46/ZT/20 0000'0 46/11/20 0000'0 46/01/40 0000'0 L6/0T/Z0 0000'0 46/0 T /Z0 0000'0 46/1rT/Z0 0000'0 46/90/TO 0000'0 46/20/TO 0000'0 Diva 31V(I DIV'J 96/12/ZT AO SV .1.'ll'14::d NOII.l:SOd S O N I a 1 O H110 J W 1 S _I ANI DUTS` DAI`I . .I.Nnoo APPENDIX (3) -Il3:I NM3IS3MH100S ado '3NI 33NVNI_I 3INOSVNVd ada d`103 oNIaNnA 1VI1N3G0Md ada aNnA 1V1IdV3 H331IJ3WV ad3 03 33NVNIA 1I0 NOMA3H3 ada 03 V103 V303 Od3 3NI 03 SNMV3IS `JV34 ad3 ao lIaaao �ia.LOl•1 GNOA ada ao T HONA1 1" II` M3W ado 1.01Id NO S`J3dd3t ad3 03 `3A03SIQ N3II.IM NV3(I ado d8O3 33IAU3S NIA 11IOUV3 ado 03 1WOW 13SSV NOXX3 ada d`J03 1Ia3M3 wax ada '4)403 1V1IdV3 '3'0 ad3 V"1=ia aNnA vxlv`J18nv 1110N Od3 3NI A3NUVG H.I.IWS ado Ct R.�CtF �RFRF:ZF:3�FFRFRF�.".i FfS:FFFCiy;�3R 1.Nnoosza - aridvd lvmaaa11•la3 - ado lv.l.al an 00V311-13 I S'JI_1 VG 00V3IH3 1S`1IA VG V3I`J3WV AO uNva VG NVII.VHNVW 3SVH3 VG 00V3IH3 JO Na 11VN 1S`dId VG osv3IH3 1S`JIA V►3 OT06T H3S 00V3IH3 IS`JIA va V3I`13WV AO NNVG va NVIIVHNVW 3SVH3 Va N'-1.1IVHNVW 3SVH3 V4 7.13NVId330V S`J3NNVG - VG 2 T1►T Lh117T LOThT OLTPT T'CTIFT TTTOT ZOThT OSTPT 66OPT LTThT 9601,T TLTOT f ZTI►T 0001,T ^9ThT COThT 6001P T Z2T1,T OZThT 91,TPT 9ZTI►T Z SThT 21,ThT ZhThT 2VThT 6Z01►T 1,Z01►T NOIld183S3a GI 33S ON:(.1.2:IU•:1M sI.Nn000V -1'IV - 411/1 1 :1Nn000v 00.C9T`9a t'.2'1,864CZZ CZ"120`L 49' 900 `O C 49'910`0Z 41'061,416.: 9S — 0314 04 09'812'f:; 00'031`62 00'OOS`* 06'90^`TZ 00' CZ9 `99 16'L64`240 00'OOS`L 1,2' 2:'2 `8^• 6'Z20`T 00'0 11'196`0Z 1S3::i3lml Qill`133V ' 00'000400042 OP-204494042C 00'00040004C 00'000400040T 00'092416646 69'649496040 00'0194Z6646 C4' 60`966`6 T'21104686402 02'000496640 S4'8964Z6646 00'00040004c 00'00040004S 00 000`000`C 00'00040004; 99'0S6460S4902 00'0004SZ646 22'2804Z6846 8C'646449949 00'02240S64TT 11'98S42a646 3omanwas 3dAl A.I.I`U1om 1.S03 00'000`000`: 00'000`OOS`nn 00'00040004S 00'000400040T 00'000400040T 00' 000 ` 00 . ` 0 00'000400040T 00'000400040T 00'0004000462 00'000400046 00'000400040T 00'00040004S 00'00040004S 00'00040004C 00'00040004' 00'00040004002 00'000`000`OT 00'000`000`0T 00'000`OOL`9 00'000`000`zT 00'000`000`OT `JVd 0004' V 96/01/00 46/01/ZO 0004' b 0020' Z Oi:•cC"2 10 n!.' S L00C' C OL130 "C C06 b ' 5. 96/91/Z 1 96/01./11 96/ZIAST 96/Z 1'/Z T 96/00/Z1 96/PT/II C000°C 96/110/ZT Z'Llf'a 96/ZO/ZT 006i 'S 96/ZO/ZT 00Z2'C 96/10/11 00Z2' 96/10/TI 00 2 - C 96/ 10/01: 0000' 2. 96/9Z/ZT 0402'S 96/TZ/TT 0: /..!: ' G 96/02/Z 1 02CC'C 96/12/Z1 9!;TV'S 96/41/Z1 06/91 /Z 1 01.342'2 06/01:/T1 0866'2 L6/ZT/ZT 0090'C 46/ZT/Z1 0090-C 46/00/ZI 00T0'! 46/ZT/TT 46/ZO/ZT 00017' S 46/ZO/ •1 000ES 46/Z0/90 006Z'S 46/' 0/Z.0 00'c"". "C 46 /20/Z0 00i;2'' 46/Z0/10 0022- 46/01/Z0 0000'0 46/20/Z0 0000'0 46/02/10 0000'0 46/4Z/10 0000'0 46/41/10 0000'0 (1131 A =11VQ 31.V(I 3.1.V:_i 3SVHJ:a11d 13S 1 SV1 Al i:m1mm 33VA 96/12/ZT _O SV 180.138 38 NOI.I.ISO•d Z :30Vd S O N I Q 1 O H .1. N 3 W 1 =1 A N I b11'S:11nTM ._Ifl JI.lmno7 ' 1833 ' 01 ` 0W - R1HA ' 1833 ' 0180N - 1:11H4 - 31HA '1V1.01 ans (` 011I 1 W2-%6) `1VA-ANT 111HA ( `IOR I-1 W9-•7:2+ 1.W3 AO T) AI-G1HA :1NVd NVO1 3WOH Q3_i ANVG NVO1 3WOH Q3.d Nmva NVO1 3WOH Q3A :%Imva NVO1 3WOH Q3.:1 ANVG NVO1 3WOH Q3d - 111H_1 1V101(10S ANVG ANVG NNW NNW( ANVG NWVG 1IQ383 WJVA Q3_1 .110383 W8VA (13A 1.IQmo W`1V_1 cod 11(1383 W`VA Q3A 110383 W8VA MIA 1::1«:« «: «::�^. i« iSiq.�• i:::« i« i«I«3C:i«:«ice GIICi:i3:: J V RI01«:ii•3tS I:i ANVII 1.I0383 W`1Vd Q3d - -IVIOIQIIS 51.N3' na V3 AO A1.IS`13AINIl S1.N3038 V3 AO A1.IS83AINO 803 33NVNI_I V3I83WVSNV81 03 1.110I1 T 83MO.d VQT801A 1 13a N` 31 S3MH1OOS NO 11..d I `13!:3([ Qd3 Q•d3 (ld3 Q.d3 Q.d3 061,TT '621 T 2 ZI0T MOT S6OPT TPOYT 26001 OL01/ T _000T O101,T L.TOVT : 2621 Z 9TPT 6CO P 1' S9TdT 69101 h^1N1 QI 33S ONI180d.38 S1N0033V 11V - 11V :11,40033V U OZ'LTS'69 8L' L'a'L' 9T 00' 08L' al 04'C86'29 bb'ZTL'6 00'0Z 0491: 8 TC.i'2ZT 22'29 'OZ i [-on'8a ' "Or',' b b 00'0Z':''9Z Z9'999'TST 00'S9T'9S 1 S3M31NI (13O`133V 2'48842720402 2'539423Y64S3 00'OZZ`OTT4OT SO'8TT49ZT4172 T 9 ' 868' OSb ` 9 171,'1/S9417064TZ 00 ' ^9f14 0Z4 4 S 00'000'OOZ'b 00'000400049f 00'000'OOZ'eT 00' 000' L.e b'.' 00' 000' Cob' 9 00'00040004ZZ 00'00040084C CZ-182428648T 00'000400046T 00'OOT nee6 00'000400040T SZ'906486649 00'00040004Z 00'11:Z246664T 00'00040004Z 60'029414'19460 00' 000' 6Z4 4 6Z 69' 029' 2:P8 4 6 T 00'0004000'2 '30N3O039 3 dA1 J l nin331a • 1.903 00'000'000'Oc OGOb'S 96/bZ/n 46/41/TO 0000'0 OZ2Z`S 96/TT/Z T 46/1,T/TO 0000'0 OOS "C OIrOb'S 66ZZ'S %b9b'S T f19 7" ; 00'0004000402 067 '_ 00'000400040% 01:61:'2 00'000'0002 11Vd SL-. aiac,=ixia :,:SI S3110N WM31. a3W — °MIN iv1Alans dM00 °MOW NVO1 3WOH 1V'13a3J dM03 OMOW NVO1 3WOH 1V`134:13J csa=='a=s=a=s=s=::xs:sv:aacaxacscsasnr,assaaa 3SIa . M00 MOW NV01 3WOH 1V'131(I:3J — OW!1J 96/2Z/ZT 46/41:/TO 0000'0 96/6T/ZT Z6/ZI/TO 0000'0 96/TC/ZT 46/!;1:/TO 0000'0 96/8T/n 86/01:/n 0004'S 96/6T/TT Z6/90/'TT OOSh'S 96/0Z/11: 46/2Z/TO 040'r1 96/9Z/TT Z6/9T/TO 0000'0 96/ZZ/TT 46/91:/TO 0000'0 (1 13I.1 _ IVa 31.V(1 31VM 96/T /n AO SV IN0d3 M NO I 1190.1 SONIa 1 0 1-1 111 3 W I S =1 n N T DOT.c?I7i.PA ._ 1.Nnoo lvlo1 ans 9310N INn03SIa VWNA 93110N 1Nno3SIa VPINJ 9310N INf103 Ia VWNJ S310N 1NI103SIa VWNJ — aWNJ iV101an S '0099V OIMOW IVN a3J '30SSV DIMON IVN (13J ' 30 S:: V !:1IMON IVN a3A r scc:=s:: max,=eu:::asa:�xsasxesaa ::msam>=oumaaa:aw Y 'OOSSV 01110W IVN (13J — VWNJ lV101ans LSTbT 6TTIrT bbibT OTTbT /_2TbT 6bObT .. ' S:ObT 1N►103SIa NVO1 3WOH a3J TLObT INnoos Ia NVO1 3WOH (131J T 90 b T '' 1NIl0OSIa NV01 31WOH (13J — (11HJ lviolans NOTI i`13S31a ON:IIMO•_ 3M S1.Nn033v -1iv — aI 33S INn03Jv .i • r 2'1121'60T fAr' 6b C' Si: L9'6Zc2`ST 6;'669'6Z 6C'669'6Z T ' 660' 66 1..6' Z_'a' 6ZT GIL'6TeLL 0C'09'2'90 6b'a90'^ Z 00'O 00'0 a0'o 00'O 00'O 00'O 00'0 00'0 Z %'Z � Z•E11•T TT'TTT'bL L9'996'bb bb'bb9'6Z 1.S3::f_l.LNI a:ymov b n30Vd CZ - T= 4696' b O ZIGI'ZGi6'b S!_-BTZ46064Z BS' 9bS' S66' Z SZ•9064266'Z SZ' 9S T' C86' b OS'4112'S66'6 OS'Z9046964S 0' 6a^' 0 T 6' b 00'000'CL6'6 TO'L 2414t6`S6 TO' LZ2' 62:6 `! 6 o0'000'O00'OS 00' 00o `aw st 00'Oo0'000's oo-oo `000'ST 00'0004000'C 00'0004000`0T 0o-o00'0004S 00'000'000`.n 00'000400042 00'000400042 00'0004000'2 00'000'000'C 00'000'000'0T 00'000'000'9 00'000'0004C 00'000400040T TO'Zi 2'bZb'S6 T0'0.7.246473," 6 00'000'O0o'on o0.00o'Ooo'sT o0'000'oo0'S 00' o00 oow sT 00' oow wows Oo'Oo0`000'OI ZT'T20'66T'OT 00'000'000'0T 20' 260 00'1' C 00' 000' 000' C TGi'S6Z4090" QO'000'000'.2 OZ'Zbo'6_O'Z o0 000`o0o'Z 1S03 `JVd CCT9'S 96/TO/TT 8661'9 96/0 /TT 0261'9 96/02/TT 96S6'S 96/T2/01 2006'S 96/T2/01 6620'9 96/T2/01 Zon- s 96/ZT/ZT cz ss-c 96/60/Z.T 202..0'9 96/12/00 000O'S 96/ST/00 B6/T /L.0 oO Z'S 86/12/C0 0000'9 06/T2/'C0 0000'9 O6/0 '/b0 OSLG1'S 06/02/60 0C4O'S B 6/02/60 OSLO'S 06/T2/20 OCZI•S 116/T2/' 0 O^ZI'C 136/0ZA:0 OC T'S 06/T2/TO OSZ9' 64790'9 96/T2/ZT %O/Cl/00 OT90'9 ZZOO'C 96/1'/Z.T Z.7:00•._ 96/12/ZT Z.Z OO' 96/12/ZT ZZOO'C 96/T '/ZT Z.Z OO • 96/ T '/Z. T 0060' C OT9T'S 9TOT'S alnIA 3SVHa::.1nd 96/0 /60 96/02/60 9 6/02/60 L6/T2/20 0000'C L6/T2/20 0000*C L.6/T2/' 0 0000-^ L6/T2/20 0000'C 46/ 1' '/20 0000 - C 06/T2/'.0 G6/T'2/: 0 (16/T2/'20 0000 ' S 0000.0 0000 •' 31Va 31VU 31V`i 13S 1 svi A.1 i N ll vw 3ovA 96 /T /ZT AO SI) NOII.IS041 S O N I a '1 O H 1. N 3 W 1. S 3 A N I 7-0T,7!t'inr>i in i tonn-i MUM Amnsvml 'S'n 6TO6T OXON Pinsvml - s - n 64621 S310N ANnsvmu -s-n OZ9 T S31ON Aansvmu -S'n 64O2T S310N A`Jnsvml - S • n S^O T SXON A'Insv3m1 'S'n ' 2C2T 8310N A`BOV3U1 'S'n CZTbT S310N A`1fsvml -S'n 60TbT S3.1.ON A`Jnsv3m1 -s-n 6142T S310N A`InSv3M1 - S' n CZO2 T ««^:C: ==.-.«=««CGL'S--«TJCiCC ==.'==== S310N A`JnSV_l!J.1. - S • n - 310N ivio l.an S `.131.331 9661 SUNOO 1v4IoxNnw C=SC%:=C.:CC:JaC[G«9CC:«Q:iS:JTJ C:C:p«JC 9C16i CIiS ti SaNOa 1Vd13INOW - INnw 1V1.O.l.ans Vvv x la0 W I'I.L 3NO.l.S3" IIW 1. lnw Vvv a3 HSV3 IrJI snAdma 1-lnN VVV (MBA 3WIW :ll.l.S WXV .1inw vvv I-610 1A00 (1 1VO3a33 ilnw aNnA ivn.l.nw - 1-111W lviolan S 2v V/-VV 04a.1H ()MUM OWN 2vV/-VV O`IQAN OnVIN0 ON1W wV/-VV O`IaAN OIIV1N0 ON114 NOIldLHJS3O 96621 OVTUT 6LT6T GKTbT L.LTbT 9LT6T OL2TT c: 1.421T 94211 <I I 3:1:3 ON IJA0•:J3`1 ::1Nno3o.' ilv - l lv=1Nn000V C' 00'O 9n-b1t3'ba 00'1.2 Z4' 609' 6= 4a'T40'00 Z4.0ZO'oa Z L' OZ 0' 04 Z4'O40'00 ZL.' 0Z0' 04 ab'Ta0'00 144'T40'08 Z L'OZ O'Oa 2:4'OZO'04 C9'6T6'Th 2:0'40T'£1T 90' L.13L' OT 60'49Z4601 92'421'002 O0'2W09 9_:'L.T 6 :" T £1:-1 ` 6 T T 4T'TT13'6S 6 S' OLL' T no-6[3Z `ozr S6'ha0'OZT C;6' bS0' 0Z T 60'60T'04Z S6-hS0'OZT S6'1,1710'O23 09' TL.L'S TO'2'2Z'9 n6-h!won 2Z'L^T'60► IS3U3INI (13n' o3v b0-ZbS424Z1402 00'OS6'906'4 00'S29606646 00* TLZ`Tb ZT'O2:0'81764b 00 - SL.£1' T 46' 6 00'OOS`SOO'S 00'OOZ4T66'4 00-00Z`T66'1, 00'OO4'966'17 00'OO2'Z66'6 00' 00£l' 6 T 0' O T 00' 000 600 6 C 00'0O4`Z1O'C 40'0T4'7..TS'2 90'09'4I^' T Oa'409'1,06 OS'Z90`49T'6 l3'_;'SZ T'9[3T'SZ CZ-906'200'C 00'527`bT 00'0O4'296'6 C4'096'496'17 22'609`44T ?_b' 6LL.' L90' OT O0'SZ94STO'OT 00'SZT'OZO'OT OS'Z9S'TSO'OZ OS'ZIO'ZOO'OT 00'OS4'090'OT 143' 990' 660' SZ 90' 0D:2' O01P 61'200'6TC 00.OSZ'Tzo'oT 29'00T'696'4 •=13N3OU3S 3dAI AIDJO33S J • 1303 00-o00`O00'L.O2 00'000'000'C 00'000'000'OT 9L'2C ' Tb hZ'949'8S64b 00.000'000'OT 00.000'000'• 00'000'000'C OO'000'000'S 00'000'000'C 00'000'000'0T 00.000'000'OT 00'000.000'C 00'000'000'C 0Z'SO4'T6b': Z4' 4 6%' £10C' T bZ'OIS'060 94'680101'6 00'000'000'W; 24'6T0'OTO'S Z9'9G4'bT £12' 2 4S' S£i6' 6 4'3' 006' 1:06' h 26' T£14'L4T LO'OTS'ZCO'OT oo-0o0`000`OT 00'000'000'OT 00'000'000'Oi. 00'000'000'0T 00'000'000'OT 00'000'000'CZ T4' :SL'0£14 6S' 94i.' 6TS 00.000'000'0T OO'000`000'C 8Vd Z060-S 96/12/ZT 06/T2/ZT 0004'C bS49'S 96/90/ZT 06/02/TT OS2:9'S TC64'4 96/T2/0T E6/T :/0T OOSL'b TC64'1Y 96/T /OT 06/T /OT 00S4'1, 01•TO-4 96/T'2/0T 06/12/0T OO: L'4 O Z 4'b 96/T2/0T 06/T2/0T 00rm-h O064.1, 96/T2/0T 06/12/0T 00C4'1, 0064'0 96/12/01 86/T2/OT 00S'4'ti 0C94' 4 96/T2/0T 06/T2/0T 00C4' 4 S494'b 96/T /0T 06/T /OT oOSL'b •TC04'4 96/T2/0T 86/T2/01 OOSL'h 00 4' b 96 /T2/0T 06/12/0T 00S4' b 4Z69-4 96/T2/0T 06/T2/0T 00S4'4 TZT9' 4 96/02/60 06/02/60 OOSl.' h TZT9'4 96/02/60 06/0.2/60 OOS4'4 CZ6C' 1, 96/02/60 06/02/60 00S4' h f_:Z6c-4 96/02/60 66/02/60 00!::4'1, 2:6;f:C' b 96!02/60 06/02/60 OO2.4' 4 WW1, 96/02/60 S6/0 :/60 00C4' b 4664' 4 96/02/60 06!02/60 00".4' b 46 61..' 4 96/O2/60 06/02/60 00C ' h 00 T0' h 96/02/60 06/02/60 00S4' 1• 691L.- 4 96/02/60 06/02/60 00 ;/_' b 69 T l..' 1, 96/02/60 06/02/60 00C4' 4 TL' 4 96/02/60 06/02/60 00C4' 4 01,09' a 96/02/60 06/O2/60 00C4' h Z069'4 96/02/60 06/02/60 00S4'1, .47:09S'b 96/02/60 06/02/60 00 L'b SZ.6S'4 96/02/60 06/02/60 00!:,4'b OZ29'b 96/02/60 06/02/60 OOSL'h 9094' 4 96/02/60 86/02/60 Oo• L' 4 9094'1? 96/02/60 06/02/60 00y4'4 T'649' h 96/02/60 C6/02/ 60 00!:4' h 92Z9' ,, 96/40/T T 06/T2/40 00 -r alDIA 3.1.V(I 31V(I 31V`i 3 ivmodnd I3S ISV1 AlIWIIVW 33VA 96/12/ZT O aV imam moil:mod S n N I a -1 0 H AWIS3ANI as I S`Iwm INA00 Gam..:_.._.=m ==raft======m===::tFec ====a==. IN3W:•3:3`Jk: V 3'3VM380338 - O.: 1M 1V1.01ans SMION Aunsvml -S'n S3.I.ON AMOSV3tl1 -s-n S310N A`JnSV3NI - S - n SRION A`instaul -S'n S3ION A`.InsV3al -s-n S3ION A`.1n sV'_1`..l1 -s-n S310N A`insvml -s-n s3.I.ON A8OSV_ UI ' s' n S3ION AmnsV3'Jl -s-n S3ION A`JnsV3Jl -s-n S3.10N A`InsV3al -s-n s3lON AmnsG': ul -s-n S3ION A`InsV3`J.l -s-n s3ION A`11Ts1- RUI -s-n S3ION Amnswaa 1. -s-n S2ION A`.Instra 1l 's'n S3.I.ON minsvala 1. ' S -n s310N Aunsvma -S'n S3ION A`Insvilai -s-n S3ION A`OSV3` 1 -s-n S3.I.ON Amnsvml -s-n s310N A`Jnsvalul -s-n S:3ION ANOSV3`I -s-n 1: DION Amn svmu -s-n. S310N AMOSV341 -s-n S3ION A`JnsV3dl1 -s-n S310N A`OSVMII -s-n S310N A`Jnsvml -s-n S3ION ANn sV3'Jl -s-n S310N A`Jnsvaul 's-n S310N ANOSV.-JLI.I -s-n S310N AUOSV381 -s-n S3ION AmnSV3m -S-n SDION AHOSV'_UI -s-n NOI IAIU3S 3a ONIIMO.J38 sJ.Nn0Dav -11v - UT4T 40T4T 6TSZT OTCZT ZO2TT L.0T T 9S2'T.T r�•�T T 4C; TT 2S2TT ZSTT T TS2TT 0C2 [ T hfiL;ZT 2:ICZ T 69!ZT £19SZ T C.9SZ T M•c CZ Z9CZT T 9CZ T OCC ZT 422 T T 922 T T C22 T T Z2TT T22TT OZ_TT LT2IT 002TT 64ZTT 0bZTT TIPZTT 0204T al 33S =1Nn000v • • • 64' 000' Z_' T 90' TO`ZZ P6' 980' 2 T'i 9C-GST=Za 0-8P2'06T 6Z- TL9'OPT 02'h:i'6fl 26' 1,90 `86 S9' 260' 2Z,Z 03.9S J' 1,Z T 64" TL9'Obi ZS-914'6Z 9C' S9'2" 6C L6-L.2L' i 1..2-C6T'CT 92' =L6' 6 !.Z 'Oli 'ST PS'OPS'0-' 00'000'8 i Z.,40S-Z9 cie rms' Z. I 00'0 00.0 00'0 1:i3:�l312•!:[ 4.-inmoov 9 - 91,0' 6Z G' V 00 - ZSe S6S' O T 00" b2I' ZZO T 00' b9O TZP' 9 00'ZPO TOL' T 00-00S'STO'S 00' 086' 900' £ 00'sc `oWf.' 00'OaI'9ZS'L 00-Z604ZTZ'V 00"00G'SIO'S 00'090'866 00.0Ze Z00' Z 00 000'000'T 8Z'LLI' 6L'fl 2. - fl60 Z i! 00'000'008 00'000'009'T 00-000'0Z6'6a 04 " LLL' 0?6' 1,2 b'_ Z9S4960'L.T 00'000'000'0T 4,21Z9S'960'4. 00'000'000'cn 00-000'000'SZ 00"000'000'00T 33N A03S 3•_IAl A1.T A33S 1S03 64.0 6' 06L' fr Z.9'41►96ZTZ' IT L6-Z90'SOS'T Pr6T61S 6L`9 LZ"OS9'000'T 0 T - 696' 402' S ZI-9Z2'ZOT'2 T9-ZZI' TOS'2 SL ' ZZ0'1396' L. 2.6' I IL' LSO P OT-6964L02'S CZ-289'9S0'T TL-a0S46IT'Z Oi 6S•249Z0' T ZO' 009 6 2Z6' 8 Ear - PSw" 92S OT'STZ'TZ8 L^ ' 021• 6 Z P9' T 00'000'000'09 00'000'0004= 00-00090T'LT 00'000'000'0T 00'000'901'4 00'000'000'Sn OO' 000' 000' Elz 00'000'000'OOT 6i 64'S TOZI1'S TOM' S b(i28' S U020 - S PO.^_fl"S P028 "S 0028' S b020 - S b028' S I/028 S b02 O'S P028-S . b0'2O' _=. f1T 4Z S OPTZ'S pnbz - ; PSPZ—C OSPZ 'S 0!_00' 1, OT9h' 1• i:w9T'9 O84S 96/20/Z0 96 /TO/LO 9 6/ 10/40 96/TO/L.0 96/TO/LO 96/TO/L.0 96/I.0/i0 96/'TO/L0 96/TO/L0 96/TO/40 S6/TO/LO 9 /10/Z0 96/IO/LO 96/TO/LO 96/6T/ZT 9 6/6T/ZI 96/ZZ /80 96/ZZ/00 96/ZZ/00 9 6/02/ZT 96/PZ /ZT L6/9Z./90 L.6/9Z/90 Z6/9Z/90 L6 /9Z/90 4.6/9Z./90 Z6/9Z/90 Z6/9Z/90 16/9Z/90 46/9Z/90 46!9Z/90 L6/9Z/90 0000'0 0000'0 0000'0 0000'0 0000'0 0000'0 0000'0 0000'O 0000'0 0000'0 0000'0 Z6/9Z/90 0000'0 Z6/9Z/90 0000'0 Z6/9Z/90 0000'0 46/6T/90 0000'0 46/6T/90 0000'0 4.6/0Z/Z0 0000'0 46/0Z /Z0 0000'0 46/0Z/Z0 0000'0 Z6/60/TO 0000'0 Z6/60/TO 0000'0 96/40/ZT 66/ZO/ZT 009T-9 96/6T/Z.T 46/6T/Z.T 00171,'S 0T0<'1 Is slim SllIG OTZST IS slim OTZST IS SllIG }T66T IS slim OTb9T IS SlIId OT9SI .IS S11111 OT2OT IS SlIIR OT6PT 1S SIlIG OTN's'.T IS Silltl OTTOT 1S SllIG OMIT 1S slim OTiTT 1S SlIIG Sii m SilIQ SilItl Ir22 QNnA slim 1:22 QNAA SllId slim slim Amnsvmu Amnsvmu A`1nsvmil AJnSV3m i MASUD:G I A` ASV32l1 A'lnSV3al Amnsvmu A` ASVDMI Atinsv u Aunsvalml AJnsvmu ANASV3:1.I AMASV3`!1 A`lnSV3`I.I Amnsvpul AmnSV3 l Amnsvam l A` ASVDM I A`JnSV3'il A:_1nSV3:J.I -s-n -s-n - s-n -s-n - s-n -s-n - s-n - s-n ' S'fl S' fl ' S'fl -s-n - s-n -s-n - s-n -s-n - s-n -s-n S fl 'S-n - S'fl I1VI3OSSV DIMON NVO1 1N31TI11S IlVI3OSSV O.LNOW NVO1 Immn.l.S NOI1VI30 SSV :180W NVO1 1.N3 nis - VWIS OOOZ.-S 96/Y2/Z,T L6/40/10 0002:'n 00f.:6'S 96/T2/ZT L6/ZO/TO 00S6'S QI::I:IA alma 31V(I 31V`J 3:;VH3'IAA IDS S .I SV1 A.I.I?:Ifl.I.VW DOVJ 96/T2/ZT _Ill SV .l.?_l0ADN NOI 1.I SOA ll'11.f. lanss OZL 2T OTL2'T 60L2T 8042 T LOUT 90L_T COLT 0042I 2O!_ 2 T ZOLT TOLwI OOL'2 T 669` T O692T OVIPT 6'2IP T fl202 T Z2O_ T 9w0 T L.9TPT 6STNT LLOLT TPTPT Sll.DM .I.N1WZMOV IISVI-I:2'ln.:AN TOIPT 1N3N3 3MOV 3SVH3•UAA38 ZO T b T NOI14183S3Q ca 33S i7 L• 9 :30Vd S 0 N I (I l O H INDWISDANI ON:ll.iillADA SINA033V 11V - 11V :Irml)33V C. CiCm===C===Ci.. ==. - .._. __ = Cim:i..^.i == = `.ice iii 4S2'0601.2644 bS'09042Lb46001 9L'P664647.3,49EPT OC'4I24 T9 00'0 00'000600040T 00'0004000`0T 00'000`000`S 00'000`000`c OdT000`000`2 00'000'`000`g; 12'CL0`6004Z L9'TTL`OLL`TL.T 00-000`00o-wr 6C - 660 `OZ T c - voir. `caz ::S'sL9`bb0`L. IS 831NI 1S03 8Vd aan:loov 00C P'C 1,6011"C 00' TC2 96/TT/UT Z6/'_;T/b0 00! b-C 96/12/ZT 46/9L/ O 00CP'C 6264 - a 96/2 0/40 L6/50Z/90 0000' 0 6064-C 96/ 0/40 46/9Z/90 0000-0 (11DIA D.I.VU 3IVU DIV8 ISVI-13)...111c1 1.=15i .1.f3V1 A.I rmn.1.VW Dov.:1 96/T /ZT AO rV i.�lO.a l`I NOIIISO•:I Ainn.I.VW Ul sAva Q31.HOI3M 30VM3AV aimA a_I1Homm 3010831V ANVU 1VNOIIVN sN:+:l?I.IIo aol ANV3 1VNOIIVN sN3ZIII3 Qal s1Isodla 51wil - Q7.1 iviolans AwsV3)11 -s-n ()MOT 1S SilIQ A`JnsV3U1 -s-n 9962T C065.n O'2Z2 T 6ZL.'2 T NOIIJI`133a QI 33S v -a, S O N I Q 1 O N _I W I S _I n N I DUI s:_I:lA I N .I.NnO:I oN:1.1.?IO•:1pm slmnn7:)V liv - 'INn077V �. • AGENDA ITEM #5G • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 5, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending December 31, 1996. Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and cooperative agreements is available from Bechtel staff. FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: Not Applicable Source of Funds: Not Applicable Included In Current Year Budget (Y/N): Not Applicable Budget Adjustment Required: Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. Attachments PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 Proj. (R09423,9429,9522,9730) Winchester Rd Widening (R09728) SUBTOTAL ROUTE/9.' ROUTE 86 PROJECTS Construction & Mitigation (R09213) SUBTOTAL RO41TE 06 ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538) 9635 SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111'' ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Magnolia to Mary HOV & Serfas club Sndwls (R09101, 9308, 9415, 9524,9726) Mcl0nley Undercrossing (R09326) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535) SUBTOTAL itouTE 91:' RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE • COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION December 31, 1996 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE $8,183,914 $0,183,914 $8,771,360 $23,508,044 $3,000,000 $35,270,404 $20,115,078 $20,115,070 $6,700,115 96,700,115 $10,812,508 $1,614,951 $2,300,000 $14,727,459 $8,183,914 $0,183,914 $8,771,360 $23,508,044 $3,000,000 $35,270 404 $16,182,436 916,102,436 $6,438,616 $6,430 616 $10,530,460 $1,614,951 $2,300,000 $14,445,411 Page 1 of 3 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 80.4% 80.4Y 96.1 % 96.1% 97.4% 100.0% 100.0% 98,1% $5,222 $24,041 $657,020 086,203 3Q $759 $759 $7,553,278 $7,553,278. $8,042,520 $21,773,768 $2,334,399 $32,150,68 7 $15,927,436 $15,927,420 $2,802,818 $2,802,018. $8,365,984 $1,425,897 $659,159 $10,451,040 92.3% 92.3% 91.7% 92.6% 77.8% 91.1% 98.4% 98.4% 43.5% 43.5% 79.4% 88.3% 28.7% 72.3% E to Z a6ed %roe %rig %S'L6 %L'96 546`96 %6'S6 ............... ................. %Y£1 %£'96 %L'09 96ti'06 9f9`11L'LZZ$ 8t44080`983 09L'LLZ'06$ .................... . 