Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 08, 2002 Commission" " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, , 2002 Bechtel -Records LOCATION: CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM University of California @ Riverside 1201 University Avenue, Room 207 OV,99 Riverside, California 92507 Commissioners Chairman: John F. Tavaglione 1St Vice Chairman: Ron Roberts 2"d Vice Chairman: Roy Wilson Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside James A. Venable, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Tom Mullen, County of Riverside John Hunt / Jan Wages, City of Banning Placido L. Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa Alfred W. Trembly / Jack Warnsiey, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Sarah DiGrandi, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara, City of Coachella Janice L. Rudman/ Jeff Miller, City of Corona Greg Ruppert / Matt Weyuker, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin ReeserLowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Mike Wilson /Gene Gilbert, City of Indio John J. Pena / Ron Perkins, City of La Quinta Robert L. Schiffner / Thomas Buckley, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Bonnie Flickinger, City of Moreno Valley Jack F. van Haaster / Warnie Enochs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert William G. Kleindienst / Chris Mills, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris - Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside Chris Carlson-Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Anne Mayer, Director, Caltrans District #8 Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 am. Wednesday, May 8, 2002 CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM University of California pa Riverside 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 Page g 1 This item is for the Commission to: 1) Hold the public hearing to receive input and comments on the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and continue the public hearing to the June 12, 2002; and, 2) Discuss, review, and provide guidance on the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda regz res 2/3 vote of the Commission. /f there are /ess than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 2 n 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Cal e dsr sepal rate be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Page 7 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the CCOontracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending March 31, 2. 7B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 21 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive 3 , and file 2002.e quarterly financial statements for the period ending March 7C. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Page 26 Overview This item is for the Commission to recive and d file January,he Fe ruaSingle Signature Authority Report for the months ending and March 2002. 7D. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 Page 28 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the Schedule of Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. 7E. OVERHEAD ALLOCATION POLICY AMENDMENT Page 29 Overview This item is for the Commission to amend the Overhead Allocation Policy. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 3 • 7F. TDA / MEASURE "A" AUDIT RESULTS Page 30 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the responses to the suggestions for improvement as presented by Ernst and Young. 7G. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 Overview Page 32 This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the preliminary Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Metrolink Operating and Capital Budgets; and, 2) Allocate RCTC's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority in an amount not to exceed $3,913,464 comprised of: $3,029,900 of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for train operations and maintenance -of -way, and $883,564 of FTA Section 5307 for capital projects. 7H. ADVERTISE BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION Overview Pagel 56 This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of the parking lot expansion at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station; and, 2) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 4 71. ADVERTISE BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION ATOF THEN PEDLEY EXTENSION ME RO INK EXISTING EMERGENCY PLATFORM Page 158 STATION Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Enter into a Project Construction Program Supplement to obligate STPL funding for construction of an Platform atsion of the the Pedley existing Emergency Passenger Unloading Metrolink Station; Supplement, pursuant to 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of an extension of the existing Emergency Passenger Unloading Platform at the Pedley Metrolink Station, contingent finalization receipt of the Project Construction Program Supplement and Authorization to Proceed with Construction from the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance; and, 4) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. 7J. ADVERTISE BIDS TO CONSTRUCTTHE RIVERSIDE -LA SIERRA ING LOT XPANS ON PROJECT METROLINK STATION PHASE 1 PARK Page 160 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize staff to advertise bids the Phase 1 construction Parki g Lot Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station Expansion; and, 2) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 5 • 7K. ADVERTISE BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION SECURITY SYSTEM AT THE PEDLEY METROLINK STATION Page 163 Overview This item is for the Commission to: • • 1) Enter into a Project Construction Program Supplement to obligate CMAQ funding for construction of a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station with a data link to the monitoring facilities at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station; 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the Supplement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station including data links to monitoring facilities at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station, contingent upon finalization of the Project Construction Program Supplement and receipt of the Authorization to Proceed with Construction from the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance; and, 4) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. 7L. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 165 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 7M. APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. M-22-001 WITH THE RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR A PHOTOVOLTAIC CARPORT STRUCTURE AT THE LA SIERRA STATION Page 182 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve Memorandum of Understanding No. M-22-001 with the Riverside Public Utilities for a Photovoltaic Carport Structure at the La Sierra Station, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. 1 I Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 6 7N. AMEND FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 COMMUTER RAIL SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN: PARKING EXPANSION AND ROLLING STOCK Page 185 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize $425,000 of previously allocated Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for temporary parking lot expansion at the Riverside - Downtown Station; 2) De -obligate $588,000 of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds for RCTC's share of a rolling stock acquisition and substitute it with a $588,000 reallocation of previously allocated LTF for RCTC's share; and, 3) Amend the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and allocate $1,013,000 in LTF for the above listed capital projects. • 70. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMTRAK INTERCITY AGREEMENT • Page 187 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the amendment of the Amtrak Intercity Agreement between Amtrak, SCRRA, and its member agencies; and, 2) Authorize the Executive Director to sign the amendment, pursuant to legal counsel review. 7P. REQUEST TO AMEND RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN TO REALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE (STA) FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN INTEGRATED FARE COLLECTION SYSTEM Page 195 Overview This item is for the Commission to amend the Riverside Transit Agency's Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Short Range Transit Plan to reallocate $500,000 in STA funds from the portable CNG fueling station line item to the integrated fare collection system. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 7 • 7Q. FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 MEASURE "A" COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS Page 197 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,175/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 to the existing Riverside, Moreno Valley and Mira Loma buspools; and, 2) Continue the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. 7R. REPROGRAMMING OF TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TEA) FUNDS Page 203 Overview • • This item is for the Commission to approve reprogramming of TEA funds in the amount of $572,000 by spreading the funds evenly amongst 23 projects approved in the last TEA call for projects. 7S. UPDATE ON THE ZERO EMISSION MOBILE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT (ZEMIE) PROJECT Page 205 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Riverside County Economic Development Agency / Southern California Edison ZEMIE Project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 8 • 7T. CONTRACT AWARD FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE Page 206 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 02-45-070, a three-year contract, with two one-year options, to Tri-City Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 4 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $45.00 per hour per truck; 2) Award Agreement No. 02-45-071, a three-year contract, with two one-year options, to Pepe's Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 18 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $42.50 per hour per truck; 3) Award Agreement No. 02-45-072, a three-year contract, with two one-year options, to Pepe's Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 25 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $42.50 per hour per truck; and, 4) Authorize the Chairman to execute the agreements, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 7U. SUPPLEMENTAL COST INCREASE FOR STATE ROUTE 60 — VALLEY WAY TO UNIVERSITY AVENUE Page 209 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adjust unprogrammed Western County Regional Improvement Program fund balances subject to California Transportation Commission (CTC) action in June 2002; and, 2) Receive and file this staff report and supplemental cost increase for the SR 60 Valley Way to University Avenue project. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 9 7V. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 217 1) Adopt the following bill positions: No Position-SCA 5 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) as amended 2/13/02. Oppose-SB 1827 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) as introduced 2/22/02. Oppose Unless Amended-SB 1856 (Costa, D -Fresno) et al) as introduced 2/22/02. Support -AB 2098 (Bates, R -Laguna Niguel) as introduced 2/19/02 Support -AB 2476 (Pacheco, R -Riverside) as introduced 2/21/02; and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 8. FUNDING ADJUSTMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN 1-15 IN LAKE ELSINORE AND 7T" STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS Page 233 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve to increase the project budget for the State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris from 851,331,989 to 869,847,655. 9. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 02-001, "RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION EXPENDITURE PLAN AND RETAIL TRANSACTION AND USE TAX ORDINANCE" Page 237 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Ordinance No. 02-001 requesting the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to place on the November 5, 2002 ballot a measure to levy, in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside, a retail and transactions use tax of 1/2 of 1°/0 for a 30 -year period for specified transportation purposes. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 10 10. PRESENTATION - PROPOSED WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFIED MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAM Overview A presentation will be made by Rick Bishop, Executive Director of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). 11. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 13. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54946.8 A. Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners: See Following List of Property Owners Right -Of -Way Acquisitions Item APN Grantor 1 345-080-054 Leroy Grunder, et. ux. 2 342-210-004 Charles Mayfield, et. ux. 3 342-210-038 Edward & Hope Mora 4 342-210-037 Alexander Garcia, et.ux. 5 342-210-033 Hideaki Nakamura, Tr.., et.al. 6 342-210-024 Arthuro J. Galvan 7 342-210-010 Jesus Barragan, et.al. 8 342-210-016 Dawn Michelle Dupree 9 342-120-014 Mary E. Corrado 10 342-120-013 Willie Bell Poston, et.al. 11 342-120-041 Frank B. Earnest 12 342-130-001 Doris L. Whitley 13 342-200-036 Neil G. Peak, et.al. 14 342-200-035 Louis Lee Haywood, et.ux. 15 342-200-034 Jerry Austin, et.ux. & Joe Birdo, et.ux. 16 342-130-002 Alexander & Bertha Paul Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 11 • • • 17 342-200-032 Louis J. Mercado 18 342-200-060 Abiding Love Ministry 19 342-020-025 Abiding Love Ministry 20 342-130-010 Jim S. Delgado, et.al. 21 342-130-005 Dick Family Trust 22 342-150-001 Ed Riles, et.al. 23 342-150-004 Maria Rodriguez 24 342-140-002 Nick, Helen, Ted & Georgia Triantos 25 342-140-004 Sierras 2001 Trust 26 342-150-016 Alfred Hassan, et.al. 27 342-150-010 Willie A. Jones 28 342-150-011 Willie A. Jones 29 342-140-006 Lucio Cruiz, et.ux. 30 342-140-007 Lucio Cruiz, et.ux. 31 342-140-008 Yoko Reed, Trustee 32 342-140-009 Jerimiah Strange 33 342-100-026 James F. Miller, et.ux. 34 342-100-047 Dennis K. Woodland, et.ux. 35 342-100-024 Loren B. Joplin 36 342-100-023 Loren B. Joplin 38 39 40 41 342-052-023 342-052-002 342-090-027 342-052-003 am & Lawrence Daigle Bethel African Methodist Church Bethel African Methodist Church Bethel African Methodist Church Eva Mae Banks 42 43 342-052-004 342-052-005 Opal Ashley Mabel Dean Reiter 44 45 342-052-006 342-052-007 Antonio M. Ayala, et.ux. Salvador Gonzalez 46 47 342-052-008 342-052-01 1 Antonio M. Ayala, et.ux. Irene Martin 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 342-052-012 342-051-007 342-052-014 342-052-015 342-052-017 342-051-009 342-051-010 342-051-011 342-051-012 342-051-014 Wayne R. & Francis F. Gallup, Tr. Dorothy H. Sexton Everardo Cortez, et.ux. Roberto Hernandez, et.ux. Robert L. Harden, Jr. Manh Van Luong & Ngat Thi Le Manh Van Luong & Ngat Thi Le Manh Van Luong & Ngat Thi Le Manh Van Luong & Ngat Thi Le Lillie Bell Williams 58 342-051-017 Roberto Fernandez, et.al. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 12 59 342-064-010 Charles Heiss 60 342-061-001 Earnest J. Lee 61 342-061-002 Angel Iorenzo Gasparini, et.ux. 62 342-061-003 Angel lorenzo Gasparini, et.ux. 63 342-064-008 Sidney A. Rhodes 64 342-064-009 Sidney A. Rhodes 65 342-064-007 Beatrice Brown 66 342-064-005 Robert M. Moinet 67 342-064-006 Robert M. Moinet 68 342-061-004 Theodore Otis Rogers, Jr., et.ux. 69 342-061-005 Theodore Otis Rogers, Jr., et.ux. 70 342-061-006 Rafael Vasquez, et.al. 71 342-064-004 Lela I. Demay 72 342-061-009 Fortino Garza Jr., et.ux. 73 342-062-001 William Ewert, et.ux. 74 342-062-002 William Ewert, et.ux. 75 342-064-003 Alejandro Munoz, et.ux. 76 342-062-004 Samuel B. Johnson, et.ux. 77 342-062-004 Evelyn Gaines, et.al. 78 342-062-005 Evelyn Gaines, et.al. 79 342-062-007 Lizzie Mae Taylor 80 342-063-001 Diana Depaul 81 342-100-020 Larry & Estella Daigle, Trust 82 342-072-019 James Frazier, et.ux. 83 342-072-020 James Frazier, et.ux. 84 85 342-072-003 86 87 342-071-006 ose Vinaiopos, .ux. Josie S. Lopez 342-071-004 Maria E. Villalobos 342-072-004 Maria E. Villalobos 88 89 342-072-005 90 91 92 93 342-071-009 Juan Villalobos, et.al. Eduardo Rodriquez 342-072-007 342-071-010 342-071-011 342-040-030 94 95 96 97 98 99 342-072-015 342-040-029 326-250-032 326-250-033 326-250-009 326-250-006 100 326-250-003 Antonio Alvarez, et.ux. Rodney F. Parcel, Sr., et.al. Rodney F. Parcel, Sr., et.al. Allie L. Terry Gary Wright/Susan Cope Alejandro Solano, et.al. James Harris, et.ux. James Harris, et.ux. Crystal Pham, et.al. Joe Carrabino George D'Amico • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 13 • • 101 326-250-034 Andrew Buzek, et.ux. 102 326-240-062 Andrew Buzek, et.ux. 103 326-240-028 Miguel Pino, et.ux. 104 326-240-029 Robert A. Martin 105 326-240-023 Thomas H. Hall Jr., et.ux. 106 326-240-032 De Ville Family Trust 107 326-240-033 Joseph Lee Carrier 108 362-240-051 Theodore R. Gaines 109 342-071-007 Roland R. Armijo 110 326-234-002 Henry Combs, Trustee 111 342-210-021 Ronald R. Block, et. ux. 112 342-210-035 Perris Valley Bible Tabernacle Ministries 113 342-240-015 Arlene Griffith, et. Al. 114 342-210-013 Arlene Griffith, et. Al. 115 342-210-014 Arlene Griffith, et. Al. 116 342-120-016 Andrew Boji 117 342-120-015 Osby C. Blair, et.ux. 118 342-210-028 Norma D. Ryder, et. Al. 119 342-120-012 Raul A. & Alvaro Ramirez 120 342-140-005 Telesforo Flores, et. ux. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) B. Case Numbers: RCV049988 and RCV048430 Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) C. Significant exposure to litigation to subdivision (b): Number of potential cases: 1 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 12, 2002, Chancellor's Conference Room, University of California @ Riverside, 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside. • " AGENDA ITEM 4 " Minutes " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, April 10, 2002 '1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman John Tavaglione at 10:00 a.m., in the Chancellor's Conference Room at the University of California at Riverside, 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL " " Commissioners/Alternates Present Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy Byrd John Chlebnik Frank Hall John Hunt William G. Kleindienst Dick Kelly Anne Mayer Ameal Moore Tom Mullen John J. Pena Gregory S. Pettis Robin Lowe Ron Roberts Janice Rudman Greg Ruppert Robert Schiffner John F. Tavaglione Alfred W. Trembly Placido L. Valdivia James A. Venable Frank West Mike Wilson Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain Juan DeLara Harvey Gerber Jack van Haaster w Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 2 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Garry Grant, Meadowbrook area resident, requested clarification on the blocks of APN's for Closed Session Item 12B. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, responded that each is contiguous property of the State Route 74 Segment I project. Secondly, Garry Grant expressed his concern regarding growth impacts and safety impacts on the highways and lack of public information and awareness on these issues. Chairman Tavaglione requested staff to review this concern and provide a response. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 13, 2002 M/S/C (Kleindienst/Hunt) to approve the March 13, 2002 minutes as presented. Abstain: Byrd 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, noted revisions to the following agenda items: A. Agenda Item No. 8, "Expenditure Plan for Measure "A" Extension". B. Agenda Item No. 9, "RCTC Public Information Outreach Program". 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Mullen/Kleindienst) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 6A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Reports for the month ending February 28, 2002. 6B. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Amend the Motorist Assistance budget for maintenance of equipment from $1,018,000 to $1,111,000. • • • " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 3 6C. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 02-013 "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISS/ON TO AUTHORIZE INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF)." Adopt Resolution No. 02-013, "Resolution Of The Riverside County Transportation Commission To Authorize Investment Of Monies In The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). " 6D. TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (TEA 21) STATEWIDE REAUTHORIZATION PRINCIPLES Approve the TEA 21 statewide reauthorization principles as developed by the CALCOG/CALTRANS TEA 21 Reauthorization Task Force. 6E. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 1) Support  AB 2809 (Longville) Support  SB 10xxx (Sher); and, 2) Receive and file the State and Legislative Update as an information item. 6F. PROPOSITION 42 REVENUE ESTIMATES Receive and file the Proposition 42 Revenue Estimates. 6G. STIP INTRA-COUNTY FORMULA ADJUSTMENT 1) Approve postponing this year's adjustment to February 2003 to coincide with the development of the 2004 STIP; and, 2) Amend the STIP Intra-county Formula MOU to adjust the percentages for the allocation of STIP funds to February of every odd year to coincide with the development of future STIPs. 6H. STATUS OF THE 2002 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Receive and file the 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program update. " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 4 61. ALLOCATION OF STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2% PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, AND MONITORING FUNDS FOR CETAP Allocate $721,809 in 2002 STIP 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) from the Western County formula pot for the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) planning effort. 6J. FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 SECTION 5310 PROGRAM AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 02-014, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN." 1) Adopt the FY 2002-03 FTA Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the Local Review Committee; 2) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; and, 3) Adopt Resolution No. 02-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan." 6K. FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM Approve the release of a Call for Projects for the FY 2002-03 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program and notify the cities, the County, and local school districts of the estimated funding available for the fiscal year. 6L. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 02-65-944 FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 COMMUTER SURVEY Approve Agreement No. 02-65-944, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 02-65-943, between OCTA, RCTC, and SCAG to add $15,000, with RCTC paying $7,500 and OCTA paying $7,500 to cover an additional videotaping site and associated costs. • • • " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 5 6M. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 6N. AWARD OF AGREEMENT NO. 02-25-059 TO TROPICAL PLAZA NURSERY, INC. TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES AT THE FOUR METROLINK STATIONS AND ONE OFFICE BUILDING OWNED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1) Approve the Evaluation Committee's selection of Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc. to provide landscape maintenance services for the Commission owned properties; and, 2) Award Agreement No. 02-25-059 to Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc., pursuant to Legal Counsel review. 60. CONSULTANT RANKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROVISION OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES FOR THE PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE AT NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK STATION 1) Concur with the Selection Committee recommendations, for the ranking of Engineering Firms, as listed below, who responded to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to provide Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Studies, for the proposed 1,000 space Parking Structure at the new North Main Corona Metrolink Station; and, Top Ranked Gordon H. Chong & Partners Second Owen Group Third DMJM + HARRIS Fourth Choate Parking Design Consultants 2) Direct staff to bring back a scope, schedule, and cost for approval after the State funding has been approved and the project scope has been finalized. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 6 6P. APPROVAL OF STATE ROUTE 74 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-055 WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 1) Approve entering into Agreement No. 02-31-055 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for Traffic Enforcement Services during construction of Segment 1; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 6Q. APPROVAL OF STATE ROUTE 74 UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-044 WITH AT&T BROADBAND 1) Approve entering into Agreement No. 02-31-044 with AT&T Broadband defining the responsibilities for the relocation of cable television lines related to the RCTC Measure "A" widening of SR 74 between Lake Elsinore and the City of Perris. The RCTC cost is estimated to be $6,212.26; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 6R. REQUEST TO AMEND CITY OF BANNING'S FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR PURCHASE OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT — FORD RANGER PICKUP 1) Amend the City of Banning's FY 2001-02 Short Range Transit Plan authorizing the purchase of a Ford Ranger pickup; and, 2) Authorize the expenditure of $8,371 in Local Transportation Funds and $6,629 in State Transit Assistance funds previously allocated to cover the cost. • • • " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 7 7. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 02-25-050 WITH AMTRAK TO SERVE THE RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN STATION Commissioner Tom Mullen congratulated the Eric Haley and his staff for their efforts to finally have Amtrak stop in Riverside. Eric Haley, Executive Director, reviewed the schedule for the April 29th Amtrak Southwest Chief Event and welcomed all Commissioners to attend. Chairman Tavaglione recognized Gregg Konstanzer and Angie Starr of Amtrak. M/S/C (Mullen/Byrd) to approve Agreement No. 02-25-050, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, with Amtrak to serve the Riverside - Downtown Station. 8. EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR MEASURE "A" EXTENSION Commissioners Mullen, Tavaglione, and Dick Kelly reviewed the Expenditure Plan that was developed by the Sales Tax Ad Hoc Committee. It is recommended that the proposed Measure "A" be placed on the ballot for the November election. The Measure is for 30 years and will start 2009 and sunsets in 2039. Commissioner Bob Buster commended the Ad Hoc Committee on their ability to effectively balance the geographic diversity of the County as well as the TUMF issue and return to source. Commissioner Percy Byrd expressed concern with Section 6 "Funding Flexibility and Bonding to Expedite Projects" under "General Provisions of the Transportation Improvement Plan", indicating the term "previous consultation" does not provide the right to approve a shift in allocation. Chairman Tavaglione indicated that wording could be added to the section of Commissioner Byrd's concern to reflect the veto process. Commissioner Mullen asked Corky Larson, CVAG, to provide the prospective of the Coachella Valley. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 8 Corky Larson indicated that the current language only provides a safeguard for Western Riverside County, not the Coachella Valley, because the Coachella Valley does not have the majority of the supervisors, cities, or population. As this was the language from the original Measure, there is an MOU between RCTC and CVAG that states an allocation shift can occur with the agreement by two-thirds of the cities. Commissioner Kelly suggested the term "previous consultation" be replaced with "previous approval". Commissioners Greg Ruppert and Robert Schiffner concurred with Commissioner Kelly's recommendation. Commissioner Mullen recommended the removal of the language in question and utilize the MOU if the situation should arise. Commissioner Byrd indicated that Commissioner Mullen's recommendation did not satisfactorily address the issue due to the termination clause of the MOU allowing either party to terminate with 90 -day notice. Commissioner Mullen stated his belief that this is an issue of trust and believes that any movement of funds would be the results of extreme circumstances. Commissioner John Chlebnik expressed his belief that the Expenditure Plan is not a true extension of Measure "A" except as the sales tax is concerned, because of the changes in allocation and addition of new conditions like TUMF and MSHCP. He stated his support of both programs but not as a condition to receive local funds and opposes this type of coercion. Commissioner Robin Lowe recommended that an allocation shift requires two-thirds majority approval of the Board of Commissioners and believes this will satisfactorily address the concern. Commissioners Byrd and Ruppert oppose Commissioner Lowe's recommendation. Commissioner Mike Wilson stated his belief that the language should protect all agencies equally. It was expressed that there should be some flexibility in the event that a major catastrophe might occur in the future. • • • " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Kleindienst sought clarification that in the event of a major catastrophe, Measure "A" funds would not be the initial funds utilized. Commissioner Anne Mayer and D.J. Smith of Smith, Kempton and Watts concurred that State and FEMA funding assistance would be utilized first. With that clarification, Commissioner Kleindienst requested that the reference to an allocation shift due to such an event be removed from discussion. He also stated his belief that it is important to retain flexibility and ensure safeguards. Commissioner Ameal Moore concurred with Commissioner Kleindienst's comments regarding flexibility and safeguards. Commissioner Buster recommended the language for previous consultation be removed and that a two-thirds vote of the Commission provides an adequate safeguard. Commission Mullen concurred with Commissioner Buster recommendation and called for the question on this issue. M/S/C (Lowe/Mullen) to modify Section 6 "Funding Flexibility and Bonding to Expedite Projects" under "General Provisions of the Transportation Improvement Plan", as follows: Shifts may not be made without previous consultation with the affected agencies and two-thirds majority approval of the Board of Commissioners. Ayes - 19 Nays  6 Commissioner Chris Buydos requested clarification of the nexus between the Expenditure Plan and the MSHCP. Commissioner Mullen explained that it provides mitigation for Measure "A" as well as other infrastructure. Commissioner Jim Venable asked if the project list had been prioritized and how that priority is established. He noted that SR 79 is being widened from Ramona Expressway to Domenigoni Parkway instead of all the way into Temecula. Eric Haley stated that the project list have not been prioritized and will be prioritized by project readiness, traffic volumes, and growth trends which will begin next year with a transitional strategic plan. Commissioner Mullen clarified that this Expenditure Plan, upon voter approval, does not take effect until 2009. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 10 Eric Haley informed the Commission that the Ordinance requesting the Board of Supervisors to place the Measure on the November ballot will be before the Commission next month for action. M/S/C (Lowe/Rudman) to adopt the Expenditure Plan for the Measure "A" extension. Abstained: Trembly Opposed: Byrd 9. RCTC PUBLIC INFORMATION OUTREACH PROGRAM M/S/C/ (Mullen/Venable) to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director and Legal Counsel to negotiate a contract or a series of contracts not to exceed $500,000 for consultant services to implement a public outreach program pursuant to a formalized Request for Qualifications process; 2) Approve a budget adjustment of $200,000 in Fiscal Year 2001- 2002 and allocate $300,000 in Fiscal Year 2002-2003 to fund the implementation of a comprehensive Measure "A" public information outreach program; and, 3) Direct staff to return to the Commission in May for final approval of a consultant services contract(s). 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the agenda for discussion. 1 1. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR A. Anne Mayer introduced Etta Rosso, who has recently joined the Caltrans Executive Development Program and will spend some of her training time at RCTC. B. Commissioner Lowe requested a short presentation on the status of the TUMF program at the next meeting. C. Commissioner Mullen extended his appreciation to everyone who participated in the drafting the Expenditure Plan. • • • " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 11 D. Eric Haley announced the commencement of the new Riverside - Fullerton -Los Angeles Metrolink service on May 6th. The opening event begins at 8:30 a.m. He invited the Commissioners to attend the event. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEM Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54946.8 A. Negotiating Parties: RCTC  Executive Director or Designee Property Owners: See Following List of Property Owners SR -74 Right -Of -Way Acquisitions Item CPN APN Grantor 1 13896-1 342-240-024 Ethel May Hatcher 2 13897-1 326-240-031 lanthe M. Roberson Bentley - Johnson 3 13903-1 326-240-052 Michael B. & Bonnie S. Martin Commissioner Buster abstained from discussion and action of the following closed session item. B. Negotiating Parties: RCTC  Executive Director or Designee Property Owner: White Rock Development Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment Item APN Grantor 1 377-373-008 White Rock Development 2 377-373-008 White Rock Development 3 377-373-008 White Rock Development 4 347-120-016 White Rock Development 5 347-120-016 White Rock Development 6 347-120-016 White Rock Development 7 347-120-016 White Rock Development 8 347-120-016 White Rock Development 9 347-120-017 White Rock Development. White Rock Development 10 347-120-017 11 347-120-020 White Rock Development 12 347-120-020 White Rock Development Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 12 13 347-120-020' White Rock Development 14 347-120-020 White Rock Development 15 347-120-021 White Rock Development 16 347-120-021 White Rock Development 17 347-120-021 White Rock Development 18 347-120-021 White Rock Development 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:36 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at the Chancellor's Conference Room, University of California at Riverside, 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, aty K9pe er Clerk of the Board • • • " AGENDA ITEM 5 " Public Hearing " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2002-2003 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Hold the public hearing to receive input and comments on the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and continue the public hearing to the June 12, 2002; and, 2) Discuss, review and provide guidance on the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff has gone through the budget process and attached is an executive summary outlining the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. The goals and objectives approved by the Commission on March 13, 2002, were the basis of this budget. The goals and objectives considered during the preparation of the budget are mobility, goods movement, congestion relief and safety improvements, air quality, economic development, intermodalism and accessibility, technological innovation, and public and agency communications. Staff is seeking review and input from the Commission, at which time a public hearing regarding the budget is scheduled. Based on input received from Commissioners and other interested parties, staff will update the document and present the final budget for the Commission's review and adoption in June immediately following the close of a public hearing period. Attached is the executive summary for the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2002- 2003. This document contains a summary of all departmental budgets and summarizes the information for the entire Commission. The department budgets present the goals and objectives, the resources needed to accomplish the goal and 1 the appropriation required to accomplish the tasks. At the June Commission meeting, staff will present the entire budget with detailed narratives. Staff has also included the fund budgets which examine the budgeted revenue and expenditures from a fund perspective. A summary of the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 is as follows: Revenues $142,800,400 Personnel salary and fringe benefits 2,528,200 Professional 2,865,600 Support 2,086,400 Projects and Operations 115,584,100 Capital Outlay 332,000 Debt Service 35,551,000 Total Expenditures $158,947,300 Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance $151,867,774 $135,720,874 Attachment: FY 02-03 Proposed Budget Executive Summary • • • 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction • • The budget for FY 2002-03 is presented to the Commissioners and the citizens of Riverside County. The Budget outlines the projects the Commission would like to complete during the year and appropriates expenditures to accomplish these tasks. The budget also shows the revenues and fund balances that will be used to complete these tasks. This budget document will serve as the Commission's monetary guideline. Staff has included descriptive information regarding each department and major projects. The discussion in each department/program area includes a review of major initiatives and key assumptions. Though the budget is a very comprehensive document, staff believes its value and usefulness to readers has been enhanced by these features. Staff has used the goals and objectives approved at the Commission meeting on March 13, 2002 to prepare the budget. In addition to the Commission's long term goals and strategic plan, the short term factors listed below were used to guide the development of the Budget: Operational • Continue planning the extension of Measure A and work on a transition plan between the two measures. • Continue the Commission mandate of a lean, non -layered staff structure. • Improve on the skills and training of all levels of staff. • Improve communication with Commissioners and educate policy makers on all issues of importance to the Commission. • Continue Commission involvement in the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) • Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving the County. • Support innovative programs which provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas. • Encourage greater department and staff involvement in budget development and accountability for budget performance. Financial • Maintain administrative costs below the policy threshold of 4%. The current Management Services budget is 3.11% of Measure A revenues. • Continue to maintain prudent reserves to provide some level of insulation for unplanned expenditures. • Maintain current positive rating with rating agencies. • Look for opportunities, funding sources, and innovative approaches to address transportation needs that extend beyond Measure A. • Move forward on Measure A projects for highways and regional arterials using both sales tax revenues and State and Federal funding. • Leverage and protect past Measure A investments in rail to obtain State and Federal funding for additional rail improvements. 3 " Budget Overview Revenues Other Revenue 1% Investment SAFE Fees Income 1% 3% Reimbursements 25% Other Sales Tax 5% Measure A Sales Tax 65% Total revenues are budgeted at $142,800,400, which is an increase of 19.3% over projected revenues and a 1.3% decrease from last year's budget. The projected fund balance at June 30, 2002 available for expenditures, (exclusive of debt service reserves of $57,138,700, loans receivables for $959,400, and prepaid lease for $981,700) is $92,788,000. Total funding sources available for FY 02/03 budget amount to $235,588,400. Commission Revenue Trend $160,000,000 $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $- FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FISCAL YEARS FY 02/03 Q' Investment Income Q' Other Revenue � Reimbursements co Sales Tax Revenues After performing a trend analysis and taking into account local economic factors, staff has projected a 6% increase in Measure A sales tax revenues. This projection is based on FY 01/02 receipts and trend analysis. The Commission is aware of the problems facing the State of California economy; however, Riverside County continues to grow due to population increase and a wider base in its economic engine. The other revenue categories are budgeted at lower amounts than prior year. Local Transportation Funds (LTF) are lower, however, the Commission receives reimbursements for projects completed as the " " 4 " " " Sales tax itself is received as Local Transportation Funds. Local Transportation funds are also projected to increase by 6% and these funds will be distributed to all the Transit operators in the county. Reimbursements are down as the Commission invoices Federal, State and Local agencies based on projects completed. Federal sources will fund rail capital and other capital projects. Investment Income will be lower due to several factors. The current economic environment provides lower interest earnings as the Federal Reserve has lowered raters. In addition, the primary source of the interest income was interest on proceeds of the Construction fund used to fund Route 74. As the project is built, the funds are being utilized, thus resulting in lower interest revenues. Staff continues to actively manage its resources and make appropriate investments to maximize the return to the Commission. Other Revenue consists of miscellaneous revenues that the Commission receives. This revenue category is also projected to be lower. Table 1 Operating Revenue FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Changes Changes Measure A Sales Tax $81,543,732 $88,973,617 $89,250,000 $91,035,000 $94,605,000 6.0% LTF Sales Tax 5,984,234 6,654,565 8,145,645 6,931,033 6,443,500 (1,702,145) -20.9% Reimbursements 10,021,221 9,066,181 37,660,219 14,837,806 36,911,000 (749,219) -2.0% Other Revenue 3,064,255 4,086,123 3,152,448 1,146,176 875,900 -72.2% Investment Income (2,276,548) 5 193 832 9.842 472 6.474 500 5 712394 1965.000 (?.509.504) -38 8% Total Operating Revenues $105 807.274 �118_622.958 $1A4 682 12 $119,662 40 4 $14 800 400 ($1,88? 412) -1.3% Expenditures Total expenditures are budgeted at $158,947,300, a decrease of 4.3% from the prior year budget amount of $165,880,265. The Debt Service amount for this year is $35,551,000. Administrative costs are budgeted at $4,205,300 and program expenditures total $119,191,000. Program costs have decreased 5.7% from $126,509,715 to $119,191,000. This decrease is minimal as the Commission continues to maintain the funding levels and programs it currently oversees. Reductions in proposed budgets for several programs are not a 5 reflection of the service level. The Regional Arterial program shows a reduction as all reserves were utilized in FY 01/02 and expenditures budgeted in FY 02/03 are for revenues received in the budgeted fiscal year. Similarly in the Transit program, transit operators used reserves from prior years in FY 01/02 and do not intend to use the same amount in FY 02/03. Table 2 Program Expenditures - FY 2000 - 2003 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 Actual Actual Capital Highway & Rail $9,857,310 $12,027,403 Rail Operations 4,401,427 5,137,472 Regional Arterial 6,467,674 10,532,091 Streets and Roads 31,275,142 34,338,176 Commuter Assistance 1,116,402 1,698,814 Special Transportation 2,869,592 3,197,679 Motorist Assistance 1,757,219 2,065,094 Plans & Programs 3,347,476 2,645,156 Transit 1,602,703 3,685,976 Regional Issues 206,893 132,098 Property Management 168,535 159,278 Management Services 2,695,597 2,689,303 3,825,350 Debt 30,527,304 35,442,358 35,545,200 Total $96,293,274 $113,750,898 $166,030,765 Note: Management Services include Executive Management, Administration and Finance. FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar % Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $56,308,453 $20,113,724 $59,623,300 $3,314,847 5.9% 4,966,687 4,096,496 4,737,500 (229,187) -4.6% 9,740,000 9,740,000 5,432,000 (4,308,000) -44.2% 34,108,000 33,340,000 34,446,000 338,000 1.0% 2,451,600 1,964,405 2,395,000 (56,600) -2.3% 4,351,100 3,722,436 3,715,500 (635,600) -14.6% 2,875,334 2,604,020 2,024,900 (850,434) -29.6% 6,147,872 6,043,345 3,490,000 (2,657,872) -43.2% 5,298,519 5,222,170 3,023,500 (2,275,019) -42.9% 177,400 101,055 104,600 (72,800) -41.0% 235,250 140,101 198,700 (36,550) -15.5% 2,988,290 4,205,300 379,950 9.9% 35,964,471 35,551,000 5,800 0.0% $126,040,513 $158,947,300 ($7,083,465) -4.3% Commission Personnel The Commission's salary and fringe benefits total $2,528,200. This represents a decrease of 0.1% or $3,300 under FY 2001-2002 budget estimate of $2,531,500. The Commission has set aside a pool of 4% for salary increases. Staff has also set aside $100,000 for contingencies. The Commission is able to maintain the same levels of salary and benefits funding as one employee is retiring and management has decided not to recruit for this position at this time. Table 3 - Staff Summary by Department - FY 2000 - 2003 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FTE FTE FTE FTE Executive Management Administration Finance Capital Development & Delivery Plans & Programs Transit Property Management Regional Issues Special Transportation Rail Program Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.6 5.5 6.0 6.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 3.0 3.9 3.6 3.8 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 2.0 2.5 2.3 2.4 1.0 1.8 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.0 _1-Q Total 22.0 25.0 25 Q 25-Q • • 6 Department Initiatives • • Executive Management • Expend considerable effort educating the public on the accomplishments of the Commission. • Communicate in a public forum the Commission's achievements and future plans in preparation for a thirty year expansion/extension of Measure A. • Conduct regular one-on-one meetings with the Commissioners and senior staff. • Place a high priority on project development and delivery. • Maintain and improve on the administrative efficiency and fiscally sound practices. • Commit considerable resources to the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). • Foster the Commission's full involvement in a broad range of local, regional, state and federal government settings. Table 4 - Executive Management Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $210,483 $235,365 $302,000 $258,271 $317,000 Professional 299,058 323,130 305,000 312,000 292,500 $12,500) -4.11% Support 54,135 74,746 58,600 57,820 51,900 (6,700) -11.4% Total $563,676 $633,240 $665,600 $628,091 $661,400 (31,29_0) Administration • Coordinate with the County of Riverside, vendors and staff on the relocation to the County of Riverside Regional Center in October 2002. • Implementation of an Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) in May 2002 will improve Commission recordkeeping capabilities. • Monitor staff training policies and procedures that link training assessment with employee evaluations. • Conduct an extensive educational program, in the form of one-to-one settings and informational materials for the Commissioners. • Expand the Commission's Measure A public information efforts to inform citizens in Riverside County about the progress made in implementing the voter approved 1/2 cent sales tax in 1988. Table 5 -- Administration Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $285,632 $352,791 $462,500 $382,493 $453,000 Professional 121,230 121,684 449,000 166,399 676,000 227,000)0 50.6% Support 721,091 688,333 904,300 561,657 935,400 31,100 3A% Capital Outlay 50,319 63,503 237,000 237,000 332,000 95,000 40.1% Total $1,178,272 $1,226,311 $2 052, QQ $1,347,549 $2396 400 $343,6Q0 16.7% 7 " Finance " Maintain Audit fees consistent with prior years. " Continue providing accounting services to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). " Actively manage the Commission investments to protect assets and receive a good return. Table 6 - Finance Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $176,588 $369,338 $403,000 $395,000 $444,000 $41,000 10.2% Professional 733,612 424,595 632,000 570,000 643,500 11,500 1.8% Support 43.449 35 819 71.950 47,650 60,000 (11.950) -16.6%, Total $953,650 X9.751 11 .1Qfl.950 $ ,012,654 $1,147,500 $40,550 3.7% Planning and Programming " Lead the CETAP effort within the county contracting for all elements of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP). " Keep local agencies apprised of the status of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) funding. " Work with the Commission and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to develop the criteria for a call for projects in anticipation of the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21S` Century (TEA -21). " Prepare for the 2004 STIP discretionary funding call for projects by developing criteria to meet CTC requirements and transportation objectives in Riverside County. " Continue the cooperative effort on the North/South Corridor Study_ Table 7 - Plans & Programs Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY01/02 FY 01 /02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $381,465 $312,574 $342,000 $307,733 $364,000 $22,000 6.4% Professional 100,353 90,903 124,000 70,000 107,000 (17,000) -13.7% Support 11,473 7,359 21,000 12,240 23,000 2,000 9.5% Projects/Operations 2.854.186 2.234.321 5.660.872 5,653.372 2.996.000 (2.664.872) -47.1% Total $3,347,476 $2,645,156 $6,147,872 $6,043,345 $3,490,000 ($2,657,872) -43.2% Transit " Encourage transit operators to purchase clean fuel buses. " Ensure that all operators remain consistent with the Commission's adopted productivity improvement programs. " Monitor transit operator's Quarterly Capital Grants Reports. " " 8 " " " Table 8 - Transit Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $69,417 $83,419 $87,000 $107,635 $98,000 $11,000 12.6% Professional 2,705 67,101 6,000 5,000 6,000 0.0% Support 2,920 5,671 11,500 9,535 12,500 1,000 8.7% Projects/Operations 1.527.661 3.529.784 5 194 019 5100,000 2.907,000 Total (2.287.019) -44.0% $1,602,703 ,$85 976 $5,298.51,9 ,222,170 2 .