9irot8'9$ £S9'9£9'Z$ E69' LOZ'£$ 8£L`:1,80 919 9et't99'ois ....................... Vil OW9£$ 9£9'90L'091 SEO'9b$ EV6'9S9'98 Zt9`090'Z$ 881.1Z$ E£9'9l$ 999'9$ 998`983 996'999 ............. . 981$ 99L$ .............. . 96'4999 06 t,'o$$ ....................... V98`6S1'L3 96Z1700' L$ b99' 16$ b69'Eb$ ..................... 909`v3 90S'bb$ %Cis %8'66 %9'66 %0'00l %0-001 %TOO L %WOOL WOO L %TOO L %916 %9'L6 % r 86 %0'001 %0'L9 %TOO L %8'16 woo1 %Too L %b'L9 pS9`9SZ`L9Z3 8LZ`£ltoL63 so9'9bs'Z6$ E 1b'b99178 9961z/199 996'6ZL'9$ 0681196' 1$ 6ZL'E99'Z$ 19 L'SLZU ........................ 6£i`L£olitt 907' 1£0'Z1$ $li'060116 SL 1'000'9$ 000'0698 000'00Z' 1$ 89L's8ti11£$ S661799Z£$ 000'098 £L 1'9L9'9$ L£9`0ZZ'L9Z$ 4 t08`Oi9'L6= 99V9LL'Z6$ £ Lb179917$ 996`6Z1'9! 996'6ZL'9$ pea 896'L6• 6ZL'E99'Z$ 191'SLZ'SS ectezetit 9£L'6ZE'Z LS $39`£ZZ'8!• SL L'000'9$ OOS'£ZO' IS 000'00Z' 18 66t££'6c9 96617SS'Z£$ 000'os$ boS'9ZL'9$ 91V101 liva 2131f1W WOO 1V1018115 (9Z96'0Z96'Z£96' t£96'LZ96' 1ZS6 17Z176 %MOH) %SOO dabod emuoneiS (0076'0Z176 ` 7ZE6 'EZE6 021) 6upaaulfluweepnis 'IIV2! 2l3111WW00 36121-N-Havd iviOlans (Z1L6-L0L6) (ssexdwl '£L96 - 1096 9Z96 '9Z96 '91176 Oa) WV210021d '1N30N1/301M-N-54211/d 'sons Nrid IN1121J021d "11/101,8115 (L006013) V0/0111100 6ulddew (LOE6 '6116'9006021) salpnss wedkud 9301A1139 V NVId WVN0021d 13114039 11rlO ans (00L6021 n1410069021) 'A21391110111 1331'021d 131H038 3JNVHON31/41 `IV101H[1S (9£96021) uop rwsuoO 01 ewnA (L£96021) Lw6W Asuo3 01 ewnA (9Z176021) (3V9d) upsea leUld 01 ewnA 1131/210021d 71021d1N13ONVH02131N1 9L%1 ivlolan$ ( 6006'17006 021) ABM-lo-146121 (LZ96011)1113030 (9106 '9006013) 'ualnu3/6J6u3 kewwllald 91331'01dd 9LZ-1 31Va Ol S1NW11YWV00 31V0 Ol 9661 ' lE 1e9We380 NOI1V0011V 31V0 Ol N011V0011t1 1SNIVflV 31V0-01 S3WILION3dX3 030N3 1-11NOW 'H1f1V 1SNIVON1 S1N3W1VIN00 amwa-1f1V S321f1110N3dX3 % NOd Mlf1110N3dX3 03111M00 % ivan10V211N00 NOISSINVI00 40 3mod A91210d321_mane S103roevmHJIH V 3211191/314 01021 NOI141210930 103fO21d • • PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY OF MURRIETA Loan Agreement 1-15/1-215 Interchange improvements (R09334) SueurrAL 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 & (1) Storm drainage structure sumpTA! of Or CORONA TOTALS $23,812,623 So NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT APPROVED COMMITMENT $17,000,000 $17,000,000 $1,600,000 $1,6au,00u' $5,212,623 $5,212,on ` EXPENDITURE FOR MONTH ENDED December 31, 1996 SO so TOTAL MEASURE A ADVANCES $1,377,000 1b3771000 $1,600,000 000)000 $5,212,623 $5,212823 $8,189,623 OUTSTANDING LOAN BALANCE $0 $1,481,394 S1,481,384 $4,720,916 $4,720,916 56,202,31.0 OUTSTANDING COMMITMENT $15623,000 Page 3 of 3 % EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST APPROVED COMMIT. 8.1 % Status Mo. Ending 12/31/96 • • AGENDA ITEM #6A • REVISED AGENDA ITEM #6A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP DATE: February 5, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Contract to Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF) to Perform Corona By -Pass (Toll Road) - Preliminary Feasibility Assessment The Commission has previously approved the expenditure of funds for a Northwest Riverside County Congestion Management Program/Deficiency Plan and South Corona By -Pass (Toll road) Preliminary feasibility Study. The Commission has also authorized Staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the selection of a consultant to perform the above named study. Four proposals were received on December 20, 1996 to perform the study and a selection panel was held on January 21, 1997 to interview the proposed project team members of the four firms. The four firms submitting proposals were Parsons Brinkerhoff, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates; Valley Research and Planning; and HDR Engineering, Inc. The selection panel was composed of Jack Reagan (RCTC), Gary Cohoe (Caltrans), Larry Stickney (City of Corona), George Johnson (County of Riverside), and Bill Hughes (Bechtel). Each firm was allotted one hour to compete the interview. After the selection panel reviewed the information provided in both the proposals and the interviews, and compiled the results of their findings, the following ranking was determined: Ranking Firm 1 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates 2 Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas 3 HDR, Engineering, Inc. 4 Valley Research & Planning After the rankings were established, the cost proposals were opened and it was determined that RBF had a proposed contract price of $169,220. This was less than the maximum contract price established in the RFP of $170,000. Based on the above results and findings, the Selection Panel recommends that the "Northwest Riverside County Congestion Management Program/Deficiency Plan and South Corona By -Pass (Toll road) Preliminary Feasibility Study" be awarded to RBF. A standard RCTC model contract will be used for this agreement between RCTC and RBF. The RBF team includes a 21% DBE component. The complete RBF team is shown below along with the corresponding portion of work for which they will be responsible: Firm Responsibility Percent of Work RBF Prime Consultant 67% BonTerra Consultants Environmental Analysis 15% (WBE) W. Koo & Associates Structural Analysis 3% (DBE) The LKR Group Geotechnical Investigations 3% (DBE) Public Financial Management, Inc. Financial Analysis 12% FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: $169,220 Source of Funds: CMAQ for first $150,000 and $19,220 LTF Planning as match for a total of $169,220. Included In Current Year Budget (Y/N): Included in FTIP for 96/97 not included in RCTC current year Budget Budget Adjustment Required: Yes STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the award of a contract, with a not to exceed amount of $169,220, to Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates. • • • TASK 1 TRAFFIC/TOLLS/REVENUE 1.1 TRIP ASSIGNMENT DATA. Trip assignment data prepared will be obtained from JHK Associates. The trip data will provide estimates of toll and non -toll traffic with selected toll rate structures. The RBF Team will use this data to analyze future lane needs, interchange configurations, and interchange locations. Analysis of facility with and without trucks is suggested. The initial_ capital cost, community acceptability and ongoing maintenance costs may be lowered by eliminating truck traffic. The impact on the overall system including SR91, FASTRAK lanes and I-15 will be assessed and documented. PRODUCT: TECHNICAL MEMO 1.2 TOLL SCENARIOS. Time of day and constant toll schedule will be reviewed to determine an optimal toll structure for opening year. The impact of maximized revenue scenarios versus maximized traffic service will be determined. The maximum traffic service will occur with no toll (i.e., most trips attracted) while the maximum revenue will occur at the saddle point of the revenue versus toll curve. A series of toll revenue assumptions will be developed tested. PRODUCT: TECHNICAL MEMO 1.3 REVENUE ASSESSMENT. After selection of preferred toll scenarios for opening year, revenue projection tables will be prepared. These tables will take into account: • estimated growth in tolls over time (inflationary trends) • growth in value of trip as alternate facilities become more congested (congestion based pricing) Long-term estimates will be prepared and compared to recent financing plans to assure the acceptability of the revenue estimates. PRODUCT: TECHNICAL MEMO REVENUE FORECAST TASK 2: ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS 2.1 MAPPING. In order to adequately assess the physical constraints and opportunities, it will be necessary to obtain current topographical mapping. A scaled aerial photo with contours and spot elevations will be prepared. This mapping will allow the RBF Team to use current information to map constraints accurately and analyze alignment alternatives based on current land uses. 2.2 DATA REVIEW. This task includes review of available data. Of particular importance will be the City of Corona's General Plan criteria, approved new or modified land uses and generalized property boundary data. Data sources will include the City's general plan, approved and proposed development by the City and County, geotechnical studies, published environmental studies and resource material. The information obtained will be catalogued and a database developed for use by the RBF Team, RCTC and other interested parties. If appropriate, this database can be made available on the Internet. 2.3 CONSTRAINTS MAP. Using the aerial mapping obtained in Task 2.1, known constraints features can be "layered" within a rasterized CADD file of the mapping. This will allow easy retrieval and location of potential constraints. These may include: species habitat wetlands historic resources cultural resources • slopes geotechnical features • drainage course "bluelines" streams property boundaries schools, parks, etc.. • land uses noise sensitive areas • PRODUCT: CONSTRAINT MAP 2.4 INITIAL ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT. Initial alignment(s) will be developed within the project area. These alignments will be developed at a "sketch" level showing cross section line, grade, right-of-way needs and grading limits. The corridor shown in Figure 1 of the RFP will form the basis of the initial alternatives. Interchange types will be identified and sketch geometrics prepared. The sketch alignments will be developed to sufficient detail to allow analysis of: Cost (Construction and ROW) Environmental Issues Right -of -Way Needs Drainage Issues Approval/Permitting Requirements Adjacent Land Owner Issues Interchange Locations Multiple alternatives will be prepared and reviewed the Project Steering Team. The alternatives will be classified as viable and non -viable. Additional hybrid alternatives may be suggested. PRODUCT: TECHNICAL MEMO/SKETCH ALTERNATIVES 2.5 EVALUATE INITIAL ALTERNATIVES. The RBF Team will initiate a design charrette with the project steering team. This charrette session will fully explain the alternatives and associated impacts. The alternatives will be at "sketch" level so as to encourage comment and suggestions for refinement. The evaluation will include initial evaluation criteria analysis methods developed by the RBF Team with the Project Steering Team. PRODUCT: TECHNICAL MEMO 2.6 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES FOR ROUND 2. At the conclusion of the initial evaluation, the RBF Team will identify alternatives to be analyzed and alternatives discarded with backup for the decision making process. This will allow future project planners to rely on the early decisions made as a result of this study. PRODUCT TECHNICAL DOCUMENT 2.7 PREPARE/REFINE STUDIES. This task will result in a higher level of analysis and detail. "Sketch" level alternatives will be more fully developed with the concept of each alternative defined more fully. This method will allow more precise definition of project costs and impacts: 2.7.1 ENGINEERING. The "sketch" line and grade cross-section and right of way will be further defined by defmition of slope requirements at key location. Interchange types will be developed and potential structure types identified. The size of major cross -drainage facilities will be estimated. PRODUCT: CONCEPT PLANS TECHNICAL MEMO 2.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL. Specific key iisues will be assessed and commentary developed. These Issues include: • Biological Resources • • • Cultural Resources • Land Use/Socio-Economic • Visual Impacts • Air Quality • Noise PRODUCT: CHECKLIST TECHNICAL MEMO 2.7.3 COST ESTIMATES. Construction cost estimates using current bid prices and RBF's experience on the Eastern Transportation Corridor will be developed. PRODUCT: COST ESTIMATE 2.7.4 FINANCIAL ESTIMATE. A project pro -forma will be developed using the cost estimate and toll and revenue forecasts developed. A year by year analysis of fund sources and uses will be developed. This will be used to develop potential financing strategy. PRODUCT: TECHNICAL MEMO 2.7.5 RIGHT OF WAY NEEDS. Right of way needs will be identified with a general analysis of full/partial takes based on Assessor Map Parcel information. PRODUCT: RIGHT OF WAY NEEDS ESTIMATE 2.7.6 PROJECT SCHEDULE. A detailed preliminary project schedule including review and decision time will be developed for two development alternatives: • • Locally owned or franchised exempt from Caltrans and FHWA procedures. That which is subject to traditional project development. PRODUCT: PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULES 2.8 ROUND 2 EVALUATION. A second design charrette will be scheduled with the project steering team. The refined alternatives will be reviewed and associated costs and impacts identified. The financial pro -forma will be reviewed and financing strategies discussed. Rating and ranking system will be used to discern the alternatives ability to meet project goals and objectives. PRODUCT: TECHNICAL MEMO KEPNER TREGOE MATRIX 2.9 FINAL ALTERNATIVES. As a result of the second charrette, fmal alternatives will be identified. The RBF Team will document reasons for inclusion or rejection of alternatives studied. PRODUCT: TECHNICAL MEMO 2.10 FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT. A draft report will be prepared for review and comment by RCTC. Upon receipt of comments a fmal study report will be prepared. The report will be organized to utilize technical memorandum prepared as part of appendices with sections dealing with: • Engineering • Environmental • Financial • Community Acceptance PRODUCT: DRAFT REPORT AND FINAL REPORT TASK 3 EVALUATION CRITERIA 3.1 STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. At the first meeting of the Project Steering Team, the RBF Team will present study goals and objectives (G&O) refined during contract discussions. The G&O will be affirmed or recast as appropriate.. A maximum of 6 meetings of the Steering Team have been included. PRODUCT: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES STATEMENT 3.2 INITIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. During preparation of initial altematives the RBF Team will work with the Project Steering Team to develop specific ranking and rating criteria. Areas which may be included are: Alignment • Cost • Environmental • Geotechnical Interchange Connection Right of Way Needs Approval Requirements • Financial PRODUCT: RATING AND RANKING CRITERIA 3.3 DEFINE CRITERIA. During completion of initial alternative evaluation (Task 2.5) refinement of the rating and ranking system will be accomplished. These will be used for subsequent evaluations. PRODUCT: REFINED EVALUATION CRITERIA TASK 4 INTERFACE WITH STAKEHOLDER Based on the RBF Team's review of the potential corridor, we believe meeting with key stakeholders will be necessary to determine project viability. These meetings will be scheduled only after thorough review and consent of RCTC. A total of 4 public presentations have been included ( 2 to the RCTC Board and 2 to the City of Coronna). PRODUCT: DOCUMENTED STAKEHOLDER INPUT TASK 5 STUDY SCHEDULE The attached exhibit depicts the proposed study scheduled with corresponding milestones. The RBF Team and Project Manager have demonstrated ability to maintain schedule on complex study projects for RCTC and other clients. Mr. Placilla will be charged with assuring that the schedule and budget are managed to provide the fact basis for decision within the nine months desired. 6rOZZ`696$ 00•SLVSS 00'09e6 LS W961'1414 00'0Z0'0Z$ 9L'£60'9Z$ t►l'ZPVP$ 9P'9£Z'll$ 00'000'9$ 00 900'9$ 00'Zb9'93 P9'96L'1.3 90'99L'£Z$ SIVE8'ZIS 00'0Z9'L$ 9Z'1.9Z'ZS bL't76£$ 99'LZO'1.$ 99'tr9tP$ 00'99b$ 00'ZZ£'Z$ PP' L96'l$ 9Z'SO L'Z$ SE'69V8ZL4 00'00Z'9L$ 09'ZL9'ZZ$ 017106'£$ 09'92'01.$ 9V9b917$ 00'09914 00'0ZZ'£Z$ Ob'PL9'61.$ OWZ90'LZ$ 09' L 09' l 99' L 99' L OL' L 09' L 99' L 99' L 99' L 09188V6bS 00'009'9$ 00'9ZL'6$ 00'OCT l$ 00'096'£$ 09'£99'L$ 00'09L'l$ 00'000'6$ 00'099'LS 00'09L'9$ 00169 L 00'00 L 00'99£ 00'06 00'0L l 00 01. OQ'OZ 00'0Z 00'89 00 0 00'0Z 00'0Z 00'66ZL 00'09 00'9Z£ 00'OP 00'0Z L OO O L 00'0 00'01. 00'99 00'9Z 0011. 