($2,27,,012) -42.9% Rail Program " Complete the alternatives analysis of the San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 corridor. " North Main Corona Station opens in Fall 2003. " Continue to play a proactive role in the development of a statewide, high-speed passenger rail system. " Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving the county. " Continue efforts to reduce community impacts of rail infrastructure and operation. Table 9 - Rail Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $254,466 $226,648 $213,000 $203,435 $227,000 $14,000 6.6% Professional 174,049 121,375 161,500 142,000 135,000 (26,500) -16.4% Support 11,999 15,565 29,700 40,740 75,000 45,300 152.5% Projects/Operations 3,960,913 4,773,884 4,562,487 3,710,321 4,300,500 (261,987) -5.7% Operating Transfer - - - 414.000 414.000 Total $4,401,427 $5,137,472 $4,966,687 $4,096,496 15,j 51 X00 $184,813 3.7% Regional Issues " Plan a leadership role in the discussion of LAX expansion and consideration regional airport needs. " Manage the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Clean Fuels Opportunity fund. Table 10 -- Regional Issues Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $112,321 $81,331 $114,000 $63,580 $64,000 ($50,000) -43.9% Professional 60,433 44,628 52,000 30,750 32,000 (20,000) -38.5% Support 26,639 6,138 11,400 6,725 8,600 (2,800) -24.6% Projects/Operation: 7.500 - Total $206,893 $132,098 $177,400 101 $104,600 ($72,800) -41.0% Capital Projects Development and Delivery " Complete construction of Route 60 HOV lanes from the 60/1-215 to Redlands Blvd. " Construction of Route 74 realignment street widening from 1-15 in City of Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris. " Advance operational improvements along Route 111 in the Coachella Valley. " Continue construction of auxiliary lanes from Magnolia to Mary Street. 9 " Complete construction of the new North Main Corona station. " Construct parking lot expansions at La Sierra and Riverside Downtown Stations. " Install a security system at the Pedley rail station and construction of station emergency platform. " Design HOV lanes on Route 91 between Mary Street and the State Route 60/91/1- 215 Interchange. " Complete Route 79 realignment project report and environment document. Table 11 - Capital Projects Development & Delivery Program FY 99100 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $187,803 $179,980 $186,000 $136,990 $191,200 $5,200 2.8% Professional 246,366 290,880 638,000 694,695 595,600 (42,400) -6.6% Support 27,933 10,574 26,900 18,201 34,500 7,600 28.3% Projects/Operations 47,138,024 56,416,235 99,305,553 62,343,838 98,680,000 (625,553) -0.6% Operating Transfer 30.527.415 33.891.187 35.964.000 38.223.930 35.550.000 (414.000) -1.2% Total $78,127540 $90.7.88.857_ $136,120,453 $101417.654 $135.061.300 ($1,069,153) -0_8% Special Transportation " Support innovative programs which provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs. " A call for projects covering FY02/03 and FY03/04 will provide $2.5 million to local agencies throughout western Riverside County to support ongoing specialized transit programs. " Provide matching funds to receive Section 5310 federal grants to assure availability of funds. Table 12 - Special Transportation Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $39,718 $37,975 $62,000 $22,655 $42,000 ($20,000) -32.3% Professional 231 1,220 6,000 1,353 9,000 3,000 50.0% Support 3,611 5,101 14,100 1,220 17,500 3,400 24.1% ProjectslOperations 2826.031 3,1 3,384 4,269.000 3,697,208 3,647.000 (622.000) -14.6% Total U1105_92 $3.197.679 $4.351,100 722 436 $3,715,500 ($635.690) -14.6% Commuter Assistance " Continue operating its core rideshare programs; namely Club Ride, the Commuter Exchange, and bus -pool subsidies. " Inland Empire Commuter Services will continue to be managed by the Commission to support voluntary employer programs aimed at encouraging employees to rideshare. " Provide ridesharing and teleservices for Inland Empire residents. " " 110 10 " " Table 13 - Commuter Assistance Program FY 99/00 FY 99/00 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $127,423 $177,756 $143,000 $226,841 $150,000 $7,000 4.9% Professional 20,753 16,322 374,500 419,933 251,000 (123,500) -33.0% Support 5,187 226,565 588,385 337,532 439,000 (149,385) -25.4% Projects/Operations 963,038 1,278,171 1,295,715 980,099 1,555,000 259,285 20.0% Capital Outlay - - 50.000 - - (50.000) -100.0% Total $1,116,402 $1,698,814 $2,451,600 $1,964,405 $2,395,000 ($56,600) -2.3% Motorist Assistance " Professional Communications Network was awarded the new contract for call box answering and dispatching services and began accepting all the call box calls for Riverside and San Bernardino counties February 2002 resulting in a faster and more responsive service for motorists at a lower cost to the Commission. " In partnership with Caltrans and CHP, evaluate and determine if Freeway Service Patrol services are in need of changes during congestion and construction on various freeway segments in the county. Table 14 Motorist Assistance Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $100,186 $94,808 $126,000 $93,700 $123,000 Professional ($3,000) -2.4% 44,786 50,918 80,000 49,900 60,000 (20,000) -25.0% Support 8,206 23,351 34,900 28,070 34,300 (600) -1.7% Projects/Operations 1 604 041 1.896 017 2 534.434 2.432.350 1,807.600 (826.834) -31.4% Total $1,757,219 $2.)65,094 $2,875,334 $2,604,020 $2 024 900 01850.134) -29.6% Property Management " Maintain the order, safety and security of the Commission owned properties. " Determine the highest and best use of Commission owned property. " Generate a revenue stream to support the costs of maintaining Commission owned real property. " Support the concept of transit oriented development at Metrolink Stations. " Obtain transfer of land from Caltrans and the Base Reuse Commission for the San Jacinto Branch Line. Table 15 - Property Management Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $71,046 $43,401 $91,000 $48,330 $55,000 ($36,000) -39.6% Professional 30,349 37,705 63,000 40,047 58,000 (5,000) -7.9% Support 6,373 4,842 9,050 963 10,300 1,250 13.8% Projects/Operatioi 60.767 73.330 72.200 50.761 75.400 3 200 4.4% Total $168,535 $159,278 $235,250 $140,101 $198,700 ($36,550) -15.5% 11 TABLE 16 - FUND BALANCES — BY PROGRAM AND GEOGRAPHIC AREA June 30, 2003 Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Non Measure A Other Total Reserved: Commuter Assistance $8,156,330 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,156,330 Debt Service 17,731,666 0 0 0 40,461,069 58,192,735 Highway 24,783,775 705,989 0 0 0 25,489,764 Loans Receivable 13,791,739 0 0 0 0 13,791,739 Prepaid Rent 937,067 0 0 0 0 937,067 Property Management 0 0 0 0 1,655,310 1,655,310 Rail 8,013,745 0 0 0 0 8,013,745 Regional Arterial 0 1,452,913 0 0 0 1,452,913 Special Transportation 4,454,919 712,255 0 0 0 5,167,174 Streets & Roads 583,421 446,854 87,701 0 0 1,117,976 1DA 0 0 0 0 12,658 12,658 Transit 0 0 0 1,675,969 2,865,581 4,541,550 Designated: Contingency 740,833 2,440,903 0 308 3,556 3,185,600 Motorist Assistance 0 0 0 2,274,042 0 2,274,042 Unreserved: 0 0 0 176.887 1,555,381 1.732,269 $79,193,495 $5,758,914 $87,701 $4,127,206 $46,553,556 $135,720,875 • • 12 " " " Table 17 - Budget Comparative By Summarized Line Item June 30, 2003 SOURCES OF REVENUE: FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Operating Revenues Measure A Sales Tax $81,543,732 $88,973,617 $89,250,000 $91,035,000 $94,605,000 TDA Sales Tax - Planning/Admin. 1.555,263 1,631,482 1,719,245 1,884,733 1,998,400 279,155 16,2% TDA Sales Tax - Transit Alloc._ 4,428,971 5,023,083 6,426,400 5,046,300 4,445,100 (1,981,300) -30.8% STA Transit Allocation 2,423,397 2,482,598 4,644,019 3,144,136 4,249,000 -8.5% SAFE Fees 1,183,364 1,297,474 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,150,000 (150,000) 5.0% Reimbursement 6,414,461 5,286,109 32,016,200 10,593,670 31.512,000 Other Revenue 3,064,255 4,086,123 3,152,448 1,146,176 875,900 (504,200) 12/ Investment Income 5.193 832 9.842.472 6 474 500 5.712 394 3.965.000 (2,276.548){2 509 0Q -72.2% Total Operating Revenues 105,807,274 118,622,958 144,682,812 119,662.409 142,800,400 (1.882,412) 38.3% Debt Proceeds 0 35.911149 149 Total Sources of Funds 0 0 4 0 0.0% 105,807,274 154,557,107 144,682,812 119,662,409 142,800.400 (1,882,412) -1.3% Total Debt Service 30,527,304 35,442,358 35,545,200 35,964,471 Capital Outlay 35,551,000 5,800 0.0% 5.0-319 63.502 287.0.44 237.000 332.000 45.000 15.7% Expenditures before Distributions and Operating Transfers 96,293,274 113,750,898 165,880,265 126,040,513 158,947,300 (8,932,965) -4.2% Operating Transfers (Net) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Expenditures 96,293.274 113,750,898 165.880,265 126,040,513 15E,947,300 (6,932,965) -4.2% Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures 9,514,000 40,806,209 Contingency (21,197,453) (6,378,104) (16.146,900) 5,050,553 23.8% 9 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures after Contingency 9,514,000 40,806,209 21,197,453 ( ) (6,378,104) (16,146.900) 5,050,553 -23.8% Fund Balance, July 1 103,048,439 112,562,792 158,245,879 158,245,879 151,867,775 (6.378,104) -4.0% Change in accounting principal 0 4 876 877 Ending Fund Balance $112,562,792 $158,245,879 $137,048,426 $151,867,775 $135,720,875 ($1,327,551) -1.0% EXPENDITURES: Personnel Salary & Benefits 2,046,310 2,195,385 2,531,500 2,246,663 2,528.200 (3,300) -0.1 Prof. & Support Expenditures Professional: General Legal 416.974 434,516 710.000 704,303 613,000 (97.000) -13.7% Financial Services 219,604 49,253 100,000 Audit Services 30,000 75,000 (25,000) -25.0% Professional Services - Other 473,915 369,936 412,000 486,000 482,100 70,100 17.0% 723.434 736.756 1.669 000 1.281.774 1.695.502 Total Professional Costs 1,833,927 1,590,461 2,891,000 2,502,077 2,865,600 (225, 00 9 1.6% Support Costs ) -0.9% Total Prof. and Support Costs 923 016 1.104.064 1 781 785 1.122 353 1 702 000 (79 785) -4.5% 2,756,943 2,694,525 4,672.785 Projects and Operations: 3.624,430 4,567,600 (105,185) -2.3% Projects -General Station Operations 1,798,645 2,256,334 3,489,500 3,402,771 2,190,600 (1,298,900) -37.2% 551,451 631,635 672,200 650,761 SAFE Operations 844,000 171,800 25.6% 685,519 Towing Services (685,519) --2.1 % 866,059 947,199 697,408 943,493 1,367,519 1,452,200 682,000 Commuter Assistance 1,144,315 970,700 1,113,000 (31,315) -2.7% 963,038 1,278,171 1,295,715 980,099 1,555,000 259,285 20.0% Highway Engineering Rail Engineering 2,511,044 2,212,722 6,885,618 4,173,621 3,987,000 (2,898,618) -42.1% 295,036 626,184 Highway Construction 2.084,657 1.848,000 2,542,000 457,343 21.9% Rail Construction 1,437,415 4,660,916 18,920,426 2,807,317 16.334.000 (2,586,426) -13.7% 2,452,755 791,386 11,010,000 Highway Rigft of Way 1,305,000 14,675,000 3,665,000 33.3% Rail Right of Way 482,373 1,372,276 13,156,452 5.760,000 12,760,000 (396,452) -3.0% Special Studies 650.083 30,353 1,421,500 1,421,500 6,200,000 4,778,500 336.2% 2,442,541 1,765,150 3,950,500 SCRRA Contribution 3,962,500 2,743,000 (1,207,500) -30.6% Regional Transportation 3.149,719 3,653,511 3,531,487 2,703,400 3,182,900 (348,587) -9.9% 34.101,173 37,491,560 38,377,000 LTF Disbursements 37,037,208 38,093,000 (284,000) -0.7% STA Disbursements 518,322 632,361 602.872 652,872 728.000 125.128 20.8% 1,527,661 3,529,784 5,194,019 Regional Arterial 5,100,000 2,907,000 (2,287,019) -44.0% Total Project and Oper. Costs 6 467 674 10.532 091 9.740 000 9.740.0011 5.432.002 (4.308 000) -44.2 Debt Service 60,912,399 73,355,126 122,843,780 83,967,949 115,968,500 (6,875,280) 5.6% Principal Payments Interest Payments 18,529,107 22,478.844 24.069,000 24.455,053 24,888,000 819,000 3.4% Cost of Issuance 11,998,197 12,530,366 11,476,200 11,509,418 10,663,000 (813,200) -7.1% 0 433,148 0 0 0 13 Table 18 — Budget Expenditure Summarized By Fund Type June 30, 2003 Personnel Salary and Benefits General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Debt Service Total $1.941.960 $586.240 $4 $2.528.200 Professional and Support Expenditures General Legal Services 103,300 509,700 0 0 613,000 Special Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0 Financial Services 70,500 4,500 0 0 75,000 Audit Services 397,150 84,950 0 0 482,100 Professional Services - Other 1.282.330 413.170 0 0 1.695.500 Total Professional Services 1,853,280 1,012,320 0 0 2,865,600 Support Costs 1.498.262 588,138 0 0 2.086.400 Total Professional and Support Services 3,351,542 1,600,458 0 0 4,952,000 Project and Operations Expenditures 0 1,780,000 Program Management 0 1,780,000 0 0 898,600 Projects - General 768,600 130,000 0 0 653,600 SAFE Operations 0 653,600 0 Towing 0 1,113,000 0 0 1,113,000 Commuter Assistance 0 1,555,000 0 0 1,555,000 Highway and Rail Engineering 0 6,529,000 0 0 6,529,000 Highway and Rail Construction 0 31,009,000 0 0 31,009,000 Highway and Rail ROW 0 18,960,000 0 0 18,60,000 ,000 SCRRA Contributions 3,182,900 0 0 Special Studies 2,333,000 410,000 0 0 2,743,000 Special Transportation 0 3,647,000 0 0 3,647,000 STA Disbursements 0 2,907,000 0 0 2,907,000 Regional Arterial 0 5.4337.000 0 0 5.852.000 Total Project and Operational Expenditures 6,284,500 74,125,600 0 0 80,410,100 Other Expenditures 0 34,446,000 Streets and Roads 0 34,446,000 0 LTF Disbursements 728,000 0 0 0 728,000 Capital Outlay 317.080 19.920 0 0 337.000 Total Other Expenditures 1,040,080 34,465.920 0 0 35,506,000 Other Financing (Sources) Uses 0 55,454,600 Operating Transfers out 414,000 36,040,600 19,000,000 Debt Service 0 0 0 35,551,000 35,551,000 Total Expenditures 13 032.082 146.818.818 19.000.000 35.551.000 214.401.900 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (175,682) 824,782 (17,850,000) 1,054,000 (16,146,900) Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 6.275.368 56.300.910 $6,099,686 $57,125,692 49.884.428 $32,034,428 39.407.069 151.867.774 $40,461,069 $135,720,875 • • 14 " " " Table 19  State Highway & Rail Programs June 30, 2003 Project Description 81000 F'roject General 81100 Highway Engineering 81100 Rail Engineering 81300 Highway Construction 81300 Rail Construction 81400 Highway Right of Way 81400 Rail Right of Way Program management and contract administration (Bechtel Corp.) Park N Ride Leases Program support costs TOTAL PROJECT GENERAL $1,780,000 54,000 45,000 1,879,000 Route 60 HOV 60/1-215 to Redlands Blvd 1,060,000 Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street highway widening 900,000 Route 79 Right tum lanes 200.000 Route 79 Realignment PSR & Project report 900,000 Route 91 HOV Mary St. to 7th Street 850,000 Route 91 Material testing services 12,000 Route 91 Surveying support services 15,000 Route 111 San Luis Rey design 15,000 Route 111 El Paseo/Cabrillo design 15,000 Route 111 Town Central/El Paseo design 20,000 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY 3,987,000 San Jacinto Branch line Preliminary engineering 500,000 San Jacinto Branch line Alternative Analysis studies 400,000 North Main Corona Station Parking Structure 267,000 1,267,000 SUBTOTAL RAIL 2,542,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL ENGINEERING 6,529,000 Route 60 HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd 3,000,000 Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street widening Project 11,000,000 Route 91 PH 11 Landscaping and Plant establishment 150,000 Route 111 Monroe to Rubidoux 678,000 Route 111 El Paseo/Cabrillo 397,000 Route 111 Town Center/El Paseo 511,000 Route 111 San Luis Rey 508.000 Route 91 Material testing services 50,000 Route 91 Surveying support services 30,000 Landscape Management - several projects 10,000 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAYS 16,334.000 Pedley station security system installation 290,000 Pedley station emergency platform 300,000 North Main Corona Station 11,600,000 La Sierra Station Overcrossing & CCTV 130,000 West Corona Station Overcrossing & CCTV 130,000 La Sierra Station Expansion 1,950,000 Riverside -Downtown Station Expansion 275,000 SUBTOTAL RAIL 14,675,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL CONSTRUCTION 31,009,000 Route 60 HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. Route 60 HOV Right of Way Support Service Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street advance right of way acquisitions Route 74 right of way support services Route 91 Right of way appraisels and engineering Route 111 Acquisitions and support Services SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY 1,500,000 200,000 9,000,000 500,000 1,500,000 60,000 12,760,000 La Sierra Station expansion right of way acquisition 6,200,000 SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY 6,200,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL RIGHT OF WAY 18,960,000 GRAND TOTAL HIGHWAY AND RAIL PROGRAMS $ 58,377,000 15 Table 20 Governmental Funds FY 2001 •2003 Summary of Estimated Financial Sources and Uses General Fund Special Revenue Fund Capital Projects Fund Debt Service Fund Totals FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Actual Protected Proposed Actual Projected Proposed Actual Projected Proposed Actual Projected Propos ed Actual Projected Proposed Financial Sources: Measure A Sales Tax $1,998,207 $2,500,000 $3,250,000 $86,975,410 $88,535,000 $91,355,000 $0 $0 $0 90 $0 50 $88,973,617 591,035,000 594,805,000 TDA Sales Tax 6,654,565 6,931,033 6,443,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,654,565 6,031,033 6,443,500 State Funding 1,146,850 1,063,397 1,297,300 4,121,013 5,379,989 16,455,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,287,863 6,443,386 17,762,300 Federal Funding 0 1,439,500 500,000 298,888 2,700,000 14,719,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 298,886 4,139,500 15,219,000 Other Reimbursements 1,662,883 634,168 277,700 2,795,883 2 ,520,752 2,512,000 568,138 0 0 0 0 0 5,026,904 3,154,920 2,789,700 All Other Revenue 327,800 948,652 716,900 123,495 21,812 3,000 643,294 0 0 0 0 0 1,094,589 970,484 719,900 User Fees 260,537 175,712 156,000 1,240,728 1,100,000 1,150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,501,265 1,275,712 1,306,000 Debt Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,934,149 0 0 0 0 0 35,934,149 0 0 Operating Transfer In 2,940 0 0 7,730,773 5,258,927 19,904,600 0 0 0 36,280,972 63,027,295 36,550,000 44,014,885 88,284,222 55,454,600 Interest Earnings 289,604 303,665 215,000 3,741,749 1,224,032 1,545,000 4,508,432 2,567,738 1,150,000 1,285,504 1,816,969 1,055,000 9,805,290 5,712,394 3,985,000 Total Estimated Flnanclal Sources 512,343,388 513,996,127 512,858,400 5107,027,917 $106,738,512 $147,643,600 541,654,013 $2,587,738 91,150,000 537,546,476 564,644,254 $36,805,000 $198,571,792 6187,948,831 5198,255,000 Expenditures: Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits 51,649,386 $1,704,330 $1,941,960 $548,017 $542,332 5586,240 90 $0 50 50 60 $0 52,195,383 52,248,862 $2,528,200 Professional Services 1,162,474 1,273,294 1,853,280 388,183 1,228,785 1,012,320 0 0 0 29,804 0 0 1,590,481 2,602,079 2,885,800 Support Costs 1,185,955 1,019,983 1,498,262 915,493 1,547,601 588,138 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,081,448 2,567,584 2,088,400 General Projects 780,662 725,000 768,600 1,716,097 1,917,500 1,910,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,498,760 2,842,500 2,878,800 SAFE Operations ' 0 0 0 346,435 318,000 653,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 348,435 318,000 853,600 Towing 0 0 0 947,199 970,700 1,113,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 947,199 970,700 1,113,000 Commuter Assistance 0 0 0 1,278,171 980,099 1,555,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,278,171 980,099 1,565,000 Engineering 0 0 0 2,838,908 6,021,621 6,529,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,838,906 6,021,621 8,529,000 Construction 10,000 1,100,000 0 5,452,303 4,112,317 31,009,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,462,303 5,212,317 31,009,000 Right of Way 0 0 0 1,402,629 7,181,500 18,960,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,402,629 7,181,500 18,960,000 SCRRA Contribution 3,653,511 2,703,400 3,182,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,653,511 2,703,400 3,182,900 SpeclalStudies 1,753,680 3,910,600 2,333,000 11,471 52,000 410,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,755,150 3,962,500 2,743,000 Specia l Transportation 0 0 0 3,153,384 3,697,208 3,647,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,153 ,384 3,697,208 3,647,000 State Transit Assistance 0 0 0 3,529,784 5,100,000 2,907,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,529,784 5,100,000 2,907,003 Local Streets & Roads 0 1 0 0 34,338,176 33,340,000 34,448,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,338,176 33,340,000 34,446,000 Regional Arterlal 0 • 0 0 10,532,091 9,740,000 5,432,000 0 0 3 0 0 0 10,532,091 9,740,000 5,432,000 LTF Disbursements 632,351 652,872 728,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 632,361 652,872 728.000 Capital Outlay 59,693 222,780 312,080 3,810 14,220 19,920 0 0 0 0 0 0 83,503 237,000 332,000 Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,009,210 35,964,471 35,551,000 35,009,210 35,964,471 35,551,000 Cost of Issuance 0 0 0 o 0 0 433,148 433,148 0 0 Opera ting Tran sfer Out 4,128 0 414,000 35,575,877 38,434,330 38,040,600 8,435,585 29,849,892 19,000,000 0 0 0 44,015,571 68,284,222 55,454,800 Total Budget 510,871,830 $13,312,160 $13,032,082 5102,986,025 3115,198,212 $148,818,818 06,868,714 $29,849,892 519,000,000 535,039,014 $35,964,471 535,551,000 5157,785,582 $194,324,735 5214,401,900 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues ove r 51,471,556 5683,987 ($175,682) $ 4,041,892 (06,459,700) $824,782 532,785,299 (527,282,154) (517,850,000) 52,507,462 $28,879,783 $1,054,000 540,806,210 ($8,378,104) (516,145,900) Expenditures Fund Balance, July 1 Change In accounting principal Ending Fund Balance 0) • 54,119,844 55,591,400 $6,275,368 $55,841,841 564,760,610 956,300,910 544,351,283 577,188,582 $49,884,428 $8,219,824 510,727,258 539,407,069 5112,562,792 $158,245,879 5151,857,774 $4,876,877 94,876,877 55,591,400 58,275,388 56,099,686 $ 64,760,810 $56,300,910 557,125,892 577,168,582 549,884,428 $32,034,428 510,727,288 539,407,089 $40,461,069 9155,245,879 5151,857,775 $135,720,875 • • " AGENDA ITEM 7A " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending March 31, 2002. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status on contracts reported by projects, 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 March 31, 2002. Attachment: Monthly Report  March 2002 17 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. (2042) (3000) SUBTOTAL,ROUTE 60 ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966, (R02142) (R02141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUBTOTAL;ROUTE 74 ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ. /ROW (3003) Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R0 9961) SUBTOTAL; ROUTE ROUTE 86 PROJECTS Avenue 58 to Avenue 66 (Segment 2) Avenue 66 to Avenue 82 (Segment 3) " (Caltrans Funded Projects SUBTOTALI ROUTE; 86 ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall design, ROW and construction (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535) Sndwall Landscaping (R09933,9946,k59.3601) SUBTOTAL ROUTE!91 ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538) 9540, 9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629 (3401) SUBTOTA L.ROUTE 111! ' 1 Go • CO MMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 03/31/02 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE $3,111,749 $3,111,749 $15,011,132 011 $870,049 170,049: $20,253,000 $33,860,000 4,115,000',; $11,902,100 $2,954,000 $12. 603450„: 16,459,550 $16,946,856 16.946,856; $3,021,891 $3,021,891' $15,011,132 15011,132;; $770,049 '0,049 .;1 $19,500,000 $33,760,000 53,260,00 $10,374,324 $2,954,000 „.$1,60,3,450 $14,9$1,774': $15,530,856 1;5,530,856.:x, Page 1 of 3 97.1% 100.0% 100.0% 88 .5% ,9% 96.3 % 99.7 % 87.2% 100.0% 100.0% $346,185 346,185 $513,077 513;077; $37,415 7:415:'. Project Complete Project Complete $58,232 $0 $22,044 0,276 $0 $1,659,480 51,659,480 $7,354,651 $7,354,651 $538,034 $538,034 $18,060,000 $31,013,510 9,073;510 $9,429,916 $2,109,519 $810,628 $12,350,063?; $14,052,042 $14,052,042:: 54.9 % 4;9%' 49.0% 69 .9% 92.6% 91.9% 92.1% 90.9% 71.4% 50.6 % 2.7%. 90.5% 199;,5%4: • • PR OJECT DESCRIPTION 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) SUBTOTAL1215' RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAPROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 03/31/02 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE $6,726,504 INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946) SUBTOTAL` INTERCHANG PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV. (RO 2100) SUBTOTAL BECHTEL PROGRA M PLAN & SERVICES North/South Corridor study (R09936) SUBTOTAL_P I PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) SUBTOTAL'PARK-N-RIDE COM MUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering (RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956,2028) 802031,2027,2120,2029„2128, 3800 - 3808,3809) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (000'0,2026,2056,4000-4007, 4198, 4199) SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL Tl if tii .;;726,51 $440,000 440,1100 $2,300,000 $2,300,000:: $25,000 $2,100,814 $2,1'00,814 $5,218,070 $13,190,402 $18,408,472 36,533,126 $400,000 400,0001': $2,223,816 $2,223,816':, $25,000 $25,000:'I $2,100,814 2100,814„ $4,825,518 $13,190,402 $18;015,920;: $131,169,425' Page 2of3 87 .4 % 90.9% 0,9% 96 .7 % 96.7% 100 .0% 100 0% 100.0% 10D 9% 92. 5% 100.0% 97.9'/0 96.1 % $j $0 $85,413 $85,413 $0 $188,814 88814; $782,742 $88,961 871,703 $2,122,683:' $5,704,897 $5,704,897;; $312,519 31;2,519 $1,027,098 $0 $1,344,952 1'144 5211 $4,264,782 $4,122,320 $8,3$7,;102;: 1,804,34$'; 97.1% 914.% 78.1% 81 %! 46.2% 46'2%i 0.0% 64.0 % 88.4% 31.3% 77 G% • co RCTC MEASURE "A " HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR T OTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION COMMITMENT 03/31/02 ADVANCES BALANCE COMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT. CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $903,004 $0 56.4% SUBTOTAL CANYON'LAKE LOAN 1,600,000 $1,600,000: ; $903,004'. 56.4°/d CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) Storm drainage structure $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $3,135,939 $0 60.2% SUBTOTAL CITY OE. CORONA $5,212,623 $5;212,623,; 60.2%: CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road improvements CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts CITY OF LAKE ELSINO RE Local streets & road improvements CITY OF HEMET Local streets & roads Improvements ,TALS $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $1,500,000 $730,000 $18,606,6361 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $1,500,000 $730,000 $18,806,636 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66 .3% 69.3% 0.0% NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Status as o/: 03/31/02 Pa ge 3 of 3 • • • " AGENDA ITEM 7B " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the quarterly financial statements for the period ending March 31, 2002. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the first nine months of the fiscal year, staff has monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements show the revenues and expenditures incurred in the first nine months of the fiscal year. On a linear basis, we have completed 75% of the fiscal year. At the end of the quarter, Administration expenditures are 17% under budget. The primary reason for the Commission incurring less expenditures are cuts in consulting services and timing of invoices currently being processed. Staff has some legal invoices and invoices for consulting services that were processed in April. Debt Service is paid in December and June and staff expects that the entire budget will be spent at the end of the fiscal year. Intergovernmental Expenditures are incurred early in the year and, as such, staff expects the expenditures to remain within the budget. Expenditures in the Program/Projects are below budget, however, these expenditures are related to progress on projects and staff expects that these funds will be spent as projects are completed. The Revenues have exceeded expectations and at the end of the March 2002, Measure "A" revenues were 6% higher than the same time last year. Staff expects to complete the fiscal year with Measure "A" revenues increasing 4-6% from prior fiscal year. Interest Income is lower than expected due to the decrease in interest rates and the utilization of the Construction bond funds. Federal, State, Local and Other Government revenues are considerably less than projected and that is due to the nature of these revenues. These revenues are received on a reimbursement basis and staff expects to receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced. 21 Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and notify the Commission of any unusual events. Listed below is the budget variance explanation for the Highway and Rail programs. Highway Engineering/Right of way State Route 91 - HOV project pre -award audit of the design consultant from Mary St. to 7th Street was completed, a notice to proceed was issued, and preliminary engineering and environmental has commenced. State Route 74 - Widening project from 1-15 to 7th Street is still waiting on the biological opinion amendment, agency agreements and Caltrans approval of PS & E. Right of way acquisition is proceeding. State Route 111 - The design activities for the Palm Desert projects were delayed due to drainage redesign requirements requested by Caltrans. Highway Construction State Route 74 - Due to the on -going design and environmental issues, the start of construction work on Segment I is forecasted to start summer of 2002. State Route 79 - Decision on proceeding with constructing of right turn lanes on Gilman Springs Road was made at the end of the second quarter. State Route 111 - The Gene Autry Trail project in the City of Palm Springs and the Monroe to Rubidoux project in the City of Indio are complete and receipt of final invoices for incurred expenditures are still pending. Rail Engineering/Right of Way Corona Main Station - Design is being finalized in order for BNSF to proceed with procurement of track materials. Finalization of the required acquisition of right of way for the Corona Main station was recently completed. Pedley Station - Design for the Pedley platform extension and CTTV system is proceeding. • • • 22 " " " Rail Construction Corona Main Station - Start of trackwork and station construction is forecasted for summer 2002. Pedley Station - Construction is forecasted for summer of 2002. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements, Quarter Ending March 31, 2002 23 DEBT SERVICE Princ ipal 0,00 0.00 0.00 Inter est 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 58,939,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 5,742,597.16 TOTAL DEBT SERV ICE 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0. 00 0,00 Intergovern Distributio n 605,484,69 0,00 0. 00 0, 00 0.00 O.OD Ca pital Ou tlay 18,477.58 1,179,42 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEBT SER VICE 0,00 0.00 968,326.50 0.00 COMBIN/NG TOT AL 71,351,740.01 2,835,434.86 4,192,916,86 5,578,298.36 968,326 .50 83,958,390.09 0.00 0.00 159.32 0.00 0.00 755,878,59 43,323.01 758,994.98 167,007.06 333,625.25 159.32 2,058,828.89 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 5,801,536 .16 0,00 0.00 • De scr iption REVENUES Sales Tax Reven ues Fed Sta te Loc al 4 Other Govern Interest Incom e Other Revenues TOTAL REVENUES iXPENDITURES A DMINISTRATION Salar ies 4 Benefits Genera l Legal Services Prot Ser vic es (Exclu des Legal) Office Lease/Utilitie s General Admin Expen ses TOTAL ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Sa laries 4 Be nefits General Legal Services Prot Ser vices (Excludes Le gal) Gener al Pro jec ts Highwa y Engineering Highwa y Cons truction Highways ROW Special Studies Rail En gineering Rail Constru ction Ra il ROW Commute r Assistan ce Region al Ar terial Streets 6 Roads Special Tran9portion\Transit Projec t Operations/Maintenan ce Project Towing STA Distribution s TOTAL, PROGRAM S/PROJECTS 8,108,890. 25 1,794,051. 68 32,433,393,75 19,172,808,39 3,757,537.00 0 '00 0 .00 0,00 0 .00 65,266,681.07 • Riv ersid e C ounty Transportati on Commission ACTUALS BY FUND- 3rd Qt r F or Pe riod Ending: 03/31/02 04/10/02 00099 ST ATE WESTERN WESTERN COUNTY GENERAL WESTERN EASTERN FUND TSISTIT CV AG COUNTY COMMERCIAL FSP/S AFE COUNTY COU NTY ASSISTA NCE CONSTRUCTIO N CO NSTRUCTION PAPER 7,364,233.00 0.00 46,167,653.68 17,819,853.33 0,00 0.00 0.00 1,745,300.12 56.56 1,090,078.18 0.00 0,60 4 .40 0.00 0,00 0 .00 192,700.71 71,657 .77 797,8 76 .67 102,956,68 71,054 .44 994.15 1,987,349 .94 0,00 1,066,496.76 1,225,873.00 531,567,04 252,413 .56 2,501,948.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 10,368,730. 59 1,297,587.33 48,587,175 .57 18,175,223.57 712,552. 41 43,326.18 0.00 0.00 40,752.49 2,570.52 0.00 0.00 732,038.45 26,259. 80 353.30 94.22 156,986.70 10,020.36 0,00 0 .00 313,594.32 20,030.93 0.00 0.00 1,955,924.37 102,207. 79 353.30 94.22 2,573,002,44 0.00 0.00 89 .89 0 .00 0.00 994 .15 1,987,349.94 0.00 0,00 0,00 0 .00 0.00 89.89 0 .00 525,708,72 74,800.11 285,510.06 795,90 0 .00 13,164.00 3,972. 78 281,819,16 590.00 0 .00 145,790,11 24,777.26 107,915.84 2,600,00 0.00 658,609.28 0.00 1,015,197.12 16,718.12 0.00 0,00 0.00 2,494,747.79 52,309,46 0,00 0.00 0.00 726,401.03 927,598,13 0 .00 0.00 0.00 2,983,312.55 2,340,00 0,00 2,617,794.43 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,417,458.68 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 229,016,48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 475,893,00 0. 00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 1,028,444.64 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 9,176,272,18 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 19,732,839.40 7,071,705.60 0.00 3,447,434,89 0.00 1,654,838,00 1,921,879,00 0.00 700,388.82 1,056,681,03 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 633,820. 50 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0,00 3,757,537.00 0,00 0 .00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 886,814.79 299,545.94 281,083.21 1,690,524.52 2,547,057,25 1,653,999 .16 2,985,652 .55 2,617,794.43 1,417,458 .68 229,016.48 475,893.00 1,028,444.64 9,176,272.18 26,804,545.00 7,024,151.89 1,757,069 .85 633,820.50 3,757,537.00 58,939.00 5,742,597 .16 5,801,536.16 605,484 .69 19,657 .00 Description TOTAL EXPENDITURES Other Finan cing Sources/Uses Operating Transfer /n Operating T ran sfer Ou t Bond Proceeds Total Other Fina ncing So urces /Uses Excess(Deficiency)of Re venues And Othe r Fin anc in g So urces Over(Under)Expenditure An d Other Financing Uses Fund Ba lan ce July 1, 2001 Fund Balance March 31, 2002 Riverside Co unty Transportati on Commission. ACTUALB BY FUND- 3rd Qtr For Period Ending, 03/31/02 04/10/02 0048F ST ATE WESTER N WESTER N COUNTY GENERAL WESTERN EAS TER N TRA NSIT CVAG COU NTY COMMERCIAL FUND FSP/SAFE COUNTY COUNTY ASSIST ANCE CONSTRUCTION CO NSTRUCTION P APER 10,688,776.89 1,897,438 .89 32,433,747.05 19,172,902.61 3,757,626.89 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 2,711. 90 210,441.13 4,288,322.16 351,536.14 0,00 1,632. 17 210,400.00 20,298,641 .57 6,142,091.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 8,559,730.92 0 .00 52,807.24 22,240,490 .90 0.00 0.00 52,807 .24 0.00 DEBT SERVICE COMBINING TOTAL 5,801,695.48 73,752,187.81 52,601,203.51 0.00 0.00 57,507,022.08 57,505,794.13 0.00 1,079.73 41. 13 (16,010,319.41) (5,790,555.19) 0.00 (8,559,730.92) (22,187,683.66) (52,807.24) 52,601,203.51 1,227.95 (318,966.57) (599,810.43) 143,109.11 (6,788,234,23) (1,184,624.45) (8,558,736.77) (20,200,333.72) (52,807 .24) 47,767,834.53 10,207,430 .23 5,591,399. 40 2,789,340.40 48,710,889.03 9,279,185.78 3,981,195.88 8,558,744.03 68 ,310,389.92 52,807,24 10,727,285 .82 158,001,237 .50 5,272,432. 83 2,189,529.97 48,853,998.14 2,490,951.55 2,796,571 .43 7.26 48,110,056.20 0.00 58,495,120.35 168,208,667.73 • • " AGENDA ITEM 7C " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending January, February, and March 2002. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all contracts that have been executed through the months of January, February, and March 2002, under the Single Signature Authority, granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The remaining unused capacity is $365,852. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report 26 CONSULT ANT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2001 Genlor SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF M ARCH 31, 2002 • • ORIGINAL RE MAINING DESCRIPTION CONTRACT EXPENDED CONTRACT OF SERVICES AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT Commuter Assistanc e Club/Team Ride Mer chant Recruitment Creative Management Solutions Commission desires to engage Consultant to conduct c ompensation study. NOlt Ed 1:65000:05P P< ; AMOUNT USED AMOUNT REMAINING THROUGH June 30, 2002 Donna Polmounter Prepared by Michele Cisneros Reviewed by $ 500,000.00 22,500.00 22,500.00 8,580.00 ot� i are#atrepresen s�ne�on` �rac�fori�January' kve(1w.u d.. +..c Jww.rt�y:vhuwwwW.M1 4wuvr»%tir n.P.P�aw>.W'&vLu $�u cC a}.:c:u w1 i:t� i}te uai bl? f;\users\preprint\d p\sinsig02 8,580.00 134,148.00 42,848.15 $ 365,852 .00 $ 42,848 .15 0.00 0 .00 91,299.85 $ 91,299.85 " AGENDA ITEM 7D " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Schedule of Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Four years ago, the Commission evaluated all recurring contracts to determine when and if to hold a competitive process. As a result of that review, most contracts were rebid. In addition, the Commission required that these contracts be approved at the beginning of each year. Schedule of Recurring Contracts Consultant Name Description of Services Budget FY 01/02 Budget FY 02/03 Dollar Change Percent Change Bechtel Program Mgmt $2,300,000 $2,138,641 $(161,359) (8.1%) Best, Best and Krieger General Legal 600,000 600,000 0 0.0% Jefferson House Internal and External cleaning of Metrolink Stations 82,000 82,000 0 0.0% Public Financial Mgt. Investment Advisor 45,000 45,000 0 0.0% Ernst & Young Audit Services 422,000 425,000 2,500 0.71 % Valley Research & Planning Congestion Mgmt. 80,000 60,000 (20,000) (25.0%) Staff is planning to prepare Request for Proposals for Audit Services, Investment Advisory services and Janitorial Service for Metrolink stations in the upcoming fiscal year. All these items have already been included in the FY 2002-03 adopted budget and as such no budget adjustment is required. 28 " AGENDA ITEM 7E " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Overhead Allocation Policy Amendment BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to amend the Overhead Allocation Policy. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On July 11, 2001, the Commission approved a policy for Overhead Allocation. Ernst and Young has requested an amendment to this policy to clarify it further. The suggestion made is "Adopt a more precise policy for TDA claimants and Measure "A" recipients relating to overhead allocation. The policy should address the requirements that the overhead allocation must be based on actual costs, not budgeted costs and that the overhead expense must be listed as a project on the approved Measure "A" five-year capital improvement plan. Any policy clarifications should be timely communicated to all TDA claimants and Measure "A" recipients." Based on the above, staff is suggesting that the following item be added to the current policy. Item 4 Recipients of TDA/Measure "A" funds that allocate overhead are required to true up their actual costs to the estimated or budgeted costs. This process should be completed within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year. 29 " AGENDA ITEM 7F " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: TDA / Measure "A" Audit Results BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the responses to the suggestions for improvement as presented by Ernst and Young. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; As part of the annual TDA / Measure "A" audit, Ernst and Young reviewed the policies and procedures of the Commission and the agencies receiving the funds. Based on their FY 2000-01 review, Ernst and Young listed four suggestions for improvement. The audits for most of these agencies were presented to the Commission on March 13, 2002. At that time, staff stated that a written response would be brought back to the Commission for their review. Suggestion 1 Adopt a more precise policy for TDA claimants and Measure "A" recipients relating to overhead allocation. The policy should address the requirements that the overhead allocation must be based on actual costs, not budgeted costs and that the overhead expense must be listed as a project on the approved Measure "A" five-year capital improvement plan. Any policy clarifications should be timely communicated to all TDA claimants and Measure "A" recipients. Commission Response On July 11, 2001, the Commission adopted a policy relating to Overhead Allocation. The policy outlined the requirements and conditions for allowing overhead allocation. Staff is presenting a separate agenda item to modify the policy and bring before the Commission a more precise policy requiring the recipients to update their budgeted or estimated allocations to actual at the end of the year. 30 Suggestion 2 Adopt a process regarding more timely follow up with the various TDA claimants and Measure "A" recipients regarding resolution of compliance issues and questioned costs reported within the audited financial statements. Commission Response Effective with the FY 2001-02 audit, staff will adopt a process to resolve open matters within 90 days of the receipt of the audit report. Suggestion 3 Adopt a policy relating to the completion of each Article 3 project to request a final report from each city which would provide detail of the final costs of the project and the related funds used to pay for the Article 3 project. Since the TDA claimant may request disbursement of the Article 3 funds approved by the Commission as soon as the Article 3 project is approved, the Commission should ensure that a final accounting of the Article 3 funds be made to the Commission. Any unspent Article 3 grant funds and any interest earned upon the Article 3 funds that was not needed to pay for the completion of the Article 3 project should be remitted back to the Commission. Commission Response As part of the new call for projects to be issued in the later part of the year, staff will incorporate this suggestion into the criteria and set up a process to review the final costs. Suggestion 4 Revise Measure "A" five-year capital improvement plan requirements to include descriptions of specific projects rather than listing general street improvement projects on the five-year capital improvement plan. Commission Response Staff has informed Ernst and Young that this suggestion. would make the process very cumbersome for the recipients and reduce the flexibility they currently enjoy and maintaining streets and roads as needed. Ernst and Young has agreed to remove this suggestion next year. • • 31 " AGENDA ITEM 7G " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Metrolink Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the preliminary Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Metrolink Operating and Capital Budgets; and, 2) Allocate RCTC's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority in an amount not to exceed $3,913,464 comprised of: $3,029,900 of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for train operations and maintenance -of -way, and $883,564 of FTA Section 5307 for capital projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: By virtue of the Joint Powers Agreement, the five member agencies which comprise the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) must formally commit to fund their proportionate shares of commuter rail operating and capital costs. Each member agency must approve the budget before adoption of a final budget by the Metrolink Board, no later than June 30, 2002. Service and funding levels are limited by the policy and budget constraints of the member agencies and are negotiated each year. Riverside County Service Level Changes Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Three Metrolink lines will traverse Riverside County; the Riverside Line, the Inland Empire -Orange County (IE0C) Line, and beginning next month, the 91 Line. The Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Metrolink Budget proposes the following: " Riverside Line: No changes in regular weekday service or weekend service via extensions to the San Bernardino Line; 32 " IEOC Line: No changes in regular weekday service; and opening of the new North Main Corona Station in Fall 2002; " 91 Line: No changes in regular weekday service, however the new North Main Corona Station will also serve this Line when it opens in Fall 2002. 4,800 4,600 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 Riverside Line Avg Ridership i u ,co 0k' te e0 a O ,O <,ti " O 100% 80% 60% 40% On -Time Performance  Riverside Line System Since Metrolink issued a notice of non-performance to the Union Pacific in March 2002 regarding the poor on -time performance of the Riverside Line, significant improvements in on -time trains have resulted. However, the on -time performance of the Riverside Line will continue to be closely monitored by RCTC staff during FY 2002-03, especially since the opening of peak -period 91 Line service may result in a shifting of Riverside Line riders who are destined for Los Angeles to the new Line, despite the fact that it's a 20 minute longer ride, due to the recurring delays on the Riverside Line. RCTC's Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Operating Subsidy to Increase 12% RCTC's proposed funding obligation to SCRRA includes $3,029,900 subsidy for operations and maintenance -of -way which represents a $334,800 increase (12.4%) over the FY 2001-02 budget. This is due primarily to the annualized cost of the new 91 Line service (Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton) which is scheduled to begin May 6, 2002 with two peak -period round trips and one mid -day round trip. RCTC's new capital and capital renovation obligation for FY 2002-03 is projected at $883,564, a decrease of $78,771. Projects include the rehabilitation and renovation of the River Corridor which is located on the East Bank of the Los Angeles River. " " " 33 " " " System -wide In FY 2002-03 the SCRRA will celebrate its 10th year providing Metrolink commuter rail service in Southern California. From three lines in October 1992, the agency will operate service over seven lines, with 138 weekday and 32 weekend trains as of its 10th anniversary in October. Average weekday ridership is projected to total 34,050, an increase of 3% over the current year Budget. Total ridership, including all weekend services, is expected to increase 4% from the current year Budget. Metrolink fares are assumed to increase 4% effective July 1, 2002, the third of three Board approved adjustments to the base fare structure of the agency. Also assumed in FY 2002-03 is an additional 1% incremental increase for the sole purpose of providing for increased operational and infrastructure security in light of ongoing national concerns. The resulting fare box revenue is projected at $41.7 million or 10% over the current year Budget. Fare revenues represent 42% of total operating revenues. Member agency contributions of $45.9 million for operations represent approximately 47% of total operating revenues (resulting in a revenue recovery in the budget of 53% versus 52% in the current year budget). The FY 2002-03 combined Metrolink Budget is $218.6 million. The operating budget is $98.6 million comprised of $78.6 million for train operations and maintenance -of -way at $20 million. The capital budget is $120 million made up of rehabilitation and renovation at $32.9 million and a new capital projects budget of $87.1 million. The major driving factors in projecting operating expenses are service levels, the associated equipment maintenance and support requirements, underlying labor inflation in the agency's largest service contracts, and the levels of effort of the agency's maintenance of way program. i Several factors contribute to moderate the increase in member agency subsidy requirements for FY 2002-03, including: " Contracted train operating expenses are projected to increase 9%; " Maintenance of equipment expenses increase 7% as a result of a 24% increase in fleet size; " Fuel expenses have decreased 14%; and " Average weekday ridership, fare box revenues, and maintenance -of -way revenues are projected to increase. 1 At the time of printing, the one remaining variable is liability insurance. Given the events of September 11', insurance rates have skyrocketed. SCRRA will complete negotiations at the end of this month for insurance, however, the CEO is committed to not increase the requested member agency subsidy identified for FY 2002- 03. 34 The FY 2002-03 Metrolink Budget further provides for the implementation of the "Take the Next Train" program. The SCRRA and Amtrak have agreed to work together to allow passengers with valid Metrolink or Amtrak tickets, where complementary service exists (like the Orange County and Ventura County Lines), to choose the service provider that best suits their travel needs. With the participation of Caltrans, this program is expected to add increased train services for less than the average operating cost of a single train. RCTC Share of Proposed Metrolink Budget RCTC's share of the $98.6 million operating budget is $6,164,400 (see Metrolink Budget page 15). The resulting net subsidy requirement (after fare box and other operating revenues) is $3,029,900 to be paid by Western County Commuter Rail Local Transportation Funds. RCTC's capital subsidy requirement of $883,564 is to be paid by FTA Section 5307 commuter rail funds. The combined total FY 2003 RCTC subsidy request is $3,913,464. Attachment: Metrolink Preliminary Budget Fiscal Year 2002-03 • • • 35 " " " SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 059142 REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY APR 0 92002 tij TR VERIQI COUNTY S PRELIM1NAffVONBsroN BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 April 12, 2002 METROLINK Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission 36 FY 2002-03 BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # Executive Summary of the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 SCRRA Services 1 1.2 Organizational Summary 3 1.3 Evolution Of SCRRA 4 1.4 Mission Statement 6 2.0 BUDGET SUMMARY 7 2.1 Recommended Budget Policy 9 2.2 Accounting Methodology 11 2.3 Budget Components 11 2.4 Significant Changes In Budgeting Approach 11 2.5 Budget Assumptions 12 2.6 Summary of the FY 2002-03 Budget 14 2.7 Summary Total FY 2002-03 Budget Sources and Uses by Member Agency 14 2.8 Summary of FY 2002-03 Revenues 14 2.9 Summary of Operating and Capital Budgets by Expense Type 17 2.10 Summary of Operating and Capital Budgets by Department 19 2.11 Summary of FY 2002-03 Authorized Positions 19 3.0 OPERATING BUDGET 23 3.1 Performance Data 25 3.2 Summary of FY 2002-03 Statistics by Line 26 3.3 Components Of The Operating Budget 26 3.4 Operating Budget Assumptions 26 3.5 Summary of Revenues and Expenses by Operating Cost Component 30 3.6 Detail of Operating Budget 30 3.7 Summary of Revenue and Expenses by Member Agency 39 3.8 Maintenance -of -Way Budget 41 4.0 CAPITAL BUDGET 51 4.1 Rehabilitation/Renovation 53 Ongoing Rehabilitation/Renovation Projects 53 New Rehabilitation/Renovation Projects 59 4.2 New Capital 67 • • • 37 " " " TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.0 DEPARTMENT BUDGETS 75 5.1 Organizational Summary 77 5.2 Executive 80 5.3 Support Services and Technology 82 5.4 Operations 84 5.5 Engineering & Construction 86 5.6 Equipment 88 5.7 Strategic Development & Communications 90 5.8 Finance 92 6.0 APPENDIX 95 6.1 Formulae for Allocation to Counties 97 6.2 Formulae for Allocation to Lines 99 6.3 Allocation of Revenues 99 6.4 Allocation of Expenses 101 6.5 Allocation of Agency Costs to Budgets 101 6.6 Potential New Projects for New Capital in FY 2002-03 102 6.7 SCRRA Policy on Debt 103 6.8 Statistical Information 104 6.9 Glossary of Budget Terms 106 6.10 Acronyms 107 38 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Chief Executive Officer submits to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Board of Directors by May 1St of each year a Preliminary Budget for the following fiscal year. The submitted Budget includes separate components for administrative, operations and capital costs. Decisions dealing with operating and capital allocations as well as approval of each member agency's share of the Authority's annual budget must be approved by each member agency. The Board must adopt a final Budget no later than June 30 of each year. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03 SCRRA Budget permits the agency to continue to meet the challenges of increased ridership, demand for more train services, as well as the need for capital improvements to accommodate rising levels of freight and passenger traffic on member agency -owned routes. In FY 2002-03 the SCRRA will celebrate its tenth year providing Metrolink commuter rail service in Southern California. From three lines in October 1992, the agency will operate service over seven lines, with 138 weekday and 32 weekend trains as of its tenth anniversary in October 2002. The FY 2002-03 Budget demonstrates Metrolink's ongoing efficiency, effectiveness, and commitment to the transportation needs of Southern Californians. The FY 2002-03 Budget anticipates another significant milestone in the growth of the SCRRA. Beginning October 1, 2002, the provision of dispatching services over member agency owned rights -of -way will be brought in-house. Previously provided under contract by Amtrak, staff responsible for such a critical component of the agency's mission will, for the first time, be direct employees of the SCRRA. The $218.6 million budget (an decrease of 7.5% from the FY 2001-02 Budget) consists of an Operating Budget of $98.6 million (an 7.7% increase over the FY 2001-02 Budget), including Train Operations at $78.6 million and Maintenance -of -Way (MOW) at $20.0 million, and a Capital Budget of $120.0 million made up of a Rehabilitation/Renovation Budget of $32.9 million and a New Capital Budget of $87.1 million of approved projects. The Operating Budget details both operating revenue (such as fare and maintenance -of - way revenues) as well as operating expenses. Average weekday ridership is expected to increase 3% with total ridership (including weekend services) projected to increase 4% from the FY 2001-02 Budget. Farebox revenue is expected to reach $41.7 million, a 10% increase over the FY 2001-02 Budget. Included in the FY 2002-03 Budget is the third of three Board approved fare increases effective July 1, 2002. Dispatching revenues are expected to increase 10% from the FY 2001-02 Budget to $2.8 million. Maintenance -of - way revenues are estimated to increase 9% above the FY 2001-02 Budget to $8.3 million. This new budget continues a trend of growth and cost -efficiency of Metrolink operations. 4/8/02, 11:17 AM i • • 39 ti SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • Highlights of the FY 2002-03 Budget include: • • • Operating expenses per train mile are expected to be $47.24 which is a 3% decrease from the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget. • Operating expense per passenger mile and Subsidy per passenger mile hold steady from the previous fiscal year at $0.29 and $0.14 respectively. • Operating subsidy per rider rises slightly to $5.08. • Revenue recovery is projected to equal 53.7%, an exceptional amount relative to other transit properties. • Farebox recovery is expected to increase to 46.4%. • Total Revenue Train Miles will be 10% higher in FY 2002-03 then levels adopted in the FY 2001-02 Budget. The principal determinant of agency operating expenses are levels of service, the associated equipment maintenance and support requirements, underlying labor inflation in the agency's largest service contracts, and the levels of effort of the agency's maintenance of way program. The FY 2002-03 SCRRA Budget anticipates an operating schedule of 138 weekday trains on seven lines and 32 weekend trains on two lines. Service improvements implemented in FY 2001-02 are included and fully annualized. In May, 2002, the agency introduced commuter service on its seventh line, the 91 Line. Service to and from Riverside in the Inland Empire, through Fullerton in Orange County to Los Angeles Union Station is expected to provide alternatives to the 91 Freeway for Inland Empire and Western Orange County commuters. The arrival of additional rolling stock (27 new passenger cars and 4 locomotives) in FY 2001-02 will further provide the ability to enhance service by lengthening existing trains where demand has reached a peak. The FY 2002-03 Budget further provides for the implementation of the "Take the Next Train" program. The SCRRA and Amtrak have agreed to work together to allow passengers with valid Metrolink or Amtrak tickets, where complementary service exists, to choose the service provider that best suits their travel needs. With the participation of CALTRANS, this program is expected to add increased train services for less than the average operating cost of a single train. Member agency subsidies for the Operating Budget are projected to total $45.9 million. This represents a 5% increase over the FY 2001-02 Budget. Several factors contribute to moderate the increase in member agency subsidy requirements, including: • Contracted train operating expenses are projected to increase 9% • Maintenance of equipment expenses are increasing 7% as a result of a 24% increase in fleet size. • Fuel expenses have decreased 14% • Average weekday ridership is projected to increase 3% 4/8/02, 11:17 AM 40 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • Farebox revenues are projected to increase 10% • Maintenance -of -way revenues are also projected to increase by 9% The Capital Budget (Rehabilitation/Renovation and New Capital) for FY 2002-03 continues several important New Capital projects to more efficiently operate passenger (Metrolink and Amtrak) and freight services on member agency owned routes. New Capital projects are only those with approved funding. These projects include: • The completion of additional double track and sidings on the San Bernardino Line • The start of construction of double tracking a portion of the Orange County Line. • The engineering and design of a new Eastern Area Maintenance Facility. • New sidings on the Antelope Valley Line • System wide tie and rail replacement • The upgrade of platform lighting at Los Angeles Union Station. • The procurement of next generation Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs) allowing significantly increased functionality. Additional projects for which SCRRA and its member agencies are still seeking funding for are not included in the document at this time. As funding is secured, these projects will be added to the budget after review and approval by the Board. The FY 2002-03 Budget proposes 31 new positions, 26 of which are the result of the addition of dispatching services as an agency responsibility as referenced above. The following are positions requested in the FY 2002-03 Budget: Executive: - Human Resources Support Services and Technology: - Office of the AEO Strategic Development & Communications: - Office of the Director - Marketing Finance: - Accounting Operations: - Dispatching Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant Geographic Information Systems Analyst Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant Manager, Dispatching Operations Dispatching Operations Supervisor (6) Train Dispatcher (18) Administrative Assistant. In FY 2000-01, the SCRRA completed an exhaustive study of the administrative needs of the organization given the changes in both the administrative structure of the agency, as well as the physical location requirements. A number of internal changes were made in line with this study as part of the Fiscal Year's 2000-01 and 2001-02 budgets, including 4/8/02, 11:17 AM • 41 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • the addition of some recommended positions. In December of 2001, a follow up assessment was conducted to determine the adequacy and efficiency of previous changes. The Administrative Assistant positions requested above represent positions identified in the 2000-01 study, but never budgeted and are consistent with the recommendation of the follow up assessment. Agency and departmental goals continue to focus on building an organizational infrastructure to support the increased long-term operations and administrative functions. Another activity planned for FY 2002-03 is an evaluation, begun in FY 2001-02, of the cost effectiveness of the use of contracted vendors to provide key operational, capital construction and maintenance -of -way services. Agency goals also address the following needs: • • • Continued growth in revenue • Continued improvements in service quality and safety • A strategic planning effort to set a course to meet long-term ridership and service projections • Continuation of the annual Board retreat to address the long term policy needs of the agency • Continued pursuit of federal and state funding • Stronger alliances with station city stakeholders • Viability of connecting services/ complementary connecting services The proposed FY 2002-03 Budget is based upon conservative financial assumptions which ensure the SCRRA's fiscal ability to deliver upon the service and capital improvements promised to the public. In its tenth year of providing exceptional services to Southern California, SCRRA remains committed to delivering the highest quality commuter rail service. 4/8/02, 11:17 AM iv 42 " SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 2002-03 BUDGET 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCRRA Services SCRRA is a joint powers authority created to plan, design, build and operate commuter rail service in the Southern California region. As of July 1, 2002, Metrolink expects to provide service on 7 routes to 51 stations over 416 route miles. The system map is provided in Exhibit 1.1. Metrolink operates 138 trains each weekday and average weekday ridership is expected to exceed 34,000 one-way trips in Fiscal Year 2002-03. Saturday service is provided on the San Bernardino and Antelope Valley Lines and Sunday service is provided on the San Bernardino Line. In Fiscal Year 2001-02, 4 new locomotives and 27 new passenger cars were received, increasing total rolling stock available in Fiscal Year 2002-03 to 37 locomotives and 146 commuter rail cars. In addition to operating commuter rail service, SCRRA dispatches and maintains in excess of 60% of the territory over which it operates. On a daily basis, SCRRA dispatches Metrolink trains, up to 30 Amtrak intercity trains between Moorpark and San Diego and up to 100 freight trains. SCRRA is responsible for the maintenance of right-of-way owned by SCRRA member agencies that extends over 325.6 track -miles. SCRRA's Capital Program includes ongoing rehabilitation/renovation of this right-of-way, facilities, equipment, and rolling stock, as well as expansion of the system. " 4/8/02, 12:09 PM " " 43 " " " ANTELOPE VALLEY LI NE VENTURA COUNTY �� t ��ti�� tia ` �t4 r���� " t\ 4> 453 c10 �� Q `�� ��" ����" " 5��ao Ja tied " 5 C'afiat1 Qa t���� " " t�� 05, C.om o������ �t�� " `` �� " VENTURA COU NTY ��a ��t4 ,:` O de O����~P o�`�� .`��`���� a LINE �� 1�� ti G~�� .s ~ c,c3' LOS ANGELES COUNTY !'METROLINK. 0 Future Station SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY S AN BERN ARDI NO LINE 4- (1 " " " . d a"o Cc Nwe `" \C'`I" ��" ,004 e" Montebello " 4��� �{` " t~� ����e�� " Abe (��"'at` Commerce Qo��4�s 0 ,z, fie' ��0 (.��� ��N"' " 91 -LA LINE '~ ot. ��a~s " Lot� '\.,e" 4 \��cD'' ��y ; F��L �� -l�t " ��4� Van Buren 5s 4a o{ . 1 " : a a ��t�� /" oa ett .0% o�� . " . a ,�� otio c),, ��~ oe 1I c��at `�� ��, y F, ta6a " ,�� .. � ��" �� �� $ / ��\ O ti$;' � ��ti, " eR ti at `�� �� " CL RIVERSIDE LINE INL AN D EMPIRE - ORA NGE COU NTY LINE Alk C! a Ocean, `��t ORANGE COUNTY a J. COUNTY `\yti5e6 .:  ta >> o tx7QSCA " a `E a " " O RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORANGE C OUNTY LINE SAN DIEGO COUNTY J SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • 1.2 Organizational Summary The SCRRA Board consists of eleven voting members: Agency Votes Members Alternates Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) 4 Hal Bernson (Chair) Council Member, 12th District, City of Los Angeles Michael Antonovich Supervisor, County of Los Angeles Don Knabe Supervisor, County of Los Angeles Larry Zarian James C. Ledford, Jr. Mayor City of Palmdale Robert T. Bartlett Nate Brogin Brogin Companies Francine Oschin Council Member Hal Bernson's office San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) 2 Bill Alexander (Vice Chair) Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga Paul Eaton Mayor, City of Montclair Judith Valles Mayor, City of San Bernardino Patricia Gilbreath Mayor, City of Redlands Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 2 Thomas W. Wilson Supervisor, Orange County Art Brown Councilman, City of Buena Park Charles V. Smith* Supervisor, Orange County Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 2 Will Kleindienst Mayor, City of Palm Springs Ron Roberts Mayor, City of Temecula Frank West * Council Member, City of Moreno Valley John Chlebnik* Mayor, City of Calimesa Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) 1 Bill Davis Mayor, City of Simi Valley Brian Humphrey VCTC Commission Member * Alternates represent either member Ex -officio members of the SCRRA Agency Members Alternates Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Vacant Vacant San Diego Association of Governments Julianne Nygaard Council Member, City of Carlsbad Vacant The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Maria Contreras -Sweet, Secretary, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Robert W. Sassaman, Director — District 7, Caltrans 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 3 45 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • • • Exhibit L2 provides the organizational structure of the SCRRA. The seven departments of SCRRA are: • Executive: David Solow, Chief Executive Officer • Support Services and Technology: Vacant, Assistant Executive Officer • Operations: John Kerins, Director • Engineering & Construction: Michael McGinley, Director • Equipment: William Lydon Jr., Director • Strategic Development and Communications: Stephen Lantz, Director • Finance: Mark Dubeau, Director In FY 2001-02, SCRRA had 176 authorized positions and 207 positions are proposed for FY 2002-03. The principal increase in Fiscal Year 2002-03 is due to the assumption of dispatching services by agency personnel previously provided by Amtrak under a contractual agreement. A complete roster of agency positions is listed in Table 5.1. 1.3 Evolution of SCRRA In June 1990, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1402, Chapter 4 of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code. This bill required the transportation commissions of the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino to jointly develop a plan for regional transit services within the multi -county region. In August 1991, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a regional Joint Powers Agency (JPA), was formed. Voting members with their respective number of votes are: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), four votes; Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), two votes; Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), two votes; San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), two votes; and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), one vote. I Ex -officio members of the SCRRA included the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the San Diego Association of Governments and the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The purpose of the newly formed SCRRA was to plan, design, construct, and administer the operation of regional passenger rail lines serving the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The SCRRA named the regional commuter rail system "Metrolink." The first three lines - San Bernardino, Santa Clarita (now Antelope Valley), and Ventura County- began operation in October 1992. The Riverside Line was added in June 1993, and the Orange County Line (which extends 19 miles into northern San Diego County) was added in April 1994. The sixth line, Inland Empire -Orange County, the nation's first suburb to suburb conunuter rail line, was added in October 1995. In May of 2002, the 91 Line was added to provide an alternative to Inland Empire and Western Orange County commuters These five county transportation commissions are defined as SCRRA's member agencies. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 4 46 Southern California Regional Rail Authority April 12, 2002 Division of the Assistant Director, E&C Board Secretary SCRRA Board of Directors Office of the Chief Executive Officer h .. ...i.. . .. :x ... F.}➢ 1ggai' 1 ta,ltif -ife.> SCRRA Counsel Human Resources Div Engineering & Construction Dept, Construction Unit Station Facilities Div Signals & Communication Div Maintenance of Way Div Operations Dept. Dispatching Div Safety & Security Div Passenger Services Div F Public Projects Div Equipment Dept. Equipment & Facilities Div Fleet Maintenance Unit • • Office of the Assistant Executive Officer Railroad Services Div Claims Administration Div Contracts Administration & Procurement Div Administrative Services Div Finance Dept Budget Div Fare Collection Services Administration Div Accounting Div Strategic Development & Communications Dept Government Relations Div Grants Development & Programming Div Strategic Planning Div Media & External Communications Div Marketing & Sales Div SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • • • traveling through Fullerton. Over its ten years of operations, SCRRA has been building the Metrolink commuter rail system in order to ensure quality, efficient services into the next century. In February 2001, Metrolink carried its forty -millionth passenger, holding its place as one of the fastest growing commuter rail systems in the nation. 1.4 Mission Statement Metrolink is a premier regional rail system, including commuter and other passenger services, linking communities to employment and activity centers. Metrolink provides reliable transportation and mobility for the region, leading toward more livable communities. Metrolink is committed to and characterized by: • Technically superior and safe operations • Customer focus and accessibility • Dependable, high -quality service • Cost-effective and high -value service • Strategically located network of lines and stations • Integration with other transit modes • Environmental sensitivity • Community involvement and partnerships with both the public and private sectors 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 6 48 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget SECTION 2 SCOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BUDGET SUMMARY • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 7 49 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 8 50 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • • 2.0 BUDGET SUMMARY 2.1 Budget Policy Budget Authorization The Chief Executive Officer submits to the SCRRA Board of Directors by May 1st of each year a Preliminary Budget for the following fiscal year. The submitted Budget includes separate components for administrative, operations, and capital costs. Decisions dealing with operating and capital allocations, as well as approval of each member agency's share of the Authority's annual Budget must be approved by each member agency. The Board must adopt a final Budget no later than June 30 of each year. If a Budget is not approved by June 30`h, the Board will approve a continuing Operating Budget on a monthly basis equal to one -twelfth of preceding year's Budget. The Capital Budget approves individual projects that may proceed within the approved funding level. The Budget contains a financial plan that includes: • Organizational chart. • Goals and objectives for the new fiscal year. • The assumptions underlying revenue and expense projections. • Planned service for the following fiscal year. • Separately presented Operating and Capital budgets • Revenue sources by line item • Expenses by summary line item • Department budgets • Authorized positions. The Operating Budget details both operating revenue (such as fare revenue, maintenance -of -way (MOW) revenue, member agency contributions, etc.) and operating expenses (such as Train Operations -Amtrak, Equipment Maintenance -Bombardier, Fuel, Security -Sheriff, Transfers to Other Operators, Maintenance -of -Way, Salaries and Fringe Benefits, Insurance, etc.) The Capital Budget includes all new projects proposed for the coming fiscal year as well as previously approved projects for which work has yet to be completed. The Board approves individual Rehabilitation/Renovation and New Capital projects, including total project cost and scope. Approved project funds are reserved for the duration of the project unless amended by the Board. In approving the proposed budget and any Board initiated amendments, the Board authorizes SCRRA to expend funds under the direction of the Chief Executive Officer consistent with: 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 9 51 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • Total amount appropriated for Train Operations and Maintenance -of -Way. • Total amount appropriated for Capital by each Rehabilitation/Renovation and New Capital project. • Individual member agency funding commitments. • Total number of authorized positions. Further, by approving the Budget, the Board authorizes the Chief Executive Officer to take necessary action to adjust the salary structure and associated ranges based on market trends. Budgetary Control General Budgetary control refers to SCRRA's procedures for monitoring actual expenses against planned expenditures as adopted in the annual Budget. By adopting an annual Budget, the Board of Directors delegates to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to manage the annual Budget within the following parameters. Transfers A Budget Transfer represents changes in projected expenses between line items within or across departments in the Budget. The Budget Office shall review the impact of any requested Budget Transfer and make recommendations to the Chief Executive Officer and/or Board, as required. Amendments Certain Budget Transfers may require Board approval and result in Budget Amendments. Budget Amendments will be submitted to the Board as required and include: • Any Budget Transfer that negatively impacts member agency funding commitments. • Any Budget Transfer that negatively impacts the total Operating Budget or individual Capital projects. • Any Budget Transfer that increases the total authorized level of personnel. The Board, by approving any Budget Amendment, amends the Budget for the fiscal year. Any budget amendment that requires an increase in a member agency's funding commitments additionally requires the approval of that member agency. Budgetary Reporting The Approved or Amended Budget is the baseline for all comparisons to actual revenue and expenditures during a fiscal year. On a quarterly basis, budget status reports are presented to the Board of Directors. Additionally, the preparation of the following year's budget request provides staff with a mid -year opportunity for a detailed evaluation of progress compared to the budget plan of the current year. Internal performance reporting, and the preparation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) also provide tools for managing and reporting agency activities to the budget plan. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 10 • 52 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • 2.2 Accounting Methodology The Operating Budget has been developed based on a projection of earned revenue and incurred expenses for that fiscal year. The Capital Budget is developed based on available revenues for New Capital and Rehabilitation/Renovation projects during the coming fiscal year. 2.3 Budget Components The Operating Budget is comprised of the following two major components: • Operations — This portion of the Operating Budget includes expenses required to operate the Metrolink system including train operations, maintenance of equipment, fuel, security, utilities, transfer payments to other transit operators, revenue collection, payments to freight railroads for dispatching, station maintenance, passenger services, general and administrative expenses, professional services, and insurance. • Maintenance -of -Way — This portion of the Operating Budget includes ordinary maintenance of the rights -of -way owned by SCRRA member agencies. It involves routine inspection and repair of track, signals, and structures. The Capital Budget is comprised of the following two major components: • Rehabilitation/Renovation projects — These are projects that extend the life of existing capital assets such as replacement of worn ties and rail, replacement of outdated signal system components, rehabilitation of tunnels and bridges, and the programmed replacement and rehabilitation of the following rolling stock components: Car Door Operators; Wheel Trucks; Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC); Traction Motors; and Head End Power Engine. The budget includes both ongoing and new projects for FY 2002-03. • New Capital projects — These are capital projects that expand the system such as sidings, double track, installation of new signal system components, and new rolling stock. The budget includes new and ongoing projects. A listing of projects for which additional federal, state and local funds are being sought is provided Appendix 6.6, but not included in the budget at this time. If and when the funds are secured, the projects will be amended into the budget. 2.4 Significant Changes In Budgeting Approach Beginning in Fiscal Year 2002-03, the SCRRA standardized the practice of budgeting across the four principal operating contract agreements. Train Operations, Maintenance of Equipment in Operations, and Track and Structures Maintenance and Signal and Communications Maintenance in the Maintenance of Way (MOW) budget. Anticipated service levels and requirements are submitted to each contractor as part the budget's development. Contractors are then required, by contract, to provide their proposed staffing and material requirements and associated budget amounts. Fiscal Year 2002-03 is the first in which the MOW contractors are to provide detailed 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 11 53 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • information by each of the territories for which the SCRRA and its members are responsible. While this approach has moderated the growth in total costs, the resulting distributions to individual lines varies from prior year averages. (Please see Section 3.8 — Maintenance of Way Budget for further details) Historically, SCRRA has expensed all material purchases upon receipt. As of June 30, 2001, material receipts are recorded in inventory and expensed as issued to projects. For the purpose of budgeting, the materials expensed when moving from inventory to a project are included in the budget plan. Material costs in the inventory account are not budgeted, but are presented on the financial statements as an asset. 2.5 Budget Assumptions Operating Budget In May 2002, the SCRRA initiated limited commuter operations on a seventh line, the 91 Line. Total systemwide service levels assume 138 weekday trains operating on seven lines, and 32 weekend trains operating on two lines. New service extensions on the Inland Empire/Orange County, Orange County, Antelope Valley, and Ventura County lines, implemented in FY 2001-02 are annualized to continue through FY 2002-03. No new service additions are currently assumed in the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2002. A detailed listing of anticipated services is provided in Table 3.2. Also included in the FY 2002-03 Budget is the proposed "Take the Next Train" program in which the SCRRA and Amtrak have agreed to work together to allow passengers, on those lines where complementary service exists, holding valid Metrolink or Amtrak tickets, to choose the service provider most convenient to their travel needs. SCRRA's philosophy for maintenance -of -equipment (MOE) and maintenance -of -way (MOW) is to perform ordinary maintenance sufficient to prevent any loss of service quality and to budget for Rehabilitation/Renovation at sufficient intervals to prevent the needed repairs/replacements from overwhelming the Operating Budget. Capital Budget The SCRRA is responsible for the safety and performance of the railroad system and all that travel upon it. Projects are selected based on the principle of minimizing and managing the risk of failure among system components. New Capital projects included in the budget depend upon the availability of local, state and federal funding. Rehabilitation/Renovation projects included in the budget depend primarily upon the availability of funds from the five member agencies. Selected projects have been prioritized to meet projected funding available and chosen from a larger field SCRRA staff believe can be safely and responsibly deferred to future years. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 12 54 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • • • Revenues Operating revenues include farebox, dispatching and maintenance -of -way revenues, interest, other minor miscellaneous revenues, and local contributions from the member agencies. Metrolink fares are assumed to increase 4% effective July 1, 2002, the third of three Board approved adjustments to the base fare structure of the agency. Also assumed in FY 2002-03 is an additional 1% incremental increase for the sole purpose of providing for increased operational and infrastructure security in light of ongoingnational concerns. Average weekday ridership is projected to total 34,050, an increase of 3% over the FY 2001-02 Budget. Total ridership, including all weekend services, is expected to increase 4% from the FY 2001-02 Budget. The basis of fare revenue calculations is the assumed revenue per rider, estimated on the basis of current and prior years, projected by line, and dependent on the number of zones traveled by the average rider and a mix of ticket types. The resulting Farebox Revenue is projected at $41.7 million or 10% over the FY 2001-02 Budget. The projected value of the 1% Security Increment is $330 thousand. The projection of fare revenues includes the annual 25% reduction in the December monthly pass price. The one -zone discounts for the Lancaster Station funded by the LACMTA and for the Oceanside Station funded by OCTA are also assumed to continue for FY 2002-03. Freight railroads and Amtrak Intercity services operating over territory owned by SCRRA member agencies provide dispatching and maintenance -of -way revenues, based upon existing agreements. Dispatching Revenues are estimated to increase to $2.8 million or 10% from the FY 2001-02 Budget. An additional $147,500 is estimated to be secured through the utilization of sponsorship partnerships for SCRRA special trains, primarily the Holiday Toy Express. Maintenance of Way revenues are estimated to increase to $8.3 million or 10% above the FY 2001-02 Budget. The increase is attributable to strong increases in freight traffic as well as the indexing of agreements for increased costs. Capital revenues consist of Federal, State and local agency funds as well as contributions from third parties, namely freight railroads, in the form of direct grants and participation in specific projects. Funding for the Capital Budget is provided by the following: Federal Funds - $ 43.5 million State Funds - 50.1 million Member Agency Funds - 23.1 million Third Party Participation - 1.1million Other Local Funds - 2.2 million Total $120.0 million 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 13 55 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget Expenses The major driving factors in projecting operating expenses are service levels and cost -of -living increases ranging from 1% to 4% included in multi -year service contracts. In the FY 2002-03 proposed budget, increases result from the full year annualization of service improvements implemented in January and May of 2002, increasing costs of Equipment Maintenance due to an increase in fleet size of 24% and maintenance at outlying points, significant increases in the costs of security services and insurance premiums resulting from attack on the United States of September 11, 2001, and costs paid to freight railroads to operate on non-SCRRA Member owned property. Staff costs are increasing due to 5 new (non -dispatching) positions, an assumed 4% merit increase, and an increase in fringe benefit costs due to rising Medical and Dental premiums. The FY 2002-03 Budget proposes that, beginning October 1, 2002, dispatching services for the territory over which the agency operates and is responsible, will be staffed directly with SCRRA personnel. This service has previously been provided by Amtrak under its operating contract. 2.6 Summary of the FY 2002-03 Budget The FY 2002-03 combined Metrolink Budget is $218.6 million. The Operating Budget is $98.6 million and includes train operations at $78.6 million and maintenance -of -way at $20.0 million. The Rehabilitation/Renovation Budget is $32.9 million and includes $10 million in previously approved but uncompleted projects, and $22.9 million in new projects for FY 2002-03. The New Capital Budget includes $87.2 million in approved projects. SCRRA is also seeking local, state or federal funds for additional New Capital projects. These projects are not yet included in the FY 2002-03 Budget. As funds become available, these projects will be amended into the budget. 2.7 Summary Total FY 2002-03 Budget Sources and Uses by Member Agency Table 2.1 provides a summary of the FY 2002-03 Budget revenues and expenditures by member agency. Revenues are separated into Local Funds for Operating and Capital; Other Operating Revenues that include Farebox Revenue, Miscellaneous Operating Revenues (principally Dispatching), and Maintenance -of -Way Revenues; and Other Capital Revenues which include Interest on Lease Proceeds, Other Agency Local, State, Federal, Amtrak Intercity and freight railroad funds. The expenditures are shown for the four categories of the Budget: Operating Expenditures; Maintenance -of -Way; New Capital; and Rehabilitation/Renovation. 2.8 Summary of FY 2002-03 Revenues Table 2.2 shows the projected revenues for the FY 2002-03 SCRRA Budget and compares these with actual revenues for FY 2000-01 and the FY 2000-01 to FY 2001-02 Budgets. • Actual farebox revenues have increased each year. FY 20002-^' a 10% increase over the Adopted FY 2001-02 Budget, and a 8% increase over the current es.--ed actual. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 14 56 " TABLE 2 .1 FY 2002-03 BUDGET SOURCES AND USES BY MEMBE R AGENCY ($000s) 00.nnt ngBmdge Local Fu nds For Operating Operations Maintenance -of -Way Other O perating Revenues Farebox Revenue Miscellaneous Operating Revenues MOW Revenues Total 0- Saa;cesi��'o�� ��je��afiTi " Operating Expenditures (Excl udes MOW) Maintenan ce -of -Way Local Funds For Capital New Capital Rehabilitation/Renovation Other Capital Revenues Interest on Lease Proceeds Other Local Funds State Funds Federal funds Amtrak Funds UPRR Funds is00-cE. F$ cy ca eta 6 P. New Capital Rehabilitation/Renovation .O T. $45,903 .2 34,143 .7 11,759.5 $52,732 .3 41,710.1 2,760.0 8,262 .3 78,613.8 20,021.7 $23,081.0 8,353.4 14,727.6 896,919.5 1,000.0 0. 0 50,096.8 43,545.6 1,189.0 1,088. 1 46.5% 34 .6 % 11 .9% 53.5% 42 .3 % 2.8 % 8.4% 79.7% 20.3 % 19.2% 7.0% 12.3% 80.8% 0.8% 41. 7% 36.3% 1. 0% 0.9% " $26,790.2 20,215.8 6,574.4 829,346 .4 22,880.8 1,393 .4 5,072 .2 i3 44,490 .0 11,646.6 $19,418 .8 6,959.9 12,458.9 $1,302 .6 168.6 1,134.0 $7,971.4 5,153.2 2,818.1 $10,663.7 7,906.6 899.2 1,857 .9 8;635;1;; 13,959.0 4,676.1 $1,941.4 658.0 1,283.4 $19,039.1 13,905.6 5,133.5 $3,029.9 2,816 .2 213.7 $3,134 .6 3,105 .9 28.7 0.0 5,950 .8 213.7 $147.5 147.5 0.0 $852.5 852 .5 0 87,142.9 32,857. 7 72.6% 27.4% $4,577.3 3,137 .9 1,439.4 $7,605.5 6,628.5 80.8 896.2 12;18.:.:: 9,847.2 2,335.7 $1,502 .6 517 .3 985.4 $8,302.8 1,021.4 7,281 .5 " SYstgmw de $3,534 .4 2,820.5 713.8 $1,982.1 1,188.3 357 .9 435.9 4,366.7 1,149.8 $70.6 70 .6 0.0 82,986.6 2,986 .6 $64,436.0 1,000 .0 35,001 .3 26,157.6 1,189 .0 1,088.1 8,262.5 12,458.9 14,563. 6 6,416. 8 147.5 852.5 4,878.6 4,926.8 l' #`.bt" i Froji:4$0x_ peii'.0i4iit" o" Summary Charts" FY03.xis" Summary 41512002, 3:58 PM $ 636i..g 7f;85$ip 1; $39;b1$. 70.6 2,986.6 $59,219.9 5,216.0 TABLE 2 .2 COMPARISON OF REVENUES ($000s) Operating R evenues Farebox Dispatching/Other Maintenance -of -Way Local Funds for Operating S btotal reel erxf.qg tie. 'ven. ...... ...... . f 4f iot R eerie es $31,992.7 2,029.2 6,975.1 38,990.5 '%9'98'#1 ct3 $31,890.0 2,289.1 7,651 .2 33,750.3 $35,297.9 2,177.9 7,431.0 39,896.8 03.5 7h10(i=0 .. ;i�i�cflial' $35,770.4 2,440.7 2,438.0 7,474 .1 7,523 .4 34 345 .5 43,896 .1 ?:;x'•80 03 ,� $41,710 .1 $2,760.0 8,262 .3 45,903 .2 'haigefori Y r z i3iirigef 10 .30 % 13.21 % 9.82 % 4.57% Capital R evenu es State $30,021 .7 $10,052.2 $28,763 .2 $16,958.3 $68,651 .5 $50,754.9 (26.07%) Federal 36,750.0 23,516 .2 47,269 .5 6,484.2 43,753.2 30,221.5 (30.93%) ProceedsInterest on Lease 1,562.0 1,413 .3 1,350 .0 924.5 1,000 .0 1,000 .0 0.00% Union Pacific Railroad/BN SF 90.0 0.0 981 .2 1,007 .1 1,319.0 1,088.1 (17.51%) Amtralc 949. 0 0.0 1,349.0 0 .0 941.0 941.0 0 .00% Local Funds for Ca ital 26,894.9 21,405.7 25,822.8 12,366 .3 29,088.3_ 35,995.1 23.74 % .: :;:;::::$5 38'i'�a :.:.: ...:.:... • .. •: .:::::::::$105. 35.1# :;.:.:.:.:.:.:.::: . �. :. :.:.: .: .:.:.:.:.:$��,7�0 .5 ;;;:: 53,3 . ,.. .. ...... ..�3:44y�.... •:::120' 11013 $ ::::•:::::..S .. .� .. . .:.: ..:. .........:17.1[3 ✓:I ... .4 . . .:.:.. :.:. :.:,:.:•:.:• :. :.:.:...:.:.:.:� :• :::.:.:.. .:•:,:.. .:.:•: S'litotalCa''it p. ... •2 '�t6 . .keu•� u ii eve`•` s"ii�'� . .... .. :�la n : .a '' •'Z ! f E otal Rover µe 36 42,r teweniiea as a Perceito Summary Charts-FY03.xls, 41412002, 2:52 PM • • SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • Dispatching/Other Revenues include fees for dispatching freight and Amtrak intercity trains and is estimated to equal $2.7 million, an increase of 13% over the FY 2001-02 Budget. • At the request of member agencies, Interest Income is traditionally not budgeted. These funds are contingent on cash flow and are used to reduce local operating subsidies as part of the end of the fiscal year member reconciliation. Member agency contributions for ordinary maintenance are partially offset by revenues received from the freight railroads and Amtrak Intercity. These revenue's rates were negotiated based on the historical expenditures on maintenance -of -way by the freight railroads prior to the purchase of these rights -of -way by the Member Agencies. However, due to the requirement of maintaining a higher standard of quality passenger rail service, these revenues do not offset all costs. MOW revenues total $8.3 million or 9% above the FY 2001-02 Budget. Local funds from the five member agencies for the Operating Budget vary from year to year. Local funds in FY 2000-01 were $34.3 million, increased to $43.9 million in the FY 2001-02 Budget, and are projected to be $45.9 million in the proposed FY 2002-03 Budget. This represents a 5% increase over the FY 2001-02 Budget. Revenues for New Capital and Rehabilitation/Renovation include state and federal grants, interest on lease proceeds, and railroad and local funds_ Projects are included in the Budget dependent upon the availability of these funds. The Capital Budget is 55% of the total FY 2002- 03 Budget. Dependent upon the availability of state and federal funds (principally for capital), local revenues as a percent of total revenues are estimated to be 32% of the FY 2002-03 Budget. 2.9 Summary of Operating and Capital Budgets by Expense Type Table 2.3 provides a summary of projected expenditures for FY 2002-03 by summary expense type. As shown in the table, expenditures have been segregated into eight primary expense types. These are listed and described below: • Labor - All SCRRA employee salaries, wages and fringe benefits. • Purchased Transportation - Payments to the contract operators of commuter train operations and maintenance -of -equipment. This category also includes Transfer Payments to other operators, and the use of Emergency Bus Services. • Services - Expenses for Operating Facilities Maintenance; Other Operating Train Services; Security (Los Angeles County Sheriff and private guard services); Public Safety Program; Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) Maintenance; Revenue Collection; Passenger Relations; Marketing; Media & External Communications; Professional Services; and Non -Labor Services. • Utilities/Leases - Expenses for telephone and other utilities and leases and rentals for office equipment; automobiles; facilities; rolling stock; maintenance -of -way equipment; and other 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 17 59 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget TABLE 2.3 TOTAL AGENCY EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) Operating:Budget:(Ineiudirig:MOB'V):::::;::::::::�:=:�:Aetua�::::::�:: �:::: Budget.... .. • g. . i .•.� - :. . . Budget : .•.•.-.. . ..-.• � - • g• •.-.�..�. .- Labor $8,529.9 $9,618.5 $11,035.0 11.2% Purchased Transportation 32,008.0 36,948.3 39,967.3 40.5% Services 14,780.4 15,309.8 17,560.3 17.8% Utilities/Leases 2,849.5 3,497.2 2,830.9 2.9% Maintenance -of -Way 10,705.0 14,395.8 15,014.3 15.2% Insurance & Liability 4,475.6 3,215.0 4,390.0 4.5% Other Expenses 6,682.2 8,689.4 7,837.6 7.9% �t_ :lit o:.-:. `:•:-0.40.n . . .:.:...t-::_::::.:.:_:::.: :_,.. _: .:3.,:_..$80.0 :7: > k..-.otat.Op._...a._��tg.$.udg�........ ....•��,.. ...-.�8..,..3U ... . . . . . = 91.74:4::. - .$ . ,6 .. <:=>-:$98,63S:S>:= ':::=::144;4°fe:=:::=::=: .. Labor Services Utilities/Leases Capital Other Expenses $1,360.5 576.4 100.1 31,913.2 179.2 $2,106.8 369.4 91.8 141,922.4 262.6 $2,181.7 439.6 159.3 116,969.6 250.6 1.8% 0.4% 0.1% 97.5% 0.2% ::1.6 00:9::::::::=:•100.D.�o.... �tilitotat:Capifa�:Budget::5::::>':�:�:�:=:= �:�_�>:�<':�>:$34,1 9:4::::,::.:_$1:A41�733:2::__:._::,$1... Q ,- -: .-.�. .-.�.-. • - '�v. a� SC�2�- �......�:�..-. •--:-.•.�.•.•:.�.�:...................... '�v. a� SC�2�- �......�:�..-. •--:-.•.�.•.•:.�.�:...................... -:�:-•::lY OO�OT:::::' . A..:�a1.•:•:�:�:;•:•:•:: :::::::FY.. 1- . . . . . . �udgQ1=:�:�:�:� •42 - �Z' . . . . . . . . =:�:�:=:�Bi�cig��:�:�:-:- �.� o ofPYQ2 . 03.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - dgge1.......::::: Labor $9,890.4 $11,725.4 $13,216.7 6.0% Purchased Transportation 32,008.0 36,948.3 39,967.3 18.3% Services 15,356.8 15,679.2 17,999.9 8.2% Utilities/Leases 2,949.6 3,589.0 2,990:3 1.4% Maintenance -of -Way 10,705.0 14,395.8 15,014.3 6.9% Insurance & Liability 4,475.6 3,215.0 4,390.0 2.0% Capital 31,913.2 141,922.4 116,969.6 53.5% Other Expenses 6,861.4 8,952.0 8,088.2 3.7% Total SCRRA :Bfidget:::::::::.:::`.?::::::.:=:::_:::=;:":' : :: 114;76Q:1.>: ;: >:$236,42'7 ...... 218;63(:4::` ::::: _::100Aaa:-::::: 4/4/2002 1:24 PM Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY03xis Exp Sum • 60 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • • leases and rentals. • Maintenance -of -Way - Expenses for maintenance of track, signal & communications; structures, extra -ordinary maintenance; maintenance -of -way equipment maintenance; and other maintenance -of -way expenses. • Insurance & Liability — Expenses for insurance premiums, claims and claims administration. • Capital - Expenses for Rehabilitation/Renovation and New Capital projects. • Other Expenses — Expenses for materials and supplies; taxes; miscellaneous expenses including dues and subscriptions; travel, meetings, and conferences; training and seminars; advertising; legal and meeting notices; postage and messenger; etc. The majority of SCRRA expenditures are included in the Capital expense type, 54%, followed by Purchased Transportation, 18%. Reflecting further that the SCRRA contracts out the majority of the services included in the budget, Agency Labor, makes up 6%of the total budget and 11% of the Operating Budget. Within the Operating Budget, Purchased Transportation makes up 41%; Services make up 18%, Maintenance -of -Way is 15% of the total. 2.10 Summary of Operating and Capital Budgets by Department Table 2.4 provides a summary of projected expenditures for FY 2002-03 by Department. 2.11 Summary of FY 2002-03 Authorized Positions Table 2.5 provides a summary of the FY 2002-03 proposed positions by department and compares with positions for FY 2000-01 and FY 2001-02. During FY 2001-02, the agency reorganized the Passenger Services Division of the Operations Department in order to more effectively oversee interaction with the SCRRA's customer. Included in this reorganization was the assumption of ticket sales at Los Angeles Union Station, a service previously contracted to Amtrak. Beginning October 1, 2002, the Budget anticipates the assumption of the provision of dispatching services previously contracted through the Amtrak contract. The inclusion of this function as a direct operating component of the SCRRA (with its 26 positions) brings in-house a function central to Metrolink's on -time performance and ensures an uninterrupted continuation of services in the event future actions of the National Board of Amtrak would be detrimental to the interest of the SCRRA. In FY 2002-03, 31 new positions are proposed to bring total staffing to 207 Board authorized positions. These new positions include the following: Assistant Executive Officer - Administrative Assistant Strategic Development & Communications - Administrative Assistant Geographic Information Systems Analyst 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 19 61 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget TABLE 2.4 COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT ($000s) • . Qpet4tink:$iid t: f iiiludiri :1V�O :=:.:::::::::.. L+Y:DQ.".OX:::::> 1I':01=U2::::::'::::F :0243:::= el•ual:::::::s:=::=::Bnd t::;:;:;:: _:::;::::B id:Ret:: ::x:02: : 6an .e:fXott►:: Ditd et: Executive Support Services & Technology Operations Engineering & Construction Equipment Strategic Development & Comm Finance $1,738.5 11,427.5 27,771.5 14,888.2 18,360.2 2,666.9 3,177.9 $1,919.9 10,167.1 29,621.9 18,088.2 24,390.5 3,715.3 3,771.1 $2,109.1 13,092.7 32,436.6 18,026.1 24,737.9 3,903.8 4,329.3 10% 29% 10% (0%) 1% 5% 15% 'o.i4tXpenses::::::::::::::::::;:::::::':::::::::::::::::::::::::::•::::::::$...80:03G7:.:.: ..$91.674 Q::::.:::::::$98;635:5:::::::::: :::•$°/a::::::::::• :: Executive Support Services & Technology Operations Engineering & Construction Equipment Strategic Development & Comm Finance $181.6 478.9 69.1 25,914.8 7,068.6 47.9 368.6 $189.5 938.6 0.0 104,614.6 33,628.3 47.1 5,334.9 $195.0 880.9 0.0 85,308.1 19,874.4 54.5 13,688.0 xpens s.............. .. X34,X29.4.......$144;7S3i:=:::::::8:]241;000:9:::: .,0)..._.,.. :-;:•......GulaBu . g .t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :::<::FY:00=0:1:-:::::::::Eli.:DY=Off::::::_:::: ctu0l..... . . . . #udge 1 :O2=03:::::= . a et::::::: : ::+ har#ge::fraii►;: 1:1'X:02=$ud�et: Executive Support Services & Technology Operations Engineering & Construction Equipment Strategic Development & Comm Finance $1,920.1 11,906.4 27,840.6 40,802.9 25,428.7 2,714.8 3,546.5 $2,109.4 11,105.7 29,621.9 122,702.8 58,018.7 3,762.4 9,106.0 $2,304.1 13,973.6 32,436.6 103,334.3 44,612.3 3,958.2 18,017.3 9% 26% 10% (16%) (23%) 5% 98% •• 1: ::::::: 0 :v.y::>::::: ».{$.o� >:•::: .. .-. ..,...?�1 . . . 5..:.. -•_-•.•.•.:.:..: .::::........: ...: . �4,I6p.1.. .. $236 :7 :$2i 4/4120021:24 PM Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY03xls-Dept 62 " TABLE 2.5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL R AIL AUTHORITY FY 2002-03 BUDGET COMPARISON OF POSITIONS BY DEP ARTMENT " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 BUDGET Executive Support Services and Technology Operations Engineering & Construction Equipment Strategic Developmen t and Communications Finance 6 7 0 7 ��:2oa2=o: 1 F1' 2002-03 ?roposed: 8 23 24 36 27 24 37 0 7 0 27 31 37 1 26 0 28 57 37 Subtotal 7 17 23 7 18 24 0 0 0 7 18 24 0 2 1 7 20 25 137 144 7 151 31 182 Ambassadors - Full Time Ambassadors - Part Time 7 25 6 25 -3 -3 x'75 3 22 0 0 3 22 176 * In July 2001, the Passenger Services Division of the Operations Department underwent a reorganization to more effectively i nteract with the agency's customers. The reorganization had the following effects: A ction Position Positions Impact A dd Manager, Passenger Services 1 Add Customer Relations, Manager 1 Add Passenger Services, Manager 1 A dd Station Coordin atior 3 Add Customer Service Representatives 5 Delete Transportation Coordin ators -2 Delete Senior Transportation Coordinator -1 Delete Rail Operations Planner -1 Delete A mbassadors - Full Time -3 Delete Abassadors - Part Time -3 Total 1 20.7 O0LABOR vl .xls;4/8/01; SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget Executive - Administrative Assistant Finance - Administrative Assistant Operations - Manager, Dispatching Operations Dispatching Operations Supervisors (6) Train Dispatchers (18) Administrative Assistant In FY 2000-01, the SCRRA completed an exhaustive study of the administrative needs of the organization given the changes in both the administrative structure of the agency, as well as the physical location requirements. A number of internal changes were made in line with this study as part of the Fiscal Year's 2000-01 and 2001-02 budgets, including the addition of some recommended positions. In December of 2001, a follow up assessment was conducted to determine the adequacy and efficiency of previous changes. The Administrative Assistant positions requested above represent positions identified in the 2000-01 study, but never budgeted and are consistent with the recommendation of the follow up assessment. The position of Geographic Information Systems Analyst is proposed to provide necessary support to both Operational personnel and the provision of increased Market Research data. This position will have the capacity to integrate a variety of sources, both external and internal, including the agency's Universal Customer Care Database (UCCDB), into an extensive spatial representation model to provide far greater analytical capability to the agency's ability to target market, work jointly with regional transit operators, and identify future potential demand centers in the Southern California region. 4/8/02, 12.09 PM 22 64 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget SECTION 3 SCOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY OPERATING BUDGET 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 23 65 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 24 66 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • 3.0 OPERATING BUDGET 3.1 Performance Data Figures 3.1 through 3.4 provide a summary of the FY 2002-03 performance data as projected in the Budget and compared with historical data since 1992. The budget illustrates the continuing growth and efficiency of Metrolink operations. As shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2, both operating expenses and train -miles have increased, but prior to FY 2002-03, operating expenses have increased at a significantly lower rate. Fare revenues have increased with ridership, and maintenance -of -way and dispatching revenues continue to remain strong. Several factors contribute to moderate the increase in member agency subsidy requirements for FY 2002-03 as compared with the Budget for FY 2001-02: Factors tending to increase member agency subsidies: • Train operating expenses are projected to increase 9% Total Revenue Miles operated is expected to climb 10% • Average Weekday Ridership is projected to increase 3% and Total Ridership by 4% • Significant increases in payments to Freight Railroads due to increased service on rights -of way owed by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway. • Combined increases in the costs of Operating and Property Insurance premiums of 38% Factors tending to moderate member agency subsidies: • Farebox Revenues are projected to increase 10% • Maintenance -of -Way Revenues are projected to increase by 10% • Maintenance of Way expenses are increased 2% • Fuel costs are expected to decline 14% Figures 3.3 and 3.4 provide various operating statistics. Revenue recovery is calculated as the ratio of total operating revenues over total expenses less rolling stock lease and maintenance -of - way extra -ordinary maintenance.2 Since FY 1996-97 the revenue recovery index has been over 50% and is projected at almost 54% for FY 2002-03. In past years, final actual revenue recovery ratios have generally been higher than the budget projection due to contingencies included in the annual budgets as well as interest received on fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects. Farebox revenues are estimated to cover 46% of total operating expenses for FY 2002-03. Operating expense per train -mile is calculated net of extra -ordinary maintenance and is projected to be $47.24 in FY 2002-03 a decline from $48.48 in the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget. 2 Extra -ordinary maintenance covers damages due to vandalism, crossing gate accidents, deraihnents, fires, storm damage and other expenses as required. In years without unusual rainfall or train accidents, $500,000 has been a reasonable estimate, and this is the level proposed for FY 2002-03. In other years, such as has been experienced in FY 1997-98 with the El Niiio storms, the total can easily exceed $3,500,000. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 25 67 FIGURE 3.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ANNUAL OPERATING DATA - FY 92-93 TO FY 02-03 OPERATING EXPENSE ($Millions) $110 - $90 - $70 - $50 - $30 $10 FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 $18.86 $45.31 $57.88 $64.4 $68.4 $73.7 $77.9 $75.1 $80.0 $91.7 $98.6 REVENUES ($Millions) $60 $50 - $40 - $30 - $20 - $10 $- FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 $3.5 $15.4 $23.3 $30.7 $37.7 $38.0 $39.1 $41.8 $44.9 $47.8 $52.7 OPERATING SUBSIDY ($Millions) $50 $40 - $30 - $20 $10 FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 $15.7 $28.4 $34.1 $33.6 $30.7 $35.67 $37.64 $33.26 $34.35 $43.90 $45.90 Actuats to FY 00-01, Budget for FY 01-02 and FY 02-03 • 4/4/2002 Charts03.xls C3.1 68 " " FIGURE 3.2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ANNUAL OPERATING DATA - FY 92-93 TO FY 02-03 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 - 500 - TRAIN MILES (Thousands) FY 92-93 1 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 211.8 708.0 978.5 lI 1,155.8 1,295.8 1,405.9 1611.1 1,757.2 1,792.3 1 1,890.9 2,088.1 FARES ($Millions) $50 $40 - $30 $20 - $10 $ FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 $2.6 $11.7 $17.2 $21.8 $24.5 $27.1 $29.1 $31.9 $35.3 $37.8 $41.7 40,000 AVERAGE WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP 30,000 20,000 - 10,000 - FY F Y FY 6 [F21,207Y Y F21,7047 1259 F26,85Y FY F31 Y FY FY 02-03 b,3992 2 8564 17,2695 0081 6 8599 2790490 5x91 33,15901 2 34 050 Actuals to FY 00-01, Budget for FY 01-02 and FY 02-03 4/4/2002 Charts03.xts C3.2 69 FIGURE 3.3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ANNUAL OPERATING DATA - FY 92-93 TO FY 02-03 REVENUE RECOVERY 70% 60% - 4 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 16.8% 37.3% 41.7% 48.0% 55.7% 54-1% 51.6% 56.2% 57.6% 52.7% 53.7% FAREBOX RECOVERY 60% 50% 40% - 30% 20% - 10% FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 14.4% 26.0% 33.4% 38.0% 42.1% 43.5% 41.4% 47.7% 49.8% 45.2% 46.4% OPERATING EXPENSE !TRAIN MILE $100 $75 $50 $25 • FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 $89.05 $64.00 $58.63 $55.27 $52.41 $50.01 $48.40 $42.45 $44.37 $48.22 $47.24 Actuals to FY 00-01, Budget for FY 01-02 and FY 02-03 Revenue Recovery = Operating Revenues/Operating Expenses Net of Rolling Stock Lease Payments & Extra -Ordinary Maintenance Farebox Recovery = Farebox Revenue/Operating Expenses Net of MOW Revenues, Rolling Stock Lease & Extra -Ordinary Maintenance 4/4/2002 Charts03.xls C3.3 70 " FIGURE 3.4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ANNUAL OPERATING DATA - FY 92-93 TO FY 02-03 OPERATING EXPENSE/PASSENGER-MILE $1.0 $0.8 - $0.6 - $0.4 - $0.2 $- FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 $0.71 $0.41 $0.37 $0.33 $0.34 $0.32 $0.32 $0.29 __ $0.26 $0.29 $0.29 $20 OPERATING SUBSIDY/RIDER $15 $10 - $5 FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 $16.70 $8.63 $7.75 $6.18 $5.55 $5.66 $5.59 $4.75 $4.16 $5.04 $5.08 $1.0 OPERATING SUBSIDY/PASSENGER-MILE $0.8 $0.6 $0.4 - $0.2 - , $- FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 $0.59 $0.26 $0.22 $0.17 $0.15 $0.16 $0.15 $0.13 $0.11 $0.14 $0.14 Actuals to FY 00-01, Budget for FY 01-02 and FY 02-03 4/4/2002 Charts03.xls C3.4 71 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • Operating expense per passenger -mile has fluctuated between $0.30 and $0.34 since FY 1995-96 and is projected to be $0.29 in FY 2002-03. Operating subsidy per rider has decreased as the system matured, and the projection for FY 2002-03 is $5.08. As Metrolink trips are relatively lengthy, a better indication of the efficiency of the system is operating subsidy per passenger - mile. This index is projected to remain unchanged at $0.14, which is very competitive with other transit properties in the region. 3.2 Summary of FY 2000-01 Statistics by Line Table 3.1 provides the estimated operating statistics by line for FY 2002-03 and the calculation of various performance ratios. Revenues and expenses are allocated to lines using formulae described in detail in Sections 6.1 through 6.4. Average trip length for FY 2002-03 is projected at 36.2 miles, consistent with the method used for National Transit Database (formally Section 15) reporting. Dependent on ridership and revenues received for each line, operating statistics vary considerably. The Orange County, San Bernardino, and IEOC Lines have the highest revenue recovery and most favorable cost- effectiveness and service efficiency indices as these lines have the highest ridership per train and train -mile. The Ventura County and Antelope Valley lines have the lowest revenue recovery and least favorable cost-effectiveness indices as these lines have lower ridership per train and the corresponding highest operating costs and subsidy per train -mile. 3.3 Components Of The Operating Budget The two components of the Operating Budget - Operations and Maintenance -of -Way, have multiple sub -components of both expenses and revenues, which are provided to permit allocation to line and to member agencies. • Operations — This portion of the Operating Budget includes expenses required to operate the Metrolink system including train operations, maintenance of equipment, fuel, security, utilities, transfer payments to other transit operators, revenue collection, payments to freight railroads for dispatching, station maintenance, passenger services, general and administrative expenses, professional services, and insurance. • Maintenance -of -Way — This portion of the Operating Budget represents ordinary maintenance of the rights -of -way owned by SCRRA member agencies, and includes routine inspection of track, signals, structures and repairs as needed. 3.4 Operating Budget Assumptions Service - The FY 2002-03 Budget assumes the operation of 138 daily trains on seven lines and 32 weekend trains on two lines. Total Revenue Train Miles are expected to increase approximately 10% over the FY 2001-02 Budget. Effective January 2002, the agency added additional off peak services on the Ventura County and • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 26 72 " TABLE 3.1 OPERATING STATISTICS " ::::::::::::. :.:::.:.:::" :.:.:...,.. .:.:.: .;.. .�� .:." ." .. ., .....��:��:.;...:��:.:.:" :,: ��: ��: ." :" :��: " :" :��:" : " :��:" : ��:,:.;..... ....... .... . " ." ." ........ .:" :" . " :.:...: .: .:. " .,..,.,.,.." ,.:" : ..:.:: " :" :: ��:. " ...:.: ... ... .." ," ..::" :" ::,:. " ..... ,.,.,.,. ...;.,.:.;...;.; .:.. ..... .. ...:.::.;.:... .. ..... ." ." i?.. .. ..:.:.;.:.:.:.;.:.:." .. ." ..." ..,.. ., .,..::.:,:,:. .:. ." .Oran " San... .. .." ," ,#eat r" .:;: tl .�� ... . ;; ::;  me b b: .:.: ��." :.. .....,.,.;.:.:.:. .:,:.;.; .;.; .:.: ." ." . ��. ..��.. ��: ��:... : " : .:, ..,,,.. ,zttaotF>�� ..; .; ..�� .��. ��.." .:::��:��:��:��::: ��. ,.,.,.,.,.;.; re.. ��.,, ..." ." :" :::: ." . " ... .., .. ,.,.:" .......:: ....... ��. nn ;; �� .;.; .; .; .: .;.; ;; fy..: :Valle �� ��;:�� ��,: ::'Burhank:::; :;.;: ��: ������: ������ :.::::Rivers de ::. .::, ::::: " ' ' . ... .. CCo . ��,.; . .. :�� ;:��i'i" iii iii ;`: �� .;:: " .:::'': .' :: .. ... .....:. .... .:. . ,. ...:..... . .:... .. ... ...::::: .:�� .:: . qe:;...,.,.;.:.; ; .i,rne:;::E:Line;:;:i:.:?:!:;:;Furh&:;:; .:,: .; p:::��:::;:Ltste:��:��::i;i E:E;i;i;::i��ftle`;:;::!:::::;E::Ei;itie:::::i::::::;:::::" Lihel:;:;a:: ::::::: .. , . . ... ... .. ;::I::::�� ... .. .. del,.. .,... OPERATING STATISTICS: Train Trips - FY 02-03 Budget Passenger Boarding - FY 02-03 Budget Change - FY 02 Estimated Actuals to FY 03 54 2,832,650 20 857,177 32 1,595,750 12 - 12 1,173 ,000 19 1,565,397 12 816,000 9 204,000 170 9,043,974 Prop osed % Change - FY 02 Adopted Budget to FY 03 Proposed Train Miles - FY 02-03 Budget % Change - FY 02 Estimated Actu als to FY 03 Proposed Change " FY 02 Adopted Bu dget to FY 03 Proposed Passenger M iles - FY 02-03 Budget Average Weekday Ridership Average Trip Length (Miles) FINANCIAL, ($=000): 1 ,9% 4.6% 510,646 0.8 % 3.3% 102,266,357 10,150 36.9 0 ,5% ( 19.5%) 240,210 6 ,3 % 4.0% 24,858,133 3,361 29.0 4.8 % 15 .3 % 439,560 18.9% 24.4% 59,761,907 5,850 38.1 - - 38,352.0 0,4% 0.9 % - - - (3,4%) 4 .2% 179,622 (3,3%) (5,9%) 48,519,631 4,600 40.2 5,2% 0.1% 334,637 6 .2 % 3 .5% 60,353,400 6,139 38 .8 5,6% 0.7 % 203,975 11,2 % (4 .2%) 34,435,200 3,200 42 .2 351 ,2% 351.2% 141,143 129.0 % 198,8% 7,140,000 800 35.0 4 ,2% 3.8% 2,088,143 10 .7% 10.4% 337,334,628 34,100 36.2 Operating Cost (w/ M OW) FY 02-03 Budget (1) Change - FY 02 Estim ated Actu als to FY 03 Proposed % Change - FY 02 Adopted Bu dget to FY 03 Proposed Operating Cost (w/o MOW Extra -Ordinary M aintenance) Operating Cost (w/o MOW) - FY 02-03 Subsidy (w/ M OW) - FY 02-03 Change - FY 02 Estimated Actuals to FY 03 Proposed % Change " FY 02 Adopted Budget to FY 03 Proposed Farebox Revenue - FY 02-03 %Change - FY 02 Estimated Actuals to FY 03 Proposed % Change - FY 02 Adopted Budget to FY 03 Proposed Other Revenues - FY 02-03 (2) Average Fare Per Passenger - FY 02-03 2OST / SER VICE EFFICIENCY - FY 02-03 524,158 .9 9.5 % 2.9% $24,034 .4 $18,511 .1 58,128.1 16.4 % (111.2%) 13,444.1 4,4% 9.8% 2,586. 7 54.75 514,631.5 14.1% 6.4 % 514,538.2 511,196 .5 58,988 .7 24.3% 13.9% 3,542.5 (6.S't) (12 .9 %) 2,100.3 $4.13 521,183.3 13 .0 % 53 % 521,052 .0 515,970.0 512,309 .7 14.7% (1.1%) 6,344.8 15,9% 23.5% 2,528.8 53 .98 $0.0 50.0 50.0 - - - - 50.00 510,836.9 10.7 % 3.8 % $10 ,818.4 510,410.4 54,743.5 26,0% 1,1 % 5,852 .7 1.2% 63 % 240.6 54 .99 517,965 .7 183% 11.8% 517,862.4 $13,533.6 $7,100.4 31.9 % 16 .7% 7,652.7 9,6 % 6.9% 3,212.7 $4.89 57,962.9 15,8% 8.5% $7,936.7 $7,210.9 53,693.1 23.1% 9.7% 3,948.0 11 .2 % 8 .3% 321.8 $4.84 51,896.2 144 ,6% 308 .1% $1,893.3 $1,781 .2 $939 .7 35.7% 151,9% 925 .3 1,750 .6 % 1,481.7% 31.3 54.54 598,635.5 14.2% 7.6 % 598,135.5 578,613 .8 545,903 .2 21 .2% 4 ,6% 41 ,710,1 8.3% 10,3 % 11,022.2 54.61 Op Cost / Passenger (w/o MOW Extra -Ordinary Maintenance) Op Cost / Passenger Mile (w/o MOW Extra -Ordinary Maint) Subsidy/Passenger Subsidy / Passenger Mile Op Cost/ Train Mile Op Cost / Train Mile (w/o M OW) Subsidy/ Tra in Mile Farebox Recovery(3) Revenue Recovery (4) $8. 48 $0.24 52. 87 50.08 $47.31 $36. 25 515.92 62.1% 66,7% $16.96 50.58 $10.49 50.36 $60. 91 $46.61 $37.42 27.0% 38. 8% $13.19 50 .35 $7.71 $0,21 548.19 536.33 528.00 33.5% 42. 2% - - - - - - - $9.22 50.22 54.04 50.10 560.33 $57.96 $26.41 54.8% 56,3% 511 .41 50 .30 $4,54 $0.12 553.69 $40.44 521 .22 48 .0% 60 .8% 59.73 $0.23 $4.53 $0.11 539 .04 535 .35 $18.11 51.4 % 53.8 % 59.28 50.27 54.61 50.13 $13.43 $12.62 56.66 49.7% 50,5% $10 .85 $0 .29 55 .08 50.14 $47.24 $37.65 521.98 46,4% 53 .7% Notes: (I) Costs include all expenses for Metrolink and MOW on operating and non -operating lines. (2) Other revenues include dispatching fees and MOW revenues from freight and A mtrak due to indiv idual member agencies. (3) Farebox recovery is the ratio of farebox revenue to total expenses net of maintenance -of -way revenues, rolling stock lease payments and extra -ordinary maintenance. (4) Revenu e recovery is the ratio of operating revenues to operating expenses net of rolling stock lease payments and extra -ordinary maintenance. Annual Sla1s03.xls Summary 4/6/2002 8:55 AM SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • Antelope Valley Lines. In May of 2002, new peak and off peak round trip service was added to the new 91 Line. Further, extensions on the Antelope Valley, Orange County and Inland Empire/Orange County Lines provide additional options to Metrolink riders to extend their trips to the terminal point of each line. Saturday service on the Riverside Line was terminated in response to poor ridership. This operating scenario fully utilizes the existing equipment, and any additional changes to services will primarily involve capacity improvements to individual train sets as newly arrived cars are cycled into scheduled rotations and existing consists. A new program to be implemented in FY 2002-03 is the "Take the Next Train" program in which the SCRRA and Amtrak will work together to allow passengers, on those lines where complementary service exists, holding valid Metrolink or Amtrak tickets, to choose the service provider most convenient to their travel needs. A graduated reimbursement scale has been negotiated based on Passenger Counts. The FY 2002-03 Budget assumes continuation of the service improvements implemented in FY 2001-02 and fully annualizes the resulting operating costs. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 reflect service assumptions and revenue miles projected for FY 2002-03. TABLE 3.2 SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS FOR FY 2002-03 Line Weekday Trains Saturday Trains Sunday Trains San Bernardino 30 San Bern -LA 7 San Bern -LA 9 Riverside -LA 2 San Bern LA 6 Riverside -LA Ventura County 4 Chatsworth -LA 12 Moorpark -LA 4 Oxnard -LA Antelope Valley 2 Santa Clarita-LA 4 Via Princessa-LA 18 Lancaster -LA 8 Lancaster -LA Riverside 12 Riverside -LA (UP) 91 9 Riverside -LA (Fullerton) Orange County 6 Irvine -LA 2 Laguna Nigel — LA 1 San Juan Cap -LA 10 Oceanside -LA Inland Empire to Orange County 4 San Bern -Irvine 1 San Bern -Laguna Nigel 2 San Bern -San Juan Cap 2 San Bern -Oceanside 2 Riverside -Irvine 1 Riverside -San Juan Cap - Burbank Turns 8 Burbank Airport -LA 4 Burbank -LA Maintenance of Equipment (MOE) — The current fleet of rolling stock consists of 37 Locomotives and 146 Passenger Vehicles. In FY 2001-02 the agency took delivery of 27 new passenger cars and 4 locomotives, greatly expanding the capacity of the agency to perform ongoing ordinary maintenance as well as the more extensive rehabilitation and renovation 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 28 74 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • program. Table 3.3 REVENUE TRAIN MILES FOR FY 2002-03 Line FY 2001-02 Budget FY 2002-03 Budget Increase/ (Decrease) 16,310.2 % Change 3.3% San Bernardino Line 494,336.0 510,646.2 Ventura County Line 230,889.6 240,210.0 9,320.4 4.0% Antelope Valley Line 353,304.6 439,559.6 86,225.0 24.4% Riverside Line (via UP) 190,801.6 I79,622.0 (11,179.6) (5.9%) 91 Line 47,244.0 141,142.5 93,898.5 198.8% Orange County Line 323,425.8 334,636.5 11,210.7 3.5% Inland Empire/Orange County Line 212,913.8 203,974.5 (8,939.3) (4.2%) Burbank Turns 37,998.4 38,352.0 353.6 0.9% Total Revenue Miles Note Milea e d t' h 1,890,913.8 2,088,143.3 197,229.5 10.4% g ec mes on t e Rrverstde are as result of the elimmatton of Saturday Service effective January 2001. Declines on the IEOC line is the result of the FY 2001-02 Budget assuming a greater number of trains extending to Oceanside from that implemented. • • Maintenance of Way (MOW) — The SCRRA is primarily responsible for the maintenance and integrity of approximately 326 track miles within the five county region. For further detail regarding the assumptions of the MOW program, please see Section 3.8. Revenues - Farebox revenues are projected from estimates of ridership developed in coordination with member agency staff and includes both the assumed third of three 4% adjustments to the base fare as well as a 1% incremental increase to cover the costs of increased operational and infrastructure security. The projected total annual ridership increase is estimated 4%. Average Weekday ridership is estimated to increase 3%. Revenue per rider is based on average trip length and mix of fare type. The revenue per rider experienced on each line is used to estimate farebox revenues for each line and is based on specific projections of ridership. Dispatching revenues are estimated based on agreements between the SCRRA and the freight railroads and Amtrak Intercity service. Dispatching revenues from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad are increased by the railroad index and Amtrak Intercity revenues are increased by the CPI. Both of these indices are estimated to grow 4%. Revenues from Union Pacific Railroad are based on an agreed upon flat rate fee. Other miscellaneous revenues include potential sponsorship reimbursements of the annual special Holiday Trains, participation by CALTRANS on the agency's new Take the Next Train" program, and other minor reimbursements to the agency. Expenses - In projecting expenses, cost of living or labor agreement -related increases built into existing contracts are assumed. These increases range from a low of 1% to a high of 4%. In addition, consistent with recent experience, the average cost of diesel fuel is estimated to be $1.00 per gallon in FY 2002-03 Budget, a decline from $1.25 per gallon for FY 2001-02. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 29 75 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • A significant increase is also estimated in the cost of Operating and Liability premiums as a result of the price shock to the insurance markets in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States. An increase of 37.5% is included in the FY 2002-03 Budget. For a detailed discussion of individual Operating Cost components, sec Section 3.6 below. 3.5 Summary of Revenues and Expenses by Operating Cost Component Table 3.4 shows revenues and expenses by operating cost component of the Operating Budget for FY 2002-03 with comparisons to FY 2000-01 Actual Expenses, and the FY 2001-02 Budget and Current Forecast. Operating revenues include farebox revenues, dispatching and other revenues as well as maintenance -of -way revenues. Operations expenses include expenses required to operate the Metrolink system including train operations, maintenance of equipment, fuel, security, utilities, transfer payments to other transit operators, revenue collection, payments to freight railroads for dispatching, station maintenance, passenger services, general and administrative expenses, professional services, and insurance. Operations expenses are distributed to the lines (and subsequently to member agencies) based on several formulae. Items such as direct Train Operations expenses and fuel are distributed based on train -miles. Payments to freight railroads are charged directly to lines. Additionally, a set of Base costs consisting of those costs that do not vary with the number of trains operated is included in the Operations Budget. These allocation formulae are described in Sections 6.1 and 6.2. Maintenance -of -way expenses are developed by SCRRA to ensure the level of ordinary maintenance is sufficient to prevent any loss of service quality. Levels of maintenance required on individual lines depend upon several factors including the condition of the infrastructure; levels of train traffic; levels of freight traffic; the number of road crossings; the number of curves; and exposure to storm damage. 3.6 Detail of Operating Budget The FY 2002-03 Operating Budget is $6.9 million or 8% greater than the FY 2001-02 Budget. Major factors contributing to this increase are: • Increase of $1.3 million, 9%, in Train Operating expenses under the Amtrak contract, of which approximately $1.0 million is related to the annualization of new service expansion implemented in FY 2001-02. • Annual increases in labor rates and non -labor costs included in the Bombardier contract, combined with additional rolling stock, result in an increase of $1.1 million, 7%, in the costs of Equipment Maintenance. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 30 76 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • TABLE 3.4 ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION BY COST COMPONENTS EXPENSES REVENUES GRANTS lY�'; LOCAti Si)i�� Revenues Farebox Revenue Dispatching/Other Revenues MOW Revenues Member Agency Revenues :>moial:Revenues F.•X:UR;O4:_>;::.:.:k k:01-92 >; :FY 01=41:: > `:I~Y{C 03 FY:QO=0:1 Y O]-02.>::: *.-6-02 A pa4:>: >:: Bitdgei: >: F4 ecasl:::::::::::piu0:e; 4 Acftial ::::::i3urkec:::::>:Fores?'s[:_::: 80,030.7 45,685.2 0.0 $35,770.4 2,440.7 7,474.1 34,345.5 91,674.0 47,778.0 0.0 $37,816.6 2,438.0 7,523.4 43,896.1 86,346.2 48,460.8 0.0 538,524.5 2,412.9 7,523.4 37,885.4 98,635.5 52,732.3 0.0 541,710.1 2,760.0 8,262.3 45,903.2 23.2% 15.4% 0.0% 16.6% 13.1% 10.5% 33.7% 7.6% 14.2% 10.4% 8.8% 0.0% 103% 13.2% 9.8% 4.6% 0.0% 8.3% 14.4% 9.8% 21.2% 9i Operations & Services Train Operations Equipment Maintenance Contingency (Train Ops) Fuel Non -Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs Operating Facilities Maintenance Other Operating Train Services Security - Sheriff Security - Guards Supplemental Additional Security Public Safety Program Passenger Relations Holiday Trains TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection Marketing Media & External Communications Utilities/Leases Transfers to Other Operators Amtrak Transfers Station Maintenance Rail Agreements Subtotal Operations & Services Maintenance -of -Way MoW - Line Segments MoW - Extra -Ordinary Maintenance Subtotal Maintenance -of -Way General & Administrative Staff Salaries & Fringe Benefits Ambassadors Non -Labor Costs Allocated Overhead Subtotal Staff Services Professional Services Subtotal Services Subtotal General & Administrative Contingency (Non -Train Ops) Insurance Liability/Property/Auto Claims Claims Administration Subtotal Insurance 17,434.8 18,100.0 11,609.8 15,400.0 (2.9) 200.0 4,717.3 5,893.5 287.9 400.0 801.2 1,116.8 281.8 300.4 2,368.4 2,692.9 671.2 766.2 429.1 500.0 1,125.0 1,272.1 102.8 114.5 1,639.4 1,823.0 834.1 1,181.5 427.8 542.2 1,581.3 2,095.3 2,893.3 3,170.3 490.7 698.5 1,589.5 1,589.1 49,282.7 57,856.2 14,704.5 690.1 15,394.6 19,189.7 500.0 19,689.7 18,000.0 13,700.0 4,500.0 130.0 1,210.0 235.0 2,730.0 735.0 400.0 1,073.0 165.4 1,993.0 1,150.0 450.0 1,888.3 3,170.3 636.3 2,268.540 54,434.8 17,738.7 475.1 18,213.8 19,457.4 16,539.8 200.0 5,100.0 400.0 1,015.2 202.6 3,017.1 842.8 330.0 497.5 1,377.0 157.2 2,210.0 1,048.6 618.2 1,674.1 3,225.0 450.0 712.1 2,544.6 61,619.1 19,521.7 500.0 20,021.7 3,807.9 4,373.9 4,092.000 5,075.8 612.8 688.7 583.000 496.0 427.1 819.1 650.000 671.3 3,549.5 3,482.2 4,040.000 4,622.2 8,397.3 9,364.0 9,365.0 10,865.3 1,281.6 1,281.6 9,678.9 1,121.6 1,I21.6 10,485.6 1,060.0 1,060.0 10,425.0 1,359.4 1,359.4 12,224.7 1,237.1 500.0 180.0 500.0 2,041.3 2,000.0 396.2 4,437.4 2,142.5 500.0 500.0 3,142.5 2,142.5 500.0 450.0 3,092.5 2,945.0 750.0 575.0 4,270.0 11.6% 42.5% 8.1% 38.9% 26.7% (28.1%) 27.4% 25.6% 15.9% 22.4% 52.9% 34.8% 25.7% 44.5% 5.9% 11.5% 45.I% 60.1% 25.0% 32.8% (27.6%) 30.1% (9.1%) (32.6%) 12.0% 10.0% (0:5%) 8.2% 37.3% 21.2% (11.2%) 14.0% (20.1%) 1.7% 1.9% 60.1% 6.5% 1.7% (0.0%) 1.7% 8.1% 20.7% 13.3% 207.7% (16.1%) (13.8%) 10.5% 14.7% 24.4% 28.3% (5.0%) 10.9% (8.8%) 37.4% (11.3%) 1.7% 11.9% 12.2% 13.2% 10.1% 5.2% 9.9% 33.3% 16.0% 24.0% (19.1%) (28.0%) (14.9%) 57.2% (18.1%) 3.3% 30.2% 32.7% 14.4% 29.4% 16.0% 16.0% 6.1% 6.1% 26.3% 21.2% 21.2% 16.6% 28.2% 28.2% 17.3% (59.6%) 177.8% 44.3% (62.5%) 45.1% (3.8%) 37.5% 37.5% 50.0% 50.0% 15.0% 27.8% 35.9% 38.1% 4/52002 4:05 PM nudget03.xis-Summary 77 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • • Increases in the number of stations, as well as increasing banking fees result in an increase to TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection of $730 thousand, 21%. • Increases in the costs of Operating and Property Insurance premiums, $803 thousand, 37.5%. • Increases in staff and indirect costs resulting from an increase in Information Technology requirements, a shift in labor from direct costs to indirect costs, and increased consultant expenses in various overhead departments, and increased lease costs of agency facilities, $1.5 million, 16%. • Increases for costs paid to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad for increased operations on non-member owned rights -of -way, $956 thousand, 60.1%. • Increased costs of operational and infrastructure security resulting from contractual increases and increased demand for such services, $400 thousand, 12%. The following section describes each element of the Operating Budget. Revenues. Metrolink fares are assumed to increase by 4% on July 1, 2002, the third of three Board approved adjustments to the agency's base fare structure. Also included in total fare revenues is the additional 1% Supplemental Security increase. Table 3.5 shows the projection of ridership and farebox revenue for FY 2002-03. Average weekday ridership is projected to be 34,100. Revenue per rider was estimated based on prior and current years and is estimated systemwide at $4.61, an increase of 6% from FY 2001-02. Revenue per rider depends on average trip length as well as mix of ticket types. The resulting total Farebox Revenue is 10% over the FY 2001-02 Budget. Miscellaneous revenues include fees for dispatching freight and Amtrak Intercity trains and marketing revenues principally from sponsorship activities. Table 3.6 shows the Dispatching Revenues from FY 2000-01 through FY 2002-03. While not included in the budget amount, each year, actual Miscellaneous Revenues also include interest on fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects. Maintenance -of -way revenues are described in Section 3.8. The following section details expenses shown in Table 3.4. Train Operations. Amtrak provides train operations and, through September 30, 2002, dispatching services and is budgeted at $19.5 million for FY 2002-03, which represents an 8% increase from the FY 2001-02 Budget. For comparative purposes, this figure also includes the cost to the SCRRA of bringing dispatching services in house beginning October 1, 2002. This estimate includes an increase to accommodate the annualization of new services as referenced above. Of the total Operations expense, $1 million is attributable to the full year costs FY 2001- 02 increases in service. The contingency for Train Operations is set at $100,000. Equipment Maintenance. The budget for FY 2001-02 was $15.4 million, and the request for FY 2002-03 is $16.5 million, an increase of 7%. Costs for FY 2002-03 are expected to increase due to labor increases per the contract; an increase in number of employees under the 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 32 78 " TABLE 3.5 RIDERSHIP/FA RE REVENUE FORECAST " " :: >AJerage:Us3:1:3i teistil [�� :::::`::: .: " ' i . .... ::.R.. ' ' :: Ev . enuelRidei::��:::::��: :::��:::��::��>:':; ::��::::::=::Fare:Re+reou'e's ,:::::::��:��:-: " :" :��:��:��:��:.:;��" ��'��:�� : Additiori:at: :::'f'otsrl::.:;: O', ' rutin " Liiir:;:;:;> FX01=O'Z:::::Yr?A. *::.::FX01::" q:':::Garth: ::" :" Budget::.:,:.: ' ov'07 ..:::: >:Fcst'.:: " �� :::::�V.::::::::Pf.ti ." ,, .. ...P.o :::E.:o2=03:: " 'e''::," P��, used, t e , " , i �� " t 01" :" :::" :" : .al:''" :" :" : " :" :" . ..��F .a'Oq':.......ICY...OI..... .FX.O,1Ox:" :" ::::::::F3'02-o-3:��::: .:��: " `.Actgal��:.:.:.:��.,��g'pd et . ........ .... 'p" . .... g.." ;" ::::::;" ;:Fc$t:<::::::;:.:" :Pi ro'osed:::: " ::1'3'0::::��: Sec'urifY::: ;��'�� ..... ::F'1':OZ=03:: . ... ... :.Tteveriues:: ��," ... San Bernardino Weekday Saturday 9,941 9,716 9,985 1 .65 % 10,150 4.59 4.80 - 4 .80 11,155,625 11,590,281 12,024,822 12,423,600 99,076 12,522,676 Sunday 2,440 2,790 2,990 0,33% 3,000 3.55 3.52 3.65 478,942 450,394 547,540 569,400 4,541 573,941 1,083 1,529 1,647 3.22% 1,700 3.53 3 .88 3 .90 234,917 202,663 334,592 344,760 2,749 347,509 Ventura County 4,192 3,376 3,358 0.10% 3,361 3.82 4 .47 4 .10 3,604,640 4,067,858 3,458,289 3,514,425 28,027 3,542,452 Antelope Valley Weekday Saturday 5,148 5,294 5,590 4 .65 % 5,850 3.74 3.79 4.00 4,869,446 4,890,394 5,348,632 5,967,000 47,586 6,014,586 1,477 1,762 1,970 1.52% 2,000 3.20 3.04 3.15 267,137 245,766 308,645 327,600 2,613 330,213 Riverside Riv(UP) Saturday 4,433 4,570 4,781 -3.79% 4,600 4 .77 4.91 4 .95 5,171,949 5,375,816 5,883,521 5,806,350 46,305 5,852,655 91 653 253 .250 0.00% 3.80 4 .40 0.00 49,397 129,033 30,111 100 111 178 349.44% 800 2.31 1 .68 4.50 58,052 58,527 136,557 918,000 7,321 925,321 Orange County 6,155 5,294 5,860 4.76% 6,139 4.58 5.14 4.85 6,815,053 7,160,142 6,981,347 7,592,175 60,546 7,652,721 1EOC 3,190 2,902 3,042 5.19% 3,200 4.50 4.73 4.80 3,235,874 3,645,713 3,642,859 3,916,800 31,236 3,948,036 Totals Weekday Saturday 33,159 31,516 33,044 3.20% 34,100 34,960,036 36,917,763 37,506,138 40,138,350 320,097 40,458,447 Sunday 4,570 4,805 5,2I0 1,083 -4.03% 5,000 795,476 825,193 886,296 897,000 7,153 904,153 1,529 1,647 3.22% 1,700 234,917 202,663 334,592 344,760 2,749 347,509 .T. dtal" :" :" :" :" :" :" :" :" :" :" :" :,:+:" :" :::" :38;81.2:" :::" :::" :37;850:" :;:;:::" :39;90(' : : .. 40;800.1:" : .......... .. . . . . . . .. .... 35;990;429" :" : " : " :37;945;620:" : " :" :" 38; " 7 .2.7;1326::::: -:" :41;380;1i00:::" :-:330;000: " :41;710;1:1:0 " Rldership-Fare_V4.xls Summary 4/8/2002 8:57 AM SCRRA FY 2002-03 BUDGET. TABLE 3.6 MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING REVENUES i e zyiei #f7.trfi o ct1t rtt Cl frbiti Amtrak Intercity Coast & Saugus Shared Use (UPRR/SPTC) East Bank Joint Facility (UPRR/SPTC) Mission Tower (UPRR/SPTC) San Diego & Olive Subdivision Shared Use (BNSF) Pasadena Subdivision Shared Use (BNSF) North County Transit District (NCTD) Marketing Reveunues $1,518,747 256,920 86,312 179,107 53,515 40,044 306,007 0 $1,471,224 256,920 81,257 178,708 51,950 31,586 301,310 65,000 $1,642,678 256,920 86,973 193,722 57,882 43,312 330,977 147,500 8.16% 0.00% 0.77% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 11.65% 0.00% 7.03% 8.40% 11.42% 37.13% 9.85% 126.92% 4/32002 OispAbW Revs02-03.t.OispakhiMJ 80 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • maintenance contract due to significant increases in new equipment; and an assumed increase on non -labor expenses to accommodate an increasing need for parts and equipment commensurate with additional vehicles. The contingency for Equipment Maintenance in FY 2002-03 is set at $100,000. Fuel. Fuel usage of approximately 5.1 million gallons per year is based on the projected consumption levels assumed in the proposed schedule. In FY 2001-02, fuel prices were assumed to average $1.25 per gallon, substantially above our currently projected rate of expenditure. An average of $1.00 per gallon is assumed for FY 2002-03 and the resulting projection of $5.1 million for the year is a 14% decrease from the Budget for FY 2001-02. Non -Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs. This item is a contingency line item for repairs to accommodate medium scaled unforeseen damage to rolling stock. The amount requested for FY 2002-03 is $400,000. • • Operating Facilities Maintenance. This function is responsible for cleaning, maintenance, and hazardous materials compliance at the Central Maintenance Facility and other outlying SCRRA facilities. The budget fully incorporates the utilization of the Metrolink Operations Center (MOC), and increasing demand for services at other outlying points. For FY 2002-03, the budget of $1.0 million represents a 9% decline from the FY 2001-02 budget. The decline is the result of FY 2001-02 incorporating onetime set up costs at new agency facilities. Other Operating Train Services. This budget includes a number of miscellaneous items directly related to operating the rail system. Weather data forecast and earthquake reporting services, publications, uniforms, emergency bus services, and FRA required training are all items considered in this category. Total expenditures are $202 thousand, a decrease of 33% from the FY 2001-02 Budget as a result of terminating the use of Amtrak staff to sell Metrolink tickets at Union Station, a savings of $120 thousand. Security - Sheriff. This line item shows an increase of 12% over the FY 2001-02 as a result of two factors. The first is the adoption of the FY 2001-02 Budget prior to the finalization of contract negotiations between the SCRRA and the Los Angeles County Sheriff. As a result, the FY 2001-02 Budget ultimately underestimated the final cost per deputy. Rates are higher than those presumed as applicable in the current year and the FY 2002-03 Budget assumes rates of growth consistent with the new contract. The second factor leading to the increase is the addition of two additional Law Enforcement Technicians (LETS). The primary responsibility of the LETS is fare enforcement, including the assumption that on a quarterly cycle, every individually scheduled train in the Metrolink system will be subject to fare enforcement and verification activities. This contract also includes an additional 9.5 direct -charge service units for which LACMTA pays outside the SCRRA Operating Budget to provide additional security in Los Angeles County. Security. - Guards. The amount proposed for FY 2002-03 is a 10% increase over the FY 2001- 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 35 81 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • 02 level. The Budget assumes, based on recent experience, the costs of security services will raise significantly in the wake of the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, as a result of significantly increased demand for guard services. Public Safety Program. The program declines by 1% from FY 2001-02 and includes American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements, continuation of the successful police and fire officer education train series, continuation of the "Don't Pick a Fight With a Heavyweight" campaign (including a community outreach event in each county), public information and school education campaigns, and safety and incident response training for staff and contractors. Passenger Relations. An 8% increase is projected over the FY 2001-02 Budget for passenger relations and telephone information services. Funds are allocated to provide for the continuation of the Station Call Box project, the continuation of contracted Telephone Information Services, the implementation of the Customer Promise program in which the SCRRA will guarantee to passengers the ability to reach their final destination, and other minor customer service related expenses. Holiday Trains. The amount projected for the holiday trains in FY 2002-03 is an increase of 37% from the FY 2001-02 Budget. An increase is requested to decorate the rolling stock and lease technical lighting and sound equipment; increase the marketing outreach of this successful program; an increase of labor costs for program performers, and an increase in the direct operating expenses of the trains. In addition, the budget anticipates labor charges by Bombardier in FY 2002-03 for support at the CMF to decorate the train. There is also the expectation that opportunities will be sought to provide sponsored offsetting revenue, including a return of previous program sponsors and the addition of more through extensive community outreach. Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) Maintenance/Revenue Collection. This item includes TVM and validator maintenance, revenue collection, ticket stock, replacement of destination and ticket type strips in the TVMs, fare/zone change programming, and merchant fees for credit and debit card usage. This line item increases $387 thousand, 21.2% from the FY 2001-02 Budget primarily due to the addition of new stations and the associated increase in the numbers of machines requiring maintenance and increased Revenue Collection, an increase in the underlying contracted rate of the primary maintenance vendor, and an increase in the fees charged by the agency's bank. A transaction fee on VISA credit purchases, previously absorbed by the bank will now be passed back to the SCRRA. A total of 51 stations are assumed to be in operation on or before July 1, 2002, an increase of 5 over the beginning of FY 2001-02. Marketing. There is a decrease of 11% compared with the FY 2001-02 Budget. This line item includes market research & analysis, advertising, promotions, special events, sales, merchandising, and channel marketing. For the FY 2002-03 Budget, programs highlighting the • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 36 82 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • agency's tenth anniversary will begin May 6, 2002, and continue throughout the Summer months leading up to the tenth anniversary event in October 2002. Media/External Relations. There is an increase of 14% compared with the FY 2001-02 Budget. This line item includes media and public relations, community relations, and web site maintenance and programming, and the production of the agency's printed schedules and Ride Guides. Also included are extensive outreach activities with Station Cities including special events and the increased development of partnerships with Strategic Stakeholders. Utilities/Leases. Utility and lease costs are estimated at current monthly average costs and are 20% less than the FY 2001-02 Budget, principally as a result of the decline in electricity costs outside of the DWP service area, and the costs of telephone expenses. Costs assumed in the FY 2001-02 Budget have been greatly moderated in the last year from the point of budget development during the energy crisis on Winter 2001. The agency expects current trends to continue with minor moderation. Additional lease costs for transmitter and other locations are assumed in outlying areas. • • Transfers to Other Operators. These transfers represent agreements between the SCRRA and other transit operators to allow Metrolink passengers a convenience of transfer to connecting transit. Revenue transfers to other transit operators show a 2% increase over the budget for FY 2001-02 due to the projected ridership and new agreements with additional operators. SCRRA expects to pay approximately 8% of fare revenues collected to connecting operators. Amtrak Transfers. These funds represent the gross costs to the agency of the "Take the Next Train" program. The SCRRA and Amtrak have agreed to work together to allow passengers, on those lines where complementary service exists, holding valid Metrolink or Amtrak tickets, to choose the service provider most convenient to their travel needs. Reimbursements have been negotiated based on a sliding scale determined by passenger counts and have been capped at the fully budgeted amount. It is also assumed that CALTRANS will provide $100,000 towards the total cost of the program in FY 2002-03. Station Maintenance. This item is increased by 2% over the FY 2000-01 Budget. This item includes maintenance of station equipment, signs, display cases, and public address/changeable message signs (PA/CMS) and further includes SCRRA's share of maintenance at Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) and LAUS platform maintenance previously performed by Amtrak. Rail Agreements. This line item represents payments to freight railroads, the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, for dispatching and other operating related services over property owned by these railroads. The amount budgeted represents a 60% increase from FY 2001-02 due to primarily to increases in payments to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad for increased services on BNSF rights -of -way. Maintenance of Way -Line Segments. This line item is discussed in Section 3.8. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 37 83 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • Maintenance of Way - Extra -ordinary Maintenance. This item is discussed in Section 3.8. Salaries and Fringe Benefits. Salaries and fringe benefits are forecast based on the actual salary rate of each position charging directly to the Operations Budget, and assumes a fringe benefit additive of 48% (SCRRA's actual experience with SCRRA employees). A 4% pool is assumed and included for merit increases. A shift in staff costs from Ambassadors to other Passenger Services positions results in additional increases. Certain cost increases are additionally offset by a reduction in payments to Amtrak as referenced above in the category Other Train Services. Ambassadors. Ambassador staff represent the principal point of contact for Metrolink customers with the SCRRA. Assigned to stations throughout the agency's service area, costs are declining as a result of a shift from vacant Ambassador positions to customer service functions as referenced above. Direct Non -Labor Costs. Costs included in this line include Direct Non -allocated MIS expenses including programming and maintenance of the agency's Train Management and Inventory System software, Board of Directors' per diem, Travel and Lodging expenses of operating departments, and additional minor miscellaneous expenses. Allocated Overhead. Staff charging practices changed in FY 2000-01 to accommodate a new standardized methodology of allocating overhead costs. A number of staff positions that previously charged directly to Operations are now included as overhead to the entire agency. (See Appendix 6.5 for an additional discussion of the agency's overhead allocation.). Also included as part of the increase is an increase in the agency's Information Technology requirements, increased costs of contract labor compliance, shifts in labor, lease costs of the agency headquarters, and a shift in certain utility expenses from the Operating Budget to overhead. Professional Services. Professional Services includes contracted services for legal and legislative advocate representatives; development of the Strategic Plan; System Safety Plan and related operating plans; performance audit of operators; feeder bus coordination; equipment engineering assistance; signage design; and other minor items. Overall, Professional Services are projected to increase 21% over the FY 2000-01 Budget, due to minor increases in the above referenced programs and the addition of the biannual review of the agency's National Transit Database reporting methodology and modeling, the inclusion of funds to support the annual Board retreat and development program, and an increase associated with the agency's TVM oversight consultant. Contingency. This line item is traditionally budgeted at $500,000 and is included to be utilized under authority of the Chief Executive Officer to deflect any unanticipated increase in expenses so as to avoid unnecessary increases to member agency subsidies in the event short term negative expense impacts are realized. Insurance. Overall, this item is projected to increase 36% compared with the FY 2001-02 • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 38 84 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • Budget. Premiums are projected to increase by 38% and Claims Administration is assumed to increase 15%. Claims costs are budgeted at the payout estimates and are projected to increase from the FY 2001-02 Budget. The significant increase is due primarily to the currently unstable conditions of the insurance marketplace following the attack on the United State of September 11, 2001. 3.7 Summary of Revenue and Expenses by Member Agency Table 3.7 provides the FY 2002-03 Metrolink Operating Budget by member agency shares. Total local subsidies increase 4.6% over the FY 2001-02 Budget. LACMTA increases by 2%, VCTC shows an increase of 14%, SANBAG is 7% less due to increased operating and Maintenance of Way revenues associated directly on the San Bernardino Line. RCTC's subsidy is 12% more than in FY 2001-02 due to new service operating on the 91 Line. OCTA's operating subsidy for FY 2001-02 is projected to be 16% more than the FY 2001-02 Budget. The rate of increase is primarily due to an increase in Orange County services and its participation on the 91 Line. • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 39 85 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • TABLE 3.7 OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY ($000s) -.�.•.-.�. .•.•.•:.•. . . .•.•:�.�:�.-.•:�.- �:.•.�:.- -:•:•:�:-.�.•.•.•.•.• . .. .. ..f:. . .. FY:0243 :.-.:::Share . G�J.T�S.. ... ::•:::::::::Share::• �'l;A• . . . . . . • . . . . :::: :Shm:e: ::::: ::Share:= :::::::=:Share::::::: G....SAB . . . . . • . . 'c. .. . Expenses Train Mile Allocation $21,676.7 $12,412.7 $4,149.3 $1,656.0 $2,622.2 $836.5 Base Allocation 46,868.5 26,451.1 7,765.1 3,551.7 6,105.6 2,995.1 Direct Charge 10,068.6 5,626.3 2,044.7 743.1 1,119.4 535.2 Maintenance -of -Way 20,021.7 11,646.6 4,676.1 213.7 2,335.7 1,149.8 . ..... ... . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . .............. .... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... . .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total: Expenses:TucL 1• ••1?V.::::::::: >:. ::•-.. .0.- k.:5'.:::::$5&43-6•;.6:::.:$.1 $,•63.i:..:.. $6::64;4: ::=::$12 18i:!) >:-: 55,516:5: Revenues Gross Farebox 41,710.1 22,880.8 7,906.6 3,105.9 6,628.5 1,188.3 Other Operating 2,760.0 1,393.4 899.2 28.7 80.8 357.9 Maintenance -of -Way 8,262.3 5,072.2 1,857.9 - 896.2 435.9 T.:( Iil2 ve•A:tes::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::$52;732:3:::::::•$24;3,46:4::::: $:1i?;663,,7::::::::$3 t 4 6::::: $7;605.6::::::::$1 82,1;• :: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • Tiit l:Coitri :Alik4i` iin : : : : : ::::::::::.::: 45 03::2::::$26,794:2:::::::$7;97:1:4: =:=:=: $3;x29:9=: :::$4;5 ,3::::::: $3,$34.4:: FY 2001-02 Budget 43,896.1 26,334.0 6,878.0 2,695.1 4,895.5 3,093.5 Increase/(Decrease) 2,007.1 456.2 1,093.4 334.7 (318.1) 440.9 Percentage Change 4.6% 1.7% 15.9% 12.4% (6.5%) 14.3% TRAIN MILE EXPENSES Train Operations (Non -Dispatching) BASE ALLOCATION EXPENSES Equipment Maintenance Non -Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs Operating Facilities Maintenance Other Operating Train Services Security - Sheriffs & Guards Public Safety Program Holiday Train TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection Stations & Information Services DIRECT CHARGE EXPENSES Dispatching Rail Agreements Fuel Passenger Relations Marketing Media & External Communications Utilities/Leases Station Maintenance Staff Costs (Excluding Ambassador Labor) Professional Services Insurance Transfers to Other Operators Ambassador Labor (Included under Staff Salaries) • Budget03.xis-Allocate 4/3/2002 11:05 AM 86 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 3.8 Maintenance -of -Way Budget Assumptions This section provides the assumptions used to project revenues and expenses for the Maintenance -of -Way (MOW) portion of the Operating Budget. Over long periods, the expenses under a capital renovation program and ordinary maintenance budgets are somewhat interchangeable. Because the most economical methods of replacement of railroad elements (rail, ties, crossings, etc.) are through large specialized operations, railroad owners usually arrange for periodic replacement of elements using capital budgets. Under one extreme maintenance philosophy, a railroad owner may elect to continually replace worn elements using ordinary maintenance forces. In this scenario, the property is kept in excellent condition and there is no need for a Rehabilitation/Renovation capital program. However, total expenses are very high. The other extreme is to limit ordinary maintenance to little more than legally required inspections and to repair what breaks, counting on future a Rehabilitation/Renovation program to refresh the condition of the property. This scenario results in reduction of speed and quality of operations as the maintenance level declines; however, ordinary maintenance expenditures are minimized. The recommended MOW philosophy of SCRRA is to perform ordinary maintenance sufficient to prevent any loss of service quality and to budget for Rehabilitation/Renovation at sufficient intervals to prevent the needed repairs/replacements from overwhelming the ordinary MOW budget. This philosophy is practiced by all of the successful freight railroads on their main routes. Conditions and Trends in the MOW Budget Current MOW programs are developed annually to maintain the tracks in their original condition. The factors listed below increase the MOW budget as compared to the budgets of the prior owners: + Higher standards for maintenance " Signal problem response time " Right-of-way and crossing response to community " No tolerance for speed reductions " No interference with train movements + More frequent trains/less work time/overtime for many tasks + Unforeseen expenses related to signals and storm damage + Some capital work not completed " Tunnel rehabilitation " Some old rail " Some old interlockings (Allen, First St., Ninth St.) + Right-of-way security issues " Graffiti " Trash dumping 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 41 87 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • • Vandalism to track and signals Actions that may eventually reduce the MOW expenses include: - Completion of Rehabilitation/Renovation projects - Improvements to right-of-way security • Fencing • Law enforcement (SCRRA and community) • Signage - Acquisition of maintenance site(s) to avoid rents and reduce travel time MOW Revenues and Expenses Table 3.8 provides maintenance -of -way revenues received from the freight railroads and Amtrak Intercity and includes revenues for operating and non -operating lines. Maintenance -of -way revenues were $7.4 million in FY 2000-01; $7.5 million in the FY 2001-02 Budget and the projection for FY 2002-03 is $8.3 million, an increase of 9.8%. Maintenance -of -way revenues are estimated from prior agreements and revenues from the freight railroads are increased by the railroad index (3%) an charged based on traffic on the lines. Amtrak Intercity revenues, per agreement, are increased by the CPI (4%). Revenues on the East Bank Joint Facility (East Bank of the Los Angeles River) are related to SCRRA's expenditures in this segment and vary from year to year depending upon both maintenance and capital work. Since FY 1997-98, the SCRRA has had an arrangement to exchange MOW revenues for an equal amount of Orange County Gas Tax Funds. These funds are budgeted outside the ordinary MOW budget. Table 3.9 provides the projection of Maintenance -of -Way Revenues, Subsidy and Expenditure by line and by county for FY 2002-03. Table 3.10 provides a summary of the projection of Maintenance -of -Way Expense Detail for FY 2000-01 by Line Segment/Territory and compares these projections to FY 2000-01 Budget and Forecast. The maintenance category detail provided in Table 3.10 includes the following line items: • Track - payments to the maintenance -of -way contractor for projection of labor on inspections/repair of track. • Signal & Communications - payments to the signal and communications contractor for projection of labor on inspections/repair of signal and communication systems. • Structures- payments to the maintenance -of -way contractor for projection of labor on inspections/repair of bridges, tunnels and other structures. • Procurement — payments for items needed in repair of track, signals, communications, or structures which are allocated to segments and counties on the basis of track -miles. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 42 88 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 BUDGET TABLE 3.8 MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY REVENUE Amtrak Intercity LAUS Rail Yard Operations & Maintenance (Amtrak) Azusa Branch Shared Use (UPRR/SPTC) Baldwin Park Branch Shared Use (UPRR/SPTC) Coast & Saugus Shared Use (UPRR/SPTC) East Bank Joint Facility (UPRR/SPTC) Mission Tower (UPRR/SPTC) San Diego & Olive Subdivision Shared Use (BNSF) Pasadena Subdivision Shared Use (BNSF) State Grade Crossing (CPUC) $979,776 156,059 76,519 160,849 2,625,228 568,066 74,230 1,019,139 1,504,872 309,404 $872,910 113,133 82,172 160,349 2,607,148 677,831 97,823 1,053,745 1,551,487 306,832 53;!330:` �i1jio'se $1,177,547 123,205 76,519 175,647 2,740,562 806,575 122,821 1,102,301 1,627,670 309,405 Cti ige 0:4#i i#tf A iti'{ai 20.19% -21.05% 0.00% 9.20% 4.39% 41.99% 65.46% 8.16% 8.16% 0.00% a i e t'rotii t��3ilgi't 34.90% 8.90% -6.88% 9.54% 5.12% 18.99% 25.55% 4.61% 4.91% 0.84% 4/3/2002 DispMO W Revs02-03.x15-MO W 89 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget TABLE 3.9 PROPOSED FY 2002-03 MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY EXPENDITURES Revenue Forecast Allocation pie Sefin iftryireitdry : :.: : : : : : : : .: : • • Al • • : Fo• rec . .. >:::.1 r1CA7TA:: ::::OGT 4:::_:::, : RCTG • : :•: :; ' S BAG:-:->: > • - -:•:• •' VC3C Operating Lines 7,317,287 4,168,831 1,857,919 - 854,614 435,923 LA- San Bemardino 1,193,542 338.928 - - 854,614 - LA - Ventura (Burbank Jct to Moorpark) 1,280,620 8-44.697 - - - 435,923 LA - Lancaster 1,921,762 1,921 762 - - - - Fullerton - San Diego County Line 1,744,426 - 1,744,426 - - - Olive Subdivision 113,493 - 1 13,493 - - - Riverside Layover Facility - - - - - - River Corridor 1,063,444 1,063,444 - - - - Extra -Ordinary Maintenance - - - - - (Derailments, Storm Damage) Non -Operating Lines 944,964 903,355 - - 41,609 - Sierra Madre - Claremont (Pasadena Sub) 903,355 903355 - - - - Baldwin Park Branch (San Bernardino Co.) 41,609 - - - 4l,ti09 - - {:TotaC?: :.: : :: : :<: ::.:>::::''':--Si262r251:1:::-:::5;072,186-71:::•:•:::14.857;919:+:•:•:::::::•::: . r:,:.: :,::•-:• •-::;:::::896,223::-:•:::•:,4435;923: Net Subsidy Allocation - >: ::':=>:-:lane $.eginentClhrriior :-:->:::o»:::::-:-:forecast•:•:•:-: :::: :ACMTA:::: - »;:4CTA ;: .: - >:::R -. :::-:.: :-:-:• :SANG ..- -..:; ::-: i': ....- >.....C1C•.•:•:- Operating Lines 11,483,177 6,386,603 2,818,143 213,652 1,350,945 713,834 LA - San Bemardino (1) 2,512,659 L467.393 - - 1,045,266 - LA - Ventura (Burbank Jet to Moorpark) (2) 1,650,996 1088-997 - - - 561,999 LA - Lancaster 2,728,418 7,728,418 - . - - - . Fullerton - San Diego County Line 2,126,636 - -,126.636 - - - Olive Subdivision 247,434 - 247,434 - - - Riverside Layover Facility (3) 64,565 39,159 - 14.850 10.556 - River Corridor (4) 1,652,470 784,923 327,189 183.424 237,936 118,978 Extra -Ordinary Maintenance (5) 500,000 277,714 116.884 15,378 57.167 32,857 (Derailments, Storm Damage) Non -Operating Lines 276,305 187,812 - - 88,493 - Sierra Madre - Claremont (Pasadena Sub) 187,812 187.812 - - - - Baldwin Park Branch (San Bemardino Co.) 88,493 - - - 88,493 - :::-'1'aiih::::::::-:::-:-:-:->::: :: :-:- - :-:::.:::ft;7. 9,482 -::::::::?6;574;466:- :.:'::::z;81:8;143 -::-:::-::::::3[-3;652:::::::::::.::::1;439;438- :.::-:::::-:713;83.4: Total Expenditure Forecast Line SegmepflTeii•itorp:<::<.?:-:-:•:-:-::?-?:-:Foceca'sE?:->:- :•:-Y. 2: -:-:-LAi*iVITA-:•::->:-aiCTA . .. .:.:.:.:BL•TC:-::=::-:-»:SfiN:B G - Operating Lines 18,800,464 10,555,434 4,676,062 213,652 2,205,559 1,149,757 LA - San Bemardino 3,706,201 1,806,321 - - 1,899,880 - LA - Ventura (Burbank Jet to Moorpark) 2,931,616 1,933,694 - - - 997,922 LA - Lancaster 4,650,180 4,650,180 - - - - Fullerton - San Diego County Line 3,871,062 - 3,871,062 - - - Olive Subdivision 360,927 - 360,927 - - - Riverside Layover Facility 64,565 39,159 - 14,850 10,556 - River Corridor 2,715,914 1,848,367 327,189 183,424 237,956 118,978 Extra -Ordinary Maintenance 500,000 277,714 116,884 15,378 - 57,167 32,857 (Derailments, Storm Damage) Non -Operating Lines 1,221,269 1,091,167 - - 130,102 - Sierra Madre - Claremont (Pasadena Sub) 1,091,167 1,091,167 - - - - Baldwin Park Branch (San Bemardino Co.) 130,102 - - - 130,102 - . . . . . . . : . Total :-:-:-::•:-: -::•:•:•::::-::-:- -:•»i:•:-20;021;7.33•:::>1I-646;602- •:-:-:•:-4;67. 062-::-:-1:-:•:-213;652- -:•:•:-:-:-:-:-:2. 35;66I- •::::-:1,149,757: (1) Split of MoW net subsidy is by track miles (58.4% LACMTA and 41.6% SANBAG). Split MoW revenue forecast is by county specific revenues. (2) Split of MoW net subsidy and MoW revenue forecast is by track miles (65.96% LACMTA and 34.04% VCTC). (3) Split is by route miles (60.65% LACMTA, 23.00% RCTC, and 16.35% SANBAG). (4) Split is assumed All Share (47.5% LACMTA, 19.8% OCTA, 14.4% SANBAG, 7.2% VCTC, and 11.1% RCTC) of cost in excess of revenues. (5) Split is assumed All Share for derailments ($100,000) and percent of route miles owned (57.5535% LACMTA, 24.2709% OCTA, 10.6918% SANBAG, 6.4144% VCTC, 1.0694% RCTC) for storm damage, gate knockdowns, and vandalism. • 4/3/2002 11:09 AM Input03.xis-MOW 90 TABLE 3.10 -1 • Southern California Regional Rail Authority FY 02/03 Proposed Maintenance -of -Way Budget Variance to FY 01/02 Budget & Forecast Line Segment/Territory FY 01/02 Approved Budget FY 01/02 Expenditure Forecast FY 02/03 Proposed Budget Variance FY 02/03 Proposed vs FY 01/02 Budget (overrunder Variance FY 02/03 Proposed vs FY 01/02 Forecast (over)/under -: eratin •dP...... g. . . . . . .•. .•.•.•.•.•.•.•. . •. .•. . . . .•. .•.•. . . . . . ... . . . . . . .:. .: •.•.•.$18,773;681:::::::$1'1;353;810::::•:•:$18;800,464:::::: -::::::::($26,'78 } ::::::::::(51;446;53) : >LA rSan Be na -: :.......... ...rnardlrip::::::::::;:;::::::::::::::::::::: :::-:-:::::::::::::::: :::::::::::$4;281•666:::::::::::::$3;703;623:: :::::::::: 1,7063201-::•:•:•::::-:•: $575,466.:::-::-::::::::::::'6.2 ) Track 5910,541 5722,644 5723,947 $186,594 (51,303) Signal & Communications 51,497,390 51338,715 51,194,009 5303,381 5144,706 Structures $175,549 $197,002 3175,957 _ (5408) 521,045 Procurement 5197,530 5179,106 5165909 531,621 513,198 Other 3652,880 5589,522 3594.092 358,789 Agency Costs 5847,777 5676,633 3852,287 (54,510 Z (54,570) ._v'''ra .�.- - >LA ..4ntu - . $u a '3ct tti f rb.olc.. ... .l�tiorpagk>:::�:�:::�:::::::::-:�.�::::::::::::::: .:�:::-:::::$Z.843;k$A::::::::::::::$2.;%41'1'%:26:::::::::::::$2.:931;615:• •:•:•:•($1:?•$;152) (5(75,654) •:•f$143,889) Track 5649,522 5776,422 5765,512 (5115,990) $10910 Signal & Communications 5761,520 5703,407 5810,082 (548,562) Structures 5132,460 580,897 5144,882 (512,422) (3106,675) Procurement 3146,428 5179,198 3132,378 514,050 (563,985) 546,821 Other 5485,077 5495,513 5437,257 - $47,820 558,256 Agency Costs 5628,458 5532,288 3641,505 (513,047) (5109,217) A . Laneaster.................. :.•.•. . . 9 . . . . .•. 54,774774.:::::.:..54;472,,2366:::-:::::54.6Sd;181-::::::•:•:•:::::$32T,693•:::::::-:::::::-:($1.7$1.5) $1,265,768 $1,170,886 31,119,143 3146,625 351,743 Track Signal & Communications 51,301,880 51,197,417 51,182,383 5119,497 515,034 Structures 5241,956 5253,085 _ 5236,510 55,446 5I6,575 Procurement - 5247,733 5219,615 5218,772 . 528,960 3843 Other 5857,189 5748,961 5808,048 - $49,140 Agency Costs 51,063,248 $882,402 .•. .•. .•.$ -1.(12:A#:.•.:..•S3;&71-0162..:.......:.549&753 ? . . . . . . . . . . $700,581 51,085,324 , r . . 5919,375 - .. (522,076) . . . .X .. , r.. ) (5192,930) (359,087) (3202,922) 92) :�:�:�:•:::�':'{�$7b8;46) ($218,794) t o.Count:•'::::�:':::::�:::::::•:� . .. .g . . . . . . Y,L.r<e. . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . , .. .- . . . . . . . . . . . • - - ':•: :•:':•: ::::::-:-:-':•:�:�:-:�:� -:�::: :_:_:_.:.:._.:. • .�:-:�::-: :•: :�:�: • - : :�:�:-:•:•:•:•:•: : $3:372,309. Track 5726,445 Signal & Communications 5646,950 5827,500 5983,264 (5336,314) (3155,764) Structures 5237,080 579,510 5194,607 $42,473 Procurement 5215,159 5165,108 5183,494 531,666 (3115,097) Other $623,227 5571,089 5647,701 (524,474) (518,386) (576,613) Agency Costs 5923,448 5758,809 5942,621 ($19,173) : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•.•.•. -. . . . .• - . .•. . . .•. .•.•.•.•.•.•. .•. . . . ......:::$3(12;646. -: : : : : : : $450,$0-7...:.:::::::::: .360;926;::;::;:;:::::-:::($?t?$:1) (5183,812) :::::::::::::::::::589;880: Track 583,405 5185.052 389,002 (35,597) 596,050 Signal & Communications 581,510 5135,768 3121,971 ($40,461) 513.797 Structures 52,483 $7,608 514,866 ($12383) (57,258) Procurement 516,436 512,767 514,017 $2,419 (51,250) Other $48,271 546,597 549,065 (5794) (52,468) Agency Costs 570,541 563,014 572,006 (31,465) (58,992) 4' .s e : . . 1 .es. it a oven • ti i ' - i. Y. . . . X<a . t tx..:::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::: ::::: ::::::::550;423::::-::-::::::::S43a2$4:::::::::::::::::i4.:4•,*-::::-:::::':-:::::-:($4;14?7 ::::::::::::::::::0.21:, 851 Track 518,150 511.770 516,704 51,446 Signal &Communications 50 54,376 58,018 (58,018) ($4934) (53,642) Structures 50 50 54,054 (54,054) Procurement 54,483 52,547 $3,823 5660 (54,054) Other 518,551 59,242 512,328 56,223 (51,276) Agency Costs 519,239 515,345 519,638 (5399) (53,086) -' R Yet:CoYr - . 1dOt�:- � -• :-:-�-- '•'�'�'�'�'-'-'.'.'.'i?iii:�??:-:{'.-:?:<:::.:}-:-:�:':�:!� : . .:.-.�.: .•.-.•.•.•. :.•..•..52;4x5;40(1::::->::-:-:$3 SaA9>::::>:-:a�2,.71014::::-:':';:::::»;524(1:,5]4• ($4,293) ::: ::::.:::: : S37i;645 Track 3562,660 $582,072 $572,910 ($10,250) 59,162 Signal & Communications 51,190,730 31,134,235 51,420,594 (5229,864) Structures 560,378 310,037 572,167 (511,789) (5286,359) (562,130) Procurement 579,788 $53,906 568,046 511,742 Other 3239,398 5255,002 5232,641 $6.758 (514,140) 522361 Agency Cosa 5342,446 5303,016 5349,556 (57,110) 1 (346,549 415/02,4:10 Ph, 0203,,,„ bS.XLS TABLE 3.10 - 2 Southern California Regional Rail Authority FY 02/03 Proposed Maintenance -of -Way Budget Variance to FY 01/02 Budget & Forecast • Line Segment/Territory FY 01/02 Approved Budget FY 01/02 Expenditure Forecast FY 02/03 Proposed Budget Variance FY 02/03 Proposed vs FY 01/02 Budget (overyunder Variance FY 02/03 Proposed vs FY 01/02 Forecast (overyunder -:•::::Lit .Or utarYMatnzeiiance...................•............ . . . . . . 00;1)6$- _::-::-:::5475;143::.:-::::::•150006:; ::::::$D:: -:• : : : : : : : : X$24,$5.7j (Derailments, Storm Damage, Gate Knockdowns, Vandalism) - - - Na.... .... mg f h1es... ..... .. .... .•. . . . . .•....•. .. .•......... :::::::::::$9:1:b, 015.- -.-.-.•...-.$$6Q;Q1..::::::::::$1;.21:;:....: ::::-:-;:x$305;255) -:::.:......1;259 :::::::stutk2A O :•PA : S g . : .:.:.:. . : : . �hUR><=C�a�1Z�141..I:1'�'.(.. Srt...U..?... ................?82&..4P : ::.:: . : ::-.•: .::::$7.0.4:3.6: ?$hfl?J;X6T::: :-:($26d,6i?} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. -: :::<S3a1P-3:k1 Track 593,777 5107,461 5222,352 (3128,575) (5114,891) Signal & Communications 5189,810 5159,828 5312,064 (5122,254) (517,352) (5152,236) (551,557) Structures 536,706 52501 554,058 Procurement 559,767 537,387 550,970 58,796 (513,583) Other 5189,923 5231,202 5189,884 539 541,318 Agency Costs 5256,514 5210,856 5261,839 (55,325) (550.983) . . . .. 1st ARK>} •'•:•:•A:••:- aaric�i s. B�"���-:- ( .t` ).. . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9,S : . . . . . . . $11[);7'1:. .....5130,102:- -:.(546,582) -:-:: : : -:-1519;327j Track 511,236 537,858 520,879 (59,643) 516,979 Signal & Communications 530,210 535,589 556,867 (526,657) (521,278) Structures 50 50 55,135 (55,135) (55,135) Procurement 55,677 53,226 54,842 5835 (51,616) Other 518,027 $14991 517,505 5522 (52,513) Agency Costs 524,369 519,109 $24,874 (5505) (55,765 . . .. .. . . . nteaanc� . ...,..ay....... : . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........::::::51.9;6.89;096:::::,•$..$,21..t8 t ....S20;021;733::.......•.�$?W4Ii• .•.•. . . Sx( ,800i913) Track 54,321,503 54,294,747 54,449,824 (512 8,321) 21 ) (5155,077) Signal & Communications • 55,700,000 55,536,836 56,089,252 (5389,252) (5552,416) Structures 5886,611 5630,641 5902,236 515,625 ( ) (5271,595) Procurement 5973,000 5852,861 5842,251 5130,750 510,611 Other(1) 53,132,544 52,962,119 52,988,521 5144,023 (526,402) Extra -Ordinary Maintenance 5500,000 5475,143 5500,000 50 (524,857) Agency Costs 54,176,038 $3,461,473 54,249,650 (573,612) (5788,177) NOTES: (1) "Other" includes vegetation control, vehicle repair, vehicle lease/remtal, rue!, ultrasonic rail inspection, and engineering. • 4,5!02.4:1a PIA a2aa ewb& XLS 92 " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget Other - payments for vegetation control, vehicle /equipment expense, rail flaw detection, and engineering which are allocated to segments and counties on the basis of track -miles. " Agency Costs - SCRRA labor, overhead and non -labor costs allocated to the Maintenance -of - Way Budget that are allocated to segments and counties on the basis of track -miles. Included in the agency's pool of general engineering are funds for the purpose of conceptual engineering and capital planning to better identify scope and construction concerns prior to the submission of grant applications. MOW Projections by Line The FY 2002-03 MOW Budget is $20.0 million. This is 2% higher than the FY 2001-02 Budget. The moderated increase is primarily due to a stable maintenance environment, and a concerted effort by agency staff to maintain current expenditure levels without degrading the quality of operations. However, certain line segments vary from previous years due to a number of factors including: additions to contractor staffing to provide greater coverage of inspections and maintenance, and an adjustment to reflect shifting actual expenses. Also included are minor impacts of new positions direct charging the MOW program, and the inclusion of funds to provide for the leasing of additional MOW vehicles. The average MOW cost per track -mile is calculated excluding Extra -Ordinary Maintenance and Agency Costs. For FY 2002-03, the average MOW cost is projected to be $47,223 per track -mile compared with $46,424 per track - mile budgeted in FY 2001-02. Some inflationary cost increases have been absorbed by economies associated with the improved maintenance condition of the property as a result of the agency's Renovation and Rehabilitation program. The features that make some lines higher or lower in cost than the SCRRA averages, or are changes from last year are summarized in the following list. The figures (+) and (-) show factors that drive the maintenance budget higher or lower. An additional factor in the estimation of FY 2002-03 MOW expenses has been the implementation of an alternative model for the submission of contractor estimated expenses. In an effort to standardize the contractual obligations under the agency's largest service contracts, MOW contractors are now required to provide, by territory, estimates of the maintenance of effort required to maintain member agency owned rights of way based on service assumptions provided by the agency. It is expected that this process will provide a more comprehensive analysis by staff physically performing work on the ground. While this process has served to moderate total costs in general, individual line segment costs are varied from years past. Los Angeles - San Bernardino Line. (13% decrease from the FY 2001-02 Budget due to a decrease in both Track and Signal Maintenance requirements.) The budget represents the basic maintenance force plus a surfacing cycle. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Very high density of train traffic + High density of road crossings + Some unresolved drainage issues + Assumption of Redlands First Mile 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 47 93 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • - Capital rehabilitation is complete - Light freight traffic Los Angeles - Ventura County Line. (5% increase from the FY 2001-02 Budget.) The signal system on this line was renewed between 1991 and 1995, and the crossing, rail, and tie deficiencies of earlier years have been largely corrected by recent Rehabilitation/ Renovation work. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + High density of train traffic (including weekends) + Deteriorated track/ties at selected locations + High density of road crossings + Moderately heavy freight traffic (affects curve rail) + Tunnels and embankments + Poor ballast condition, embankment retains moisture - Signal system is new - Light to moderate curves and grades Los Angeles — Antelope Valley Line. (7% decrease from the FY 2001-02 Budget.) A considerable portion of this line has been recently improved. The major remaining capital improvement issue is the deteriorated subgrade in the Newhall Tunnel (Tunnel 25), old rail from Sylmar to Saugus, and old ties from Sylmar to Tunnel 25. In addition, the areas rehabilitated in 1994 for "earthquake" service are nearing tie replacement cycle time. It is a mountain freight railroad, which means that great care is required to inspect and control track geometry, curve rail wear, embankment stability (landslides and washouts), and safety detectors. The capital budgets for 97/98 and 98/99 included replacement of the worst of the old rail and ties, and the old signal system. This has reduced the signal costs on this line. Factors affecting MOW costs are: + High curve and grade territory + Tunnel 25 subgrade is very poor + Frequent trains (below Via Princessa) + Some heavy freight traffic (affects curve rail) + Exposed to flood damage (requires extra inspections) + Poor ballast condition, embankment retains moisture - Most of line has good rail, ties, and crossings Fullerton - San Diego County Line. (15% increase from the FY 2001-02 Budget due principally to an increase in Signal costs with the addition of a shared signal supervisor. Costs are also increased by the need to add more evening work on the line as construction and increased schedules decrease available maintenance windows.) This line is in good to excellent condition. The budget has historically been the lowest per mile. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Frequent trains + Exposed to flood and ocean damage - Very little significant curvature - New track and signal system • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 48 94 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget Olive Subdivision. (19% increase from the FY 2001-02 Budget. The primary reason for the increase is the level of bridge and structures maintenance planned for the year.) This line has received a significant cycle replacement of ties and surfacing, along with renewed road crossings and a modernized signal system. However, most of the rail is old and requires spot repairs to control defects. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Narrow embankment + Old rail - No significant curvature or grade Riverside Layover Facility. (7% increase from the FY 2001-02 Budget.) This segment has good track. However, this facility is requiring a four man track gang to inspect the facility once per month. Additionally, the Operations Depat Intent has requested increased minor repairs at the facility associated with bumper repair, derail installation and additional signage. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Small segment requires specific maintenance assignments - Good Condition River Corridor. (10% increase from the FY 2001-02 Budget.) This segment includes all of the tracks on both sides of the Los Angeles River from Redondo Junction on the south to Taylor on the north. It carries heavy freight and passenger traffic. Past capital programs have upgraded most of the track and signals. Even with these improvements, the track and bridges need continual maintenance. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Heavy freight tonnage + Frequent trains + Many turnouts + Some locations of severe curvature - Few road crossings Sierra Madre - Claremont (Pasadena Subdivision) (32% increase from the FY 2001-02 Budget. All components of MOW activity are increasing on this line including Track, Structures and Signal Maintenance as a result of the deteriorating condition of the ROW ) SCRRA is maintaining this property for the Pasadena Blue Line Construction Authority under their agreement with the LACMTA. The line has jointed rail and wooden crossties in an adequate condition to carry the small amount of freight traffic now on the line. This condition is gradually deteriorating. The 1940s -style open wire signal system is approaching the end of its useful life. Application is being made to FRA to retire the Automatic Block Signal system, which will permit retirement of the pole line and conversion of the old style crossing warning devices to solid state controls, as noted in the Rehabilitation/Renovation Budget. Some road crossings are being improved within the maintenance budget with the cooperation of community street departments. Some of the crossing warning systems are also being upgraded to reduce trouble calls while in freight 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 49 95 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • operation, and they will be compatible with passenger service. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Jointed Rail + Poor tie and ballast conditions + Some poor road crossings + Many road crossings + Obsolete open -wire signal system - Low traffic levels - Light curvature and grade Rialto to Bench (Baldwin Park Branch) (45% increase from the FY 2000-01 Budget. This increase is the result of the addition of an Inspectors Helper and the allocation of increased contract wide costs.) This line is a very lightly used freight line with small rail and old wooden ties. The forecast is an estimate of the time to inspect and make nominal repairs only. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Poor track and crossing conditions + Small segment requires specific maintenance assignments - Very few trains Extra -ordinary Maintenance This category covers damages due to vandalism, crossing gate knockdowns, accidents, derailments, fires, storm damage and other expenses as required. In years without unusual rainfall or train accidents, $500,000 has remained a reasonable estimate and is continued in FY 2001-02. In other years, such as has been experienced in FY 1999-00 with the El Nifio storms, the total can easily exceed $3,500,000. These types of extreme conditions maybe covered by insurance or FEMA reimbursement. However, insurance covers only SCRRA-owned bridges and facilities and LACMTA-owned bridges, tunnels and facilities and has a $100,000 deductible per storm. FEMA reimbursement has never been timely. It should be noted, neither Extra- ordinary Maintenance nor Agency Costs are included in the calculation of MOW expense per track mile. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 50 96 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • SECTION 4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY CAPITAL BUDGET 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 51 97 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 52 98 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 4.0 CAPITAL BUDGET The Capital Budget consists of two major components. These are Rehabilitation/Renovation and New Capital. These budgets amount to $32.9 million and $87.1 million, respectively, for a total of $120.0 million. Details of the Capital Budget are described in the following sections. It should also be noted that each year additional funds continue to be sought for the Agency's capital program from Federal, State and Local authorities. If and when funds are secured, these projects will be brought to the SCRRA Board for amendment into the budget. 4.1 Rehabilitation/Renovation Rehabilitation/Renovation. projects are those projects that replace worn out assets with like or improved assets and thus extend the useful life of these capital assets. Rehabilitation/Renovation recommendations are based upon tolerating only the most minimal and manageable risk of failure. The proposed Rehabilitation/Renovation Expenditures have been selected to meet projected funding available and are chosen from a larger field that SCRRA staff believes can be deferred until future years, but will have to be addressed eventually. Rehabilitation/Renovation projects of $ 32.3 million are summarized in Table 4.1. However, 20 of the projects are ongoing projects that will not be completed in FY 2001-02 for various reasons as explained below. They amount to $10 million. The new projects amount to $22.9 million and are also discussed below. Ongoing Rehabilitation/Renovation Projects The following projects are ongoing projects budgeted in FY 2000-01 and FY 2001-02 and are not expected to be completed prior to June 30, 2002. The first four (4) items are grouped for clarity in their relationship to ongoing New Capital programs 1. RAIL REPLACEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH KAISER SECOND MAIN TRACK CONSTRUCTION. San Bernardino Line $711,140 The rail replacement is due to the fatigue of old rail installed by the freight railroads many years ago. The decision to replace rail is driven by observing the wear patterns and by monitoring the rate of rail defect detection. This work is funded 60% by LACMTA and 40% by SANBAG. This project is to complete the replacement of 1963 main track rail at Kaiser (MP 45.40 to 47.11) near Rancho Cucamonga and place it in the siding at this location. This work will be done in conjunction with the New Capital construction of Second Main track. 2. RAIL, TURNOUT AND ROAD CROSSING PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE UPGRADE OF THE MOORPARK / STRATHERN SIDINGS. Ventura Line $3,061,591 a. Moorpark/Strathern Siding Rail Program $2,074,404 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 53 99 TABLE 4.1 - 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 2002-03 BUDGET NDIT URES: ONGOI NG PROJECTS ... .. No:: z :• {:•.'CFoSsirigReba6ilitatidris:•:Veritui ^a•C nunt9 . . ..... .-.. ... . ........ . ......:.... . . .. .... 'P�.1W:• :•:• :•'•:•.•'•:•:•::•:•'•:•: •:•::•::: :•:•::::::::::•::...: ..:: :.:.:{.; ; .: .: }: Lirie(.VeitiCO):!•::•:•::•:•: •:•:<: •:: > Line.. .•.; ...•.•. Yeritui�a •:!�: •: •:� Y .0.19).:•:•: :•::•Buil>?eE :•:•:: : •::•:•:•:i:::•::::<:: •:•:•::•:::i:Local'hunds:•i;•:•:•:.:..{.:.. .:...:...: ...: .: ...:.}..;.. .'tale;.;.;.; ::::Fonds:.:': rUPR.R;..:..;.;.,.ease ,... •: .:•7.•(2).:•:•.. .-...:. .. i.: Revende s. . . is i: .N} 'I' A•::.:�: •:::::OCT (1}:• '• it • :•:•RCTG is •: SH AG:(1 ': O •: Y.CTC:3):: f 1 Rail Relacen tent: San Bernardino Li ne San Bernardino 711,140 426,684 284 ,456 2a MoorparklStrathem Siding Vent ura 2,074,404 2,074,404 2b Ra il Improvements - Ventu ra County Line Ventura 115,548 115,548 2c Tur nout Upgrades and Replacements - Ventura Cou nty Li ne (VE N CO) Ventura 543,539 543,539 2d Cro ssin g Rehabilitation s - Ventura Coun ty Line (Ve n CO) Ventura 328,101 328,101 3a Signal Improvements: Ventura County Line (Ven Co) Ve ntura 100,641 100,641 3b Signal Improvements on the Antelope Valley Line A nt elope V 32,481 32,481 4 Maintenance Facility Upgrade System 100,000 47,500 19,800 11,100 14,400 7,200 5 Tunnel 26 Safety Improvements Vent ura 1,053,524 1,053,524 6 Drain age Study and M itigation Orange 424,825 424 .825 7 Grade Crossing M on itor System System 497,000 236,227 98 ,309 55,222 71,513 35 .729 8 Switch M achine & Rod RepliRepair: Riv er Corridor River 134,239 63,805 26,553 14,915 19,316 9,650 9 Signal Improvements - River Corridor River 64,356 30,589 12 ,730 7,151 9,260 4,626 10 Station and Right of Way Upgrades (San Bet Co) San Bernardino 1,276,160 1,276,160 I la Tumout Upgrades and Replacemen ts - Antelope Valley Line Antelope V 464,244 464,244 1 1 b Turnout Upgrades and Replaceme nts - San Bernardin o Line San Bernardino 23,464 14,078 9,386 11 c Turnout Upgrades and Replacements - Orange County Lin e Orange 372 ,219 372,219 11 d Turnout Upgrades and Replacements - River Corridor Riv er 651,153 202,818 84,403 47,401 61,392 30,674 224,465 12 Special Track Work - Frog Replacement Riv er Corridor Riv er 375,000 8,556 3,561 2,000 2,590 1,294 357,000 13 Rolling Stock Rehabilitation System 650,000 129,555 273,929 28,700 199,250 18 ,567 .. ....... . . ..::�Tbfa}CariyT`n nva�d�Pio}ebts:• i::• i:�: �: �: •:?i:�:i:�i:�::!� :•i:,::.::i . ..... . . : .;..66 9;992',.68:: 038 9 , :':'iia'656 ,53,:.1:.t.-6.,i2'9::e .... ii 89•'• ... ; ..7� 22':.:.:.1,1:95:,5 ! 94 7 69::;• •h299 8• '' 3 2 •' ::::5.8.1:;4.6.5::.::.{:;i::,:: is (1) OCTA and SANBAG "local" funds are 80% federa l funds and 20% local match. (2) Per agreement with Union Pacific Railroad, work is associated with the River Corrido r. (3) VCTC Funds arc 100% Federal O O rehab_005/02, • • O TA110,1 - 2 SOUTHE RN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL R AIL AUTHORIT Y FY 2002-03 BUDGET REHABILITATION/RENOV ATION EXPENDITU RES: NEW PR OJECTS FO R FY 2002-03 Ia Ib Ic Id le If 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f 29 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f 4a 4b 4c 5n 5b 5c 5d 5e 6 7 8 9a 9b 9c 9d 9e 9f 9g 10 II Rail Program - Ventura County Line Rail Program - Antelope Valley Line Rail Program - San Bernardin o Line Rail Program • Orange County Line Rail Program - Inland Empire/Orange County Line (Oli ve Sub) Rail Program - River Corridor Woo d and Concrete Tie Program - Ventura County Line ( Ven Co) Wo od and Concrete Tie Pro gram - Ventura County Line (LA Co) Wood and Concrete Tie Program - An telope Valley Line Wood and Concrete Tie Program - San Bernardino Line Wood and Concrete Tie Program - River Corridor Wood and Concrete Tie Program - Orange County Line Wood and Concrete Tie Pro gram - 1EOC (Olive Sub) Turno ut Program - Ventu ra County Line Tumour Program - Antelope Valley Line Turnout Program - San Bernardino Line Turnout Program - Orange County Line Turnou t Program - Inland Empire/Orange County Line (Olive Sub) Turnout Program - River Corridor Road Crossing Program - Ventura Coun ty Line Road Cro ssing Program - San Bernardino Line Road Crossing Program - Orange County Line Bridge Replacement Program - Ventura County Line (Ven Co) Bridge Replacement Program - Ventura County Line (LA Co ) Bridge Replacement Program - Antelope Valley Line Bridge Replacement Program - San Bernardino Line Bridge Replacement Program - Orange County Lin e Rail Grinding Replace Rail Crossing Fro gs Union Station Platform Lighting Upgrades Signal and Communication s Program - Ventura County Line Signal and Communications Pro gram - A ntelope Valle y Line Signal and Communications Program • San Bernardino Line Signal and Co mmunications Program - Pasadena Subdivision Signal and Communications Program - Orange County Line Signal and Communications Program - Riv er Corridor Signal an d Communicatio ns Program - Systemwide Rolling Stock Rehabilitation Program Crew Facility at San Bernardino Station 12 Sup ort Vehicles �: •:•T4fnla!1C'tVa';gjQC[S}; •::;. ; • ;• ;• ::: 'oral: ic:04blilfation:anil Renovtion::.::• •:••y . rehab_03. xls, 4/5/02, Ventura Antelope V San Bernardino Orange Olive River V entura yen tura Antelope V San Bernardino River Orange Oli ve Ventura Antelope V San Bernardi no Orange Olive River Ventura San Bernardino Orange Ventura Ventura Antelope V San Bernardino Orange System River System Ventura 579,660 9,660 2,073,386 105,491 294,174 2,073,386 63,295 294,174 • SETA ):_:::VCTC(3): 579,660 42,196 40,899 40,899 247,040 553,420 268,614 117,426 268,614 48,867 27,444 35,544 17,760 553,420 391,664 3,286,214 197,655 391,664 1,971,728 93,951 39,098 21,957 1,314,486 1,428,506 94,892 173,073 635,313 169,328 164,691 329,382 327,955 85,798 341,381 337,558 214,000 92,020 331,379 574,376 839,950 412,906 400,000 160,500 128,649 173,073 635,313 101,597 182,684 85,798 204 ,829 92,020 331,379 344,626 196,266 6,556 76,290 128,649 1,428,506 94,892 164,691 329,382 7,782 337,558 839,950 81,677 3,561 31,749 4,372 45,870 2,000 17,830 28,439 67,73 1 5,662 136,552 229,750 59,409 2,590 23,093 14,209 2,829 214,000 29,684 1,294 11,538 Antelope V San Bernardino San Bernardino Orange River System System San Bernardino System 189,256 749,670 197,950 348,872 200,625 1,649,405 3,500,000 250,000 500,000 22;865;652•: 189,256 449,802 197,950 95,363 784,012 1,188,325 118,833 237, 665 348,872 39,686 326,269 494,525 49,453 98,905 22,287 183,232 277,725 27,773 55,545 •10:802;3a9:• i:!• :•S:{00;486::•: :. :486;03.5;•: .32,5 S7,d94: .12,458,885 299,868 28 ,866 237,316 359,700 35,970 71,940 14,423 118,576 179,725 17,973 35,945 124,623 382,000 :::6;41:6;825:. y: 852;924;:;:;•:•4;926;83:5:!•;{. ;986;605}}; :3;127;928 506;623 1,000,000 1: ,000;000', • 6 ,086,088: •:.:.:!.: • J:,000 000:: SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • The funding is State Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funds and was amended into the FY 2000-01 Budget in March 2001. The work (all in Ventura County) includes: Upgrading the Moorpark Siding for higher speeds by: Relaying the main track Continuously Welded Rail (CWR) in the siding area and moving the recovered CWR to the siding replacing the Jointed smaller Rail; and, Upgrade the Strathem Siding for higher speeds by relaying the Main Track in the siding area and moving the recovered CWR to the siding replacing the worn rail. b. Ventura County Line Rail Program $115,548 The funding is 100% VCTC. The funds will be used for additional track work associated with the Moorpark/Strathern Siding upgrades. c. Ventura County Line Turnout Program $ 543,539 This funding is 100% VCTC. The work (in Ventura County) includes rehabilitation and upgrading the Moorpark Turnouts in connection with the rail work mentioned above in b. d. Ventura County Line Road Crossing Program $ 328,101 The funding is 100% VCTC. The work (all in Ventura County) includes rehabilitation of both the Main Track and siding road crossing surfaces at Moorpark Ave. and Spring Rd. 3. SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE HASSON AND NEWHALL SIDING EXTENSIONS. $ 133,122 The FY 2000-2001 work was delayed to capture as many as economies of production as are available by consolidation of contiguous work on the Ventura County Line and Antelope Valley Line with the above -mentioned Capital programs. a. Ventura County Line (Ventura County — 100% VCTC) b. Antelope Valley Line (100% LACMTA) $100,641 $ 32,481 4. MAINTENANCE FACILITY UPGRADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE INLAND EMPIRE MAINTENANCE FACILITY. $ 100,000 This project will upgrade the electrical capacity at the San Bernardino layover tracks. The FY 2000-2001 work was delayed to capture as many as economies of production as are available by consolidation the contiguous work associated with the New Capital program to construct the Inland Empire Maintenance Facility. 5. TUNNEL 26 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (Phase II) $1,053,524 VENTURA COUNTY LINE This project the second phase of an ongoing project from FY 1998-99. Tunnel 26 is located on the Ventura County Line. The tunnel is 7,369 feet long. This phase will address the emergency egress of passengers from trains during unplanned stoppage and seismic anchor bolting. The improvements under design will include lighting, walkways and further drainage. The project is • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 56 102 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget essential for the continued safe operation of Metrolink and Amtrak passenger trains as well as of freight trains operating in the corridor. 6. DRAINAGE STUDY AND MITIGATION $424,825 This FY 2001-2002 project is to mitigate the effects of heavy rainfall at various locations in Orange County including 4`h Street in Santa Ana, and at Milepost 192 in Mission Viejo. In prior years, these areas have been identified as problem areas and conceptual engineering has been performed for remedial action. This current project is to take the design to completion, secure all necessary permits, and to contract for the construction of the mitigation measures. The mitigation measures for 4th St. are to install catch basins and short sections of storm drain to carry rainfall into nearby storm drains. The work at Mission Viejo is to stabilize an earth embankment with improved local drainage and removing soil from the cut area. 7. GRADE CROSSING MONITOR - SYSTEM $497,000 This program is to continue with the gradual installation of these devices on a priority basis on important grade crossing controls. This system uses sensors to determine the "health" of the crossing system and will communicate to the Metrolink Operations Center any exceptions. Many of these exceptions are situations that can be repaired before the crossing actually fails, thereby avoiding delays to train or highway traffic. In all cases the monitors provide diagnostic information to signal personnel, reducing troubleshooting time and aiding prompt maintenance. The costs are allocated to the lines based upon the number of crossings to be equipped each year. 8. SWITCH MACHINE/ROD REPLACEMENT $134,239 This FY 2000-2001 program was delayed due to availability of Union Pacific forces and coordination. This program is the systematic removal and replacement of the dual control power switch machines and their associated connecting rods. These devices will last approximately ten years in heavy service but need to be rehabilitated at the end of that time in order to assure reliable operation. The machines are sent to the manufacturer for reconditioning. This work is scheduled for the River Corridor and is funded using the Revised Allshare formula. 9. SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS  RIVER CORRIDOR $64,536 This FY 2000-2001 program was delayed due to availability of Union Pacific forces for the testing and activation of the new system. This work will upgrade the signal system from the First St. crossover to a new signal at Yuma Junction. 10. STATION AND RIGHT OF WAY UPGRADES $1,276,160 This FY 2001-2002 program is currently in the design stage for platform extensions at Rialto and Fontana. This program will rehabilitate and upgrade other Station items and Right Of Way in San Bernardino County. The identification of other specific station items and upgrades is currently in discussion with affected Member Agency staff. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 57 103 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • 11. TURNOUTS $1,511,081 The FY 2001-2002 program has been delayed by the need of a new Special Track Work procurement contract requiring the update all of SCRRA turnout and other special track work standards. Under the Rehabilitation/Renovation Program, entire turnouts and other special track work are replaced with upgraded components, including sub -grade. Under ordinary maintenance, the special track work is repaired, welded, ground and surfaced to extend its surface life. The Rehabilitation/Renovation Program is to do the periodic renewals of the special track work. a. Antelope Valley Line $ 464,254 This funding is 100% LACMTA. The project is to replace three (3) Turnouts at MP5.4, MP25.3 and MP26.4. b. San Bernardino Line $ 23,464 This funding is 60% by LACMTA and 40% by SANBAG. The project is to install switch ties in three (3) Turnouts at MP 41.7, MP 52.1 and MP 52.3. c. Orange County Line $372,219 This FY 2000-01 & 2001-02 program funding is 100% OCTA. The project will rehabilitate the turnouts at MP 177.4 and MP 177.9. The turnouts will be upgraded from 115-1b. to 136-1b., consistent with the rail in this territory. d. River Corridor $651,153 The work is funded $426,688 by all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula, and $224,465 by UPRR under the East Bank Agreement. The project is to replace the west (north) No. 14 Crossover at Dayton MP488.75. The No.14 Crossover at First St. MP483.1 (within Zone 2 of the UPRR Agreement) will also be replaced. 12. REPLACE RAIL CROSSING FROGS $375,000 Crossing frogs are special assemblies of steel castings and rail that permit the railroad tracks to intersect, and have gaps for the rail wheel flanges. The engineering for the new Frogs is being completed. This funding is $16,875 by all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula, and $358,125 by Union Pacific under the East Bank Agreement. This item is to replace current units where the two tracks of the East Bank Main Track cross the Coast Connector track at grade. Existing units were installed in the 1950s and have reached the limit of economical and safe repair. 13. ROLLING STOCK REHABILITATION $650,000 Funds are carried forward primarily as a result of the Head End Power program. This program was initiated in FY 1998-99 as these units had been changed out under warranty in prior years. The manufactures recommend the overhaul of the HEP engines between 10,000 and 12,000 hours of operation. Other funds include uncompleted cycle Rehabilitation program as referenced below in New Projects #12. • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 58 104 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • • NEW PROJECTS FOR REHABILITATION/RENOVATION IN FY 2002-03 The following new projects are proposed for Rehabilitation/Renovation in FY 2002-03. This year is the forth of a five-year cycle that has been developed by staff, working with funding guidelines furnished by the Member Agencies and other sources. As such, some maintenance needs are moved ahead or back various years to consolidate like work and achieve contracting economies, in confidence that they will occur in the designated years. Other work, which has to follow the regular wear of the facilities, is spread evenly through the years. 1 RAIL $3,340,651 Rail is replaced for two reasons: it is worn away by wheel flanges in curves, or it reaches the fatigue life limit where small internal flaws grow into fractures. On the SCRRA system, replacement rail is most often needed at sharp curves and where rail installed many years ago by the freight railroads has reached the end of its useful life. The decision to replace rail is driven by observing the wear patterns and by monitoring the rate of rail defect detection. a. Ventura County Line $579,660 The program will replace worn rail on three curves between Moorpark and Strathern b. Antelope Valley Line $2,073,386 The program will replace worn rail on 11 curves between Lang and Kocian and 3 curves at CP Taylor. The old rail at Harold will be replaced and this used main track rail replace the Ravenna siding rail. c. San Bernardino Line The program will rehabilitate worn rail on the d. Orange County Line The program will rehabilitate worn rail on the worn curve rail on the Orange Wye track will e_ Inland Empire Orange County Line (Olive The program will rehabilitate worn rail on the f. River Corridor The program will rehabilitate worn rail on the track from Mission to the Eastbank main track the L.A. river leading to the Eastbank main 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 59 $105,491 curve at CP Hondo. $294,174 curve at CP Maple, near the Orange station. The be rehabilitated with used main track rail. Sub.) $.40,889 curve between CP Meats and CP Maple. $247,040 connector track curve between Union Station lead . It will replace the Union Station lead track across 105 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • 2. WOOD AND CONCRETE TIES $6,220,965 Wood ties last about 35 years in this region. There are 3,250 ties per mile of track. This results in the need to replace about 100 ties per mile per year to keep a stable track structure. The SCRRA engineering standards and the FRA Track Safety Standards are predicated upon there being a limited number of failed ties in the track, the redundant design of the track will enable the remaining sound ties to hold the track in alignment, gauge, and surface. It is more economical to replace about 25% of the ties on about 8 -year cycles with specialized crews than to replace a few ties at more frequent intervals. Letting the track deteriorate until more than 25% of the ties have failed results in rough and unstable track, a decrease in the life of the remaining ties, and the need to reduce train speeds. The Rehabilitation/Renovation program is based upon keeping within this range of tie replacement. a. Ventura County Line $553,420 This funded is by VCTC. The program will replace approximately 25% of the wood ties on 3.3 miles of the main track MP 436.7 to MP 440.0 (Simi Valley). b. Ventura County Line $268,614 This funded is by LACMTA. The program will replace all of the wood ties in Tunnel No. 28 MP 443.90. c. Antelope Valley Line $391,664 This funding is by LACMTA. The program will replace approximately 25% of the wood ties on the Sylmar siding. The program will also replace the wood ties with concrete ties in a sharp curve at CP Kocian (MP 53.9 to 54.03) d. San Bernardino Line $3,286,214 This work is funded 60% by LACMTA and 40% by SANBAG. The program will replace approximately 25% of the wood ties on the main line at Cambridge between MP 32.4 to MP 44.5 (12.1 miles). The program will also replace an additional 25% of the wood ties on the main line at Etiwanda between MP 47.6 to MP 55.2. e. River Corridor (Union Station) $197,655 The funding is by all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula. The program will replace the wood ties with concrete ties on the connector track curve between Mission and the Eastbank main track. This will be done in conjunction with the rail program mentioned above in 1f. f. Orange County Line $1,428,506 This work is 100% OCTA. The program will replace 30% of the wood ties between Serra and the County Line (MP 203.8 to 207.4) on the Orange Comity Line, and 25% of the ties between MP 173.2 and MP 174.7 (Lincoln) on the north main track, and replace the wood ties with concrete ties on the curve at CP Maple, near the Orange station. This will be done in connection with the rail program at this location referenced above in ld. • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 60 106 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget g. Inland Empire Orange County Line (Olive Sub.) $ 94,892 The program will replace 20% of the ties on the curve between CP Meats and CP Maple. This will be done in connection with the rail program at this location referenced above in lf. 3. TURNOUTS $1,799,740 Under the Rehabilitation/Renovation Program entire turnouts and other special track work are replaced with upgraded components, including sub -grade. Under ordinary maintenance, the special track work is repaired, welded, ground and surfaced to extend its surface life. The Rehabilitation/Renovation Program is to do the periodic renewals of the special track work. a. Ventura County Line $ 173,073 This funding is 100% LACMTA. The program will rehabilitate the Turnout at MP 458.1 c. Antelope Valley Line $ 635,313 This funding 100% LACMTA. The program will rehabilitate three (3) Turnouts at MP 53.9, MP 61.8 and MP 62.2. d. San Bernardino Line $ 169,328 This funding is 60% LACMTA and 40% SANBAG. The program will rehabilitate the Turnout at MP 44.3. e. Orange County Line $ 164,691 This funding is 100% OCTA. The program will rehabilitate the turnout at MP 179.4 at the east end of the Tustin wye. The turnout will be upgraded from 115-Ib. to 136-Ib., consistent with the rail in this territory. d. Inland Empire Orange County Line (Olive Sub.) $ 329,382 This funding is 100% OCTA. The program will rehabilitate two (2) turnouts at MP 0.8 and 0.9 near Tustin Ave. The turnouts will be upgraded from 115-1b. to 136-Ib., consistent with the rail in this territory. f. River Corridor $ 327,955 The work is funded with $203,332 by Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula, and $124,623 by UPRR under the East Bank Agreement. The program will rehabilitate two (2) Turnouts at CP Chavez (MP 1.05) and the UP Harbor turnout at 9th St. 4. ROAD CROSSINGS $764,737 Under the Rehabilitation/Renovation Program, an allowance is set aside for each line for each year for the maintenance staff to plan rehabilitation of crossings. This gives them a resource in planning to respond to civic requests to repair or upgrade crossings, and to work off the worst of the existing crossings each year. The nature of this work will vary between lines and between years on each line. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 61 107 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • a. Ventura County Line $ 85,798 The funding is 100% LACMTA. The program will rehabilitate ties, rail and crossing surface on both main tracks crossings at Vineland Ave. (MP 459.61). b. San Bernardino Line $ 341,381 This funding is 60% by LACMTA and 40% by SANBAG. The program will rehabilitate the crossing surfaces, ties and rail at three (3) crossings at MP 38.1 (Grove Ave), MP 39.1 (Vineland Ave.) and MP 53.0 (Riverside Ave). c. Orange County Line $ 337,558 This funding 100% OCTA. The program will rehabilitate the crossing surfaces, ties and rail on both main tracks crossings at E. Broadway Dr. (MP 167.89) and La Veta Ave. (MP 173.3). Any existing 115-1b. rail in the crossings will be upgraded to 136-1b., consistent with the rail in this territory. 