1V101 1VIONVNId AN3 21313 00'OZZ 00'0 00'0 00 00Z OO OZ 00'9 L H331 00'09 00 09 00'09£ 00'Z6L 00'0LL 00 0 00'0 00'0 00'0Z 00'OP 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'9 00'0Z 00'09 00'09 00'0Z£ 00'POL 00'06 00'0 00'0 , 00'OP 00'OZ 00 oZ L9 ££ 00 GC 00'9Z 00'OP 00 9b H331030 JN3 ILLS ON3 ddV1S ON3 21S Wd L6/BZ/10 111101 S3SN3dX31332110 ONIdddW iniolans You 33d a3X1A 01131-1213A0 + HOEIV1 ab3H213A0 aoatn 133a1a sanoH idiol H0V3t11110 213010HMIVIS V V1213111d0 NOLLWIlVA3 E 1N31/Vd013A30 3AI1VNM311V Z 311N3A32UST10110133VMI L HSbl 31VINI1S31S03 Aaf11S SSVdA8 VN02100 • • la O euolsaim df1 papod . auolsamAj Hsel dn Pallor ssai6ad L6/t2 ale0 181SV3d SSVdAB OVNOkiOO :laa{oid ssa�6ad d� polio/3 tiewwnS se �I 1 3131d1A1OO103pOHd 0'9 ZZ H0V31:I1110113010H3HVIS 017 tZ V1E13118O 3NId38 £'£ OZ I ! VI1j311a01VA31V111N1 Z'E 64 S3A1103f £10 V swop Am.'s t'E 84 VI1:13111:1O NOI1V111VA3 0'£ Ll • 11d0d31:1 Aaf11S A1I1181SV3d Ol'Z 9l S3Al1VN1d311V 1VNid 6'Z St 1VA3 Z oNn01:1 6'Z Pt S31af11S 3NId31:1/dald L'Z £t Z 011n0 1 S11V 01 9'Z Zt I 11V 11NI 31V01VA3 S'Z l4 ' V31A/dO13A30 3AI1VNE1311V 11N1 17'Z Ol dVIN SINIVId1914OO £'Z 6 IL M31A31:1 V1V0 Z'Z 8 t ONIddVW t'Z L dNV 91N3INd013A30 3AI1VNli311V 0'Z 9 1N3lAlSS3SSV 3ON3A3E1 £'t S SOIdVN30S 1101 Z't p ! VIVO 11‘131A1N`JISSV dlal Vt £ 3GN3A3a/S1101/01ddVlil 01 Z 8Z/Z ♦- d1N 0'0 4 AoN PO daS 6nV Inc unp Awl idV Jeini gad uef oaa awef lsel S8M 01 AoN 130 daS 6nV inf unp Am Ay Jew gad uep aa0 • AGENDA ITEM #6B • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 5, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 79 Realignment Study near the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto At the January 8, 1997 RCTC meeting, the Commission approved the expenditure of $75,000 to perform a realignment study for State Route 79 near the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. It appears that the County of Riverside along with the cities of Hemet, and San Jacinto each have their own proposals to realign State Route 79 at this location. At this point in time there does not appear to be consensus on the preferred alternative. Attached to this item are letters received from the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto requesting support for the State Route 79 alignment. Staff recommends that we use a firm that has not been used from one of the existing selection lists to perform engineering services. The next unused engineering firm is CH2M HILL. Staff has solicited a proposal from CH2M Hill and reviewed scope with them to obtain the best product that is possible from a study that is limited to $75,000. The attached engineering scope will result in an alignment study that will review the various alternatives from each of the interested agencies. The alternatives will then be reduced to two or three alternatives that will be evaluated in detail as part of the alignment study. The alignment study will be a precursor to performing a PSR/PR and environmental documents to solidify consensus on a preferred alternative. The PSR/PR and environmental studies are not currently included in the scope of work being authorized for the alignment study. Attached for your review is the proposed scope, schedule and cost for the proposed alignment study to be performed by CH2M Hill. A standard RCTC consultant agreement will be used for this contract. There are currently no funds for extra work for this project. FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: $75,000 Source of Funds: Western County LTF Included In Current Year Budget (Y/N): No Budget Adjustment Required: Yes - using unprogrammed LTF planning funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission award a contract to CH2M Hill, with a not to exceed amount of $75,000, to perform an alignment study for State Route 79 near the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. There are currently no extra work funds available for this project. The standard RCTC model consultant agreement will be used for the contract with CH2M Hill. Minor changes to the model agreement are permitted subject to review and approval of the Executive Director and Legal Counsel. • • • ® CH2MHILL 4401. Celebralln; JOt-ears January 24,1997 Mr. William Hughes Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: SR-79 Realignment Study Proposal Dear Bill: CH2M HILL 3 Hutton Centre Drive 032719 Site 200 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Tel 714.429.2000 Fax 7.14.429.2050 RECEIVED JAN 2 7 1997 BECHTEL CORP. Riverside Office CH2M HILL is pleased to submit this Scope of Services and Cost Estimate Proposal to provide engineering and environmental services for the SR-79 Realignment Study. We have developed the Scope of Services to match the funds available for the Study. The Commission could then utilize the prepared documents as a basis for the PSR/PR stage. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and we are committed to providing you with the very best planning and design services. Please feel free to address any questions you have regarding the proposal to Shahram Vandat at (714) 429-2020 , ext. 2311. We look forward to working with you and assisting you in achieving the Commission s goals on schedule and within the budget. Sincerely, . CH2M HILL Tony Riinian Vice President, Transportation Enclosures • • • State Route 79 Realignment Study Riverside County Transportation Commission Bill Hughes (P.E.) Project Manager Principal -In -Charge Quality Assurance Tony Rahimian Proiect Manager Shahram Vandat Caltrans County of Riverside City of Hemet City of San Jacinto Chris Angleman: Jeff Bingham: Shahram Vandat: Dominic Yew: Nick Biro: Route Alternative Study Environmental Constraints Alternative Design Construction Cost Estimates CAD • • • SCOPE OF SERVICES SR-79 Realignment Study This scope of services outlines the tasks to be completed for the conceptual realignment study of SR-79 in the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. The limits of study include Domenigoni Parkway on the south and Gillman Spring Road on the north. The tasks to be performed by CH2M HILL are described below. TASK 1 - Data Collection and Field Reconnaissance CH2M HILL will review previous studies and alignments performed by the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto, and County of Riverside and will collect available data limited to mapping, traffic counts, roadway classifications, as -built plans, and right-of-way data. CH2M HILL will facilitate a scoping meeting with the Project Development Team (PDT) representatives from the City of Hemet, City of San Jacinto, City of Murrieta, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Caltrans, and RCTC. The purpose of the scoping meeting will be to formulate the project purpose and needs statement, establish goals and objectives, identify alignment evaluation criteria, and develop basic design criteria. Also, as part of this task, CH2M HILL will perform a field reconnaissance of the SR-79 corridor. TASK 2 - Alternative Alignment Development Based on the previous studies and the results of the scoping meeting, CH2M HILL will develop alternative alignments. The alignments will be developed in single -line form on available mapping. Access and bridge locations will be noted. CH2M HILL will conduct a PDT workshop with the above mentioned agencies at which the proposed corridor alignments will be reviewed. It is anticipated that during the workshop revisions to the proposed alignments and/or new aligrunents will be developed. At the conclusion of the workshop, a maximum of three alignments will be selected for refinement and evaluation. TASK 3 - Evaluation of Alternative Alignments A matrix analysis will be utilized to evaluate the alternative alignments. The evaluation criteria will be developed by the project team and will include such items as traffic operations (measured by LOS), cost, access, circulation, right-of-way impacts, environmental impacts, and implementation and phasing. This evaluation will result in selection of feasible alignments by the PDT. TASK 4 - Development / Refinement of Feasible Alignments CH2M HILL will prepare preliminary alignments for a maximum of three feasible alternatives. Typical cross sections and representative cross sections at critical locations will be developed. Preliminary right-of-way requirements will be identified. An order of magnitude cost estimate will be prepared. SCOPE OF SERVICES SR-79 Realignment Study • TASK 5 - Alignment Study Report CH2M HILL will prepare an alignment study report documenting the development and evaluation of the alternative alignments. The report will include maps of the alternative alignments studied and an executive summary table containing the evaluation data, as well as a narrative discussion of the study. A draft will be submitted for review prior to the issuance of the final copies. CH2M HILL will evaluate the agencies' comments and resolve the conflicting comments through a joint review team meeting. CH2M HILL will incorporate the resolved comments and submit the final report for the approval. Deliverable Items: 20 Sets of draft and 20 sets of the final Alignment Study Report 1 Reproducible unbound set of the report. TASK 6 - Management 6.1 Schedule CH2M HILL will develop a bar chart schedule and submit to RCTC for approval. This schedule will identify the major and critical elements of the work. Upon RCTC's approval, the schedule will become an integral part of the work plan. 6.2 Meetings CH2M HILL will coordinate closely with RCTC to set up meetings, invite the responsible authorities, conduct the meetings, prepare minutes of the meetings, and distribute the minutes to all attendees. It is anticipated that four PDT meetings will be held during the course of the study. These will consist of: 1) a scoping meeting to be held at the onset of the study to establish project goals objectives, 2) an alternative workshop to be conducted to develop and evaluate alternative alignments, 3) a third meeting will be held to discuss the evaluation of the alternatives and select feasible alternatives, and 4) a final meeting to discuss the review comments. 6.3 Progress Reporting CH2M HILL will prepare monthly progress reports and submit them to RCTC. The reports will include cost and schedule data for the reporting period, a summary of major activities started and/or completed during the reporting period, and a look- ahead summary of major activities and their target completion dates. RCTC will approve the invoice and process for payment to CH2M HILL. • • SR-79 REALIGNMENT STUDY ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Task Name NOTICE TO PROCEED TASK 1 - Data Collection Duration Od Start Mon 2/3/97 Finish Mon 2/3/97 14d Mon 2/3/97 Thu 2/20/97 Data Collection and Field Reconnaissance 14d Mon 2/3/97 Thu 2/20/97 Scoping Meeting TASK 2 - Altemative Development Od Thu 2/20/97 Thu 2/20/97 35d Mon 2/24/97 Fri 4/11/97 Identify Alternative Alignments Alternative Alignment Workshop 18d Mon 2/24/97 Wed 3/19/97 Od Thu 3/20/97 Thu 3/20/97 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Refine Altemative Alignments TASK 3 - Evaluation of Alternative Alignments Evaluate Altemative Alignments TASK 4 - Feasible Alignments 16d Fri 3/21/97 Fri 4/11/97 10d Mon 3/31/97 Fri 4/11/97 10d Mon 3/31/97 Fri 4/11/97 20d Tue 4/15/97 Mon 5/12/97 Alignment Selection Meeting Od Wed 4/16/97 Wed 4/16/97 Evaluation/Refinement of Feasible Alignments TASK 5 - Alignment Study Report Prepare Draft Report 20d Tue 4/15/97 Mon 5/12/97 52d Mon 4/21/97 Tue 7/1/97 19d Mon 4/21/97 Thu 5/15/97 RCTC, Other Agency Review of Draft Report Review Comments Meeting Prepare Final Report TASK 6 - Management 22d Fri 5/16/97 Mon 6/16/97 Od Wed 6/18/97 Wed 6/18/97 9d Thu 6/19/97 Tue 7/1/97 107d Mon 2/3/97 Tue 7/1/97 February March I April I May June 26 2 19 116 123� 2 19 116123 1301 6 1/31201271 4 111 1181251 1 1 8 115122129 • 2/3 i i SR-79 REALIGNMENT STUDY Fri 1/24/97 HArnv4nppfile1SR79 i • 4/16 Task Milestone • Summary Page 1 • SUMMARY OF DESIGN COSTS SR-79 REALIGNMENT STUDY 24-Jan-97 I NAME I FUNCTION 1 HOURS( HOURLY RATE LABOR TOTAL II Tony Rahimian Principal lncharge 12 $51.36 $616 Jeff Bingham Environmental Engineer 40 $54.35 $2,174 Chris Angleman Geometrician 154 $33.10 $5,097 Shahram Vandat Project Manager 216 $33.73 $7,286 (E3) Design Engineer 172 $27 20 $4 678 (Tech) Technician/CAD operator 216 $19.40 $4,190 (Admin) Administrative Support 56 $15.75 $882 Subtotal Hours -Direct Labor Cost 866 $24,924 OVERHEAD & FRINGE BENEFITS Overhead Rate Fringe Benefits 110.00% 40.00% Subtotal - Direct Labor, Overhead & Fringe Benefits $27,417 aga $62,311 Fee/Profit @ 10% (Direct Labor + Overhead + Fringe Benefits) $6,231 Other costs Mileage @ $0.35 per mile 800 miles $280 Computer charges @ $4.30/Hr for 866 hours $3,724 Communication (Xerox, Phone, Fax, Delivery) $1,539 Reproduction $916 Subtotal - Other Direct Costs $6,459 TOTAL DESIGN FEE $75,000 • LABOR COSTS SR-79 REALIGNMENT STUDY 24-Jan-97 Activity Tony Rahimian Jeff Bingham Chris Angleman Shahram Vandat Design Engineer (E3) Tech Support (Tech) Office/ Clerical (Admin) Total TASK 1 - DATA COLLECTION Data collection and field recconnaissance 4 12 24 40 Subtotal Task 1 4 12 24 40 TASK 2 -ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT DEVELOPMENT a. Identify alternative alignment 8 32 44 48 40 8 180 b. Alternative alignment workshop 4 8 12 2 26 c. Refine alternative alignments 4 28 32 40 48 152 Subtotal Task 2 12 64 84 88 100 10 358 TASK 3 - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS a. Evaluation of different alternatives 8 8 24 40 80 Subtotal Task 3 8 8 24 40 80 TASK 4 - FESIBLE ALTERNATIVES a. Development /refinement of feasible alternatives 4 20 32 48 40 144 Subtotal Task 4 4 20 32 48 40 144 TASK 5 - ALIGNMENT STUDY REPORT a. Prepare draft report 4 16 12 24 24 18 98 b. Prepare final report • 2 8 8 12 12 8 50 Subtotal Task 5 6 24 20 36 36 26 148 TASK 6 - MANAGEMENT a. Meetings (assumed 4 ) 12 s s 16 12 52 b. Progress reports (assumed 5 months) 16 8 24 c. QA/QC 20 Subtotal Task 6 12 6 26 32 20 76 Total Design Hours 12 40 154 216 172 216 56 846 Average Hourly Rate $51.36 $64.35 $33.10 $33.73 $27.20 $19.40 $15.75 Subtotal Direct Labor Design Costs $616 $2,174 $5,097 $7,286 $4,678 $4,190 $882 $24,924 • Fran d» CNk• of the MAYOR • • e46, Amet December 17, 1996 450 EAST LATHAM AVENUE • HEMET, CALIFORNIA 92543 • (909)765.2303 Mr. Jack Regan, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: Request for Funding for SR 79 Realignment Study Dear Mr. Regan: The City of Hemet is formally requesting that the Commission konsider funding a Realignment Study for SR 79, with the funding to be provided}by excess funds available from the current SR 79 Lambs Canyon project. The City of Hemet, in a cooperative team effort with the City d the County of Riverside, is committed to relocating the route of State Route l 79 tonto n reduce congestion, accommodate future growth, and expedite traffic through our region in a highly efficient manner. As you are aware, the current alignment of this highway through the Hemet -San Jacinto area is disjointed and runs on San Jacinto Street and Florida Avenue, both major commercial corridors with frequent driveways and intersections. This current alignment has not been conducive to promoting efficient movement of through traffic for many years, as evidenced by the frequent discussions between Caltrans and the local agencies regarding the need fpr relocation of the State Highway. This major highway, linking the Desert areas through 1-10 and the San Diego region through 1-15, is also expected to encounter substantial growth in traffic both in the short term (due to the construction of the Domenigoni Reservoir) and long term due to planned local growth and because it would provide a viable alternate to the SR 60 and 1-215 for regional traffic. The Realignment Study for SR 79 would be a necessary first step in the process and would involve selecting a preferred alignment, identifying opportunities and constraints and performing preliminary engineering work to define right-of-way needs and probable cost estimates. This funding request was submitted to RCTC through WRCOG recently as part of the STP call for projects, but was denied along with other planning projects. Jack Regan, RCTC Funds for SR 79 Page 2 We see the realignment of SR 79 through the Hemet -Sap Jacinto area as the logical extension of the work that has been done on SR 79 in Lambs Canyon, and are therefore requesting that excess funds from that project Ipe committed to the Realignment Study. The latest budgetary information provided by your staff shows an excess funding of $189,784 estimated in that project, even after the completion of other committed work. The funding request for the realignment study that the City had submitted was for $74,500. The City is supported in this( request by WRCOG and its member jurisdictions through a vote of its Executive Committee. We sincerely appreciate the Commission's thoughtful consideration of this request and look forward to a reply at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, C. Robin Reeser Lowe Mayor RL:ag cc: City Council Rod Watkins, City Manage: Rocky Cams, Director or Public Works Juan C. Perez, City Traffic Engr./P.W. Supt. Jim Smedley, City of San Jacinto Brian McNabb, City of San Jacinto County of Riverside 9096547337 CITY OF SAN JACINTO I January 231 1997 Mr. Jack Reagan Executive .Dlrector . , .i Riverside County .Transportation Commission 3590 University Avenue,; Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 + Re: Highway 79 Alignment i Public Works Department Maintenance Division 966 P.O1 JAN 23 '97 16:17 Dear Mr. Reagan, 1 The City . Council, at their regularly January, 31, 1.997, se/ec�t�ed . e Cty of schedulednac/�.to Sj! meeting. on Highway 79 alignments: RREFERI�D We respect fu esit you give serious consideration to the preferred alignments in Order of priority as depicted on the attached exhibit: On betislf'of.the ,C .,h! anagerand Council we a yoursu and �t , � appreciate pport You to contact Ma when the Commission is ready to begin the Highway 79 rea►ignment'stiudy. Sincerely, Habib Afotlagh City Engineer . Attachment C: Dennis R. HallOway Brian *McNabb Z0 39Cd S1NVIMSNO0 3AV1 I�Il 9tb8E06 6T:9T L66i/EZ/18 • IIAMONA EXPRESSWAY PROP. S.R. 79 ;o I� .e :Z ESPLANADE AVE. 12 1 CITY LIMIT CITY OF SAN JACINTO STATE ROUTE 79 PREFERRED ALIGNMENTS Z0 39Vd SINVI UISNO0 3M71 Idl W i 0 r c z M SAN JACINTO REsecrom COTTONWOOD sEvENTm idT. AVE. SCALE:V=240V q OMMENDEO SY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 1-17-97 APPROVED BY CITY 1.21.97 9tb8Eb6 89:St L66t/EZ/t0 • • AGENDA ITEM #6C • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 13, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Prepare Project Report and Environmental Documents for State Route 74 Realignment Along the Proposed Ethanac Regional Corridor Attached is a resolution from the City of Perris supporting the Ethanac Regional Corridor and requesting that environmental documents be prepared to study this alternative for a possible East/West realignment of State Route 74. The Measure A list of projects includes improvements to State Route 74 between I-15 and 7th Street and interchange improvements between I-215 and "G" Street in the City of Perris. Completion of these two projects would complete State Route 74 improvements between I-15 and I-215. Currently, State Route 74 goes directly through the City of Perris. The State and City would both like to redirect the State highway away from primary city streets. The City of Perris is identifying the Ethanac Regional Corridor as its preferred alternative for the relocation of State Route 74. Many property owners along this alignment have agreed to dedicate property if the project is approved. However, it has not been determined at this time if the State can accept property in this manner without appraising the land required and paying full market value. This question will soon be resolved with the State. This project would include creating a new highway for about 3.5 miles of open terrain and the construction of two bridges, one over the San Jacinto River and another at the junction with existing State Route 74. Improvements to the existing I-215 interchange at Ethanac may also be required. If this project goes forward, it is suggested that a new environmental document be created to address this realignment of State Route 74. This will preserve the integrity and closure of the existing environmental document that is now signed off and complete. Opening back up this document may open up new issues regarding improvements on State Route 74 between I-15 and 7th Street. The new environmental document will look at various alternatives for an East/West realignment of State Route 74 to connect at I-215. The first alternative will be the existing Measure A interchange alternative between "G" Street in the City of Perris to I-215, the second alternative will be the realignment of State Route 74 along the Ethanac Regional Corridor, the third will be a no -build alternative. Since the Evans/Ellis Corridor has been looked at in the past, this alternative may also have to be included to address all of the interested parties concerns. An estimate of the cost to complete this work is shown below: Item ( Estimated Cost Survey & Mapping $80,000 Preliminary Engineering $150,000 Project Report & Environmental Documents $200,000 Subtotal $430,000 Contingency $70,000 Total $500,000 As part of the original engineering and environmental studies to complete the preliminary engineering and environmental documents, some work has been performed to look at the Ethanac alignment by the consultants performing this work. Some of these contracts remain open others are closed. At the Commission's option some of the above identified work could be performed by the original consultants assigned to the State Route 74 Measure A projects. FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: $500,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Commercial Paper/ Bonds Included In Current Year Budget (Y/N): NO Budget Adjustment Required: Yes STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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 a continuation of previous work or to issue a Request for Proposals and select a new team of consultants. 031546 • • • f' n" RESOLUTION NUMBER 2581 r L. ;�l ' MRESINUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF i11e1ltu� �,\��f PERRIS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE PROPOSED ETHANAC REGIONAL CORRIDOR . WHEREAS, there has been coordinated meetings between the Riverside County Transportation Commission staff, State of California Transportation Representatives, local community groups .and City of Perris Officials for the past eighteen months; and WHEREAS, preliminary investigations by affected Agencies and Community groups have established a need for the Regional Corridor; and WHEREAS, evidence of sufficient Right of Way, through existing dedication and offers of dedications, by adjacent land holders, insures significant Right of Way at no cost; and WHEREAS, this proposed Regional Corridor has economic, safety and congestion management benefits to the City of Perris. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Perris supports the Ethanac Regional Corridor for the future benefits that will accrue to the region. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City of Perris supports the Riverside County Transportation Commission for amending the current Highway 74 environmental documents to consider this proposed Corridor as an alternative East West alignment. Attest: City Clerk ADOPTED, SIGNED and APPROVED this 28th day of October,1996. of�� /40%,_ 400 rYOR OF i OFV' ' c RESOLUTION NUMBER 2581 Page 2 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF PERRIS ) I, Beti An Hynes, City Clerk of the City of Perris, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution Number 2581 was regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Perris at a Regular Meeting thereof held on the 28th 'day of October,1996, by the following called vote: Ayes: Denney, Landers, Yarbrough, Torres and Long Noes: None Absent: None • • AGENDA ITEM #7A • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 5, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Presentation of Electronic Security Surveillance Report and Request for Direction from Commission on How to Proceed with Findings At the December 11, 1996 RCTC meeting, the Commission provided direction to Staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the design of a security surveillance system for the four Riverside County Metrolink Stations that are owned and operated by RCTC. At the January 8, 1997 RCTC meeting, the Commission rescinded the December action regarding the design of the security surveillance system and directed that the issue be sent to the Budget and Finance Committee for a more detail review and direction. The following information was provided to the Commission at the December meeting: In light of the continued crimes that are occurring at the Riverside Metrolink rail stations (particularly the Downtown Station) and the high cost of maintaining twenty-four hour guards at each of the stations, Bechtel was requested to review the possibilities of using electronic surveillance to replace some guards and augment the remaining guards at the Downtown Station. The executive summary of the report is attached for your review. It summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the various options studied and provides comparative estimates. The basic camera equipment was assumed to be the same for each of the studied alternatives. The alternatives looked at the available technologies that can be used to transmit the video signals from the cameras back to a central monitoring facility where a guard can observe any activity at the remote sites. It is suggested that this central monitoring facility be located at the Riverside Downtown Station and that two guards be utilized to both monitor the cameras and patrol the Downtown Station grounds. The foot patrol of the Downtown Station is particularly important at night when the trains are present. The two guards can relieve each other to keep themselves alert. Five surveillance options were investigated. The options ranged from a low end option (low cost and very low image quality using black and white pictures only) that uses a basic leased phone line to transmit the video information back to the monitoring Station, to a high end option that uses fiber optic cable that results in a high quality real time color picture. An intermediate option using multiple high speed T1 data lines is also investigated. Since the use of a T1 data line for each camera (T1-1 option) is the most expensive alternative, a variation of the alternative was considered where one T1 line would be used to handle the information coming from 4 surveillance cameras (T1- 4 option). This results in significant savings, but degrades the quality of the images obtained. Due to the high cost of the fiber option, a Hybrid option was also reviewed that assumes the fiber option for the La Sierra, and West Corona stations and the use of the T1-4 option for Pedley. The initial capital and annual costs for each option are shown in the following table. Options Studied Quality of Image transmitted Initial cost of capital improv. Initial. estimate of Annual cost to maintain. Total cost for first year of operation 1 standard phone line poor for even black & white $640,000 $220,000 $860,000 2 one high speed T1 data line for each camera excellent for black & white, good for color $1,100,000 $640,000 $1,740,000 3 one high speed T1 data line for every 4 cameras fair for Black & white, poor for color $700,000 $330,000 $1,030,000 4 Fiber (using Caltrans SR-91 Fiber for La Sierra and West Corona and new Fiber for Pedley) excellent for color $1,700,000 $300,000 $2,000,000 5 Hybrid -- Fiber (using Caltrans SR-91 fiber for La Siena and West Corona and T1 data lines for Pedley excellent for La Sierra & West Corona and fair for Pedley $1,100,000 $280,000 $1,380,000 6 Guard $330,000 $330,000 Based on the above results, it is recommended that the Hybrid option be selected to provide video transmission back to the central monitoring station, if the Caltrans fiber is available for RCTC use along the SR-91 freeway. If the Caltrans fiber is not available or too expensive to utilize, one of the phone line options can be selected. The above recommendation is made based on the current availability of capital dollars for improvements. Based on the findings of the report the following policy directions are requested from the Commission: 1) Should electronic surveillance of the rail stations be pursued to replace some of the existing station guards or should the existing twenty-four guard force be maintained? 2) If the Commission elects to forgo the surveillance system at this time, should the 24 hour guard force be reduced in coverage such as in the evening hours after all the evening trains have returned? • • • 4110 3) Should other alternatives to a guard force and surveillance system be investigated such as additional fencing, gates, guard dogs, or full time station managers that live at the site. If the direction is to use electronic surveillance, to replace some and augment the remaining guards at the Downtown station, the following policy directions should be determined: 1) If electronic surveillance cameras will be installed, will the trees be maintained so as not to obstruct the camera surveillance of the parking lots areas, or will surveillance be focused on and limited to the platform areas in the future as the trees mature and provide large shade canopies? 2) Does the Commission agree that the Down Town Station would be the best alternative for the monitoring station that would be staffed with RCTC guards performing the monitoring or would the Commission like to pursue bringing the transmission lines to another private security facility where the stations would be monitored by some other agency or private security service. 3) What studied transmission option should the Staffbe directed to pursue to connect La Sierra, West Corona and Pedley to the monitoring facility? 4) Would the Commission like to start with the Downtown Station and include the construction with the currently planned work to add the South Side Platform and Pedestrian Over Crossing. The other stations could then be added at a later date depending on the success of the Down Town installation. 5) Should an RFP be advertised to select a firm to prepare final design plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the preferred alternative? 6) How should the funding for the project be addressed? FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: Subject to Alternative Selected Source of Funds: To be Determined Included In Current Year Budget (Y/N): No Budget Adjustment Required: Yes STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Budget and Finance Committee discuss the information and options provided and direct staff on how to proceed. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY METROLINI1 STATIONS FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR ELECTRONIC SECURITY SURVEILLANCE L.wrr CAz_ terPa4 — Ssrce Spa .� Elie ■ NSW*, Prepared By: Bechtel Infrastructure, Inc • ROTC Study of Electronic Surveillance Options for Riverdde Rats Stations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) owns and operates four Commuter Rail Stations that are used by Metrolink on both the UP and BN&SF railroad lines as shown in Figure 1. As a resuh of vandalism and crimes occurring at these stations, RCTC has had to employ twenty-four how security guards to actively address the potential for problems occurring on their property. Even with the guards present, crimes have continued at the Downtown Station. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the possibility of replacing some of the twenty-four how security persormel with electronic surveillance systems at the smaller stations and provide assistance to the current security guard at the Riverside Downtown Station to cover a very large station site that will soon become even bigger with the addition of the south side platform, pedestrian over crossing and south side station tracks. Use of the surveillance system can also be used to identify the individuals involved in the crimes and assist in their prosecution. Even if electronic surveillance equipment is installed at each of the station locations, the guard force cannot be eliminated entirely because the system must be monitored twenty-four hours a day and the guard monitoring the equipment must have some periods of relief. Therefore, the minimum guard force level is probably two twenty-four hour guards. The monitoring system could be installed at the Riverside Downtown station by making use of the existing temporary crew trailer or perhaps building a room on top of the new pedestrian over crossing to both protect the pedestrian over crossing from vandals and to provide the guard an elevated position of observation. One guard could be monitoring the equipment and the other guard could be either patrolling the trains stored at the Riverside Station overnight or patrolling the station grounds during the day. The foot patrol of the Downtown Station is particularly important at night when the trains are present. The two guards can relieve each other to keep themselves alert. The second guard could also be available to be dispatched to one of the other stations for routine patrol, or to follow up with local law enforcement activity at one of the stations. If this scenario is utilized, the guard force will be reduced from the current level of 4 twenty-four hour guards to 2 twenty-four hour guards. Since MetroIink pays for a ard to provide for the trains at the Riverside Downtown station during the night layover this will result innaa my reduction in costs to RCTC from paying for 3.5 twenty-four hour guards to paying for only 1.5 twenty-four hour guards. The basic camera equipment was assumed to be the same for each of the studied alternatives (see Figure 2 and Table I). The alternatives looked at the available technologies that can be used to FAUSERSTREPRINTMUSECURTIMSECURITY. WPD Page 1 November 26, 1996 RCTC Study of Electronic Some' ance Options for Riverside Rail Stations transmit the video signals from the cameras at the remote stations back to a central monitoring facility where a guard can observe any activity. Five video transmission options were investigated. The options ranged from a low end option (low cost and very low image quality using black and white pictures only) that uses a basic leased phone line to transmit the video information back to the"monitoring Station, to a high end option that uses fiber optic cable that results in a high quality real time color picture. An intermediate option using multiple high speed T1 data lines is also investigated. Since the use of a T1 data line for each camera (T1-1 option) is the most expensive alternative, a variation of the alternative was considered where one T1 line would be used to handle the information coming from 4 surveillance cameras (T1-4 option). This results in significant savings, but degrades the quality of the images obtained. Due to the high cost of the fiber option, a Hybrid option was also reviewed that assumes the fiber transmission option for the La Sierra, and West Corona stations and the use of the T1-4 transmission option for