5. BRIDGE REPLACEMENT $2,051,725 The Bridge Rehabilitation and Renovation capital program consists primarily of replacing obsolete and decayed timber bridges with concrete and steel bridges. These bridges eliminate maintenance due to decayed wood, eliminate fire danger and enlarge the channel opening because the concrete spans are longer than the wood spans. This program also includes painting of major steel bridges in future years and replacement of small timber structures with culvert pipe when feasible. This program will also address improvements that will extend or insure the life expectance of a structural unit. a. Ventura County Line $214,000 This funding is 100% VCTC. The program will install additional bracing to the four (4) Arroyo Simi bridges. This will extend or insure the life expectancy of the structures. b. Ventura County Line $ 92,020 This funding is 100% LACMTA. The program will rehabilitate the deck on the bridge at MP 452.1 between Balboa Blvd. and Roscoe Blvd. c. Antelope Valley Line $331,379 This funding is 100% LACMTA. The program will rehabilitate the ballast deck pile trestle bridge at MP 35.3 near Santa Clairita. d. San Bernardino Line $ 574,376 This funding is 60% by LACMTA and 40% by SANBAG. The program will replace the 72 foot ballast deck bridge at MP 38.9 near Upland. • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 62 108 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget e. Orange County Line $839,950 This funding is 100% OCTA. The program will replace the 28 foot ballast deck bridge at MP 202.7 (San Clemente). The program will also initiate the Civil design for the replacement structure for the 191 foot San Juan Capistrano bridge at MP 195.8. 6. RAIL GRINDING $412,906 This program is to grind the rail to restore the original profile and remove surface defects. A regular program of rail grinding will more than double the life of the rail, particularly in curved track. The amount of grinding expense is assigned to each line on approximately the mileage of that line. 7. REPLACE RAIL CROSSING FROGS $400,000 This funding is $18,000 by all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula, and $382,000 by Union Pacific under the East Bank Agreement. This item is to replace the special track work where the two tracks of the East Bank main track cross the Yuma main track at grade. Crossing frogs are special assemblies of steel castings and rail that permit the railroad tracks to intersect, and that have gaps for the rail wheel flanges. The existing units were installed in the 1950s and have reached the limit of economical and safe repair. The new frogs should last a similar length of time. This is the second of two sets. A similar item is referenced in Ongoing Project #12 above. 8. UNION STATION PLATFORM LIGHTING UPGRADES $160,500 This project will replace approximately 270 lighting fixtures on the five boarding platforms at Los Angeles Union Station. Current units are over ten years old and have become costly to maintain. The replacement lighting system will be energy -efficient and is expected to significantly reduce maintenance and utility costs. 9. SIGNAL AND COMMUNICATION IMPROVEMENTS $3,464,428 a. Ventura County Line $ 128,649 This funding is 100% LACMTA. This program will repair erosion at two signal locations with installation of retaining walls and replacement fill material. Secure & protect signal equipment enclosures by installation of fencing and upgrade standby power requirements at four locations with replacement installation of LED lights. LED lights require approximately one-third the energy to light thus increasing standby power life and decreasing commercial power requirements when not in standby. Also included is the installation of dispatcher controlled power operated switch machine on the existing derail at CP Woodman MP 456.10. b. Antelope Valley Line $189,256 This funding is 100% LACMTA. This program will secure & protect signal equipment enclosures by installation of fencing and upgrade crossing controls by replacing the antiquated crossing control equipment and the enclosure at Aliso Canyon Road, MP 57.99. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 63 109 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • c. San Bernardino Line $ 749,670 This funding is 60% LACMTA and 40% SANBAG. This program will: relocate & upgrade Wayside detection equipment at CP Rancho MP 55.0. Install additional electronic modules used in standby racks for constant warning equipment. Replace conditioners used to maintain temperature stability in signal locations that have been in service for over five years. Replace underground cabling at various locations between MP 11.1 and MP 11.2. Replace one constant warning device at Temple Avenue at MP 16.07. Secure & protect Signal equipment enclosures by installation of fencing. Upgrade standby power requirements with replacement installation of LED lights. Continue a program to install event / analyzer monitoring equipment at each "at grade' rail crossings. d. Pasadena Subdivision $ 197,950 This funding is 100% LACMTA. This is the continuation of a program to remove the remaining pole line on the Pasadena Subdivision before it becomes a liability due to failing in windstorms or other situations. The program will be from MP 110.6 to MP 111.7. e. Orange County Line $348,872 This funding is 100% OCTA. This program will: Upgrade the existing power system at CP Tinkham MP 184.50. The existing commercial power configuration will not allow for the continuous operation of the A/C system during peak heat periods due to inadequate power feed. Replace deteriorated signal equipment due to high oxidation at various locations between MP 198.8 and MP 206.0. Upgrade standby power requirements with replacement installation of LED lights. Continue a program to install event / analyzer monitoring equipment at each at grade rail crossing. f. River Corridor $200,625 The funding is by all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula. This program will: Install crossing waning devices at a crossing on the "Coast Connecter" track at CP Main and at a crossing on two Leads at CP Mission. Both crossings are now un-signaled. The crossings are used for access by emergency vehicles and maintenance of way vehicles. Providing warning systems on the crossings will improve the safety of both crossings. Secure & protect Signal equipment enclosures by installation of fencing. Provide backup generated power for the East Bank. Currently, due to line loss, the backup power supply is insufficient to provide power for the East Bank in the event of a commercial power failure. g. Systemwide $1,649,405 The funding is by all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula. The programs will: Provide a mirror Dispatching server to be installed at a separate facility from the Metrolink Operations Center (MOC) with it's own structure and power. This will serve as an alternate to the MOC Dispatch server when or if a major failure occurs at the MOC. Provide significant rehabilitation and upgrades to multiple radio relay points, provide upgraded communications through the installation of modems for the agency's PA/CMS systems, new lenses for PA/CMS, and provide Omni -Directional Antennas at Selected Control Points. • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 64 110 " " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 10. REHABILITATION/RENOVATION ON ROLLING STOCK $3,500,000 This item is composed of annual rehabilitation and renovation programs on SCRRA rolling stock. Funded by interest on proceeds from the U.S. Leveraged Lease Transaction on SCRRA rolling stock and member agency funds on the revised Allshare formula. The elements of the ongoing programs are described below: Car Door Operators Proper operation of doors on rail cars is critical to providing a safe, efficient commuter rail service. The doors are in constant use and suffer a fair amount of abuse. The schedule calls for a four-year cycle for teardown and rebuild of these units. Truck Overhaul The truck assembly serves as the suspension system for cars, along with supporting wheels and braking systems. The trucks should operate approximately 400,000 to 500,000 miles if no extra- ordinary wear occurs. Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC) Overhaul The HVAC system is the most important customer comfort appliance on the cars and operates under heavy demand in our service for much of the year. This system requires periodic overhaul about every four years to ensure steady, reliable performance. Traction Motors Each locomotive has four traction motors. These are located underneath the unit and provide driving effort to the wheels. The motors should run about 400,000 miles without needing major work. As with the Truck Overhaul program above, this program is started in advance of the maintenance cycle time. Replacement of Carpet, Seats and Installation of ATS and LLEPM This program consists of the replacement of worn carpet, seat covers and foam in the rail cars. The program also includes installation of Automatic Train Stop (ATS) in those locomotives not already equipped so all locomotives can run in ATS territory south of Santa Ana on the Orange County Line. This same program will incorporate the installation of Low Level Exit Path Markings to meet new standards. Rehabilitate and Upgrade Cab Cars to current standards This program consists of the redesign of the Cab areas on the older Cars to provide a more secure, quiet environment for the Operator. 11. CREW FACILITY AT SAN BERNARDINO STATION $250,000 This project is to supplement work being done at the San Bernardino Station. Currently crews laying over at the station are housed in an older mobile office facility. These funds would allow for the addition of a permanent facility for crew layovers and signons, and would be included in a larger construction package being pursued by SANBAG at a substantially lower cost to the SCRRA by utilizing current contractors. 12. VEHICLES $500,000 These funds are funded by all members using the all share formula. The SCRRA currently owns approximately 135 rubber -tired vehicles used in the agency's Operations, Maintenance of Way, 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 65 111 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • Capital, and General Administrative pools. A significant number of these vehicles have reached or exceeded their originally projected useful life. It is expected that this program is the first year of a multi year vehicle replacement cycle during which the most critical needs will be addressed originally, and the balance of the fleet will be scheduled for replacement on the basis of mileage and repair costs. Approximately similar funding is expected to be programmed in future years so as to avoid one time spikes in the funding requirements of members, and so as to allow for an orderly and efficient cycle of procurement. • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 66 112 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 4.2 New Capital New Capital projects are those capital projects that expand the system such as sidings, double track, upgrade of the signal system, and new rolling stock. For the FY 2002-03 Budget, the projects for the New Capital program are shown in Table 4.2 and the expenditures amount to $87.4 million. Appendix 6.6 provides a listing of new projects for which federal, state and local funds are being sought. If and when funds are secured, projects will be amended into the budget. The following projects are ongoing projects that were budgeted in FY 2001-02 or were amended into the Budget after receipt of additional funding. 1. PURCHASE OF 18 NEW TVMS $578,777 SYSTEMWIDE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1997-98. The Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs) are funded by the five member agencies based on which county will use them. Five of the TVMs are proposed as spares and funded by all counties per the all -share formula: LACMTA 40%; OCTA 25%; RCTC 12%; SANBAG 18%; and VCTC 5%. This balance is proposed for the final payment on 8 existing style TVMs plus an order of new 10 -key pad machines. 2. UPGRADE TICKET VENDING MACHINES $11,073,018 SYSTEMWIDE The project will provide for new and/or upgraded passenger rail ticket vending machines (TVMs) at Metrolink and Amtrak stations. Funding includes State funds for the software and additional participation from Amtrak and a Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant. The funding for this project is augmented by item #1 above and item #7 below. The project benefits the entire Metrolink system as well as Amtrak Intercity service, and has the potential to benefit other transit providers in the region. These new machines will be able to vend either Metrolink or Amtrak tickets and will also have the potential to sell bus tickets. This means that fewer total capital costs for ticketing machines are needed and servicing costs are lowered and shared. The new machines will be able to vend different types of tickets. For example, they will not only vend tickets for a regular one-way, round-trip, 10 -trip, or monthly pass for adult, student, handicapped, or off-peak fare, they will also allow someone to buy a ticket for a future date and several different types of tickets at once. They will vend tickets for trips using any combination of Metrolink, Amtrak and other transit services and be able to allocate the money collected to the different operators. For example, a person will be able to buy tickets at a single location, in one transaction, allowing the user to travel from Riverside using Metrolink, then transfer to Amtrak to Santa Barbara, then return home  and do this so that both Metrolink and Amtrak get their share of the ticket price. This makes the entire passenger rail network in Southern California much more useable to many more travelers. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 67 113 TABLE 4 .2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 2002-03 BUDGET NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS 1 to New t icnel v cu ein g rvlawm ca - -• 2 Upgrade Ticket Vending M achines System 11,073,018 1,476,500 1,189,000 8,407,518 3 Lincoln Avenue Double Track Orange Co 14,155,600 250,000 13,905,600 4 PA/CMS installation at Orange Coun ty Stations Orange Co 170,130 170,130 5 Fremont Siding San Bern 3,399,079 1,878,395 301,358 1,219,326 6 Marengo Siding San Bern 2,477,483 1,056,032 275,000 1,146,451 7 Upgrade TVMs to 10 -Key Pad Operation Systent 1,600,000 1,600,000 8 Additional M etrolink Rollin g Stock Phase 1 System 4,754,452 4,754,452 9 Platform on South Side of Covina: Phase 1 (3) San Be rn 1,505,879 505,879 1,000,000 10 Global Positioning System (GPS) (4) System 125,414 125,414 I 1 San Ber Line Improvements - Pomona Double Tra ck San Bern 13,154,990 11,254,990 1,900,000 12 San Ber Line Improvements - Kaiser Project San Bern 12,352,382 12,352,382 13 Sun Valley Siding Antelope V 3,924,085 3,924,085 14 Newhall Line Changes Antelope V 967,956 $110,559 857,397 15 Grade Crossing Safety Program System 434,633 $70,546 $20,710 9,472 $16,284 $7,988 309,633 16 New Cab Car Procurement System 10,691,973 $1,229,177 9,462,796 17 Eastern Area Maintenance Facility Design System 832,000 140,000 692,000 18 GPS and PACMS in San Bernardino San Bern 445,000 445,000 19 Pedestrian Undererossing at Montclair San Bern 1,800,000 $360,000 1,440,000 20 An telope Valley Line Changes at Santa Clarita Antelope V 500,000 58,000 442,000 21 Platfor m Extension s in LA Cou nty San Bern 2,200,000 2,200,000 .' ... . . . ... .. . .•..• . TOTA L•.• .• :•:•:. •::. . . . . 871421&50;: i::ii:.:G9591948;>:;;:;:.::67y997:::,:•:•a.0.;:' -• • »i: •: •:•Si7;Z77:• '•: •. ...0,6 4 .•. . b '8E8: : •:•06 8 r�. !.... ....+. ..;.....•. . . . .•. • L • 3 •'573: :3l} 1 6. •! ...•. Amended into the FY 2000.01 Budget - March, 2001 NewCap-FW4/5/2002 3:14 PM • • " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 3. LINCOLN AVENUE DOUBLE TRACK $14,155,600 ORANGE COUNTY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998-99. It is a multi -year project which is funded with prior year State Intercity Rail funds and from Orange County's SB-45 Regional Choice Program. An additional $4.2 in State and Local Funds were amended into this project in FY 2001-02. The 1.8 -mile segment between Santa Ana and Orange on the Orange County Line has only one main track and causes significant scheduling problems for both the Orange County and Inland Empire -Orange County Lines. 4. PA/CMS INSTALLATION AT ORANGE $170,130 COUNTY STATIONS ORANGE COUNTY LINE This project proposes installation of Public Address/Changeable Message Signs (PA/CMS) at four Orange County stations and is funded by OCTA. Two existing stations, Irvine and Fullerton, and the Tustin and Laguna Niguel stations which opened in FY 2001-02. 5. FREMONT SIDING $3,399,079 SAN BERNARDINO LINE The siding in the I-10 Corridor is a new CTC controlled passing track (siding) on the single track San Bernardino line between Marengo (near Los Angeles) and El Monte at Milepost 6.2 in the. city of Alhambra, near the Fremont Ave. freeway interchange. It has, in the past, been identified as the "Fremont" siding. This portion of the rail line is located in the center median of Interstate Highway 10, which is a very narrow right of way with room for only one track. At Milepost 6.2 the highway lanes are separated, yielding a wider right of way that can be used for a siding about 1000 feet long. The work will consist of constructing a railway embankment, two new turnouts, about 1000 feet of track, and two control points (signals, power switch machines, and associated controls). Most of the work is within railroad right of way but easements may be required for installation of some track and signals (as was done with the original construction of this line). Special construction access must be coordinated with Caltrans. 6. MARENGO SIDING $2,477,843 SAN BERNARDINO LINE The siding on the east bank of the LA River (identified previously as "Marengo Siding" after a local street) is located immediately north of the HOV lanes of Interstate 10, San Bernardino Freeway, and extends from the east bank of the Los Angeles River, at Pasadena Junction, Milepost 1.0, to the interlocking "CP Marengo" at Milepost 2.5, beneath the Marengo Street overpass, in the Boyle Heights district of the City of Los Angeles. The existing track structure and geometry limits trains on the siding to 25 MPH and the special trackwork at the Pasadena Jct. end is deteriorated and unreliable. This project is to upgrade a passing siding to main line standards and to reconfigure the turnouts connecting it to the routes leading to Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal. The project is located on SCRRA's San Bernardino line, which is a single-track railroad line with passing sidings located at five to ten mile intervals. In order to provide reliable bi-directional service, this improved siding is required. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 69 115 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • 7. UPGRADE TVMS TO 10 -KEY PAD OPERATION $1,600,000 SYSTEMWIDE This project was funded in the 1998 STIP Amendment with $1.6 million of SHA .funds. The project will provide for new and/or upgraded passenger rail ticket vending machines (TVMs) at Metrolink and Amtrak stations. This funding augments two existing projects described in the New Capital Budget items #2 and #3. The project and its benefits are described in the New Capital Budget item #3. 8. ADDITIONAL METROLINK ROLLING STOCK PHASE I $4,754,452 SYSTEMWIDE This project was funded in the 1998 STIP Amendment with $11.5 million in STP funds. Metrolink's ridership has continued to grow at an impressive rate. However, future growth will be constrained by the lack of new equipment. These funds represent the current balance against the original grant and will be available to make final payments of vehicles received in 2001-02 to the vehicle manufacturer after final acceptance and settlement of any potential claims. 9. PLATFORM ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COVINA:PHASE I $1,505,879 SAN BERNARDINO LINE This project is funded through the application of $600,000 in LACMTA local funds retained by the SCRRA from LACMTA's FY 1998-99 local funds surplus. Additional funding of $1 million in State funds has been secured from the State Budget and was amended into the FY 2000-01 Budget. This project is to construct passenger platforms to permit passenger access to the existing second tracks at the Covina station. The project consists of grading an embankment, placing a concrete platform, installing passenger shelters, lighting, and landscaping, and modifying utilities. An inter -track fence will be installed to prevent pedestrian access across the tracks. Passengers will use the existing street crossing that has warning devices. All of the work is to be done on railroad right-of-way, no property is to be acquired. 10. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) $125,414 SYSTEMWIDE This project received additional funding in the State Budget. The project has region -wide benefit. GPS would provide real-time information to passengers regarding the location of trains scheduled to arrive at Metrolink stations. The funds represent the balance. of the State funds received and will complete the purchase and implementation of off -the -shelf GPS technology. 11. POMONA DOUBLE TRACK PROJECT $13,154,990 SAN BERNARDINO LINE The funds for this project were amended in to the FY 2000-01 Budget upon approval of funding by the State. This project is to install a second main track to create a 3.8 -mile length of "double track" on SCRRA's single-track San Bernardino line. The project is located between mileposts 30.8 and 34.6, extending through Pomona and Claremont in Los Angeles County and Montclair in San Bemardino County. The work consists of constructing track, signals, road crossings, and • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 70 116 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget station platforms. The project is being designed in consultation with the Pasadena Blue Line Construction Authority, which currently has ownership of part of this segment of the right of way. 12. KAISER SIDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT $12,352,382 SAN BERNARDINO LINE The funds for this project were amended into the FY 2000-01 Budget upon approval of funding by the State. This project is to install and extend to the west a new CTC controlled passing siding on the single track SCRRA maintained and operated San Bernardino line between the Rancho Cucamonga (Milepost 42) and Fontana stations (Milepost 49) in unincorporated land in San Bernardino County. The work will consist of constructing a new passing track (with related signals and switches) and shifting an existing freight storage track to the south. Presently it is 8.4 miles between the passing sidings at CP Rochester (MP 42.3) and CP Locust (MP 50.7). This project will significantly reduce this gap. This project will also reconfigure tracks and signals at each end of the siding to permit moderately fast (45 MPH) entry to the siding, and to resolve freight/passenger conflicts at the west end of the project. The project will include constructing the siding westward about 3000 feet, through the California Speedway station area. The speed in the siding between switches will be 60 MPH. The project is located on a single-track railroad line with passing sidings located at five to ten mile intervals. In order to provide additional and reliable bi-directional service, this new siding is required. 13. SUN VALLEY SIDING $3,924,085 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE The funds for this project were amended in to the FY 2000-01 Budget upon approval of funding by the State. This project is to increase rail passenger service by building the Sun Valley Siding (passing track) on the Antelope Valley Line. Metrolink provides commuter rail service on the Antelope Valley Line between Lancaster and Los Angeles. The siding will increase capacity and reduce travel times on the Antelope Valley Line. The Antelope Valley Line is primarily a single- track line with widely spaced passing sidings. 14. NEWHALL LINE CHANGES $967,956 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE The funds for this project were amended in to the FY 2000-01 Budget as a result of the receipt of Federal funds. The line changes consist of constructing a replacement track embankment and either constructing replacement track or shifting the existing track in order to broaden the radius of curvature and thereby permit higher speeds of operation. At Newhall, milepost 31.1 to 31.6, there are two reversing curves of 4 degrees and 5 degrees, 36 minutes which restrict speed to 45 MPH. This project will realign about 0.5 mile of track to curves of about 4 degrees and 30 seconds, which will permit speeds of 55 MPH. This speed increase is significant because the speed on both sides of these curves is 70 MPH and any increase here affects significant distances each way. In addition to the increase in operating speed, this reduction from a very sharp curve reduces maintenance expenses due to rail wear 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 71 117 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • 15. GRADE CROSSING SAFETY PROGRAM $450,000 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE Funds for this project were originally amended in to the FY 2000-01 Budget as a result of the receipt of Federal funds and additional funding was received in FY 2001-02. It involves improvement of a grade crossing in the Sylmar area, located Northwest of the city of Los Angeles would include both traditional and non-traditional hazard elimination measures. The grade crossing at Van Nuys Boulevard handles 40,000 vehicles and 35 trains per day. 16. NEW CAB CAR PROCUREMENT $10,691,973 SYSTEMWIDE The funds for this project were amended in to the FY 2000-01 Budget upon approval of, and receipt of, Federal funding and is matched by with local funds from the LACMTA. The new funding will allow for an additional 5 cab cars. Cost of the project also includes oversight of the procurement. This oversight will be particularly important as these cars will be the first to comply with new regulations recently adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration. A total of $1.26 million in local funds has been committed to match this allocation of 2000 ITIP funds which will be received as STP funding. 17. EASTERN AREA MAINTENANCE FACILITY DESIGN $832,000 SYSTEMWIDE This project consists of the design and engineering stages for the development of an additional facility to provide maintenance on SCRRA equipment. Current capacity constraints call for trains to move to the agency's Central Maintenance Facility near downtown Los Angeles, often requiring long moves to put equipment in position to resume commuter operations. With the expected completion of the Inland Empire Maintenance Facility (IEMF) in June of 2002, additional, but not sufficient, capacity is being added. This facility will further add to the ability of the agency to more efficiently maintain equipment so as to provide minimal disruption to daily commuter operations. The funds are State and Federal. 18. GPS and PA/CMS IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY $445,000 SAN BERNARDINO This project is to provide for the final components of the agency's Global Positioning Satellite systems in the additional locomotives received in FY 2002. It is also to provide for PA/CMS installations at selected San Bernardino Line stations in San Bernardino County. The funding is State SHA funds. 19. PEDESTRIAN UNDERCROSSING AT MONTCLAIR $1,800,000 SAN BERNARDINO This new project is to design and construct a pedestrian undercrossing at the Montclair Station on the San Bernardino Line. The funding is SANBAG Federal funds and include a 20% local match. • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 72 118 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 20. ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE CHANGE AT SANTA CLARITA $500,000 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE The line changes at Santa Clarita consist of constructing a replacement track embankment and either constructing replacement track or shifting the existing track in order to broaden the radius of curvature and thereby permit higher speeds of operation. At Santa Clarita, mileposts 34.3 to 34.7, there are two 10 -degree curves, which will be reduced to less than 6 degrees, resulting in a speed increase from 30 MPH to at least 50 MPH. In addition to the increase in operating speed, this reduction from a very sharp curve reduces maintenance expenses due to rail wear and fuel and braking of trains to reduce and increase speed before and after the curve and will thus reduce overall operating expenses 21. PLATFORM EXTENSIONS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY The funding for this project is 100% LACMTA resulting in the application of previous year's ear's surplus subsidies. The project is to design and construct up to three platform extensions on San Bernardino Line stations in Los Angeles County. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 73 119 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 74 120 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 4/8/02, 12:09 PM SECTION 5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT BUDGETS 75 121 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 76 122 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 5.0 DEPARTMENT BUDGETS The seven departments of the SCRRA currently include: " Executive " Support Services and Technology " Operations " Engineering & Construction " Equipment " Strategic Development & Communications. " Finance 5.1 Organizational Summary Table 5.1 provides a roster of approved positions by department along with the new positions proposed for FY 2002-03. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 77 123 TABLE 5.1 -1 SCRRA FY 2002-03 BUDGET Southern California Regional Rail Authority Roster of Current Positions and Staffing F;ce, I va�r �nm_na ^ Department Division Position Executive Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer Executive Assistant Board Secretary Human Resources Manager, Human Resources Human Resources Analyst Human Resources Representative Human Resources Specialist Support Services and Technology Assistant Executive Officer Assistant Executive Officer Administrative Services Records Management Specialist Administrative Services Coordinator Administrative Services Supervisor Receptionist Contract Administration and Procurement Manager, Contract Administration and Procurement Senior Contract Administrator (2) Contract Administrator (3) Buyer Contract Document Processor Administrative Assistant Information Technology Manager, Information Technology Communications Signal Manager Network Engineer Network Administrator Database Administrator Railroad Services Manager, Railroad Services Railroad Services Assistant Railroad Program Cost Analyst Operations Administrative Manager Operations Analyst MOW Contract Administrator Operations Contract Administrator Signal and Communications Contract Administrator Claims Administration Manager, Claims Administration Finance Director of Finance Director of Finance Executive Assistant Accounting Manager, Accounting Supervisor, General Accounting Supervisor, Accounting Operations Senior Financial Analyst Senior Accountant Accountant (3) Accounting Specialist, Payroll Accounting Specialist, Cash Management Accounting Assistant (4) Finance Contract Specialist Budget Manager, Budgets Senior Budget Analyst Budget Analyst Assistant Budget Analyst Fare Collection Services Fare Collection Services Manager Fare Collection Services Assistant Operations Director of Operations Director of Operations Manager, Operations Safety and Security Manager, Safety and Security Safety Education Coordinator Rail Safety Education Specialist (2) System Safety Officer Operations & Safety Assistant Passenger Services Manager, Passenger Services Administrative Assistant Customer Relations Manager Operations Planner Passenger Services Administrator Passenger Service Manager Station Coordinator (3) Transportation Coordinator (3) Customer Service Representative (5) Passenger Services Specialist (2) Ambassadors Passenger Services Supervisor Field Services Representative (4) Ambassadors - Full Time (3) Ambassadors - Part Time (22) • 124 TABLE 5.1 - 2 SCRRA FY 2002-03 BUDGET • • • Southern California Regional Rail Authority Roster of Current Positions and Staffing Fiscal Year 2002-03 Equipment Department Strategic Devlopment and Communication Engineering and Construction Proposed Positons FY2002-03 Executive Support Services 8 Technolo Strategic Devlopment and Communication Department Division Director of Equipment Facilities & Fleet Maintenance Director of Strategic Development and Communication Marketing and Sales Media and External Communications Director of Engineering and Construction Public Projects Maintenance of Way Signal and Communications Construction (Civil) Station Facilities Position Director of Equipment Manager of Equipment Equipment Engineer Equipment & Vehicle Assistant Mechanical Compliance Officer Facilities & Fleet Maintenance Manager Fleet Maintenance Supervisor Director of Strategic Development and Communication Executive Assistant Governmental Affairs Manager Grants Program Manager Strategic Development Planner Media Relations Advisor Market Research Manager Manager, Marketing and Sales Marketing and Sales Assistant Corporate Relations Administrator (2) Event Marketing Administrator Event Marketing Specialist Manager, Media and External Communications Community Relations Administrator Publications Administrator Communications Assistant Public Information Specialist Director of Engineering & Construction Assistant Director of Engineering & Construction Executive Assistant Rules & Training Coordinator Design Engineer CADD Operator Manager, Public Projects Administrative Assistant Right of Way Engineer Public Projects Engineer Assistant Engineer (2) Construction Inspector (2) Senior Construction Inspector (3) Manager, Maintenance of Way Administrative Assistant District Maintenance Manager (2) Structures Manager Rehabilitation Project Manager Bridge Inspector Right of Way Coordinator Manager, Signal & Communications Signals and Training Assistant District Signal Manager (2) Senior Signal Engineer Signal Designer Signal CADD Operator Manager, Construction (Civil) Resident Engineer Senior Construction Inspector Station Facilities Manager gy Finance Operations Division Human Resources Assistant Executive Officer Director of Strategic Development and Communication Marketing & Sales Accounting Dispatching Position Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analyst Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant Manager, Dispatching Operations Dispatching Operations Supervisor (6) Train Dispatcher (18) Administrative Assistant 125 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • 5.2 Executive The Executive Department is responsible for setting the strategic direction for the Agency based on policy principles established by the Board of Directors. The Chief Executive Officer ensures that business initiatives are accomplished by providing leadership to the management team and staff and by maximizing our human resource potential. Human Resources provides services to SCRRA including recruitment and selection, employee relations, benefits administration, employee development and training, performance and salary management, and compliance with equal employment opportunity/affirmative action regulations. Executive Goals Lead a strategic planning effort with a focus on business planning to achieve initiatives. Evaluate the cost effectiveness and management efficiency in Metrolink's diverse contracting environment. Lead efforts to grow revenue and control costs while continuing to meet customer, contractor and staff expectations. Coordinate the effort to complete the remaining 13 items from the Peer Audit. Sustain employee development and training programs, with a special focus on leadership development and project management. Provide a responsive recruitment and selection process to meet departmental human resource objectives and equal employment opportunity. Develop and gain commitment among the staff to improve employee morale and improve the work environment by promoting continuous improvement. Table 5.2 provides the budgeted expenses for this department • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 80 126 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget TABLE 5.2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) iii pei}Se: Ty Operating Budget Labor Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses Subtotal Direct Operating Expenses Indirect Transfer to Operating Capital Budget Labor Services Utilities/Leases Capital Other Expenses Subtotal Direct Capital Expenses Indirect Agency Support Labor Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses Subtotal Indirect Agency Support $68 448. 2. 86. Indirect Transfer to Operating Indirect Transfer to Capital Indirect Transfer to Recollectable 606. 1,132. $0. 181.6 $794.7 614.2. 0.0 49.4 1,458.4 (1,132.2) (181.6) (144.6) 4/4/2002 1:24 PM :: 6.]X02:::: ::::=:: : " . .. ge#...... .." .." .)3 'Y:O".>O::.::::-." ." Ai ii: geC. >:::" :FX:. e:....i:::::: 2 3 9 2 $79.6 900.0 - 78.5 _ ." : $95.3 900.0 - 75.0 -. gd :t.>:" 20% 0% S 1,058.1 1,070.3 (4%) 1% 861.8 1,038.8 21% 1:;919:9: :::::::: ':: 2.109_iE::::::::: ::: ::.:}p��%Q::::::::::::: $0.0 $0.0 - 189.5 195.0 3% $1:89:5 " . ......3 : $591.4 522.0 50.9 $732.8 522.0 93.2 24% 0% 83% 1,164.3 1,348.0 16% (86I.8) (189.5) (112.9) (1,038.8) (195.0) (114.1) 21% 3% 1% Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY03xls-Exec 127 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 5.3 Support Services and Technology The department of the Support Services and Technology encompasses the departmental divisions outlined below. Railroad Services provides operating service contract administration, operating analysis, management of railroad joint facility/shared use agreements, and program control of maintenance -of -way and capital expenditures. Claims Administration is responsible for procuring insurance and managing third party claims. Contract Administration & Procurement provides centralized procurement and contract administration services. Information Technology supports hardware and software resources to maximize workflow efficiency, identifies and implements technological enhancements to existing resources and assists employees in the transition to new technologies. Administrative Services handles records management, reprographic requirements, offices supplies, office equipment and furniture. Assistant Executive Officer Department Goals Support staff through technological and process changes throughout the organization. Manage renovation and expansion of Metrolink headquarters with minimal disruption to employees. Transition information technology staff and resources to provide more effective control and support to users at the desktop level and the increasingly complex wide area network. Maximize revenues under shared use agreements with freight and passenger railroads. Complete development and communication of agency wide policies and procedures as well as provide training in their implementation. Create cost effective, management efficient contracts. Ensure effective day to day contract implementation by vigilant attention to cost controls, financial forecasting, and compliance with terms and conditions. Increase competition in the contracting process, including online purchasing and competitive bidding. Ensure appropriate risk level in insurance coverage, reasonable premium levels, and efficient management of claims. Table 5.3 provides the budgeted expenses for this department. • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 82 128 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget TABLE 5.3 SUPPORT SERVICES & TECHNOLOGY EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) Operating Budget Labor Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses Subtotal Direct Operating Expenses Indirect Transfer to Operating S." " gtal::Oper3t............... Bus1ge.:.:.:. Capital Budget Labor Services Utilities/Leases Capital Other Expenses $413. 3,199.7 1,509.4 4,159.2 5.5 9,287.6 2,139.9 Subtotal Direct Capital Expenses Indirect Transfer to Capital S:ulittital: " Cap i......0 dge Indirect Agency Labor Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses $120.9 14.8 135.8 343.2 Subtotal Indirect Agency Support $722.0 605.8 795.8 632.7 Indirect Transfer to Operating Indirect Transfer to Capital Indirect Transfer to Recollectable " ff : tal;:Ezpenses 2,756.3 (2,139.9) (343.2) (273.2) :'1~.8,61:,: ()?::::=:::: ::::.::: 0:40: >:':: : i';:U; 0::::::: " oil' : B i ge .:::?:::: ::::::::-:-:-::.-,-...- ..s.:.:.:.:::-:-:::::::F Ch ge i(oi i: : ' 0:.-: $810.0 2,014.1 2,196.5 2,815.0 235.8 $710.8 3,119.6 1,810.0 3,965.0 317.4 (12%) 55% (18%) 41% 35% 8,071.4 9,922.8 23% 2,095.7 3,169.9 51% $lO;i67:X ::� >:=:<$X3)092 7>:<:=::=::�� ` a .. $477.8 $285.7 (40%) 477.8 285.7 460.8 595.2 (40%) 29% :::::::$938;6:?::::::::::=::: >::: 889 $741.9 824.0 564.0 701.3 1,452.3 " 497.1 1,101.1 1,062.6 96% (40%) 95% 52% 2,831.2 4,113.1 45% (2,095.7) (460.8) (274.6) (3,169.9) (595.2) (348.1) 51% 29% 27% ,3;973: 4/4/2002 1:24 PM Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY03.xls-SST 129 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 5.4 Operations The Operating Department consists of the following three divisions as outlined below. Operations manages train operations and dispatching through contracts with Amtrak and through access agreements with freight railroads. The division, in conjunction with Strategic Development and Communications, develops train schedules. Safety manages all aspects of safety for the agency including health, public safety and security, environmental regulatory compliance, and regulatory reporting. Safety and education training programs are conducted system wide for passengers and the general public. Passenger Services manages the call center, handles all customer inquiries and dissemination of information, and provides station personnel, Ambassadors and Field Service Personnel for passenger assistance. Operating Department Goals Reduce passenger injuries and right of way vandalism incidents by 10%. Ensure operations and dispatching contractor meets all applicable federal and state regulations. Operate trains without any operating rule violations or accidents. Ensure high level of communication between staff and to customers. Develop cost-efficient train schedules that meet passenger needs. Improve on -time train performance to 95%. Implement customer improvements at Los Angeles Union Station. Initiate guard/ambassador pilot project. Continue with installation of station phones for passenger information and security. Implement the publication of customer service standards. Table 5.4 provides the budgeted expenses for this department • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 84 130 " TABLE 5.4 OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) Operating Budget Labor Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses Subtotal Direct Operating Expenses Indirect Transfer to Operating Subtotal: Operating: Buckget:: Capital Budget Labor Services Utilities/Leases Capital Other Expenses Subtotal Direct Capital Expenses Indirect Transfer to Capital Indirect Agency Labor Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses Subtotal Indirect Agency Support Indirect Transfer to Operating Indirect Transfer to Capital Indirect Transfer to Recollectable $2,259.7 20,163.8 4,722.1 152.6 10.1 379.7 27,688.0 83.5 $5.0 47.9 2.8 55.7 13.4 $ 80.5 0.2 26.9 107.6 (83.5) (13.4) (10.7) $2,426.1 21,443.3 5,338.1 414.4 29,621.9 $0.0 $0.0 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget . . . . . . . . . :::::::����: $2,729.8 23,322.5 5,976.9 407.3 32,436.6 $0.0 $0.0 ::FY:: 2::Eti get:::: (2%) 10% 4/4/2002 1:24 PM Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY03.xls-Ops 131 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 5.5 Engineering & Construction The department of Engineering and Construction encompasses the following divisions as outlined below. Maintenance -of -Way administers the contracts which provide for maintenance of track and structures. Signals & Communications administers contracts which install, test and maintain signals and related communications devices that control train movements and provide warnings at road crossings. Capital Construction and Design oversees project design, development of engineering standards, development of construction bid packages, and management of the construction process. Public Projects manages the design of third party projects and controls the entry/use of right of way by others (i.e., road crossing, public utility construction, etc.) Station Facilities is responsible for oversight of local station maintenance functions and their compliance with federal requirements, coordinating implementation/maintenance of SCRRA public facilities including station and public address/changeable message signage. Rules and Training is responsible for administration of federally mandated operating rules and practices that govern the performance of maintenance and construction on the railroad right of way. Engineering & Construction Department Goals Ensure regular maintenance to eliminate derailments due to track or signal causes. Ensure construction contractors are prepared to meet all applicable state and federal regulations. Reduce the number of signal system defects identified in Federal Railroad Administration inspections. Manage rehabilitation/renovation construction projects to ensure quality completion on -time and within budget. Increase safety and reduce train delays on construction projects through training and communciation. Achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilties Act Accessiblity Guidelines at all Metrolink stations. Regularly inspect stations to ensure good condition and repair of facilities and equipment. Table 5.5 provides the budgeted expenses for this department • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 86 132 Operating Budget Labor Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses Sitliti tal Qperatang:.uddget:::: _. Sulitotal: C:apital:Bud'get:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......, •.. ..._,. .-. ,.. .�. . .•. . .�.�:.•:.t . ,- .$25.;914.8.-: Indirect Transfer to Operating Indirect Transfer to Capital Indirect Transfer to Recollectable :=::: .':0j -Q2:?:.:':":::.:.:::) Y:b2 03:: :::*:Clia ge-.17 . ii:.': ::) ikitget` :=::? :.:.:::_:.: idgei:: - ::::..:::E3.':02�:B ii ..e#::. $1,757.2 782.9 882.8 14,395.8 262.8 $1,787.5 911.7 169.8 15,014.3 141.0 2% 16% (81%) 4% 18,081.6 18,024.3 (46%) 6.7 1.8 (0%) (73%) 1 $1,075.0 15.0 103,519.3 3.8 $1,083.9 200.0 84,020.2 3.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% 1,233% (19%) 104,613.1 85,307.8 (2%) 1.5 0.3 (18%) (77%) $9.0 $2.4 (74%) 9.0 2.4 (6.7) (1.5) (0.9) (1.8) (0.3) (0.2) (74%) (73%) (77%) (77%) SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • 5.6 Equipment The department of Equipment encompasses the two divisions outlined below. The division of Equipment ensures availability of passenger cars and locomotives, and oversees the contract with Bombardier to ensure proper maintenance of rolling stock. The division of Facilities Maintenance maintains the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) in Los Angeles, the Metrolink Operations Center (MOC) in Pomona, outlying layover locations, and the maintenance of non revenue, over the road fleet. Equipment Department Goals Ensure proper maintenance of rolling stock by contractor to provide adequate equipment availability and reliability, thereby reducing operating delays due to equipment failures and/or shortages. Ensure proper maintenance of "rubber -tired" vehicle fleet by contractor to provide adequate vehicle availability and reliability. Ensure maintenance contractor is prepared to meet and comply with implementation of new Federal Railroad Administration regulations contained in 49CFR238. Oversee safety plan implementation and audit contractor performance in adhering to passenger rail equipment safety standards. Facilitate the purchase and delivery of new cab cars and locomotives while ensuring contractor conformance to contract specifications. Develop plans for the specifications, scheduling, cost estimation, and implementation of heavy overhauls for locomotives, cars and facilities subsystems. Ensure that agency owned or occupied facilities are maintained properly and kept in compliance with all applicable regulations. Table 5.6 provides the budgeted expenses for this department • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 88 134 Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses Indirect Transfer to Operating Indirect Transfer to Capital Indirect Transfer to Recollectable SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 5.7 Strategic Development & Communications The department of Strategic Development and Communications encompasses the divisions outlined below. Governmental Relations develops state and federal legislative initiatives, designs and implements related advocacy programs, and assists in the identification of governmental funding sources. Grants Development & Programming coordinates the identification of and application for local, state and federal funding; oversees grant reporting; assists in strategic, capital, and special project planning. External Communications coordinates stakeholder relations efforts, internal and external publications, agency website and station city initiatives. Media Relations coordinates general media inquiry response, crisis communications and editorial outreach. Marketing & Sales promotes Metrolink commuter and other services through advertising, promotions, special events, sales, and merchandising. Research provides market research, ridership forecasting and analysis, and marketing program. evaluations. Strategic Development & Communications Goals Increase ridership by expanding Metrolink's market share through effective marketing, public information, and communication efforts. Define and implement a strategy to enhance federal and state funding as well as influence the regulatory environment affecting services. Build long-term relationships with our customers/stakeholders by maintaining a consistent, high quality identity. Enhance awareness of SCRRA and its services. Evaluate effectiveness of marketing projects and assess the short and long term market potential and trends for current lines, non -riders and connecting transit. Maintain a high -quality image of agency and its services in general and industry media Identify and meet customers' changing expectations and lifestyles. Maximize funding to augment regional and local investment in service, capital projects and station area improvement projects. Table 5.7 provides the budgeted expenses for this department • • 4/8/02, 12.09 PM 90 136 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget TABLE 5.7 STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT & COMMUNICATIONS EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) Operating Budget Labor Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses Subtotal Direct Operating Expenses Indirect Transfer to Operating Subtotal: Qperatiiig:Bii#ge#:::::=::��: Capital Budget Labor Services Utilities/Leases Capital Other Expenses Subtotal Direct Capital Expenses Indirect Transfer to Capital Subtotal: Capi � al:B:uiiget:::>::::: Indirect Agency Labor Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses Subtotal Indirect Agency Support Indirect Transfer to Operating Indirect Transfer to Capital Indirect Transfer to Recollectable $809.3 1,274.2 4.2 11.2 374.2 2,473.0 193.9 $0.0 16.5 0.3 16.8 31.1 $227.6 13.3 0.3 8.6 249.7 (193.9) (31.1) (24.8) 'ota1 Expenses .71 $1,282.7 1,583.8 0.5 633.9 3,500.9 214.4 $0.0 47.1 $289.6 289.6 (214.4) (47.1) (28.1) $1,377.9 1,725.1 2.5 508.3 3,613.7 290.1 $0.0 54.5 $376.4 376.4 (290.1) (54.5) (31.8) 7% 9% 456% (20%) 3% 35% 16% 30% 30% 35% 16% 13% ;958:2::: 4/42002 7:24 PM Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY03.xls-C&D 137 w SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 5.8 Finance The department of Finance encompasses the divisions outlined below. In addition, the department is responsible for managing investments and pursuing financing to benefit capital and operating objectives. Budget develops, monitors and manages the annual budget and related financial plans. Accounting manages the financial activities of projects and services including revenue collection, payment disbursement, and payroll. The division maintains the financial records and reports of the agency, and manages the financial information system. Fare Services oversees fare policy implementation and ticket vending machines located at all Metrolink stations. Finance Goals Oversee conversion to agency wide use of electronic financial information system. Begin procurement and implementation planning for a new financial information system. Resolve outstanding issues identified in Caltrans and internal audits. Conduct a review of existing inventory and fixed asset management and control procedures, and implement corrective action if identified. Produce monthly budget status reports for staff to manage their budget resources and control costs. Work with member agencies to identify alternatives to provide sufficient funds for the capital replacement reserves through a sinking fund. Provide leadership in developing a centralized approach for the management of inventory and fixed assets. Table 5.8 provides the budgeted expenses for this department. • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 92 138 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget TABLE 5.8 FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) Operating Budget Labor Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses Subtotal Direct Operating Expenses Indirect Transfer to Operating =ulitvfal: ap:ratitng: Bit Capital Budget Labor Services Utilities/Leases Capital Other Expenses Subtotal Direct Capital Expenses Indirect Transfer to Capital Subtotal: Capita utl t := ge $269.0 1,812.8 0.0 (127.7) 1,954.1 1,223.8 $40.5 127.1 0.1 4.7 172.4 196.3 3.68: $230.3 1,713.0 42.4 1,985.7 1,785.4 $0.0 4,942.3 4,942.3 392.6 5;33:1;9 Indirect Agency Labor Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses Subtotal Indirect Agency Support Indirect Transfer to Operating Indirect Transfer to Capital Indirect Transfer to Recollectable $1,322.5 190.1 0.6 63.2 1,576.3 (1,223.8) (196.3) (156.3) $1,610.6 422.0 379.4 2,412.0 (1,785.4) (392.6) (234.0) $234.1 2,207.0 25.0 52.5 2,518.6 1,810.7 $10.5 13,220.0 13,230.5 457.5 :$13;688: 2% 29% 24% 27% 1% 167% 168% 17% $1,992.0 395.0 80.0 2,467.0 (1,810.7) (457.5) (198.8) Total Expenses:: ;546:5: 24% (6%) (79%) 2% 9;3O��i:l1 4/4/2002 1:24 PM Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY03.xls-Fin 139 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 94 140 " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget SECTION 6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY APPENDIX 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 95 141 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 96 142 " " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 6.0 APPENDIX 6.1 Formulae for Allocation to Counties Table 6.1 provides a summary of all the formulae that have been used to allocate expenses and revenues to the member agencies (counties). The table shows the eight different formulae that have been used. These eight formulae are described below: Allshare The original All -Share formula was developed to calculate county shares of systemwide projects such as the maintenance facility and used data developed in the Southern California Commuter Rail: 1991 Regional System Plan as required by SB-1402. The formula was calculated as 1/3 unduplicated route miles of the proposed system at buildout; 1/3 proposed stations (unduplicated) and 1/3 projected hoardings and alightings after a year of service. This formula was also used to justify the number of positions each county had on the SCRRA Board. In 1993, the formula was adjusted to add the Riverside (UP) Line, and in 1998, the formula has been adjusted again to allow for the extensions to Lancaster and Oxnard. This revised formula is now used for systemwide projects such as those in the River Corridor. Point -in -Time While the All -Share formula was used in the Maintenance -of -Way Budget and in sharing costs of capital projects, the Point -in -Time formula was developed to provide each county's share of operating expenses in each fiscal year. Rather than representing the system at build out, the data used was the projection for the particular fiscal year. The formula was modified from the All Share to include train -miles as this data more accurately represents service provided. Through FY 1996-97, the formula was calculated as 1/6 unduplicated route miles; 1/6 proposed stations (unduplicated); 1/6 projected hoardings and alightings and 1/2 projected source train -miles. Source trains were defined as peak trains starting out of layover facilities. Boardings and alightings were removed from the formula in FY 1998-99 as stations provided similar weighting and the formula was calculated as 1/4 unduplicated route miles; 1/4 stations (unduplicated) and 1/2 projected source train -miles. Base Service In the FY 1999-00 Budget a new formula was developed for the Operating Budget, which took all services that do not change with the number of trains operated ("base" services) and analyzed how they had been allocated as a group over the prior years. These items had been allocated by a combination of the Point -in -Time formula, even split, and direct allocation to lines. The resulting formula represents an average of the allocation of these "base" services over the prior two years. Train -Miles Those costs that change with the number of trains operated such as Amtrak crews and fuel are allocated on the basis of train -miles. This formula changes each year with the service 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 97 143 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • TABLE 6.1 FORMULAE USED TO ALLOCATE EXPENSES BY COUNTY Original Allshare 40.0% 25.0% 12.0% 18.0% 5.0% Allshare (Revised for UP) 40.3% 26.2% 13.4% 15.9% 4.2% Allshare 1998 Data (Lancaster/Oxnard) 47.5% 19.8% 11.1% 14.4% 7.2% Point -in -Time FY 97-98 51.9% 19.2% 8.9% 12A% 7.7% Base Service Formula (FY 98-99 on) (1) 56.4% 16.6% 7.6% 13.0% 6.4% Train Miles FY 98-99 58.7% 17.7% 7.1% 11.9% 4.6% Train Miles FY 99-00 58.1% 18.1% 7.4% 12.2% 4.2% Train Miles FY 00-01 57.7% 18.7% 7.1% 12.2% 4.2% Train Miles FY 01-02 56.5% 19.1% 7.3% 13.1% 4.1% Train Miles FY 02-03 57.3% 19.1% 7.6% 12.1% 3.9% Route Miles Dispatched 66.5% 18.5% 0.4% 8.8% 5.8% Route Miles Owned 57.6% 24:3% 10.7% 6.4% Track Miles Owned 58.5% 25.8% 0.5% 9.6% 5.6% (1) This formula was used to allocate all expenses that were not train -mile related or direct charge costs in FY 98/99 It is an average of what was previously split by Point -in -Time and even split. • • 4/4/2002 SHARES2003.xls-County 144 " " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget assumptions adopted for that year. Route -Miles Dispatched For FY 2001-02, Amtrak dispatching expenses are allocated based on route miles owned and dispatched by SCRRA. Route -Miles Owned The Maintenance -of -Way Budget allocates the net subsidies for Extra -ordinary Maintenance for storm damage, gate knockdowns and vandalism using the formula representing route -miles owned by county. Track -Miles Owned The Maintenance -of -Way Budget allocates the net subsidies for maintenance -of -way on lines owned by more than one county by the formula representing track -miles owned by county. Direct Allocation Other costs that change with the number of trains operated on particular line segments such as payments for rail agreements for dispatching and maintenance -of -way are not allocated by formula but directly allocated to those line segments. 6.2 Formulae for Allocation to Lines Table 6.2 provides those formulae in Table 6.1 that are used to allocate operating expenses and revenues by line. This allocation is used to provide operating expenses, revenues, subsidies and statistics by line. 6.3 Allocation of Revenues Farebox revenues are allocated to operating lines and member agencies (counties) on the basis of train -miles for each line or county. Dispatching/Other revenues are allocated directly to those line segments that are subject to agreements with freight railroads and Amtrak. These revenues are allocated to the counties that own the particular segments, and to the lines that are made up of these segments. At the end of each fiscal year, the interest on fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects is assigned to counties based upon a calculation of funds on account throughout the year which were provided by each member agency. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 99 145 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • TABLE 6.2 FORMULAE USED TO ALLOCATE EXPENSES BY LINE `1 .....-.....:.:::.:. .;..,PR....�% O ra • ::::::Shh:•:•:: • F��10-ea��o#t............. ....: . . .....•.•.... $ernarsliriq -:-: V u39:.::::-:Ah#eto Wit.-.-•. ` Coun ::;: .:-:• e:::::::::::::::.:::.:•: :-:.;f3rap E:::::::::::.:::::::::::::: • P ...... ..... ... ...•.-.-. .-. .- - -:-:.:.. . .,..._. .-. W'atfe......12verside�::::::�ti3i3[ Allshare (Revised for UP) 21.0% 13.1% 6.6% 15.0% 21.6% 16.5% 6.1% Allshare 1998 Data 21.9% 15.1% 15.9% 13.8% 16.9% 13.4% 2.9% Point -in -Time FY 97-98 20.6% 16.2% 17.8% 13.9% 18.9% 12.6% 0.0% Base Service Formula (1) 24.0% 15.6% 19.6% 14.2% 16.7% 9.9% Train Miles FY 98-99 24.0% 13.2% 21.4% 11.4% 18.3% 9.9% 1.8% Train Miles FY 99-00 23.9% 12.4% 21.7% 11.1% 19.1% 10-2% 1.7% Train Miles FY 00-01 24.3% 12.5% 21.1% 11.3% 19.3% 9.6% 1.8% Train Miles FY 01-02 25.4% 12.4% 20.1% 11.0% 18.4% 11.0% 1.7% Train Miles FY 02-03 24.7% 11.5% 22.I% 9.3% 17.0% 9.3% 6.0% Route Miles Dispatched 21.9% 18-0% 39.8% 1.8% 16.4% 2.1% Route Miles Owned 25.3% 19-6% 29.0% L2% 21.7% 3.2% Track Miles Owned 21.9% 16.5% 27.9% 0.5% 23.9% 1.9% 7.4% (1) This formula was used to allocate all expenses that were not train -mile related or direct charge costs in FY 98/99 It is an average of what was previously split by Point -in -Time and even split. • 4/8/2002 SHARES2003.xls-Line 146 " " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 6.4 Allocation of Expenses Fuel and that portion of Amtrak services related to operation of trains is allocated to operating lines and counties on the basis of train -miles for each line or county. That part of Amtrak services related to dispatching is allocated directly to operating lines and counties on the basis of the ownership of line segments over which the agency has dispatching authority. Also allocated directly to line segments are Transfers to Other Operators, Rail Agreements, Maintenance -of - Way expenses and Ambassadors. All other expenses in the Operating Budget are allocated on the "base service" formula. Maintenance -of -Way expenses on lines shared by more than one county are split to the counties on the basis of track -miles in each county. The expenditures related to the Riverside Layover Facility are allocated to the counties through which the Riverside Line runs on the basis of route miles. The River Corridor is shared by all lines, thus the expenditures in excess of revenues on this segment are split to lines and counties on the basis of the "Allshare" formula. Extra -ordinary Maintenance expenses for derailments ($100,000) are split on the Allshare formula, and for storm damage, gate knockdowns and vandalism ($400,000) using the formula representing route - miles owned by county. 6.5 Allocation of Agency Costs to Budgets SCRRA allocates indirect costs to projects in a two-step allocation model, referred to as the cost allocation plan (CAP). In the first step, the CAP allocates general & administrative (G&A) costs to overhead pools. G&A costs represent agency wide costs that are incurred to maintain the administrative functions of the agency. Examples of these costs are the Chief Executive Officer, Human Resources, and the Finance Department. The G&A costs are allocated to the following overhead pools: " Train Operations " Maintenance of Way " Capital Maintenance " New Capital Projects " Recollectable Projects " In the second step of the CAP, the overhead pools are allocated to the direct projects within the program group based upon the percentage of individual project cost to the total project cost in the category. The projected overhead rates are defined in the budget process and utilized throughout the year. Staff evaluates the accuracy of the overhead rate projections throughout the year to determine if adjustments are necessary. At fiscal year end, the actual overhead rates are compared to the projected rates. The variance between the projected and actual rate will result in a balance in the 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 101 147 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget overhead pools. This balance is incorporated in the computation of future overhead rate calculations. The CAP has been submitted to Caltrans and the Federal Transportation Administration for review and approval. If any changes are required to the CAP following these reviews, the CAP will be revised and the overhead rates for Fiscal Year 2002-03 will be revised Total allocated costs in FY 2002-03 are $8.2 million. Labor and Fringe Benefits of Overhead Divisions totals $4.4 million, Management Information Systems (MIS) costs total $1.0 million, and other agency costs total $2.7 million. Departments primarily included in the distribution pool include: Administration, Finance including Budget and Accounting, and Human Resources. Additionally, small components of the following Offices are included in the Pool: Chief Executive Officer, Contract Administration and Procurement, Strategic Development and Communication. Labor and Fringe Benefits represent the cost to the agency of Salaries and Wages paid to employees as well and the costs of fringes including Medical Benefits, Retirement Contributions, Vacation Pay, and other similar expenses. Principal items in the MIS pool include consultant costs for network administration, lease costs of agency personal computers, and other miscellaneous hardware and software procurements. Other agency costs include the lease of agency corporate offices, Professional Services including the Annual Financial Audit, Consultants to the Director of Finance and Contracts and Procurement and Human Resources divisions, Recruitment Expense, an extensive program of agency wide staff training, and other miscellaneous expenses including travel, the Agency's membership in APTA, and other similar expenses. Costs are spread to project budgets based on the Labor charging of non -overhead departments and divisions in the following amounts: Operations — $4.6 million, Maintenance of Way — $1.7million, New Capital - $0.5 million, Renovation and Rehabilitation —$0.7 million, and Recollectible projects $0.7 million. 6.6 Potential New Projects For New Capital In FY 2002-03 Each year as the development of the agency's budget progresses, there are a number of projects for which funding is being sought but, has not been sufficiently secured to include in the Preliminary Budget brought forward for consideration by the Committee and Board of Directors. As funding for projects is approved, they will be incorporated into the Budget through amendment after review by the Board. • • 4/8/02, 12:33 PM 102 148 " " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 6.7 SCRRA Policy on Debt The purpose of issuing debt is to finance essential capital facilities and equipment. The issuance of debt spreads the cost of the facilities and equipment over their useful life. Historically, SCRRA has not issued debt for the development of facilities or the purchase of equipment. Rather, the capital has been funded by a combination of federal, state, member agency, and other local sources. In the absence of the need to issue debt, SCRRA has not adopted a formal debt policy. State law defines the means that a joint powers authority may issue debt. The Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling Act (Government Code, sec. 6584) provided flexibility to a JPA in permitting the identification of future revenues for the maintenance of debt. Under this statute, a JPA is given powers to issue bonds to pay for the cost of capital, including facilities and equipment. The statute requires the establishment of a new joint powers authority for the exclusive purpose of financing capital projects or acquisitions for its members. If future capital funding requirements ever require the issuance of debt, the member agencies may be asked adopt a debt policy incorporating the established of a joint powers authority as permitted in the Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling Act. Although the SCRRA has never issued debt for the construction of facilities or acquisition of equipment, two U.S. leveraged lease transactions have been completed. The deferred benefit of the two lease transactions was approximately $24.2 million. In Fiscal Year 1995-96, the SCRRA Board entered into an agreement to lease 94 coach and cab cars (cars) and 31 locomotives and simultaneously entered into a sublease agreement with the lessee to lease them back. The SCRRA received proceeds of approximately $193.9 million of which it used approximately $152.3 million to prepay future lease payments and defease part of its obligation. In addition, the Board invested approximately $2L2 million in U.S. Zero Coupon Treasury strips. The Treasury strips will mature at values sufficient to cover all remaining lease payments due under the lease agreement as well as amounts necessary to exercise the repurchase options. As a result, all obligations under this lease/leaseback transaction are considered to be defeased in substance. In fiscal year 1999, SCRRA entered into another agreement to lease 25 bi-level commuter rail cars and 2 diesel locomotives and simultaneously entered into sublease agreement with the lessee to lease them back. The SCRRA received proceeds of approximately $63.5 million of which it used $24.7 million and $7.7 million for debt and equity defeasance, respectively. This amount is sufficient to cover all lease payments due under the agreements and to exercise the repurchase options. As a result, all obligations under this lease/leaseback transaction are considered to be defeased in substance. 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 103 149 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget 6.8 Statistical Information Date of Formation Form of Government Purpose Member Agencies Counties Served Population (1998) Route Miles in System Route Miles Potentially in System (SB1402 Rev. 1993) August 1991 Joint Powers Authority To plan, design, construct and administer the operation of regional passenger rail lines. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission Los Angeles County Orange County Riverside County San Bernardino County San Diego County Ventura County Los Angeles County Orange County Riverside County San Bernardino County San Diego County Ventura County Total Population: Los Angeles County Orange County Riverside County San Bernardino County San Diego County Ventura County Total Miles: Los Angeles County Orange County Riverside County San Bernardino County 9,757,542 2,775,617 1,473,307 1,654,007 2,853,258 742,008 19,255,741 199 87 38 39 19 34 416 222 115 100 68 • • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 104 150 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget Train Equipment Stations Ventura County Total Miles: 4 539 Locomotives 33 Cab Cars 37 Coaches 82 Los Angeles County 24 Orange County 8 Riverside County 4 San Bernardino 7 San Diego County 1 Ventura County 4 Total Stations: 48 Ticket Vending Machines TVMs Installed 96 Validators Installed 117 Ticket Office Machines 3 Installed Highway -Rail Grade Crossings Total Network Grade Crossings 399 Public Crossings 339 Private Crossings 61 SCRRA Maintained Crossings 238 Average Daily Riders Ventura County Line 3,736 (Jan 2001) Antelope Valley Line 5,039 San Bernardino Line 9,690 Riverside Line 4,572 Orange County Line 5,968 Inland Empire to Orange County 2,862 Burbank Turns 462 Riverside/Fullerton/LA 104 SYSTEM 32,433 Number of Auto Trips Removed per Weekday 16,202 trips Percent of Freeway Traffic Removed on Parallel Freeways Each Peak Hour 8.5 percent 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 105 151 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget Average Commute Trip Length Percent of Riders Formerly Driving Alone Percent of Riders with Downtown Los Angeles Destination Percent of Ethnic Riders by Line Corridor (Latino, Asian, African -American) San Bernardino Line Riverside Line Antelope Valley Line Ventura County Line Orange County Line 35.7 miles 70 percent 70 percent 56 percent 52 percent 46 percent 32 percent 38 percent Source: 1998 State of California Department of Finance Report E5, SCRRA's January 2001 Fact Sheet, March 2000 Ridership, and 2000 SCRRA Customer Satisfaction Survey 6.9 Glossary of Budget Terms APPROVED BUDGET: The official budget as approved by the five member agencies and then by the SCRRA Board. AMENDED BUDGET: The approved budget as amended by the SCRRA Board through the course of a fiscal year. APPROPRIATION: Legal authorization to make expenditures and to incur obligations for specific purposes. An appropriation is usually limited in amount and to the time it may be expended. BUDGET: A plan of financial operations comprised of estimated expenditures for a given period (one fiscal year) and the proposed means of financing the expenditures (revenues). REHABILITATION/RENOVATION EXPENDITURE: Those expenditures that replace worn out assets with like or improved assets and thus extend the useful life of these capital assets. CONTRACTED SERVICES: Services rendered in support of SCRRA operations and other activities by external parties. These are generally based upon formal contracts or purchase orders. DEPARTMENT: An organizational subgroup of SCRRA. ENCUMBRANCE: The commitment of appropriated funds to purchase goods or services. EXPENDITURE: Decreases in net financial resources. EXPENSES: Decreases in net total assets. Expenses include the total costs of operations and capital during a period. EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE: Includes damages due to vandalism, crossing gate knockdowns, accidents, derailments, fires, storm damage and other expenses as required. In years without unusual rainfall or train accidents, about $500,000 has been a reasonable estimate and this is the projection for FY 2000-01. In other years, • • • 4/8/02, 12:34 PM 106 1 52 " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget such as has been experienced in FY 1998-99 with the El Nino storms, the total can easily exceed $3,500,000. These types of extreme conditions may be covered by insurance or FEMA reimbursement. However, insurance covers only bridges, tunnels and facilities and has a $100,000 deductible per storm and FEMA reimbursement has never been timely. The budget for Extra -ordinary Maintenance in FY_ 1999-00 was set at $1,671,362. FAREBOX REVENUE: Fares received from passengers for travel on Metrolink trains. FAREBOX RECOVERY: Ratio of farebox revenue to total expenses net of maintenance -of -way revenues, rolling stock lease and extra -ordinary maintenance. FISCAL YEAR: A 12 -month period to which the annual budget applies and at the end of which SCRRA determines its financial position, the results of its operations and capital program, and adopts a budget for the coming fiscal year. The SCRRA's fiscal year is from July 1 through June 30. FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE): The conversion of full-time and part-time employee hours to an equivalent of a full-time position. For example, one person working half-time would count as 0.5 FTE and a person hired for 6 months would also count as 0.5 FTE. GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES (GAAP): Uniform minimum standards of, and guidelines for financial accounting and reporting. They govern the form and content of the basic financial statements on an entity. GAAP encompasses the conventions, rules, and procedures necessary to define accepted accounting practice at a particular time. They include not only broad guidelines of general application, but also detailed practices and procedures. GAAP provides a standard by which to measure financial presentations. OBJECTIVE: A simply stated, readily measurable statement of aim or expected accomplishment within the fiscal year. OBJECT CODE: The classification of expenditures in terms of what is bought and paid for grouped into major object codes by subject. OPERATING BUDGET: A budget that focuses on everyday operating activities and programs. For SCRRA, the Operating Budget includes train operations and maintenance -of -way. PROPOSED BUDGET: A budget in its preliminary preparation stage prior to adoption by the SCRRA Board. REVENUE: Monies that SCRRA receives as income such as farebox revenue, payments from other railroads, local funds for operating or capital, grants, and interest. REVENUE RECOVERY: The ratio of operating revenues to operating expenses net of rolling stock lease payments and extra -ordinary maintenance. RIDERSHIP: The number of one-way trips carried on Metrolink trains. SALARY AND FRINGE BENEFIT EXPENSES: Compensation paid to or on behalf of SCRRA employees for salaries, wages, overtime, and benefits. 6.10 Acronyms ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act Amtrak: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (intercity rail service) APTA: American Public Transportation Association AQMD: Air Quality Management District BNSF: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad CAFR: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Caltrans: California Department of Transportation 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 107 153 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget • CEQA: CMAQ: CTC: DOL: DOT: EIR: EIS: EPA: FCR: FHWA: FRA: FTA: IEOC: ISTEA: ITS: JPA: LACMTA: MOC: MOW: LNG: MOU: MTA: OCTA: PA/CMS: PERS: PRESS: RCTC: ROW: RTIP: RTPA: SANBAG: SCAG: SCAQMD: SCRRA: SHA: SPRR: STA: STIP: STP: TAC: TCI: TDA: TEA -21: TIP: California Environmental Quality Act Congestion Mitigation Air Quality California Transportation Commission Federal Department of Labor Federal Department of Transportation Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Study Federal Environmental Protection Agency Flexible Congestion Relief Federal Highway Administration Federal Railroad Administration Federal Transit Administration Inland Empire to Orange County Line Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Intelligent Transportation System Joint Powers Authority Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metrolink Operations Center Maintenance -of -Way Liquified Natural Gas Memorandum of Understanding Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Public Address/Changeable Message Sign Public Employees Retirement System Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards Riverside County Transportation Commission Right -of -Way Regional Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Planning Agency San Bernardino Associated Governments Southern California Associated Governments South Coast Air Quality Management District Southern California Regional Rail Authority State Highway Account Southern Pacific Railroad State Transit Assistance State Transportation Improvement Plan Surface Transportation Program Technical Advisory Committee Transit Capital Improvement (funds/program) Transportation Development Act Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century Transportation Improvement program • 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 108 154 " " " SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget TSM: Transportation Systems Management TVM: Ticket Vending Machine UP: Union Pacific Railroad VCTC: Ventura County Transportation Commission 4/8/02, 12:09 PM 109 155 " AGENDA ITEM 7H " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager Dennis Mejia, Bechtel Resident/Office Engineer THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Advertise Bids for the Construction of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of the parking lot expansion at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station; and, 2) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its May 9, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to address policy issues identified in the draft Station Management Plan, submitted to the Commission at the same meeting. One of the main findings of the draft Station Management Plan was that by 2010, five out of the six, existing and proposed, Metrolink stations are forecasted to have parking deficits. In conjunction with direction from both the Commission and the newly formed Ad Hoc Committee, staff negotiated with several entities for the possible expansion of existing and proposed parking for the Riverside -La Sierra and Riverside -Downtown Metrolink commuter rail stations. At its September 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Consultant to provide Engineering and Environmental Services to develop and implement a Parking Lot Expansion Plan, mainly for the existing Riverside -La Sierra and Riverside -Downtown Metrolink stations. At its November 14, 2001 meeting, the Commission entered into Agreement No. 02-33-029 with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. (ER), to provide Engineering and Environmental Services for development and implementation of a Parking Lot Expansion Plan for the existing two stations. 156 Engineering Resources developed two options for expanding the parking lot at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. Option No. 1: The first option was to develop the existing RCTC's triangular property, directly north and adjacent to the Riverside -Downtown Station temporary parking area, across Vine Street. This option would add approximately 125 to 140 additional parking spaces for the station. This option could be developed and constructed very quickly for a minimum cost. It must be noted that this RCTC property is anticipated to be needed for the future expansion of SR 91. It is currently projected that the expansion of SR 91 will not occur, in this area, for more than 5 years. Option No. 2: The second option was to investigate the viability of purchasing and developing the properties along Tenth Street and Commerce Street, adjacent to the east end of the Riverside -Downtown Station south side platform. This option would add approximately 390 to 430 additional surface parking spaces for the station. In a preliminary investigation of this option, it was also determined to be a viable option for a future parking structure that would serve the long term parking needs. RCTC staff is currently looking deeper into this option. In March of this year, staff directed Engineering Resources to proceed with the development of the preparation of a complete PS&E and other tasks related to the City of Riverside's design review process for Option No. 1. The PS&E will be submitted to the City of Riverside on April 15, 2002 for review and comments. It is anticipated that the PS&E package will be ready for advertisement by May 20, 2002. The preliminary Engineer's Estimate for Option No. 1, for the Riverside -Downtown Parking Lot Expansion Project, is in the range of approximately $200,000 to $225,000. • • • 157 " AGENDA ITEM 71 " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager Dennis Mejia, Bechtel Resident/Office Engineer THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Advertise Bids for Construction of an Extension of the Existing Emergency Platform at the Pedley Metrolink Station BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Enter into a Project Construction Program Supplement to obligate STPL funding for construction of an extension of the existing Emergency Passenger Unloading Platform at the Pedley Metrolink Station; 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the Supplement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of an extension of the existing Emergency Passenger Unloading Platform at the Pedley Metrolink Station, contingent upon finalization of the Project Construction Program Supplement and receipt of the Authorization to Proceed with Construction from the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance; and, 4) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: When the Pedley Metrolink Station was constructed, an emergency passenger unloading platform was included in the original station construction. This emergency passenger unloading platform is 194 feet long, located between two sets of Union Pacific tracks, and is intended to be used during situations where Metrolink passengers need to disembark from the set of tracks furthest away from the Station's main platform. Because the existing emergency passenger unloading platform is only 194 feet long, it will not easily accommodate Metrolink passenger trains over three (3) cars in length. Currently, Metrolink trains longer than three (3) cars in length must first stop and unload passengers from the first set of cars and then pull forward to unload the 158 remaining cars. This has resulted in impacts to the freight traffic on this rail line. Extending the emergency passenger unloading platform to 510 feet to match the length of Metrolink trains, up to six (6) cars in length, will minimize the delays to unload passengers when the emergency platform must be used. In February 2001, the Commission amended Contract No. RO-9952, with PB Farradyne, to develop the Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) Design for the Emergency Passenger Unloading Platform extension at the Pedley Metrolink Station. Staff and PB Farradyne have been working cooperatively with the Union Pacific Railroad and SCRRA in the development of the PS&E for the Pedley Emergency Passenger Unloading Platform Extension Project. It is anticipated that the final PS&E will be completed by the end of April, 2002. The majority of the funding for this project is STPL Federal Funding. To retain the STPL Federal Funding, for this project, a Program Supplement Agreement must be entered into by RCTC and Caltrans. The Program Supplement amends the Agency - State Agreement for Federal -Aid Projects No. 08-6054 to specifically describe the costs and special conditions that apply to the construction phase for the Pedley Emergency Passenger Unloading Platform Extension Project. After the PS&E for the project is completed, a Request for Authorization to Proceed with Construction will be submitted to the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance. The Program Supplement Agreement will then be finalized by RCTC and Caltrans. The subsequent Authorization to Proceed/Obligation of Federal Funds will be the basis for the financial responsibilities to be outlined in the Program Supplement. This action is being brought forward to the Committee at this time in an effort to have funds obligated prior to the federal expiration date of June 30, 2002. The engineer's estimate for the Pedley Emergency Passenger Platform Extension project, is in the range of approximately $200,000 to $250,000. • • • 159 " AGENDA ITEM 7J " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager Erik Galloway, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Advertise Bids to Construct the Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station Phase 1 Parking Lot Expansion Project BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize staff to advertise bids for the construction of the Riverside - La Sierra Metrolink Station Phase 1 Parking Lot Expansion; and, 2) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its May 9, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to address policy issues identified in the draft Station Management Plan, submitted to the Commission at the same meeting. One of the main findings of the draft Station Management Plan was that by 2010, five out of the six, existing and proposed, Metrolink stations are forecasted to have parking deficits. In conjunction with direction from both the Commission and the newly formed Ad Hoc Committee, staff negotiated with several entities for the possible expansion of existing and proposed parking for the Riverside -La Sierra and Riverside -Downtown Metrolink commuter rail stations. At its September 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Consultant to provide Engineering and Envi8ronmental Services to develop and implement a Parking Lot Expansion Plan, mainly for the existing Stations. At its November 14, 2001 meeting, the Commission entered into Agreement No. 02-33-029 with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc., to provide Engineering and Environmental Services for development and implementation of a Parking Lot Expansion Plan for the existing two stations. 160 RCTC is currently in negotiations with the Riverside Community College (RCC) to purchase the entire 20 acre parcel which includes the property which RCTC currently leases from RCC for the existing Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink station. In the process of developing the Parking Lot Expansion Plan for the station, it was mutually agreed, by the City of Riverside Planning staff and RCTC staff, to construct the additional parking for the Riverside -La Sierra station in the following two (2) phases: Phase I: To ease the immediate parking problem at the Riverside -La Sierra station, RCTC staff working in conjunction with RCC, had previously developed, submitted, and received the City of Riverside's approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), on April 10, 2000, for a temporary parking lot, adjacent and to the west of the existing station. At the request of RCC, the plans for the temporary parking using the RCC property were abandoned and RCTC staff had to look for other ways to resolve the station parking at the Riverside -La Sierra station. RCTC staff subsequently negotiated with an adjacent bowling alley facility to provide additional parking. The adjacent bowling alley is still used for additional parking today at a cost of $1,725 per month and requires RTA to run special service to transport the passengers using this parking location back to the station platform. This auxiliary parking lot also requires the added cost of having a separate guard for security. In discussions with the City of Riverside Planning staff, it was determined that the previously approved CUP, for the Riverside -La Sierra Station Temporary Parking Lot Expansion using the RCC property, could be resurrected, and revised to allow for a permanent expansion of the parking lot as long as the permanent facility was within the footprint of the previously approved temporary facility. This would save several months in gaining City approval. This along with other mitigating issues possibly requiring a prolonged period of time to gain the City of Riverside approval, was the reasoning behind splitting the Riverside -La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project in two (2) phases. The Phase I Permanent Parking Lot revised CUP was approved by the City of Riverside in March of 2002. The Phase I permanent parking area will provide an additional 254 parking spaces. The station currently has 343 parking spaces. The Phase I parking expansion will bring the total number of spaces to 597. • • 161 " " " Phase II: This Phase will provide for an additional 400 parking spaces. This phase will require an additional entrance to be located at the east end of the station and widening of the existing Indiana Avenue entrance. Phase II will bring the total number of parking spaces to 997. It is anticipated that construction will start on the Phase II parking lot expansion at the completion of Phase I, which is scheduled for the end of Summer of 2002. Staff has been working with Engineering Resources to develop the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) for the Phase I Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project. The PS&E will be submitted to the City of Riverside on April 15, 2002 for review and comments. It is anticipated that the PS&E package will be ready for advertisement by May 20, 2002. In conjunction with developing the design for Phase I, staff has been coordinating with the City of Riverside for the inclusion of the construction of a Solar Panel Parking Stall Project with the construction of the Phase I Project. A separate agenda item will be presented to the Committee for approval to include the City of Riverside Solar Project with the Phase I Riverside -La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Construction Project. The engineer's estimate for the Phase I Project, is in the range of approximately $750,000 to $800,000. 162 " AGENDA ITEM 7K " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager Dennis Mejia, Bechtel Resident/Office Engineer THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Advertise Bids for Construction of a Closed -Circuit Television Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Enter into a Project Construction Program Supplement to obligate CMAQ funding for construction of a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station with a data link to the monitoring facilities at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station; 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the Supplement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station including data links to monitoring facilities at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station, contingent upon finalization of the Project Construction Program Supplement and receipt of the Authorization to Proceed with Construction from the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance; and, 4) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1999, with the completion of the South Side Platform/ Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink station was retrofitted with a Closed - Circuit Television (CCTV) Security System. The improvements to the Riverside - Downtown Station included a master monitoring console that would receive the images from the other Riverside County Metrolink stations. This would allow a single person to be able to monitor each of the stations CCTV systems from one location. The Commission has also authorized the retrofitting of both the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink stations with a CCTV Security System. By providing 24 hour 163 monitoring and video recording, and centralizing the security system, RCTC will enhance the security currently provided by the station guards already provided at the various Metrolink Stations operated by RCTC. In December 1999, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-9952, to PB Farradyne, Inc. to perform a Phase I Communications Study to develop the most cost effective means to provide a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station and the means to connect the Pedley CCTV Security System to the Main Security System located at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. The results of the Phase I Communications Study produced by PB Farradyne was that the most economical way to connect the Pedley Metrolink Station CCTV Security System to the Riverside -Downtown Monitoring Facility was via a telephone T1 connection. RCTC staff concurred with this finding and in July 2001, staff recommended and the Commission authorized the Executive Director to amend Contract No. RO-9952 with PB Farradyne to proceed with the development of final Engineering Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) for a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station, based on the findings of the Phase I Communications Study. Staff and PB Farradyne have been working cooperatively with the Union Pacific Railroad and SCRRA in the development of the PS&E for the Pedley CCTV Security System Project. It is anticipated that the final Pedley CCTV Security System PS&E will be completed by end of April 2002. The majority of the funding for this project is CMAQ federal funding. To retain the CMAQ federal funding for this project, a Program Supplement Agreement must be entered into by RCTC and Caltrans. The Program Supplement amends the Agency - State Agreement for Federal -Aid Projects No. 08-6054 to specifically describe the costs and special conditions that apply to the construction phase for the Pedley CCTV Security System Project. After the PS&E for the project is completed, a Request for Authorization to Proceed with Construction will be submitted to the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance. The Program Supplement Agreement can than be finalized by RCTC and Caltrans. The subsequent Authorization to Proceed and Obligation of Federal Funds will be the basis for the financial responsibilities to be outlined in the Program Supplement. This action is being brought forward to the Committee at this time in an effort to have funds obligated prior to the federal expiration date of June 30, 2002. The engineer's estimate for the Pedley CCTV Security System project, is in the range of approximately $200,000 to $225,000. • • • 164 " AGENDA ITEM 7L " " " " " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Karen Leland, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of March averaged 4,615, basically unchanged from the month of February and from a year ago, March 2001. March on -time performance averaged 92% inbound (3% decrease from February) and 94% outbound (13% increase from February). On March 15th, staff circulated resolutions of support from cities and the county regarding Metrolink's effort to urge Union Pacific Railroad to improve on -time performance on the Riverside Line. An update on the number of resolutions received will be provided at the Committee meeting. Inland Empire -Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Ridership on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of March averaged 3,033 a 1% increase from the month of February. The Line has averaged an overall 6% increase from a year ago, March 2001. 165 91 Line The new 91 Line service will commence May 6, 2002 with a grand opening event and VIP train. The festivities will take place at the West Corona Metrolink station at 8:00am. The new Line will provide direct Metrolink Service from Riverside, La Sierra, and West Corona to Fullerton, Norwalk, and Los Angeles. Special Trains Beach Train: The 2002 Beach Train season will kick-off June 29, 2002. Three (3) train dates have been added this year totaling 20 for the season. Additionally, there will be new and exciting prizes awarded for onboard drawings on the return trip home. Returning sponsors this year are the San Clemente and Oceanside Chambers of Commerce, The Press - Enterprise, PE.com, and new this year, the Business Press. Attached is a copy of the 2002 Beach Train flyer. Rideshare 2 Rails (R2R) Program Rideshare Incentives: This component of the R2R Program has Rideshare exhibited a favorable start. Since its inception April 1, 2002, 40 „re% participants have enrolled (Riverside -Downtown 10, Pedley 6, La Sierra 12, West Corona 12). To qualify for R2R Incentives, two or more Metrolink passengers must carpool to one of the Riverside County stations for a consecutive three months or a total of 40 days. Enrollees are required to submit a monthly Participation Verification form outlining their individual participation. Permits of each rideshare partner must be displayed on the dash of the vehicle in use for the day. Station guards monitor usage of rideshare parking spaces on a daily basis and submit reports to RCTC for data entry. RTA Express Bus Shuttle: RTA express shuttle service began operating March 4, 2002. There are three routes in the AM and four in the PM, both targeting peak hour Metrolink trains. Metrolink ticket holders ride for free. Riders can board the shuttle at the Moreno Valley Mali and The Home Depot Parking and Ride lots where they will be provided with direct service to/from the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink station. • • • 166 " " " Station Update Pepsi Vending Machines: Pepsi vending machines have been placed at the Pedley, Riverside -Downtown, and West Corona Metrolink stations. More are slated to be installed at Riverside -Downtown and the La Sierra Stations by the end of April. Metro/ink Station Daily Activities: Daily activities are recorded by each of the station security guards. Attached is summary data covering the last quarter (January -March 2002). Attachments: Metrolink Performance Summaries (March 2002) Metrolink Stations Daily Activity Report 167 " " METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES March 2002 11e1 M ETROLINK co +Z 3J ,4J+"b, Y 0 ?jYBl G »447 „v xV n. k --i ' �-�-rd�a air ri f"'T • a T o+''� Y`y y 'AS- ` 'y 4:131,404.9.:4 • t' T.Yfta-�-g„ .,rv :.` • • • 170 " " " 100.0% 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% 75.0% 70.0% METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) i 96% Mar01 Apr01 96% May 01 96% Jun 01 95% 96% Jul 01 Aug 01 95% Sep 01 95 % 96 % Oct 01 Nov 01 0% Arriving Within 5 -Minutes Of Scheduled Time 96% Dec 01 96 % Jan 02 96 % 14 Feb 02 96% 4 OT-13MoNew.xls of Train Delays By Responsibility March 2002 Vandalism UPRR 2% TRK-Contractor 15% 3% SIG -Contractor 7% Passenger 3% Other OP Agrebiaw-Enf 1% 2% Includes Weekend Service BMTC-MCH 13% Improv (SCRRA) 11% BNSF 24 % TRK-Contracto 2% SIG -Contractor 8% Include s Weekend Service % of Train Delays By Responsibility 12 Month Period Ending March 2002 Vandalism B MTC-MCH 4% 12% Passenger 3% Other 6% 1% OP Agree 2% BNSF 28% • " " PERFORMANCE CHARTS - BACK-UP ����1��111 MEiROLINK " Mar 01 Apr 01 3,697 3,545 " METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED 5,215 5,421 9,909 9,785 427 4,597 420 4,682 5,978 5,925 2,866 97 2,804 102 May 01 3,702 5,551 10,117 457 4,802 5,999 2,974 110 Jun 01 _Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 3,493 3,416 3,315 3,323 5,862 5,489 5,423 5,463 10,244 9,848 9,679 9,503 482 4,799 456 4,690 469 4,638 435 4,566 5,896 5,853 5,879 5,940 2,983 105 2,838 92 2,833 105 2,923 102 Oct 01 3,558 5,170 10,032 452 4,651 5,867 3,081 122 Nov 01 Dec 01 3,500 3,144 5,169 4,898 10,025 9,391 477 4,654 452 4,223 5,939 5,369 3,007 137 2,733 97 Jan 02 3,566 4,813 10,086 480 4,596 5,865 2,930 107 Feb 02 3,612 5,031 10,235 464 4,635 5,882 3,010 109 Mar 02 3,650 5,135 10,082 518 4,615 5,931 3,033 133 32,786 32,684 33,712 33,864 32,682 32,341 32,255 32,933 32,908 30,307 32,443 32,978 33,097 " 2% 0% 3% 0% -3% -1 % 0% 2% 0% -8% % Change Mar 02 vs Feb 02 1% 2% -1% 12% 0% 1% 1% 22% 0% Change Mar 02 vs Mar 01 -1% -2% 2% 21% 0% -1% 6% 37% 1% 7% 2% 0% 7 ADR_MoNew.xis (71 ADROxls e • Av g Da ily Riders 35004-7.'- 3000 - 2500- 2000- 1500 1000 No te: Sept Includes L.A, County Fair Riders San Bernardino Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Jul Aug Sep Oct San Bernardino Line Sunday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips 9 0203WKendNew,xls Av g Da ily Riders 3500 3000- 2500- 2000- 1500- 1000- 500 - Antel ope Valley Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar -02 Note: Sept Includes L.A. County Fa ir Ridersil A vg Da ily 1 d rs 3500 3000- 2500- 2000- 1500- 1'000 - 500- Riverside Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips 3290: 3207, n581. 