Pedley. The initial capital and annual costs for each option are calculated in Table IV and summarized in the following table along with a general assessment of the image quality of each option. Options Studied Quality of Image transmitted Initial east of capital improv. initial estimate of Annual cost to maintain. Total cost for first year of operation 1 Standard phone line poor for even black & white ' 3640,000 S220,000 S860,000_ 2 One high speed T1 data line for each camera excellent for black A white, good for color S1,100,000 S640,000 51,740,000 3 One high speed Tl data line for every 4 cameras fair for black & white poor for color S700,000 S330,000 S1,030,000 4 Fiber (using Caltrans SR-91 Fiber for La Sierra and West Corona and new Fiber for Pedley) . excellent for both black & white and color S1,700,000 S300,000 �'�'� 5 Hybrid — Fiber (using Ultra= SR-91 fiber for L Sierra and West Corona and Tl data lines for Pedley excellent for L Sierra & West Corona and fair for Pedley S1,100,000 S280,000 S1,380,000 6 Guard S330,000 S330,000 FAUSERSTREPRINTWIRSECURITASECURI7Y.WPD Page 2 November 26, 1996 • • • • RCTC Study of Electronic SurveMance Options for Riverside Rail Stations No right-of-way costs were included in the various options. The possible right-of-way impacts would be to railroad and city rights -of -way and would only impact the options using fiber optics. No private party impacts are anticipated. Only equipment and installation costs were provided for the monitoring facility, and the monitoring facility was assumed to be located at or near the Riverside Downtown statioih. Any required modifications to an existing building to support this facility will add to the estimated cost of all options studied. Figure 3 compares the cumulative cost of the various options over a 10 year period of time, assuming that the annual recurring costs are escalated by 5% eacliyear. All of these options can be compared to the use of guards that currently cost RCTC approximately S330,000 annually, but has no capital investment cost. Figures 4 and 5 individually show the initial capital costs for the studied options and the escalated annual costs respectively. All of the costs shown in Figures 4 and 5 are shown in Figure 3. The fiber option has a relatively high initial investment cost but the expected annual costs to maintain the system are relatively low compared to the only other viable option which is the use of the high speed T1 data lines. Thus, over time, the fiber option will look more attractive. Furthermore, a large portion of the fiber option is a result of having to place 6.8 miles of new fiber in the UP right-of-way and maintain the fiber over time. Significant savings can be obtained by addressing the Pedley Station with a different solution such as the T1-4 option while maintaining fiber optic transmission for the remaining stations (see Hybrid option). Again this result may change depending on the final costs of right-of-way that will impact only the fiber option. The fiber optic option is clearly the desired option from an operational point of view. The images will be of high quality and the fiber system will support color cameras. The fiber option will also be the most expensive if existing Caltrans fiber installations cannot be used as the backbone of this system. Initial discussions with Caltrans indicates that RCTC may be able to utilize one of the spare fibers that Caltrans currently has installed along the 91 freeway. This report assumes no cost for using this fiber other than the equipment that would be required to transmit information over the fiber. This fiber could be used to connect the Riverside, La Sierra and West Corona Stations relatively inexpensively since all three stations are just off of the SR-91 freeway. The Pedley station on the UP rail road line will require a different solution if transmission over fiber is desired. MCI currently has fiber along the UP right-of-way. MCI has been contacted but has not responded to the possibility or feasibility of connecting to their fiber system and transmitting the signals back to the selected monitoring station. For the purposes of completing this report, the fiber option includes the approximately S580,000 cost of installing new fiber in the FAUSERSIPREPRIN 1WHISECURITYLSECURITY.WPD Page 3 November 26, 1996 RCTC Study of Electronic Surveillance Options for Riverside Rail Stations UP right-of-way back to the monitoring station that is assumed to be at or near the Riverside Station. Again this cost is the pure cost of installation, and does not include any cost to UP for the easement or license agreement that may be required. If reasonable arrangements can be made with MCI to lease their existing fiber, the fiber option may become an even more attractive solution for the Pedley Station. If the cost of obtaining access to an existing fiber optic system does not appear viable from either direct installation or leasing from MCI, a hybrid solution could be utilized as discussed above whereby the other stations utilized fiber and the Pedley station utilized a series of leased T1 data lines as discussed in the Tl option. If the Commission elects to move forward with any of the surveillance alternatives, one important policy decision that must be made is how to handle the growth of vegetation. The stations are all relatively young at this point in time and the vegetation, particularly the trees, do not pose much of a problem in interfering with the use of a camera to monitor the parking lot areas. However, the existing trees and some of the other vegetation will become major impediments to monitoring the station parking lots in the very near future. The Commission will have to either add significant numbers of additional cameras, keep the trees trimmed very tight, or settle for reduced coverage of the parking lot areas where dark surveillance areas will occur. • F:UJSERSTREPRINTN ilSECURITIVECURTrY.WPD Page 4 November 26, 1996 • uopen I141 • Gull lled KIM e3einS — AvAtiOlN push', 6 amBil 10 1113 selin m • • STATION (TYPICAL) TOTAL OF 4 F.O. Patch Panel I I I I I F.O. Palehl WD Combiner Panel I Station Communications Building I FACILITY SECURITY 19' Monitor Sin 4 Sin 3 Ean 2 Stn 4 Sin 3 Stn 2 Sin 1 12 ea. -14' Monitor Station 1.4 Maintenance Order Wire D SW 1 I I f I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I Video Multiplex Unit � I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I .f I I I f I f Control Room I J L Figure 2 PTZ MUX WD SPilter 1330 nm 1550 nm F.O. I Patch I I I I I A Leased 1 J (Dark) Aber I I I I I I I I I I I Fiber Spline Bac I I I I Maintenance T CommuNoations Room • $10 $0 10 year Projection of Total Cost using 5% escalation on annual costs Guard Fiber Phone T1 1 Figure 3 T1-4 Hybrid Initial Capital Cost for Each Option $2, 000 $1, 500 . -0 ci $1, 000 • $500 $0 Guard Fiber Phone T1-1 T1-4 Hybrid Figure 4 y • • $10 $0 Guard 10 year Projection of Annual Cost using 5% escalation on annual costs Fiber Phone T1-1 Figure 5 T1-4 Hybrid • • • i i A. Passen • er Stations E ui ment Item e . o or amera uto Iris Lens 8-48mm Fixed Lens Power Su • II Camera b PTZ Pan Tilt Base Pole / Wall Mount • utdoor Camera Housin Si nai Distribution Unit PTZ Receiver/Driver 24vac. Installation ideo Cable ft. installed Power Cable ft. installed TZ Control Cable ft. installed amera Installation ea. unit E ui ent Installation ota B. Monitorin • Facilit • 0 ac oun on ro er ontroller Software onitor 14 inch Monitor 20 inch Monitor Mount ideo Du lexer ideo Recorder with Mount Si nal Distribution Unit PTZ Installation deo E ui • ment Installation mhrs ota - - - -- I. Basic Video Equipment - Common To All Options $/Unit 9 $850 $200 owntown 9 4 $195 $1 330 4 $56 9 $249 9 $422 I 1 $708 1 $7 5500 $6 5500 $7 $200 $1 000 2600 9 1 —�j—L E m mil $1 709.00 $337.00 $850.00 $86.00 $2 567.00 $4 025.00 $2 277.00 $422.00 $50.00 1 12 1 13 4 4 1 4 60 mount I Inns Imaiimm ft!)i; 4 $3 400 • e • terra t1 est orona mount $3 400 $1 000 $585 mount ! nits 4 $3 400 4 mount 5 $3 400 3 $800 $390 $5 320 $448 $1 992 1 $422 $708 $0 $32 200 $27 600 $1 800 $18 200 $1 600 E----$1 000 $5 320 $504 $708 $0 7 $392 $708 7 $392 1 $0 $38 500 4000 $28 000 4000 $33 000 4000 $24 000 4000 $18 200 $1 000 mount . $1 709 $4 044 $850 $1 118 $10 268 $16 100 $2 277 $1 688 $0 $3 000 3 2 $600 $390 4 $5 320 2600 $18 200 2600 7 $1 400 1 $1 000 3 $600 2 $390 4 $5 320 7 1 $708 $0 4 2 4 8 1 $28 000 4600 $24 000 4600 $18 200 2600 $1 400 $1 000 8 ota moun 1 16 $13 600 15 $3 000 9 $1755 16 31 3� 4 0 18100 18100 10400 31 $21 280 $1 736 $7 719 $1 688 $2 832 $0 $126 700 $108 600 $72 800 $6 200 4 $4 000 II 1 II, Transmission Equipment - For Studied Options A. Total Equipment for all Passenger Stations Equipment 11 Leased Tel. Line Item 14/Unit [Units j Slow Scan Video Transmitter $2,175 I ideo Mux Encoder & T-1 CSU ideo Modulator (10 Channel) ideo Combiner (8 Channel) 1x2 Splitter / Combiner ack Mount Chassis ower Supply for VFMS M Data Modulator M Data Demodulator Digital Interface (FMRX) Spacer ignal Combiner (TX/RX) 1300nm DFB Laser Transmitter 1500nm Laser Receiver ave Division Multiplexer Fiber Optic Term Panel Equipment Installation (mhrs) Subtoial -- $1,900 $9,825 $18,200 $270 $8 $400. $375 $870 $700 $250 $50 $270 $7,450 $4,350 $8,000 $700 $50 31 Amount nits $67,425 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 40 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 I $69,4251 80 9 4 Videos) T-1 1 Video) Fiber Optics Amount nits , mount nits Amount $0 $0 I $17,100 $0 • $88,425 $0 $0 31 $304,575 $0 $0 4 $64,800' $0 $0 8 $2,160 $0 $0 4 $24 $0 $0 4 $1,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 4 $1,500 $0 $0 4 $3,480 $0 $0 4 $2,800 •4 $1,000 $0 , $0 4 $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 4 4 $1,080 $29,800 $0 $0 4 $17,400 $0 $0 4 $32.000 $0 $4 000 60 $0 3 000 7 120 $4,900 $8 000 1'. 1 0,.751 ! • • • II. Transmission Equipment - For Studied Options B. Monitorin Facilit E ui ment tem ow can eo 'eceiver ideo Demux Decoder b T-1 CSU ideo Demodulator 10 Chan ideo Slitter 8 Channel 1x4 S litter Rack Mount Chassis Power Su • • I for VFMS FM Data Modulator FM Data Demodulator Di ital Interface FMX S acer Si nal Combiner X/RX 1300nm APD Receiver 1500nm DF8 Laser Transmitter Wave Division Multi lexer Fiber O tic Term Panel E ui ent Installation mhrs Video Cable ft. Installed F.O. Cable ft. Installed u tota - ota or ransmission • Mons $1 900 $8 700 $16 925 $3 450 $9125 $5 000 mount $0 9 $17 100 40 $2 000 6000 $42 000 9 $78 300 31 80 $4 000 60 6000 $42 000 6000 mount $0 $0 $67 700 $0 4 $80 $0 4 $40 $0 4 $1600 $0 4 $1500 $0 4 $3 480 $0 4 $3 480 $0 4 $1000 $0 4 $200 $0 4 $24 $0 4 $13 800 $0 4• $36 500 $0 4 $20 000 $0 1 $700 $3 000 120 $6 000 $42 000 $0 $0 6000 $60 000 $0 $269 700 $0 A. Fiber Installation Costs Item Includes CableA$5/ft threct Plowing (ft. insta e Trenching Suburban / Rural (ft. installed Trenching Urban (ft. installed) Trenching Heavy Urban (ft. installed) Bridge Attachments (ft. installed) Interface Housing (installed) rota! S/Unit $17 $25 $35 $40 $2.500 III. Fiber Optic Option Downtown Pedle knits moun nits moun 15100 $151,000 2000 1 $0 $0 $70,000 $0 $2 500 1 $72,500 B. Microwave Link from Station to Caltrans Fiber Optic Interlace point Equipment Item S/Unit Microwave Radio Terminal (23GH=) $55,000. Monopole Mast w/ Antennas Video/T-1 Adapter $75,000 Installation and Test (mhrs) $9,825 $50 Interface Housing (Installed) total $2,500 0 14300 3600 2800 $243,100 $90,000 $98,000 $0 $0 1.$582,100 La Sierra West Corona Units 1 Amount Units I Amount $110,000 2 2 16 40 1 $150,000 $157,200 $2,000 $2 ,5500 15421,700 2 2 16 40 1 3110,000 $150,000 $157,200 $2,000 $2.500 , $421,700 La Sierra ni s moun 1500 400 1000 1 $0 $25,500 $10,000 $0 $40,000 $2 500 1 smboo West Corona nits I Amount Sante Fe Units Station 'Amount $0 $0 4500 $76,500 $0 1500 $37,500 $0 $0 1500 $52,500 500 $20,000 SO 1 $2 500 $0 , $136,300 1$52,500 • • • i IV. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL & ANNUAL COSTS Station Station Down Town Riverside a ANNUAL_ COSTS_ onitonn • i . ment Transmission E '.ment Subtotal Initial Investment Annual Maintenance r 10% Annual Lease Costs Guard Cost 1.5 Guards Subtotal Annual Costs Fiber installation Subtotal Initial Investment Annual Maintenance • 10% n a Investment $216 104 $262 684 nnua Costs $26 268 $131 400 $157668 $115 050 $72 500 $187 550 $18 755 ?l�'�J r!� $18 755 La Sierra " �;h;.� , $92 085 ' " S92 085 47 1J'taI n t a nvestment $ 124 290 $170 870 $115 050 $115 050 est Corona Liu:La L Pedle II Stations i Subtotal Annual Costs Fiber Installation Subtotal Initial Investment Annual Maintenance 10% Subtotal Annual Costs •f • Fber Installation Subtotal Initial Investment Annual Maintenance 10% Subtotal Annual Costs Fiber Installation Annual Maintenance ` 10% Subtotal Annual Costs Subtotal Initial Investment 578 000 81.70 085 $17 009 $17 009 $101 520 / $92 085 $92 085 $136 500 $238 020 $92 085 $582 100 8674 185 $23 802 $23 80 $67 419 Transmission E •• ment �� FG-:" $69 425 9 425 $101 520 $101 520 $92 085 10% (r - $168 744 $16 874 nua Costs t n is Investment $314 700 $381 280 $115 050 $92 085 $101 520 $92 085 $307 575 $36 128 $396 000 $131 400 $11 505 $11 505 L..7 $9 209 i9 209 $10 152 $10 152 $9 209 $9 209 n is nvesttnent ELj. $141 400 $187 980 1111111.111 $115 050 $115 050 $92 085 $109 525 nnua Costs $18 798 $126 000 $131 400 -. , .: Y•rp on (Fiber for all exce , t Pedle T1.4 n a Investment $216 104 L:,,. $115 050 $72 500 $187 550 $92 085 $78 000 $101 520 $30 758 $1-- 0 953 �s — =18 874 lam! E I[�I k1Li I i , , r Ei z1kII111� tataltai. �,. ;, ILEJELEI $36 000 $131 400 $193 8811 $17 009 $17 009 $23 802 $9 209 $9 209 • • • S8E ZE9 t$ Zit EEt$ 0$ _ Oti0 b18 b$ ££9 LOSS 0$ 10S COO 6$ OOI MS 0$ LO 681 ti$ 8L9 ZIPS O$ L00 90£ b$ 09t EBBS 0$ 96E 98L E$ LZO £8E$ OS Lti8 ZZ8 E$ gEf pM O$ IOt t�90 8$ 8EZ LE6$ 0$ 99£ E6E E$ I lE tL£$ OS- ON Z9E E$ ZIS SEtS 0$ ECU al L$ 809 Mt 0$ LSO 610 E$ L8i 9S£$ OS 866 EZ6 Z$ 1E9 LIPS 0$ SSS KZ 9$ ZOl OSBp$ OLS Z99 Z$ L IS 6E£$ 0$ L9E 90S ZS EfL L6E$ OS ZE9ESP tLS S$ IZ9 ILLS 0$ 8S0 EZ£ Z$ titi£ £Z£$ OS EZ9 90I ZS £08 8LES 0$ Z£8 LS ti$ 890 ILLS 0$ t1L 666 I$ • Lt6 LO£$ 0$ On 6ZL IS 99L 09E$ OS b9L E08 £$ OSE ti£L$ 0$ L9l 169 l$ £SZ £6Z$ 0$ El SSO 69£ l$ 989 Ei£S 0Eli,690 E$ I8E 669$ 0$ ZEO OLE Z$ LLO 999E 0$ S96 COL IS 09E E,l . Elie MEEMMI • JeaA yoea %s paieleose aJe slsoa lenuuy :aloN E I I Z£ti ES SR WS 0$ 999 L90 ES ES8 LZES 0$ 910 09L Z$ itZ ZIES 0$ SLL Liti Z$ ZLE L6Z$ 0$ COP OS Z$ IIZ £83 0$ Z6I L99 IS SZL 69Z$ 0$ ON £6t S$ L9L L9t$ 0$ 8£8 I£ l b$ 119 609$ ELO 9Z0 S$ Z6f SW OS 9ZZ ZZ9 £$ ttE S9t$ 08S 09S t$ 8LZ RPS 0$ Z89 9E l £$ Z£Z Z96$ ZOE 9SI t$ SLO POPS 0$ 0S9 tL9 Z$ IZZ OW LZZ ZSL E$ EN t8£$ 0$ 8Zt bEZ Z$ 8SZ 6Iti$ L9ti116S' IS I88'9SZS p$ b6E L9E ES 909 99£$ 0$ OL l S l8 IS 66Z 66E$ 98S OtiE I$ "9 titim p$ 988'000'£$ SS016tiE$ 0$ 9L8'Slb'l$ 08Z'08£S LE6 S60 IS 666 MS p$ l£8Z9£S 86E 6IE ZS E09 9lE$ OS SZti EL9$ SZ6 »a .A.E6 Z981 t06 MS-, SEQ MI S6L ZOOM LZS WEI 89Z IQL l$ OOS 8ZE$ OOS Mt , - - elo - - enuue --.— elide° e o enuue e�i eo e o euo l enuu. JI yen suo9clo uopis lo3 asop anpeinump 3o uopoofold maik 01 'A JIMA • AGENDA ITEM #76 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 13, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: San Jacinto Branchline Track Improvement Study; Policy and Program Implications During the November 14, 1996 meeting, the Commission considered an agenda item related to the San Jacinto Branchline Track Improvement Study; Policy and Program Implications. The text of that agenda item, which was approved by the Commission, is included here as Attachment B. The actions which were taken by the Commission are as follows: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to have a financial plan done. 2) Earmark $1.2 million of federal funds for grade crossings and drainage improvements, with the preferred match identified as TSM ($565,000); and, 3) Defer decision on acceptance of freight responsibilities until a business plan can be drafted and reviewed. Since the November 14, 1996 meeting, I executed a contract with A. William Anderson of Freight Services, Inc. to prepare a business plan for a short -line operation on the San Jacinto Branchline based upon the improvement and operations assumptions from the Boyle Engineering report. The business plan is intended to serve as information to determine if a short -line operation is financially viable and is included as Attachment A. FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: $1,765,000 Source of Funds: CMAQ; State TSM Included In Current Year Budget (Y/N): No Budget Adjustment Required: Will be budgeted for FY 97/98 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Review the business plan to determine if a short -line rail operation on the San Jacinto Branchline would be financially viable; and, If determined to be viable, consider if RCTC should seek and accept the transfer of freight use rights from BNSF as a condition of additional capital improvements as documented by the November 14, 1996 agenda item (Attachment B). • • Ws iff Tim min mod/q- -• • — — ATTACIiMtN1 "A" FREIGHT SERVICES INCORPORATED Post Office Box 908 • Eugene. Oregon 97440 Phone (541) 484-2303 File: 37 December 31, 1996 Mr. Jack Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Jack: Fax (541) 545-884 We are very pleased to present our draft report on the business plan for a short line operation of the San Jacinto Branch line. The San Jacinto Branch is typical of many branch lines throughout the United States that can better serve freight customers using a short line operator. You will note that the revenue and cost factors in the proforma operating statement have changed since our preliminary submission on December 19,1996. While these changes show the short line operation being more profitable, the economics are still on the conservative side. It should be noted, however, that the actual interchange arrangements and revenue divisions with the BNSF could materially impact the short line's financial results. The business plan also supports the proposition that San Jacinto Branch customers, such as Star Milling, could reap the benefits of ordering large blocks of cars to realize lower shipping costs. In addition, based on typical short line divisions of revenue, it does not appear that the on-line customers would need to pay any incremental fees to the short line for routine service. We verymuch appreciate this opportunity to provide these services for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. We will look forward to your comments, questions, and visiting with you in the near future. EWA/mak Attachment Sincerely yours, E. William Anderson Vice President • • • Freight Service Incorporated (FSI) Railroad Cost Analysis San Jacinto Operating Pro Forma Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 REVENUES Freight Revenues $1,178,600 $1,185,360 $1,192,139 $1,198,966 $1,205,833 EXPENSES TRANSPORTATION Locomotive Lease $82,500 $82,500 $82,500 $82,600 Maintenance $82,500 $87,000 $87,000 $87,000 $87,000 $87,000 Fuel & Oil $116,887 $116,989 $117,091 $117,194 $117,297 SubTotal S $286,387 $286,489 $286,591 $286,694 $286,797 Car Hire $152,414 $162,641 $152,869 $153,101 $163,335 Salaries $78,000 $78,000 $78,000 $78,000 $78,000 RRTA/Benefits $36,100 $36,100 $36,100 $35,100 $35,100 SubTotal Vehicle Rental/Maint/Qas Depreciation Communication $265,514 $265,741 $265,969 $266,201 $266,435 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 SubTotal $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 Freight Damage/Derail Supplies $22,174 $22,234 $22,294 $22,355 $22,416 $1,279 $1,284 $1,289 $1,294 $1,299 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION $596,354 $696,748 $597,143 $597,544 $597,947 • • 06Z'L6Z$ oso'vLZ$ 06Z`L£v$ oso'££t$ Ovt'£vt$ AVM 301NIVW 1V101 OOv'8$ OOtb'8$ OOv'8$ OOt+`8$ 00v18$ •stmuleMuel:1VA 0$ 000'tvt$ o$ 0$ o$ (ellw t) weiBad Iled 0$ 0$ , 000`00£$ 0$ 0$ (0009) wtuBad ell 000'Ost$ o$ o$ o$ p$ weiBad eoelmS 000'£$ 000'£$ 000`£$ 000'£$ 0001£$ •wlew esuedx3 •dlnb3 000'0£$ 00010£$ 000'0£$ 00010£$ 00010£$ •wmw/Sentn PuBls 000'6t$ 000'61$ 000'6t$ 000'61$ 000161$ Ie3olgnS 000'8$ o0018$ 000'8$ 000'8$ o0o'8$ 000'tt$ 000'tt$ 000'1t$ 000'tt$ 0o0'tt$ 06Z'L$ 050'£$ 06Z'L$ OSO'£$ Ov t'£ t$ IoAuoO uogejeBeA seBpps Ie3olgnS OVZ'v$ 0$ Ot+Z't+$ 0$ OvZ'v$ PH oos'Z$ OSZ$ OsZ$ OSZ$ oos$ sleuW ete)10e.11 JetRO 08008'Z$ 008'Z$ 009'Z$ 009'9$ 0$ sea p$ 0$ 0$ 0os'Z$ 3SeRe6 009'69$ 009'69$ 009'69$ 009'69$ 009'69$ IejoignS 009'tZ$ 009'tZ$ 009'tZ$ 009'tZ$ 009'ta$ 000'ev$ 000'sv$ 000'sv$ 000'sv$ 000`8>;S slijueS/Vsal-NIBS AVM 30 30NVN31NIVW S3SN3dX3 9 AeeA v leeA £ JeeA Z ieeA t .eaeA euuo3 old Bu4e.1ed0 0143@r ueS slsAleuV;soO peoalleki (IS3) pemodlooul eopueS;Op:kid • Lie'SOZ$ NC' ZtZ$ ZLtr'Z£Z$ Z96'Z£Z$ t7t78'bLZ$ 3Al1HtilSINiWOy 11/101 ZZtr'9I7$ OSb'£S$ 099'£L$ 99 t'Pa 176L'176$ 00S'££$ 009'££$ 009'££$ 005'££$ 0051££$ 00046$ 000'6$ 00o'6$ 000'6$ 0o0'OZ$ 000's$ 000'tr$ 000'9$ 00o's$ 000'S$ 000'31$ 00014 00014 00014 00018$ StrL'9t$ 80L'91$ ZL9'91$ 9£9'91$ 006'9Z$ 000'9$ 00013 000'8$ oo0'8$ 000'8$ strL'8$ 80L48$ ZL911$ 9£9'8$ 006'81$ OOtr'tr£$ OOV'b£$ OOtr'tr£$ OOtr'tr£$ OOb'tr£$ 00089$ 00019$ 000'9$ 000'9$ 00019$ OOP'WS OWsa$ OOb'8Z$ Ootr'8Z$ OOtr'8Z$ OsZ'99$ OsZ's9$ OsZ's9$ OsZ'99$ OSZ'99$ 0 o$ o$ o$ O$ ogna$ Osna$ OsZ'OZ$ OsZ'OZ$ OSZ`OZ$ o$ 0$ o$ o$ o$ 000'sb$ 0o0'90$ o00'str$ 000'sk$ 000'St7$ AaueBuguo0 e0ueunsul lelolgns leBel Bugun000y Isplgns 1.11e/.1e4u3'8 WWI Bugu11000yAso iyBleid Ietolgns segllgfl esuedx3 sow molgns ieBeueyy Bugopen spieueg/yniu le0uel0 JeBeuen !amuse 3AI1WE11SINIWOy S3SN3dX3 9 JeeA tr ROA £ J13eJl Z .reeA t AeaA euLod oJd BugeUedp o;uloer ueS slsAleuy tsoo peompsu (Isd) peteJodIo0u1 03pUGS 3461eJd • 6LZ'S0t$ 179019t1$ (99L1PL$) 009'ZZZ$ 3931,91$ 31100N113N (eoyues tgep pus sexes mpg) 6LZ'SOt$ V90'911$ (99L'bL$) 009'ZZZ$ Z9Z'ti9t$ 310100N1ONIlVki3d0 vss'QOt't$ Z06'£8s't$ 506'99Z't$ 09L'396$ 8££'1710'1$ S3SN3dX31V101 ££8'SOZ't$ 996136111$ 6£Vast' t$ 05£'S8t'1$ 009'8L1'1$ 3nN3A31i 1V101 S3SN3dX3 9 Je0A b neA £ AreA z reeA t meA eiwo3 0Jd 6ugeJed0 OPA3er ueS sISMIuV IS00 PeOEMBE:1 OS3) Pe4eJ0d103u1 eoyueS • • • Notre to the Operating Proforma Statement 1. Revenue: Revenue was derived based on the projected shipping volumes of the five active customers. Alpha Owens Corning P.W. Pipe McAnalley Enterprises Metro Water Star Milling 25 cars per month 50 cars per month 58 cars per month 5 cars per month 220 cars per month The revenue factors are based on typical short line divisions that range from a high of $450 for the tank car shipments to Alpha Owens Corning and Metro Water to $350 for the plastic resins for P.W. Pipe. Per car factors for grain shipments were applied as follows: $270 per car for single car shipments, $230 for 54-car blocks, and $255 for 27-car blocks. It should be noted that due to the necessity of hauling large blocks of cars to the receivers in several separate trips up the hill, the short line does not gain substantial efficiencies from larger size grain shipments (27 or 54 car blocks). 2. Expenses: a. Routine maintenance of way: Routine maintenance of way covers emergency tie replacements, culvert cleaning, vegetation control, track and signal inspections, and tamping. It should be noted that the level of effort is based on maintaining the San Jacinto Branch to 7th Street in Perris. This is about three miles beyond the last freight customer. If these three miles are not in the maintenance responsibility for the short line, the maintenance of way expense could be reduced accordingly. 28 b. Program Maintenance: To provide a gradual improvement in track quality, the maintenance of way plan is based on installing 6,000 . ties every third year by a contractor and also replacing one -mile of rail every_four years, also through a track contractor. It should be noted that over the first five years, the rail program is not necessary, and a lower number of ties could be replaced without materially impacting operations. The entire 7nA;nKne would be surfaced every five years. c. Locomotive Lane and Maintenance: Three locomotives with a rating of about 2,000 horsepower each would provide the motive power for the short line. It is proposed that at least initially these be obtained on a turn -key, full -service lease arrangement that would require the short line to provide only routine daily service, such as fueling, sanding, and daily inspections. The lease rate is $2,000 per unit per month. The maintenance is $19 for the first 50 hours per month, $15 for the next 50 hours, $6 for the next 100 hours, and $4.50 per hour for additional usage per unit. d. Transportation: The transportation expenses include train crews, fuel, and a small amount for freight claims and minor derailments. The cost of fuel was quoted by a Los Angeles area distributor at 90 cents per gallon delivered. Operations were projected to occur on 287 days: Monday through Friday, and 45 weekend days. e. General and Administrative: The general and administrative expenses cover the full range of overhead including a general manager, car accounting, property and liability insurance, accounting and legal services, office, and support expenses. 29 • • • • • Railroad worker employers bear a higher cost of employm. compared to other industries. The railroad equivalent of Soo Security (Railroad Retirement) creates a tax burden for employ earning no more than $48,600 of 12.55 percent compared to 7 percent for non -railroad workers. However, the employer's sh of the Railroad Retirement taxes is 23.75 percent plus a wont surcharge of $55.76 for full-time employees. Fedf unemployment is about $35.60 per month. These costs plu reasonable health insurance package places the average emplo employment cost at 45 percent of the base salary. f. Car Hire: Car hire is paid to the owner of the cars used shipments arriving on the short line. There is a combination railroad owned cars that are paid on both a time and mileage ba while privately owned cars, such as the tank cars and many of covered hoppers, are paid only on a loaded mile basis. 8 Other expenses: These represent contingencies that would co the self -insured retention ($25,000) of a liability claim, and in first year, start-up costs. It should be noted that there have b no cost factors incorporated that would represent a franchise for Riverside County. 30 Item JACINTrO';OPERAIDTG <PROFORMA OPERATING STATISD:2 Year Year 4 Year Car Miles (Ldd and Mty) 127,892 128,395 128,900 129,406 129,915 Gross Ton -Miles (1000s) 10,495 10,537 10,578 10,620 10,662 Train -Miles 10,84.8 10,848 10,848 10,848 10,848 Trains Operated (each way) 574 574 574 574 574 Gross Tons (1000s) per Mile of Road 555 558 560 562 564 Average Cars per Train (loaded and empty) 11.8 11.8 11.9 11.9 12.0 Average Gross Trailing Tons per Train 967 971 975 979 983 Road Train -Hours: Total 2,041 2,041 2,041 2,041 2,041 Road Locomotive Unit - Miles 32,545 32,545 32,545 32,545 32,545 Road Locomotive Unit - Hours: Total 6,124 6,124 6,124 6,124 6,124 31 • ATTACHMENT B TEXT OF NOVEMBER 14, 1996 AGENDA ITEM SAN JACINTO BRANCHLINE TRACK IMPROVEMENT STUDY; POLICY AND PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS During the April 10, 1996 process for re -programming of carryover Federal Discretionary Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funding from the currently authorized Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funds, $2.7 million was programmed for improvements to the San Jacinto subdivision to facilitate freight service; with identified matching funds of $480,000 the total under the 1995 program is $3.18 million. Subsequently, during the August 14, 1996 process for prospective programming of such funds from the first two years of NEXTEA (ISTEA reauthorization), an additional $4.923 million of federal funding was programmed for additional improvements; the minimum required match for these additional funds are $565,000 for a total of $5.488 million. The total of programmed funds for environmental, engineering, and construction of track improvements on the San Jacinto subdivision is $8.668 million. Following the April 1996 action, RCTC amended its contract with Boyle Engineering, in association with HDR Engineering, to prepare a track improvement study to determine the level of investment necessary for reasonable accommodation of freight needs on the line. Attached is a copy of their study; Appendices A through E are not included. It is important to note that Star Milling Company is the major shipper on the line. Of the current 325 freight cars per month, Star Milling accounts for 220 cars. Star Milling has informed us that they can no longer effectively compete for business within their principal Southern California market area unless they are able to get rail freight rates reduced through delivery of "unit trains". Unit trains are multiple car train consists of a single commodity; Burlington Northern/Santa Fe generally requires a unit train of at least 54 cars. The poor condition of the track, and the grades and curvature of the track structure in the Box Springs area now prohibits BNSF from delivering "unit trains" to Star Milling or other customers on the line. The "Track Improvement Study" documents that the cost of addressing the Box Springs grade problems to accommodate "unit trains" to Star Milling would be prohibitive at $21.6 million. An alternative approach, which would necessitate inter -connecting with Union Pacific to provide for "unit train" storage at an inter -tie of the San Jacinto branchline and the Union Pacific's Riverside branchline, would have a more reasonable cost of approximately $9.2 million. This cost estimate is inclusive of environmental and engineering costs. This more reasonable alternative is based upon the assumption that freight use rights should be transferred from BNSF to RCTC; RCTC would contract with a short -line operator, which should enable a reduced cost per car load to shippers because of more efficient costing. The major policy implications discussed by the Budget/Finance Committee were: 1. BNSF vs. a shortline operator BNSF now has the exclusive right for freight shipment on the line. They are to remain fully responsible for maintenance of the rail line and are liable for any incidents until RCTC initiates passenger service on the line. The vast size of the BNSF operation provides the Commission comfort that it is not exposed to liability claims or financial obligations for trackage improvements which we would not initiate. However, the costs BNSF charges to Star Milling based on a "single -car" rate is destroying the economic viability of freight on the line. A shortline operator should result in more reasonable pricing to shippers, but the economic viability of any shortline operator is minuscule in comparison with BNSF. If RCTC lets BNSF "off the hook" by accepting the transfer of the freight right to enable a shortline operator, RCTC may be at greater financial risk if that shortline operator fails. On the other hand, if RCTC asserts its authority to refuse transfer of freight responsibility to a shortline, BNSF's pricing strategy may ultimately chase shippers off the line triggering a move by BNSF to abandon freight service on the line (which it has already done in an informal sense past Perris) and leave RCTC with some future undefined obligation if local public policy favors some continuation of freight service. I must note, with some irony, that BNSF may still believe that the freight use right has financial value, presumably based upon their existing "single -car" pricing, even though that pricing practice threatens the economic viability of rail service on the line by forcing the relocation of Star Milling. It would seem more logical for BNSF to establish a revenue based value for the line based what a shortline operator could reasonably pay from current freight shipment activities, assuming Star Milling and McNally are paying "unit train" rather than "single -car" rates. It would not be appropriate to determine value based upon "across the fence" or "net liquidation" estimates, since RCTC has already acquired fee -title interest which includes the value of existing capital. 2. What to do with the programmed funds? Again, the "Track Improvement Study" proposes $9,224,500 for improvements (See Table 6, Page 7-5). Approximately $1.2 million of that funding is for at -grade crossings at Blaine Street in Riverside, and at -grade crossings and related drainage improvements in the vicinity of Perris which may be constructed subject to Public Utilities Commission authorization. A PUC Administrative Law Judge is anticipated to render his decision on reopening of crossings near Perris within the next few months. It should be assumed that funding for these projects should be unconditionally available. The balance of the $8 million proposed improvements are for trackage structure and siding to accommodate enhanced freight. The question is should the Commission proceed with seeking authorization to expend these programmed funds unless the concerns of the major shippers on the line are addressed? If Star Milling is forced to relocate to obtain "unit train" rates or to enjoy competition to achieve acceptable freight rates, is that amount of public investment warranted? 3. How should the federal funds be matched? The initial $2.7 million of FY 96/97 federal funding is proposed to be matched by Caltrans Transportation Systems Management (TSM) funding as allowed by law, but it is guaranteed by commitments of $480,000 from benefiting local agencies (i.e., City of Riverside for Blaine Street crossing at $130,000 and County of Riverside for crossings and draining improvements near Perris for $350,000). • • • The additional $4.923 million of federal funds might also be match with State TSM funds, but should also be backstopped by a local source. Currently, RCTC receives $160,000 per year of revenue from its leased properties on the San Jacinto subdivision. It would be possible to either issue commercial paper for the $565,000 match, or borrow against other property management revenue reserves, and repay over 52 months to provide a match guarantee for the federal funds. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to have a financial plan done. 2) Earmark $1.2 million of federal funds for grade crossings and drainage improvements, with the preferred match identified as TSM ($565,000); and, 3) Defer decision on acceptance of freight responsibilities until a business plan can be drafted and reviewed. • • AGENDA ITEM #7C • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 5, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Inland Empire High Speed Rail Corridor Refinement In December 1996, the California High Speed Rail Commission completed its final report and recommended that the proposed high speed rail corridor between San Diego and northern California include an alignment through the Inland Empire. This finding represented a significant success for RCTC's advocacy efforts, and, also in December, RCTC voted to create a joint ad hoc committee to further define a preferred corridor and attempt to build an Inland Empire consensus on routing. The San Bernardino Associated Governments is expected to follow suit by appointing three of its members to the ad hoc committee this month. At Commissioner Alex Clifford's request, RCTC's rail consultant Carl Schiermeyer prepared the attached action plan to more specifically define a corridor alignment and to build an Inland Empire consensus with which to further influence the State effort. The work plan, presented at a preliminary meeting of the ad hoc committee, proposes a cost of approximately $54,000 over a four -month period, utilizing the services of Schiermeyer Consulting and Associate Al Witzig, under RCTC's current contract. Committee members, consisting of RCTC and SANBAG representatives, have directed RCTC and SANBAG staffs to request shared funding, up to $30,000 each, from their respective Boards. A summary of the California High Speed Commission's final report is also attached for your information. Commissioners wishing to review the full document may request a copy from RCTC staff. FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: Up to $30,000 Source of Funds: Western County Unallocated TDA Planning Funds Included In Current Year Budget (Y/N): No Budget Adjustment Required: Yes STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve up to $30,000 to jointly fund the work program of the Ad Hoc High Speed Rail Committee in refining a corridor alignment and building Inland Empire consensus. • S�' SCHIERMEYER CONSULTING SERVICES • 600 THE CTTY PARKWAY WEST, SUITE 300 • ORANGE, CA 92868 • (714) 456-0160 January 3, 1997 Mr. Alex Clifford, Chairman Riverside county Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Subject: High Speed Rail Study for the Inland Empire Dear Alex: Per our discussions, enclosed is a draft proposal to conduct a more detailed high speed rail alignment study within the Inland Empire. The goal of this effort is to help frame the terms of the future debate with the State High Speed Rail Authority as well as to develop a political consensus within the Inland Empire regarding a preferred alignment alternative. Mr. Al Witzig will be the Project Manager for this effort. I will also provide assistance in several areas. We are prepared to commence work on this effort immediately and propose a four month schedule. Thus an early January Notice to Proceed would result in a completed project in early May. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at my office or Mr. Witzig directly at (714) 836-0648. Sincerely, Carl H. Schiermeyer Inland Empire High Speed RaII Planning Analysis Proposed by Schierrneyer Consulting Services January 3, 1997 BACKGROUND: The Califomia High Speed Rail Commission was appointed in response to a Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR 6) in 1993 to establish a framework for constructing a high speed rail system in Califomia. The Commission has just completed its three years of studies and published its findings in a High Speed Rail Summary Report and Action Plan, adopted in December 1996. The document supports the economic feasibility of a high speed rail system and makes recommendations on the conceptual configuration for the system, including routes, operations, ridership, finances and public support. While the backbone system would connect Los Angeles to San Francisco via the Central Valley, it was found that the potential use of the system and therefore its financial viability would be greatly enhanced by adding extensions from Stockton and the East Bay area to Sacramento and from Los Angeles to San Diego. In its final deliberations, the Commission recommended that a San Diego extension use a corridor roughly parallel to 1-15 in Riverside and San Diego Counties nether than the existing LOSSAN rail corridor along the coast This decision seems to rest less on technical analysis than on the perception of opposition from some LOSSAN corridor communities. The most pressing task now is to supply that technical planning analysis as a basis for choosing a preferred routing and for building the necessary consensus among local decisionmakers and the public. The Commission adopted an Action Plan that recommends efforts to prepare for action by the legislature or a ballot measure (or both) to carry out the high speed rail program. Such action is expected by the year 2000. Meanwhile, the SCR 6 Commission's mandate has expired and the ongoing activities of the Action Plan will form the mandate of a newly established High Speed Rail Authority. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) seeks to identify planning issues regarding the high speed rail system in the Inland Empire area. It is establishing a task force with the San Bernardino Associated Govemments (SANBAG), in whose area a significant section of the Los Angeles to 1-15 alignment will be looted. The ad hoc task forte's mandate is to identify alignment alternatives for the route, consider station sites and examine some of the possible impacts of the high speed rail system in the Inland Empire. Early examination of these issues will help the region to understand the consequences of the high speed rail program, provide a forum for discussion by elected officials, local govemment staff and the general public. It will also contribute to developing a consensus in the region regarding this important infrastructure element. DISCUSSION: Schiermeyer Consulting Services proposes to assist the task force in examining technical issues and establishing a framework for public discussion of the impacts and opportunities of a high speed rail system. A tentative list of questions frames the most relevant issues;below. ti • The task force's discussion of these issues can constitute the beginning of public deliberation in the region. Where should the high speed rail line be located in the region? Possible corridor alignments include existing rail corridors and the major freeway and highway routes through the region, as well as new sections of right-of-way to connect portions of existing alignments to create new corridors with selected advantages and/or reduced environmental or socio-economic dislocations. The alignments must accommodate the technical requirements of high speed rail lines, such as wide radius curves, acceptable vertical gradients and, especially, the need for total grade separation from other modes of transportation to ensure safety and efficient high speed operations. The length of alternate corridors will affect capital costs and travel time; evaluation of such effects on ridership attractiveness and financeability of the system must be considered as well. Where should the trains stop? Station locations are important both to the operational effectiveness of the rail system itself and to the socio-economic and environmental condition of thereion the system ystem traverses. Stations are the meeting points of the rail system with the local economy and the local environment. They establish the focal points of long-distance travel in a region, similar to the way an airport concentrates regional travel resources, in fact, Ontario Airport may provide a study example of a multi -modal hub for high speed rail, air and local transit services. Stations must be regionally accessible, with excellent transit connections and reasonable parking opportunities. They also have another function as anchors of local land use and are thus a strong element of activity center planning. An essential consensus -build' ng l must be to define a cohesive minimal network of stations that meets regional acccesgsosneeds while safeguarding the operating integrity of a truly high speed rail system. How will the alignments and stations affect the environment? Environmental considerations have a twofold focus First the speed rail technology must be described and put into the general characteristics rhigh pers technogies. Secondly, the .process of identifyingthe specific of other transportation alignments and stations can begin. pecfic local constraints for locating How does high speed rail fit into the regional transportation system? A high speed rail system is an intercity connection to the rest of Califomia. Regional plans and existing transportation services may need to be adapted to interact with the new s conversely, we must locate the high s system, or, g peed rail system to enhance the viability of our regional transportation system. The shrewd meshing of all public transit services, such as Metrolink, (Amtrak) intercity rail, local bus and private shuttle services, is a vital need. Planning review and consensus processes should begin as soon as possible. What local funds will be necessary? Where will they come from? Funding of stations traditionally requires somewhat different financing mechanisms than the rail line itself, operating facilities and rolling stock. The multifaceted impacts of stations for urban land uses, the public and private economic benefits for landowners, developers and local govemments, plus other considerations in station location decisions lead inevitably to the discussion of shared contributions. Right-of-way acquisition costs and associated impacts of the line itself require serious consideration as well. It is well to begin assessing t general impacts on local fiscal structures at this time.the l How do we prepare to the inland Empire's best advantage? The High Speed Rail Commission's Action Plan is deliberately sketchy in its prescriptions for the next steps. As noted earlier, the task force must begin filling in the blanks for the most effective response to the needs and desires of the region. Some adjustments may need to be made to existing transportation plans. Institutional arrangements not yet devised may be able to enhance the ability of the Inland Empire region to identify the best outcomes for the high speed rail line in the region. Regional agendas now have the opportunity to devise an action plan that proactively sets the Inland Empire's agenda as they cooperate with the new state authority and the legislature in crafting a high speed rail law or ballot measure. SCOPE OF WORK SCS proposes to provide professional services to the task force to undertake the technical analysis required to give deliberate responses to the above issues. A proposed task allocation, budget and schedule is given below. 1. Establish Goals and Procedures with Ad Hoc Task Force RCTC and SANBAG have established an Ad Hoc task force to begin considering issues of a high speed rail routing that can enjoy broad public consensus in the Inland Empire. This mandate will require the task fore to develop a technically sound body of knowledge, sufficient to serve as the basis for fruitful public discussion of alternatives. It will also require that the major transportation priorities of the task force be explicitly defined. The SCS team will serve as staff to the task force as it deliberates on the goals and procedures of its work. It is envisioned that this work will commence immediately upon Notice to Proceed and task force schedules can be set up. Once initial priorities and work modes have been decided, the team, primarily in the person of the Project manager, will serve as staff to the task force during the contract period. 2. Conduct Field Research and Analysis of Alternative Alignments and Station Sites SCS will conduct field research and site visits to determine a set of reasonable alignment altematives for high speed rail routings. These will take into account.the technical needs of leading high speed technologies on the one hand, and the transportation, environmental and site -specific constraints of the alignments through the region.on the other. Impacts on local regional transportation plans and on intermodal opportunites will be identified. Research can indude physical field visits, meetings with appropriate sources of information, such as railroad officials, transit operators, airport authority personnel, local govemment staff member; and other stakeholders. In the interest of efficiency and comprehensiveness, some of these factfinding exercises may alternatively take place by telephone. The consultation process is intended to encourage the identification of potential stakeholders and opinionmakers, although the primary goal of the task will be to collect technical transportation information. 3. Produce Draft Report of Fmdings SCS will produce a draft report of its research findings for the task force. The report • will organize the technical information in an easily accessible format for discussion. The report will also conform as much as possible to the format used by the state High Speed Rail Commission's report, so that a bridge of common categories can be established at the statewide level as well. However, the primary purpose of the report will be to stimulate discussion and facilitate the wafting of a consensus plan ,of action for the inland Empire. With the concurrence of the task force, the draft report will serve as the basis for preparing presentation materials (such as handouts, poster boards, slides, or Powerpoint or similar computer graphics programs) for dissemination to groups identified by the task force. 4. Conduct Outreach Briefings for Boards and Public SCS will conduct presentations to boards and other public groups identified by the task force. The purpose of the presentations will be to summarize the findings in the draft report and to solicit input toward a broad consensus of regional opinion about the routing of high speed rail alignments and siting of its facilities. The comments of the audiences will be compiled for further use by the task force As in the research task above, an essential goal of this task is to consult with a wide range of interested persons and groups, be seen to have done so, and to incorporate their concerns into the final product of the task force's work. The actual level of effort in this task (and thus its budget) will depend both on the level of comprehensiveness requested by the task force and on the range of opinion discovered and documented in the outreach process itself. The team understands this task to be the first official activity in the development of a public consensus on high speed rail activity in the region and will closely coordinate its activity to the goals of the task force. 5. Prepare and Transmit Final Consensus Report SCS will compile the results of the outreach process and incorporate these findings into a final document with the guidance of the task force. The Final Report will once again rely on the formats developed in the draft report and put emphasis on both clarity of presentation to the public and conformance to the formats used by the statewide High Speed Rail Commission in its report. The final document will be presented to the task force for review and approvals. The approved Final Report will then be forwarded to the newly created California High Speed Rail Authority. Inland Empire High Speed Rail Planning Analysis Estimate of Hours: Task Description C. Schiermeyer A. Witzig Others 1. Establish Goals and Procedures 10 40 10 2. Conduct Field Research and Analysis 24 60 3. Produce Draft Report 10 80 30 4. Conduct Briefings for Boards and Public 50 120 5. Transmit Final Consensus Report 6 20 20 Total Hours: 100 320 60 Budget: Name or Category Rate Extension C. Schiermeyer $100 per hour $10,000 A. Witzig $100 per hour $32,000 Other professional staff $ 80 per hour $ 4,800 Presentation/graphics Estimated use $ 5,000 materials Travel, phone, fax, etc. Estimated use $ 1,700 Total contract value $53,500 Schedule: The work program proposed here is estimated to be completed in roughly four months from Notice to Proceed. Thus, an NTP in early January 1997 would result in an early May 1997 completion. Adjustments to the schedule, within the budget of hours agreed, will be undertaken at RCTC request to meet the needs of official meeting schedules for relevant boards and public participation. • HIGH SPEED RAIL A Safe, Efficient and Feasible Travel Alternative for California's Future alifornia has always been a leader in trans- mission finalized these documents and submitted portation. Now. to ensure future quality -of -life them to the Governor and Legislature. and to support economic growth, California The Commission found that high speed rail deserves must seek new ways of meeting the transportation the widespread support of the people of California. needs of a growing population. An intercity high High speed rail can: speed rail system could offer California • help the state compete in the global economy by travelers a safe, con- moving people, goods, and information more effi- venient and efficient ciently alternative to high- ■ provide intercity transportation options to areas way and air travel. poorly served by airlines High speed rail systems have been in operation in Europe and Japan for over 30 years. They have carried over four billion passengers without a single train -related fatal- ity and have proven to be an energy -efficient, less polluting mode that strengthens urban centers. To investigate whether high speed rail might be appropriate for California, the Governor and Legislature authorized Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 (SCR 6) in 1993. SCR 6 established the nine -mem- ber Intercity High Speed Rail Commission to assess the feasibility pf a high speed rail system in California. Four technical studies• and an exten- sive public participation program were conducted under the direc- tion of the Commission. Based on the findings of these stud- ies and the comments of the public, the Commission prepared a Summary Report and Action Plan. After public review, the Com- ■ offer a cleaner, electrically powered alternative to petroleum dependent airplanes and cars ■ help reduce the need for airport and highway expansion ■ strengthen urban centers ■ enhance the image of California as a leader and as a place to live and do business The Commission's final report to the Governor and Legislature is summarized inside. ,� 7- v_... �,- train :: LapM1 See HSR Commission Final Findings and Recommendations inside '� 0 ver the past two years, the Commission con- ducted a series of studies to assess the feasi- bility of an HSR system for California. These studies looked at possible corridors for the system. potential ridership. financing options, economic impacts. and technical. engineering. and environmen- tal issues. After receiving public comment on a draft report, the Commission reconsidered its findings and released a final Summa7 Report and Action Plan. The Commission's recommendations for implementing an HSR system are summarized below. SYSTEM OPERATIONS The Commission's report makes several general rec- ommendations for system operations: The primary purpose of the system will be to serve intercity passenger travel —trips between 100 and 500 miles. While the focus of the Commissions efforts was sys- tem, capable of speeds of at least 200 mph, it is recognized that maximum speeds through densely developed urban areas will be limited to 100-150 mph. High speed trains must be separated from other incompatible rail services. such as conventional freight operations. Sharing tracks with other passen- ger or commuter services is possible if technical and operational issues are resolved. Operating revenue will be maximized by providing freight service that is compatible with HSR passen- ger operations. To attain the safety record of high speed trains in other countries. California's system must be entirely fenced and grade -separated (no rail/roadway inter- sections). Very high speed Japanese "Shinkansen" train Recommended RSR System Characteristics Speed (mph) Maximum Speed (mph) Average Speed (mph)", Ridership (Year 2015 Passenger Tres. millions) Los Angeles - San Francisco/San Jose With Extensions Express Travel Times (hours:minutes) Los Angeles - San Francisco Los Angeles - San Jose Los Angeles - San Diego Los Angeles - Sacramento Sant Francisco - Sacramento San Jose - Sacramento Fresno - San Jose Fresno - Los Angeles Fresno - San Francisco Bakersfield - Los Angeles Bakersfield - San Francisco Amaral System Revenue (1996 $millions) Los Angeles - San Francisco/San Jose and Extensions Passenger Net Freight Net Concessions Total Annual Operations and Maintenance Cott (1996 $millions) Los Angeles - San Francisco/San Jose With Extensions • VHS System S IP 220 310 152 211 10.6 14.8 19.8 26.4 2:49 2:03 2:30 1:50 1:12 0:58 2:31 1:53 1:21 1:03 1:04 0:50 1:04 0:44 1:29 1:07 1:21 0:58 0:58 0:45 1:52 1:19 $634.0 $892 20.5 20. 2.4 2A $656.9 $914.9 $256.8 $261.8 351.1 357.9 Base Financing Requirements Statewide Sales Tax Option Los Angeles - San Francisco/San Jose 1/4 cent 3/8 cent With Extensions 1/4 cent 3/8 cent Gas Tax Option (per gallon) Los Angeles - San Francisco/San Jose 5 cent 7 cent With Extensions 6 cent 8 cent Capital Cost (1996 $billions) Los Angeles - San Francisco/San Jose $11.7 $17.3 San Diego Extension 6.0 7.9 Sacramento F-xtension 1,7 2A Vehicle cost/Support facilities 1.3 1.3 Total $20.7 $28.9 "» For express trips between Los Angeles and Sun Francisco. • • TECHNOLOGY Either the next generation of Very High Speed (VHS) steel - wheel -on -steel -rail technology (such as the Japanese Bullet Train and the French TGV) or magnetic levitation (maglev) technology will provide frequent service and fast travel times. Trains will travel at maximum speeds of nearly 220 mph for VHS technology and 310 mph for maglev. The choice between these tech- nologies could be determined by the timing Fre of system implementation. VHS is Burr the only high speed rail technology prove sive revenue service and is recommended tem implementation begin in the near to imple- mentation is a longer -term process. how technology developments could make m attractive option. If manufacturers step forward with perforniance guarantees, financial incentives, offers. maglev would also be considered. currently High speed Europa Transrapid nsag[er train CORRIDOR SELECTION The Commission has found that even with California's unique geographic and seismic challenges, high speed rail is technically feasible and no environmen- tal "fatal flaws" have been identified. Although the Commission is making the following corridor recom- mendations. the final selection of HSR alignments is dependent on final engineering and the environmen- tal clearance process. The recommended HSR system is over 670 miles long and links all of California's major population centers: Alignment l nnglh (miles)n.an Los Armes - San:ramsocols.A San D ego extension Sacramento emersion Total n.dwood mont n in exten• San Francisco . � - ItAllo,aAp %iiir.Ji sFose NswarW ;.:W SIL 7Wsn County/ \ % ilk, ti. _ should sys- rm. If se�o.e.e.te :,.� ever, futureNC agley a more11414tar . - - • .:; ' _ : • ;, . 1.A or other MKs.ewc a,� Ak Los Angeles Union station Los Angola, Airport Recommended System Alignment Ems Alignment Station • Terminus Station San Diego Sacramento. the San Francisco Bay Area. the Central Valley. Los Angeles. and San Diego (see map). VHS capital costs are projected to exceed S20 billion. By the year 2015, a VHS system would carry about 20 million passengers annually. SOUTHERN MOUNTAIN PASS The Commission conditionally recommends a route through the Antelope Valley for crossing the Tehachapi Mountains north of Los Angeles. This option provides service to a rapidly growing area of Southern California and could offer a link to a future major airport in Palmdale. Two potential alignments through this area are available for further technical and environmental review. (Costs shown are represen- tative of the Palmdale -Mojave alignment.) r l:i Cil;f i5 —' 1 CENTRAL VALLEY The Commission identifies three potential alignments within a corridor roughly parallel and adjacent to State Route 99: the UPSP alignment. the BNSF align- ment. and a new alignment west of the Valley cities. The Commission resolved that selection of a preferred Central Valley alignment and station locations should be made in conjunction withfuture environmental evaluations and subsequent to additional coordination with local and regional governments. (Costs shown are representative of the "new alignment' option through the Central Valley.) NORTHERN MOUNTAIN PASS The Commission recommends the Altamont Pass for linking the Central Valley and the Bay Area. This approach generates higher ridership and revenue by serving the fast-growing northern Central Valley and is less costly to construct than the Pacheco Pass or Panoche Pass alternatives. The Altamont Pass option also facilitates the least expensive and shortest route to Sacramento. SERVICE TO THE BAY AREA The Commission recommends serving downtown Sam Francisco and San Jose. The route would cross the Altamont Pass from the Central Valley and serve Newark in the East Bay. One leg would then provide service to San Jose. The other route would cross the South Bay to Redwood City over a newly constructed Dumbarton Rail Bridge. and then go north on the Peninsula to SFO and downtown San Francisco. Oakland and other East Bay cities would initially be served by connections with BART at San Francisco and Newark/Fremont or Pleasanton. SERVICE TO SAN DIEGO AND SACRAMENTO The Commission determined that including Sacramento and San Diego significantly improves the system. In fact, service to these cities will nearly dou- ble overall system ridership and revenues. From Los Angeles to San Diego, the Commission expresses preference for the Interstate 15 corridor, which will provide service to Ontario, Riverside, and Escondido. This corridor poses fewer environmental obstacles than a route along the LOSSAN railroad corridor on the coast and better serves future population and eco- nomic growth. For service to Sacramento, the Commission recommends a northward route from Stockton, which has high ridership potential and lower costs than the current Capitol Corridor rail- alignment which links Oakland and Sacramento. ECONOMIC IMPACT Analyses of the -costs and benefits of a California high speed rail system indicate that the system would gen- erate a net economic benefit. The benefits of an HSR system —increased jobs, lower housing costs, and reduced traffic congestion —will impact a broad cross-section of the population, not only high speed rail users. During the 8-year construction period, a VHS system will create 314.000 person -years of employment (450,000 for magley). By reducing con- gestion on other transportation modes. HSR will save California taxpayers over 81 billion each year by the year 2020 in travel delay costs. Life cycle benefit/cost analysis has shown that benefits exceed costs by 83.3 billion for VHS and 84.9 billion for magley. Because the benefits of the system will exceed its costs. devel- opment of the system is justifiable from an economic standpoint. FINANCING AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES Unlike commuter and urban transit systems to require ongoing public support, the recommended HSR system will generate surplus operating revenue. After allowing for all operating, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs. the total system is projected to generate annual surpluses exceeding 8308 million for VHS technology and about 8560 million for maglev. Few transportation systems worldwide can achieve an operating surplus of this scale. Detailed financial projections show that farebox and other revenue will not be sufficient to fully finance the high speed rail system's capital costs. However, under the financing plan, system revenues finance a significant portion of the construction costs. A voter - approved public funding source (such as a sales tax or gas tax increase) will be needed to provide a stable base for project construction bonds. Although the pro- jected operating surpluses are not large enough to achieve a system financed entirely by private sources, private partners are expected to contribute to the financing structure. The Commission recommends a design -build or • design -build -operate contracting relationship with a private -sector entity. The private partners should share financial, development, and operational risk by providing performance guarantees. ACTION PLAN OFFERS ROAD MAP FOR FUTURE WORK The construction of a high speed rail system in California will be a public works program on the scale of the State Water Project or the creation of the state's freeway system. Implementing the high speed rail project will be the responsibility of the new Intercity High Speed Rail Authority created by Senate Bill 1420 in 1996. The Authority will use the Commission's recommendations as a guideline for its work. The Commission's Action Plan for future work on high speed rail in California includes the following: • . STEP 1 Obtain voter approval i____I The Authority will initiate local coordination, begin statewide coalition -building, put in place a public outreach program, research legal and institutional issues. and draft lan- guage for a ballot measure. A detailed financial plan will be developed in consultation with private industry and will be presented to voters. STEP S Prepare for procurement 'Working with a team of legal, financial, and engineering advisors, the Authority will develop the process through which it will select a private partner. This process will include soliciting interest from potential partners, creating a contract to be used in negoti- ations, and drafting the request -for -proposals. STEP 3 Establish public -private partnership The Authority will interview potential private development partners, select a tentative fran- chisee, and begin negotiations. The structure of the public -private partnership will emerge from these negotiations. STEP 4 Conduct preliminary engineering and environmental clearance Preliminarydesigns for the high speed rail system will be created, then analyzed in the environmental clearance process. Flexibility will be required on the alignments and will be retained through this process. Environmental impact reviews will occur to ensure that all state and federal requirements are met. Ultimately, a preferred alignment will be selected. STEP 5 Final design, construction, and start-up With the system alignment and design approved, the Authority will oversee system. con- struction and the initiation of operations. California is competing ,rr pe ng with other states for the investment needed to build a high speed rail system. The State must begin acting now if it hopes to make high speed rail a reality in the next decade. The Intercity High Speed Rail Authority will guide this activity. o- ,r r .• • .. as OW el. Ma • as SLIGE"'"NOKI. Public involvement played a central role in the Commission's work. An extensive public participation program included meetings and presentations with metro- politan planning organizations, transportation agencies, cite and county governments, business groups, minority organizations. and others. Twenty-seven public workshops, three public hearings, and over 100 small group meetings were held around the state to offer citizens a chance to contribute to the high speed rail feasibility study process. The program also included a project video, newsletters, brochures, and media outreach. High speed rail commissioners and staff listen to public testimony at commission meeting in San Francisco Comments received at all public meetings, presentations, workshops. and hearings were documented and provided to the Commission for its use in making system recom- mendations. A complete summary of these comments is available by contacting the address listed below. Many public suggestions had a significant influence on Commission decisions. As a result of comments received Califomia intercity High Speed Rail Commission P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento. CA 94274-0001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Pete Wilson Govemor Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Dean R. Dunphy Secretary 980 Ninth Street, Suite 2450 Sacramento, CA 95814 California intercity High Speed Rail Commission Dean R. Dunphy, Chair Donna Lee Andrews Aimee S. Brown Daniel Wm. Fessler Edward Jordan Johnetta MacCella Mehdi Morshed Audrey Rice Oliver Michael E. Tennenbaum Daniel S. Leavitt. Executive Director during the public hearing process. the Commission mac several changes to its recommendations: ► ■ The Commission made a conditional recommendatic for the Antelope Valley alignment, altering -ec ous preference for the I-5 Grapevine alignr>Ii!)' ovr the Tehachapi mountains in Southern California. ■ The Commission clarified language to ensure direc. frequent no -transfer service to San Jose in the firs phase of implementation. ■ The Commission recommended an inland align ment to San Diego. It had originally preferred coastal route. ■ Recognizing that the order of implementation will IR. determined by the Authority. the Commission recom- mended that the system serving San Diego. Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and Sacramento. and the requisite financing package. be presented to the voters in their entirety. Public participation will be a key priority for the Intercity High Speed Rail Authority. To get involved. contact the address or phone number below. CALIFORNIA INTERcmr Him SPEED RAIL COMMISSION P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, Califomia 94274-0001 (916) 324-1548 Visit our web site at: http://www.ns.net/usersibbrown/hsr.html Brochure produced by the California Intercity High Speed Rail Commission with Consensus Planning pup. Public Affairs Management and The Creative Communications Group. • • AGENDA ITEM #7D • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 5, 1997 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Loan to Intercity Rail Joint Powers Board This item is a placeholder, pending further investigation by the Technical Advisory Committee of the Interim Southern California Intercity Rail Joint Powers Board, and pending assurances of repayment by the State of California. The Technical Advisory Committee will meet February 4, 1997. At that time, a recommendation may come forward that one or more member agencies of the Interim Joint Powers Board loan local funds to complete a work program analyzing the fiscal aspects of administering intercity rail within southern California. Such a recommendation would only be made if sufficient assurances of repayment are received from the State. FINANCIAL DATA: Project Cost: To be Determined Source of Funds: To be Determined Included In Current Year Budget (Y/N): No Budget Adjustment Required: Yes STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To be determined.