243;; 258'1 Mar 01 Apr May Note: Service Berne June 24, 2000 • Service Discontinued January 19, 20021 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar -02 • • 0203W Ken�1�17.xls " " METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY Percentage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time L ATEST i3 MONTHS " .. 1u:- ��,, .[ , :" Pl '..'UCLI re1K.e'��fx':r R fy , ry .3r,!'��c .. - " !��1 ll�� A��t e�� i?��r -: :. 4:... v. �� .,. lifi .. :. 1latis Y3 .�� Y Y .. .,.,,,.i3U��r..,z" 99% 1' .. :, ....,, Sekt ei: nar��lrlu, .��. . 36 _ ..:.1 t.i :r,, iril ,.,.Sf .����.., ��tl't; " : 98% 99% ... '::,, y w�� /��, ..6rtxart It �� } l ( t " b" m t -J ..K.�� Y jJt;e ,..s_;(9kt�� �� 100 % 98% .41: . '��,��,7 ,, , n1Y11% ����.911tG. ., -:nt. ,,.. ..6 ry Yxx �� ��'t" v ��..a ; .Wu,1h Knaz`����t��`.` 95% 89% Ci��r � : r , nTrS����'; zN; 88% c. ��,;, 'CJ.��t�il i:. ,. - , _ ����. ��.��i..��:: 89% �� +" ,.r: 71 ',3`rarrd`.1��m t -'z. . v . ,41,1. c + ��. ��. sil"'V m.:.y 92% 92% , S�� . 'i.': ,��F7.ti 82% yy r .:E%Ilt 98 % �� r2 ..l��G . 95% Yr�� _,E3ilt' 96% i61, -! 96% Mar 01 97% 99% 98 % Apr01 100% 98% 97% 98 % 96 % 95% 99% 99% 93% 91% 91% 93 % 98 % 99% 90% 100% 96 % 96 % 96% May 01 98% 98% 98% 96 % 98% 97% 100% 100% 94% 90% 86% 94 % 95% 95% 91% 93% 96 % 96% 96% Jun 01 100% 99% 99% 97% 97% 97% 98 % 99% 97 % 89 % 87% 88% 92% 94% 90% 98% 96 % 95% 95% Jul 01 97% 99% 99% 100% 96% 94% 99 % 98% 94 % 83 % 93% 94% 95 % 96 % 95% 95% 96% 95% 96% Aug 01 99% 98% 98% 97% 98% 96% 100 % 99% 89 % 83 % 91% 92% 95% 94 % 96% 91% 96% 95% 95% Sep 01 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 100% 100 % 91 % 87% 88% 83% 93 % 92% 89 % 95% 96 % 95% 95% Oct 01 100% 100% 99% 100% 99% 98% 100% 100% 74% 80 % 93% 94 % 92% 97% 83% 87% 95% 96% 96% Nov 01 9$% 100% 97% 97% 98% 97% 97 % 100 % 88% 92% 97% 88% 94% 98% 95% 95% 96% 96% 96% Dec01 98% 99% 98% 99% 98% 97% 98% 99% 91% 90 % 91% 93 % 93% 93% 95% 92% 96% 96 % 96 % Jan 02 93% 99% 99% 100% 97% 96% 100% 99% 91% 86% 97 % 94 % 92 % 95% 73 % 98 % 96% 96 % 96 % Feb 02 .8% 100% 97% 97% 97% 97% 99% 98% 95% 81% 91 % 97% 90% 98% 85% 95% 95% 96 % 96 % Mar 02 )0% 99% 97% 94% 97% 97% 99% 100% 92% 94% 98 % 96% 95 % 95% 86 % 98% 97% 96 % 97% Peak Period Trains : riving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time Mar 02 J_ :. ��Ewlt��' ROOCR''. ��. . l G I _ a. �� :.. A1(t. f3.(711t@ ... . .�� -x fF.L 'S :..SNf3:f. 3QUtta :. :" Y j�� ., .. .::33:tJf3 T17rtls'. ;':.r S sl, 4M 3. .:.:RI��:i��oiiti;:... 1'4..} '. ,��. ?i ...r . QC::R.O .ufe....-: ., (fllifiiF/�� 'r'��CGt o ... .. RI.vlf4lf��f..Ai'..." :.. TQt;lnk}d. ..:1 ofi0ttf4d 7"o1:s t:" ':; Peak Period Trains ion 97% 98% 97% 95% 96% 99% 100% 89% 93% 97% 97 % 96 % 95% 0% 0% 95% 97% 96% No adjustments have been made for relievable delays. Terminated trains are considered OT if they were on -time at point of termination. Annulled trains are not included in the on -time calculation. " co 11 OT-13MoNew.xls CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS MARCH 2002 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CAUSE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INL/OC R/F/L TOTAL % of TOT Signals/Detectors 0 3 3 1 7 1 0 1 16 18% Slow Orders/MOW 0 10 0 0 3 0 0 0 13 14% Track/Switch 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2% Dispatching 0 0 1 0 3 5 7 2 18 20% Mechanical 1 1 7 0 1 1 2 0 13 14% Freight Train 1 0 6 0 2 2 3 1 15 16% Amtrak Train . 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 5% M etrolink Meet/Turn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Vandalism 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2% Passenger(s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% SCRRA Hold Policy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Other 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8% TOTAL 4 20 19 1 18 13 12 4 91 100% CD • 12 • Saturday SNB 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 Saturday AVL 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 Sunday SNB 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0203C • I5 " " " FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION MARCH 2002 MINUTES LATE: NO DELAY 1 MIN - 5 MIN 6 MIN " 10 MIN 11 MIN " 20 MIN 21 MIN - 30 MIN GREATER THAN 30 MIN ANNULLED VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL 408 374 540 204 217 356 226 59 8 68 71 3 16 31 14 1 0 7 4 0 5 7 5 2 3 8 8 1 9 2 6 1 0 1 5 0 4 1 1 0 1 4 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 TOTAL 2384 212 30 38 12 11 4 % of TOT 88.7% 7,9% 1 .1% 1,4% 0,4% 0.4% 0.1% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD TRAINS DELAYED >0 min TRAINS DELAYED > 5 min 420 462 630 208 251 400 252 64 12 88 90 4 34 44 26 5 4 20 19 1 18 13 12 4 This summary excludes Saturday & Sunday Service. " CO 0 13 2687 303 91 100% 11 .3% 3 .4% 0203FREQ.xls Daily Activity Report • • • Rtbci•sfrls CrMinty liyir sjiurtatlon COMM, Metrolink Stations Generatedfrom 1/01/2002 to 3/31/2002 Riverside Pedley La Sierra W. Corona Total 1 - Standard Procedure 1A - RCTC Staff on Site 6 4 3 8 1B - Customer Assistance 89 92 87 90 1C - Ambassador on Site 81 19 35 21 21 358 156 Total 176 115 125 119 535 2 - Criminal Incidents 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandalism 1 3 2 0 6 2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 9 3 1 1 14 2C - Suspicious Behavior 0 3 0 0 3 2E - Grafitti 0 0 1 0 1 3 - Crisis Situations 3A - Medical / Fire Emergencies 3B - Police Emergencies 4 - Maintenance / Repai 4A - Lights 4B - TVM / Validator Machine 4C - Elevator 4D - Other 5 - Miscellaneous 5A - Miscellaneous Activity 6 - Parked Overnight 6A - Parked Overnight 7 - Overflow 7A - Veh. In Overflow 8 - Parking Citations 8A - Parking Citations 9 - Empty Spaces 9A - Empty Spaces Total 10 9 4 1 24 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 Total 3 1 1 0 5 Total Total Total Total Total 3 1 4 13 21 22 10 12 12 56 3 2 6 6 17 47 56 45 48 196 75 69 67 79 290 34 34 18 88 11 18 88 11 151 151 19 4 7 8 10 19 4 7 8 10 1 0 11 0 12 1 0 11 0 12 170 0 3 8 181 170 0 3 8 181 70 0 0 0 70 Total 70 0 0 0 70 Thursday, April 11, 2002 181 " AGENDA ITEM 7M " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Contract Award for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Service BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND EVAL UA TION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 02-45-070, a three-year contract, with two one- year options, to Tri-City Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 4 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $45.00 per hour per truck; 2) Award Agreement No. 02-45-071, a three-year contract, with two one- year options, to Pepe's Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 18 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $42.50 per hour per truck; 3) Award Agreement No. 02-45-072, a three-year contract, with two one- year options, to Pepe's Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 25 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $42.50 per hour per truck; and, 4) Authorize the Chairman to execute the agreements, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, acting in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE), reviewed and approved a Request for Proposal (RFP) for tow truck service at its February 13, 2002 meeting. The RFP for the Freeway Service Patrol program was for three beats or segments of freeways in Riverside County and included specific proposal requirements and evaluation criteria. " Beat No. 4 is on SR -91 from Magnolia Avenue to the SR -60/91/I-215 interchange " Beat No. 18 is on SR -60/I-215 from the SR -60/91/I-215 interchange to the SR - 60/1 -215 interchange 206 " " Beat No. 25 is on 1-15 from the SR -91/I-15 interchange to the SR -60/I-15 interchange. Bids were due March 27, 2002, and four proposals were received. An Evaluation Committee consisting of Commissioner Schiffner and representatives from the California Highway Patrol Headquarters and local staff, Caltrans, the Orange County Transportation Authority FSP program, and Commission staff reviewed the proposals for completeness and responsiveness. Site visit interviews were conducted on all four firms on April 15. Commissioner Ron Roberts was originally scheduled to serve on the Evaluation Committee, but was unable to participate in the process due to scheduling conflicts. The Evaluation Committee spoke with each of the company representatives about their proposals and their understanding of the program's requirements. Each was asked a set of standard questions in addition to several questions concerning their individual proposals to clarify any questions. After all four visits were completed, the Committee discussed the proposals and site visits and finalized their scoring of the proposals based on the following criteria included in the RFP: Qualifications of the Firm 25 points Staffing and Project Organization 25 points Work Plan 15 points Cost and Price 25 points Completeness of Response 10 points Total 100 points The Evaluation Committee's combined average scores are as follows: Beat No. 4 Beat No. 18 Beat No. 25 Firm Score Score Score Pepe's Towing 87.6 90.4* 94.4* Tri-City Towing 82.2* 84.2 81 .0 Hamner Towing 61 .0 63.0 67.0 Exclusive Towing 60.7 62.9 59.5 * Recommend award of contract. NOTE: While Pepe's Towing was ranked No. 1 on all three beats, they would prefer operating no more than two beats. Based upon the average score of the five Committee members (Commissioner Schiffner, CHP HQ, Caltrans District 8, OCTA FSP staff, and Commission staff) the Committee recommends that: 1) Tri-City Towing be awarded a three-year contract " " 207 " " " with two one-year options, to provide tow truck service for the FSP program on beat No. 4 at $45.00 per hour per truck; 2) Pepe's Towing be awarded a three-year contract with two one-year options, to provide tow truck service for the FSP program on beat No. 18 at $42.50 per hour per truck; 3) Pepe's Towing be awarded a three- year contract with two one-year options, to provide tow truck service for the FSP program on beat No. 25 at $42.50 per hour per truck. Beat No. 4 currently requires four (4) trucks, one of which is funded by a separate agreement with Caltrans for construction projects. Beat No. 18 requires three trucks and beat No. 25 requires two trucks. All three beats operate from 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. The current tow truck operator for beat No. 4 is Hamner Towing, and the Committee's recommendation is to award the beat to Tri-City towing effective July 1, 2002. The current operator for beat No. 18 and No. 25 is Pepe's Towing, and it is the Committee's recommendation that Pepe's Towing continue to operate those two beats. All obligations incurred by the Commission under the terms of this award are funded 80% from State funds and 20% from local SAFE fees, and are subject to continued funding from the State for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program. Funding for these beats is included in the FY 02-03 proposed budget. 208 " AGENDA ITEM 7U " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Memorandum of Understanding No. M-22-001 with the Riverside Public Utilities for a Photovoltaic Carport Structure at the La Sierra Station PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve Memorandum of Understanding No. M-22-001 with the Riverside Public Utilities for a Photovoltaic Carport Structure at the La Sierra Station, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) has a specific goal to increase the share of renewable generation in their power portfolio. At its March 13, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved in concept the partnership with Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) to install a photovoltaic (PV) carport structure at the La Sierra Station. RCTC staff has met with RPU representatives to coordinate the installation of the PV structure with the planned parking lot expansion at the La Sierra Station. RPU estimates that the expanded Station could provide an area capable of providing approximately 1 megawatt of renewable energy. Coupled with RCTC's planned expansion of the La Sierra Station, this project encourages rail transit through an added amenity of covered parking, provides electric vehicle recharging stations, and provides renewable energy to neighborhood homes. Currently, two phases of additional parking spaces are planned, with the first phase consisting of approximately 250 additional parking spaces. RPU has evaluated phase one of the project and determined it would cost up to $1,200,000 to construct a photovoltaic carport structure over the spaces constructed in this phase. This is a preliminary estimate which may change after engineering documents are completed. Funding is available in the RPU Public Benefits Program budget to fully fund this phase of the project and RPU will continue to seek additional sources to fund the subsequent phases. 182 Staffs of RCTC and RPU have identified specific points to be included in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which are attached. This MOU will be the basis for a formal contract/net metering agreement after approval by the Riverside City Council and the RCTC Board. RPU and RCTC will share in the benefits of the project through lower electricity costs for both entities. RCTC will be the project manager of the construction project and provide the funds for the parking lot, with RPU providing the funding for the photovoltaic carport structure and related installation expenses. Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding Deal Points for PV Carport Structure • • • 183 Memorandum of Understanding Between Riverside County Transportation Commission And Riverside Public Utilities Riverside Public Utilities ("RPU") is committed to funding $1.2 million for the first phase of a photovoltaic ("PV") carport structure at the La Sierra Metrolink station. Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") plans additional phases of parking facility expansion, an estimated 1,050 total parking spaces. RCTC will assist RPU in pursuing additional funding for future phases of the PV carport structure. State and Federal funding hurdles currently exist towards obtaining matching funds for PV carport structures beyond Phase 1. RCTC will act as the project manager for Phase 1, and coordinate all bid documentation required. There will be an option for solar panel and related equipment procurement directly by RPU as a separate item from any bid specifications. RCTC and RPU will further determine how to share in the benefit of electricity generated at this site. The 125 kW structure in Riverside at the Utilities Operations Center will serve as model for this project. Planned PV carport structure provides renewable energy and benefits commuters. RPU will assist RCTC with the cost of bid specifications related to this project. Preliminary engineering work specifications for the PV structure to be done by RCTC with reimbursement by RPU. Maintenance of installed PV structure to be determined. Estimated time frame for completion of Phase 1 is October 2002. Maximum commitment from RPU for funding of Phase 1 is $1.2 million. 184 AGENDA ITEM 7N " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amend Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan: Parking Expansion and Rolling Stock PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize $425,000 of previously allocated Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for temporary parking lot expansion at the Riverside -Downtown Station; 2) De -obligate $588,000 of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds for RCTC's share of a rolling stock acquisition and substitute it with a $588,000 reallocation of previously allocated LTF for RCTC's share; and, 3) Amend the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and allocate $1,013,000 in LTF for the above listed capital projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Parking Expansion The Riverside -Downtown Station provides 750 surface parking spaces. Currently, over 925 boardings occur daily with over 95% of the parking lot filled. The Commission owns a small parcel of vacant land on Vine Street across from the Station. Preliminary estimates indicate development of this parcel will provide an additional 125 surface parking spaces at an estimated cost of $425,000. However, plans to widen SR 91 freeway in this area within the -next seven to ten years will result in the removal of this parking area. Given the immediate parking demands and the impending start-up of the new SR 91 Commuter Rail Line service, Staff recommends expanding the station parking to this parcel to provide short- term relief. 185 At its May 2001 meeting, the Commission reviewed the draft Station Management Strategic Plan that identified a parking deficit of 123 spaces at the Riverside - Downtown Station by 2003 and the need to double the number of parking spaces at the Riverside -Downtown Station from 750 to 1,500 spaces by 2010. While the improvements on Vine Street will assist in addressing the forecasted demand in 2003, it is only a temporary solution. For more permanent solutions to the parking capacity problems, staff is working with property owners on the south side of the Station, as well as the City and private developers on the north side of the Station. RCTC's Share of Rolling Stock — Substitution of Funding At its February 2001 meeting, the Commission approved the amendment of the Commuter Rail SRTP to allocate $588,000 of FTA Section 5307 funds to provide the match for the purchase of seven additional Metrolink cars or two additional locomotives. SCRRA, acting as lead agency, awarded the contract for the locomotives prior to the federal programming approval of the $588,000 which renders our federal dollars as unacceptable for this project. SCRRA is requesting that we substitute the FTA Section 5307 funding with another funding source. Staff is recommending the use of previously allocated Western County Commuter Rail Local Transportation Funds. The net budget impact of this recommendation is $0 because the $588,000 of FTA funds was never expended. The $588,000 of FTA funds will return as undesignated rail funds until the Commission decides to designate them for a specific purpose. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2002/03 Amount: $ 1,013,000 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 221-33-81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 4/16/02 • • • 186 " AGENDA ITEM 70 " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to the Amtrak Intercity Agreement PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the amendment of the Amtrak Intercity Agreement between Amtrak, SCRRA, and its member agencies; and, 2) Authorize the Executive Director to sign the amendment, pursuant to legal counsel review. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) is a Joint Powers Authority consisting of the following member agencies: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority, San Bernardino Associated Governments, Ventura County Transportation Commission, and RCTC. In 1993, upon approval by all of its member agencies, SCRRA entered into an agreement with Amtrak for the operation of Amtrak intercity and intrastate trains running over properties the member agencies had purchased from the freight railroads. The resulting operating and compensation agreement was executed on March 1, 1994 and expires on February 29, 2004. These properties are owned by the member agencies and dispatched and maintained by SCRRA. SCRRA and Amtrak staffs including legal counsel from both have been negotiating this first amendment to the Amtrak Intercity Agreement for the past three years. The negotiations have focused on the following three issues: (1) Amtrak's desire to begin Los Angeles to Las Vegas service, (2) Amtrak's decision to carry mail on certain trains, and (3) Amtrak operation on territories not included in the original agreement. Specifically: 187 " 1) Amtrak Los Angeles to Las Vegas Service: The amendment permits Amtrak to use the Metrolink San Bernardino Line for operations of intercity trains between Los Angeles and Las Vegas after September 1, 2001. As compensation for one train per day in each direction, Amtrak will pay SCRRA $5.12 per train mile adjusted for inflation using September 1, 2001 as the base. Amtrak has the option of prepaying the SCRRA for this service by paying a lump sum discounted for present value at an annual rate of 6%. SCRRA has the option of requesting these funds in the form of capital improvements or Amtrak assets, such as spare locomotives. Compensation for additional trains between Los Angeles and Las Vegas will be negotiated before any additional trains begin operations; 2) Amtrak Carrying Mai/ In and Out of Union Station: The amendment places train length restrictions and locomotive horsepower per ton minimum requirements on those Amtrak trains hauling mail in and out of Union Station. In addition, the amendment explicitly gives SCRRA the right to make dispatching decisions that will prevent Amtrak's mail and express operation from obstructing terminal operations; and 3) Addition of Territory to Reflect Changes in Right -of -Way Configuration and other changes: Appendix 1, (Service Property) of the agreement will be amended to increase the Mission Tower to Redondo Junction territory by 7/10 of a mile due to the construction of the Redondo Flyover, and include the territory between Burbank Junction and Moorpark. The amendment also requires additional compensation from Amtrak if it increases the number of scheduled intercity passenger trains operating between the Commuter Rail Interlocker and Moorpark over the number of such trains operating on May 21, 2000. Applicability to Riverside County Metrolink Services The proposed amendment does not directly affect the Metrolink services in Riverside County because neither of the Lines, the Riverside and Inland Empire - Orange County, operates on tracks owned by the Commission. (Although, portions of the IEOC do operate on OCTA owned tracks.) However, as a member agency to SCRRA and an original signatory to the agreement, RCTC is required to approve any amendments to the Amtrak Intercity Agreement. " " 188 " " At its March 22, 2002 meeting, the SCRRA Board authorized the Chief Executive Officer to sign Amendment No. 1 of the Amtrak Intercity Agreement, subject to the transmission of the amendment to the member agencies for their signature. In order to expedite the processing, staff recommends authorizing the Executive Director to sign the agreement on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to legal counsel review. Attachment: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement Among National Railroad Passenger Corporation and Southern California Regional Rail Authority 189 " " Amendment Number 1 To AGREEMENT AMONG NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY, ET AL. DATED MARCH 1, 1994 This Amendment Number 1 to the Agreement Among National Railroad Passenger Corporation and Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority, Riverside County Transportation Commission, San Bernardino Associated Governments, and Ventura County Transportation Commission dated March 1, 1994, (the "Agreement") is between the parties thereto. In this Amendment Number 1, capitalized terms shall have the same meanings as are set forth in the Agreement. In consideration of the mutual undertakings set forth herein, effective September 1, 2001, the parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 1. In Article II, at the end of the second sentence, add the following: "Notwithstanding the references in the two previous sentences to cessation of services on the former SF Pasadena Subdivision, Amtrak shall be permitted to use the SCRRA line segment between Pasadena Junction and San Bernardino (MP 0.9 to MP 56.2 on the current SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision) for operation of intercity passenger trains between Los Angeles and Las Vegas after September 1, 2001." 2. Add a new Section 4.8 as follows: "Section 4.8. Amtrak shall not expand the number of scheduled trains that exceed 1440' in length in LAUPT without the express written consent of SCRRA, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld. There are currently two trains (i.e., Train Nos. 3 and 4)." 3. Add a new section 4.9 as follows: "Section 4.9. During the commuter peak hours as defined in Appendix 3 to this Agreement, no Amtrak train carrying mail and express shall be scheduled to stop on the main line trackage of the Subject Property between CP Olympic (MP 142.6) and San Diego Junction (or Vignes after the crossovers for CP Vignes are installed) prior to arrival at or following departure from LAUPT." 4. Section 6.1(a) is amended by adding new sub -section (5) as follows: (5) As compensation for the operation of one train per day in each direction between Los Angeles and Las Vegas over the 190 Subject Property_from September 1, 2001 through February 29, 2004, Amtrak shall pay to SCRRA $5.12 per train mile adjusted for inflation in accordance with Section 6.4 using September 1, 2001 as the base; provided, however, that in the event the on - time performance of trains delivered to the Subject Property at their scheduled time (without tolerance) is less than 97% in two successive months (measured with a 5 -minute tolerance and no allowable delays), upon written notice from Amtrak, the parties shall establish by agreement or by arbitration an arrangement for payment of $1.50 per train mile in guaranteed compensation and up to $3.62 per train mile in compensation based on on -time performance. Amtrak shall be entitled on notice given no less than 6 months prior to the start of SCRRA's fiscal year to prepay SCRRA for this service by paying a lump sum discounted for present value at an annual rate of 6%. The parties may agree that Amtrak will provide and SCRRA will accept locomotives or other equipment, or other compensation, in lieu of the lump sum payment described in the foregoing sentence, subject to SCRRA's prior approval of any such equipment. If the parties agree to operation of additional trains between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, the compensation for such additional operation shall be negotiated prior to its commencement. 5. Section 6.1(c) is amended by adding a new sub -section (2)(C): (C). If Amtrak increases the number of scheduled intercity passenger trains operating five days per week or more over that portion of the Subject Property or any line of railroad for which SCRRA provides dispatching services between the Commuter Rail Interlocker ("CRI") and Moorpark above the number of such trains operating on May 21, 2000, then the cost of dispatching shall be the wages and fringe benefits, overheads and fees, for five (5) dispatcher positions. Amtrak's allocated share of such cost shall be determined by using a ratio that is the same as the ratio of Amtrak train miles operated on the lines between CRI and Moorpark and between CRI and Lancaster to the total of all train miles (passenger and freight, including SCRRA) on those two line segments." 6. Section 6.1(d) is amended by adding at the end of the sentence the following new language: " . . . along with such other payments as may be required by Appendix 5." 7. Section 6.1(d) is further amended by adding the following text at the end of the existing language (as revised in item 6): "For trains that operate over the Subject Property with more than twelve cars, Amtrak shall report locomotive unit numbers, horsepower per type of unit, and trailing tonnage in its ARROW train status system, and shall make this information available to SCRRA. Failure to provide this 2 • 191 information within three (3) business days from the date that SCRRA notifies Amtrak that such information has not been made available for a particular trip of a train shall cause such train to be excluded from the determination of on -time performance for the purpose of calculating incentives under this section and Appendix 5." 8. Appendix 1, Service Property, is amended as follows: (a) by replacing the seventh item with the following: "** CP Burbank Junction - Moorpark (b) by replacing the sixth item with the following: "Mission Tower - Redondo Junction 462.6 to 426.5". 140.0 to 143.9" 9. Appendix 2 is amended by replacing the second sentence of the first paragraph with the following text: "The consist of Amtrak trains shall contain a locomotive or locomotives that will provide at least 4.0 horsepower per trailing ton. 10. Appendix 3 is amended by adding the following to the end of the second paragraph: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, in establishing the priority of any trains that are longer than 1,440 feet, SCRRA will have the discretion to make appropriate dispatching decisions that will prevent the excess length trains from obstructing terminal operations and delaying other SCRRA and Amtrak trains." 11. Appendix 5, paragraph 2 is amended by substituting the following for the existing text: 2. A trip of a train will be considered on -time if its actual arrival time is at or before the scheduled arrival time at the train platform at the terminal station (or at that point en route where performance is measured) plus (a) a standard tolerance of 5", (b) the amount of time a train was late in arriving at the entry point onto the Subject Property, (c) the amount of time lost by a train when it is held by a dispatcher because it is longer than 1,440 feet (as peiiuitted by Appendix 3), and (d) the amount of time in excess of 10" that the sum of the actual station dwell time exceeds the sum of the total scheduled station dwell times (as specified in Appendix 5-A) for all scheduled train stops on the trip that are on a line segment for which SCRRA is responsible pursuant to this Appendix 5. When a train fails to meet the power to weight ratio described in Appendix 2, then that train shall be counted as on -time in the computation of on -time percentages in Section 1 of this Appendix, and the train miles operated by any such train on the Subject Property shall be included in the number of train miles considered operated on both line segments in the month. For the purposes of this Appendix, scheduled arrival time is established by adding the 3 192 Scheduled Running Time for the train established pursuant to Section 4.3(a) to the scheduled departure time at the entry point onto the Subject Property. On the Orange County Line, the entry point onto the Subject Property for trains operating towards Los Angeles is San Juan Capistrano, and the entry point onto the Subject Property for trains operating towards San Diego is Fullerton Junction. 12. Appendix 5 is further modified by adding the following new section 8: • trains operating in revenue service if the delay is caused by an Amtrak train greater than 18 cars in length which fails to clear or cannot maintain its scheduled running time due to lack of adequate power to meet the power -to -weight ratio set forth in Appendix 2. Amtrak shall pay $500 to SCRRA for each revenue SCRRA train which arrives at its terminal station between five minutes and fifty nine seconds (5' 59") and nineteen minutes and fifty nine seconds (19' 59") late if excessive length or lack of adequate power of an Amtrak train described in the preceding sentence caused that amount of delay on the Subject Property, and $1,000 for the first revenue train per incident which arrives at its terminal station 20 minutes (20' 0") or more later than the time stated in SCRRA's public timetable if that amount of delay results from the length or lack of adequate power of an Amtrak train described in the preceding sentence; provided however, that the failure of an Amtrak Intercity train to clear or its inability to maintain its scheduled running time due to its length or lack of adequate power shall not constitute "any action or inaction or an Amtrak employee" within the meaning of Section 6.b of the July 1, 1998 Agreement between SCRRA and Amtrak for Operation of Commuter Services. SCRRA trains annulled or terminated due to excessive length or lack of adequate power of Amtrak trains will be considered 20 minutes late for the purpose of calculating additional payments to SCRRA. For the purposes of the preceding two sentences, an incident shall be a single occurrence that is the cause of one or more trains being late, annulled or terminated. Trains subsequent to the first train per incident that are more than 20 minutes late shall cause Amtrak to pay SCRRA $500 for each delayed train. For purposes of this Section 8, an en route mechanical failure shall not be deemed to be lack of adequate power required to meet the power -to -weight ratio. In no event shall Amtrak be required to pay SCRRA more than $5,000 for operations in a single day pursuant to this Section 8." 4 • • 193 " " " WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have set their hands. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL CORPORATION RAIL AUTHORITY Gilbert 0. Maller By: By: Its: President, Amtrak West Its: LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AUTHORITY By: By: Its: Its: Approved as to form for OCTA: RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION GOVERNMENTS By: By: Its: Its: VENTURA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Its: 5 194 0 AGENDA ITEM 7P • • " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request to Amend Riverside Transit Agency's Fiscal Year 2001- 2002 Short Range Transit Plan to Reallocate State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds for the Purchase of an Integrated Fare Collection System PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to amend the Riverside Transit Agency's Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Short Range Transit Plan to reallocate $500,000 in STA funds from the portable CNG fueling station line item to the integrated fare collection system. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) is in the process of acquiring "smart" fare boxes for its existing compressed natural gas (CNG) fleet and new CNG fleet currently under order. Consistent with current Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) efforts, RTA staff is ensuring that these fare boxes will be compatible with other systems under development in the region. As a participant in a Caltrans led ITS fare collection standardization effort, the RTA is closely coordinating the technical aspects of this procurement with all regional transit providers including Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, North County Transit District, SunLine Transit Agency, Omnitrans, Orange County Transportation Authority and Metrolink. As a result of emerging technologies, the fare collection system will be more costly than originally anticipated. The RTA's current budget has $400,000 in FY 00 Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and $1,000,000 in FY 02 State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for the purchase and installation of the fare collection system. However, the revised projected cost is approximately $1,900,000 or approximately $500,000 over the existing budget. RTA is requesting a FY 02 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) amendment to move $500,000 in STA funds from the 195 "portable CNG fueling station" line item to the "integrated fare collection system" line item. If approved, the request to purchase the portable CNG fueling station will be included in RTA's FY 03 SRTP. RTA is currently out to bid for this equipment and plans to recommend a contract award to its Board of Directors in May 2002. RTA's Board Budget and Finance Committee approved recommending the SRTP amendment at its April 3, 2002 meeting. The Committee members unanimously approved recommending this to RTA's full Board which will meet April 25, 2002. • • • 196 " AGENDA ITEM 7Q " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs Edward C. Gonzalez, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,175/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 to the existing Riverside, Moreno Valley and Mira Loma buspools; and, 2) Continue the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their home to work commutes along the SR 91 corridor. The Commission adopted the Measure "A" buspool subsidy in October 1990 and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1,175 ($25/seat/month) in support of commuter buspool operations. The subsidy rate has not changed since inception of the policy. To provide additional guidance, the Commission established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff to report to the Commission when a buspool's ridership falls to 25 or below and seek direction regarding the continuation of the buspool's subsidy. To renew its annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to request in writing continuation funding from the Commission for the new fiscal year. Included as Attachment 1 is the FY 2002-03 request letters from the three existing buspools. 197 RIVERSIDE & MORENO VALLEY BUSPOOLS: The Riverside and Moreno Valley buspools are contracted by Raytheon from Tourcoach, the transit service provider. Both buspools depart from Riverside County to El Segundo, providing participating Riverside County residents with an alternative to driving alone to work. Begun in June, 1995, the Riverside buspool stops at two park and ride lots, Galleria at Tyler Mall and Corona. The average monthly ridership for the current fiscal year is 42 passengers with the lowest single monthly ridership being 36 and the highest 43. The Moreno Valley buspool which started in February 1996 stops at the Moreno Valley Mall and Corona park and ride lots. The average monthly ridership for the current fiscal year is 42 passengers with the lowest single monthly ridership being 41 and the highest 42. The maximum capacity on each bus is 47 passengers. The monthly fare for the Riverside buspool is $160. The Moreno Valley buspool monthly fare is $170. For both buspools, the Commission provides a $25 monthly subsidy per seat and Raytheon provides a $21 monthly transit subsidy. The remaining balance ($114 for Riverside and $124 for Moreno Valley) is paid by employees. Any non -Raytheon employee passengers pay $135 for the Riverside buspool and $145 for the Moreno Valley service. Tourcoach, the contract provider, has accessible coaches available for use on the route if a person with disabilities purchases a monthly buspool pass. MIRA LOMA BUSPOOL: Developed in August 2001, passengers board this buspool at the Mira Loma and Corona park and ride lots for their shared commute to various employers located in El Segundo. Unlike the Riverside and Moreno Valley buspools which are contracted by Raytheon, this buspool agreement is contracted from Tourcoach by Harlan Alpert, an Aerospace employee. Mr. Harlan agreed to lead this operation once Aerospace was unable to. The monthly fare for this buspool is $165 with the Commission providing a $25 monthly subsidy per seat. The remaining balance is provided between the participating employees and their employers including Raytheon, Aerospace, Boeing, Direct TV and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Ridership has averaged 41 with a high of 44 and a low of 35. Like all commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage commuters to use alternative modes of transportation, the Measure "A" $25/seat/month subsidy is administered as a "user side subsidy." Unlike all of the other incentives, which have a 3 month term, the buspool subsidy is on -going. • • • 198 " " This annual subsidy remains cost-effective in comparison to the typical public transit subsidy rate of 80%. While the monthly cost of each existing buspool varies according to the number of route miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission's monthly subsidy represents an average rate of 15%. When taking other factors into consideration such as the reduction of vehicles on SR 91 during morning peak periods, the number of vehicle miles saved and the elimination of mobile source emissions, the annual buspool subsidy is an effective use of Measure "A" commuter assistance funds. The three existing buspools have completed all requirements for funding as set forth by the Commission including submittal of: 1) monthly ridership reports; 2) semi-annual operations status reports; and 3) annual funding continuation requests. These reports allow staff to monitor the activities of the buspools to track ridership levels, monitor marketing efforts, and ensure availability to persons with disabilities. The proposed FY 2002-03 RCTC budget contains a line item in the amount of $56,400 to provide buspool subsidies. Based on the established monthly $1,175 buspool subsidy policy, the funds are sufficient to support three existing buspools and one new start-up buspool if needed. Attachments: Letter from Rose Farooq, Commuter Transportation Center Letter from Harlan Alpert, Aerospace Corporation 199 " " " Raytheon 2 April 2002 Mr_ Edward Gonzalez Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Fax: 909-787-7920 Dear Mr. Gonzalez: Raytheon Company 2000 East El Segundo Boulevard PO Box 902 El Segundo, CA 90245-0902 310.647.1000 059088" In accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Raytheon Electronic Systems is requesting an extension of funding for the period of 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 for the Riverside/Corona to El Segundo Commuter Buspoof. The monthly fare for this route is $160 per employee. in addition to the $25 subsidy offered by RCTC, Raytheon employees receive a company subsidy of $21 per month for using mass transit. Ridership on the Riverside/Corona buspool has averaged 40 passengers per month over the last 12 month period. Schedule AM Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival PM Arrival Galieria at Tyler Corona Park & Ride Lot Raytheon, El Segundo Raytheon, El Segundo Corona Park & Ride Lot Galleria at Tyler 4:15 a.m. 4:30 a.m. 5:30 am. 3.00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. 5:00 p.m. Tourcoach, the service provider, has coaches available to accommodate the physically challenged if required. The Raytheon Commuter Services Office regularly markets rideshare information to our employees, including buspools and vanpools. Employees receive this information though direct mailings, newsletter articles, and electronic messaging. In addition, we share resources with other local employee transportation coordinators through our association with industry groups such as ACT and Westchester/LAX i71MA. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Sincere) NIC SYSTEMS Ros - Farooq, A. ministrator Co ' muter Transportation Center Angela Abruscato, Riverside/Corona  El Segundo Bus Coordinator -OECMVEfi APR 0 5 2002 TRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSION 200 Raytheon 2 April 2002 Mr_ Edward Gonzalez Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Fax: 909-787-7920 Dear Mr. Gonzalez: Raytheon Company 2000 East El Segundo Boulevard PO Box 902 El Segundo, CA 90245-0902 310.647.1000 In accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Raytheon Electronic Systems is requesting an extension of funding for the period of 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 for the Moreno Valley to El Segundo Commuter Buspool_ The monthly fare for this route is $170 per employee. h addition to the $25 subsidy offered by RCTC, Raytheon employees receive a company subsidy of $21 per month for using mass transit. Ridership on the Moreno Valley/Corona buspool has averaged 40 passengers per month over the last 12 month period. Schedule AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival Moreno Valley Mall Raytheon, El Segundo Raytheon, El Segundo Moreno Valley Mall 4:00 a.m. 5:30 a. m_ 3:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. Tourcoach, the service provider, has coaches available to accommodate the physically challenged if required. The Raytheon Commuter Services Office regularly markets rideshare information to our employees, including buspools and vanpools. Employees receive this information though direct mailings, newsletter articles, and electronic messaging. In addition, we share resources with other local employee transportation coordinators through our association with industry groups such as ACT and Westchester/LAX TMA. Thank you for your continued support of this surri ssful buspool program. Farooq, i " trator Commuter Transportation Center NIC SYSTEMS CAO CP Dedrick Rems, Moreno Valley — El Segundo Bus Coordinator • • • 201 04/12/2002 FRI. 12:16 FAX 310 330 1208 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Zeal/poi • • HARLAN ALPERT Send correspondences to: Harlan Alpert At: Aerospace Corporation PC/ Box 92957 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957 MS: M2/345 April 12, 2002 Attn.: Edward Gonzalez, Staff Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave, Suite 100 Riverside, CA. 92501 Dear Mt Gonzalez In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I am requesting an extension of funding for the period. of July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 for the Mira Loma/Corona to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. I am the buspool captain and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. The monthly cost to operate this buspool from Tourcoach is $165 per rider_ RCTC provides a $25 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining $140 is provided between the riders and their employers_ Ridership on this buspool has averaged 41 passengers since it started in August 200I. The following is this buspool's schedule: Schedule AIVL Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival PM Arrival Mira Lorna Corona Park & Ride Lot El Segundo El Segundo Corona Park & Ride Lot Mira Loma 4;15 a.m. 4:30 a.m. 5.30 a.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. 4:45 p.m. Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Boeing Satellite Systems, Raytheon, Aerospace and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles and electronic messaging from these employers_ These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators_ Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Harlan Alpert Mira Loma/Corona to El Segundo Buspool Captain 202 AGENDA ITEM 7R • • " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Reprogramming of Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Funds PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve reprogramming of TEA funds in the amount of $572,000 by spreading the funds evenly amongst 23 projects approved in the last TEA call for projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Palm Desert has notified us that they are unable to construct a project that was approved for TEA funding in the amount of $572,000 due to a much larger capital project being planned at the same location. Therefore, staff brought this item to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for discussion and recommendation on how to reprogram the funds. The TAC recommended reprogramming the $572,000 by spreading the amount evenly amongst all of the projects that were funded in the last call for projects approved by the Commission on January 12, 2000. Each of the local agencies were required to provide additional local match for their approved TEA project as part of the Commission's action to fund as many projects as possible. The reprogramming will help decrease that additional local match requirement. In addition, reprogramming the funds to current projects will help the delivery of projects and meet AB 1012 "Use It or Lose It" requirements. The distribution of the $572,000 resulted in each project receiving approximately $25,000 in additional funds with the exception of two projects (Calimesa and Corona's 91 /Main St). These two projects received less due to the need to maintain a minimum local match of 11.47% as required under federal guidance. The attached spreadsheet lists the adjusted project programming. Attachment: Riverside County TEA Funded Projects (TEA 21) 203 " " " RWerside Count TEA Funded Y Report Print Date Summary Information: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 Total Number of Pro ects TEA21 J is )���� r. Programmed Am ount: $13,383,995 '`" +ver Fr deCo,,,,ey m nrpo ,-t a i un Commission RTIP Lump Sum PPNO#: RIV62046 Total Projects: 23 2001 RTIP Sheet #: LOCAL 61 Lead ID# Agency Project Type f , .�� ���� ..,,. i., �� .,;..r, st.r ��k .v��i1:5!����'e.Ss.L:Svu��s .��a��������t��Lk::sr ��w?��;��`e��` .,..�� .. Local Project Summary Information Project Description -i .i. .. ,;-` .. .. , .6 , ��.. "k.3.�� . .; ,r ��, ", �� .�� ,;., �� ��   r ��,���� ,. a 'k .,. , ,. .t . s: ..+ .,._ ..r . ... sr , ,.. ��, -�� 4 .a,Y 9, . hv:.,:,�� .d` .w ..��:tv n��4'. .c " .��'����F:��v��;;�� .":;l����C?����`  ,'�� E. Hobsonway Pedestrian Impr ovements' Total Pre vi ous Adj usted Adjusted Match e " ta'SrkiE-a $48,429 . Adjusted Match L.1" s`, 19.37% Project Cost 's?" .2xrh.. wi tih'. r k+' '����'j ��. �� ��l �� $250,000 Program ed . Am Amo unt ��. 'S�� $176,000 Programed Amount r h1i. $201,571 .., r. .4 v r t tsl,.��.y. ��.. 815 ,.. 4 a,. ,. nr . ��. P ....��. ��'. . :. ..t��'.����,..... �� ,�� La����.,.i,a s��sla. Blythe 819 Calimesa Local 1-10 Fwy Landscaping, County Line Road - Singleton Road $300,000 $253,000 $265,590 $34,410 11 .47% 809 Cathedral City Local Ramon Road Corridor Improvements $831,000 $286,000 $311,571 $519,429 62 .51% 821 Corona Local Landscape Beautification at SR91/Main Street IC Ramps 8380,000 $314,000 $336,414 $43,586 11 .47% 820 Corona Local Main Street Scenic Corridor Beautification $871,000 $638,000 $663,571 $207,429 23.82% 802 Hemet Local State Street Multi -Use Bicycle & Pedestrian Path $798,000 $494,000 $519,571 $278,429 34 .89% 811 Indian Wells Local Deep Canyon Channel Crossing Bicycle Bridge $392,196 $312,000 $337,571 $54,625 13.93% 816 Indio Local Indio Boulevard Enhancements from Jefferson St to SR 111 - Landscaping and Sidewalks $1,830,000 $1,455,000 $1,480,571 $349,429 19.09% 822 Lake Elsinore Local Outlet Channel Pedestrian & Bicycle Corridor (Graham Ave to Summer Ave) $527,800 $412,000 $437,571 $90,229 17.10% 823 Moreno Valley Local Aqueduct Bike Trail $1,300,000 $1,000,000 $1,025,571 $274,429 21.11% 817 Murrieta Local Landscape/Beautification Murrieta Hot Springs Rd (From Madison Ave to 1-215 IC) $659,040 $555,000 $580,571 $78,469 11.91% 808 Norco Local Santa Ana River Trail -Missing Link/Norco $500,000 $405,000 $430,571 $69,429 13.89% 812 Palm Springs Local Gene Autry Trail/Ramon Road Median Islands Landscaping $629,000 $496,000 $521,571 $107,429 17.08% 813 Perris Local Restoration of Historic Sante Fe Railroad Depot $431,000 $341,000 $366,571 $64,429 14.95% 803 Rancho M irage Local Hwy 111 Meandering Bikepath & Landscaping $510,600 $316,000 $341,571 $169,029 33.10% 814 Rancho Mirage Local Hwy 111 Median Islands Landscaping & Beautification $765,000 $328,000 $353,571 $411,429 53.78% 818 Riverside Local Historic Victoria Parkway Resoration Project $1,000,000 $486,000 $511,571 $488,429 48.84% 824 Riverside Local SR91 Fwy/Pierce Street IC Landscaping $400,000 $314,000 $339,571 $60,429 15.11% 806 Riverside Local University Ave Streetscape Enhancements $1,100,000 $476,000 $501,571 $598,429 54.40% 810 Riverside County Local I-10/Monterey & Washington IC Landscaping & Beautification $831,000 $682,000 $707,571 $123,429 14.85 % 804 Riverside County Local SR60 & 1-15 IC Landscaping & Scenic Beautification $2,574,000 $1,595,000 $1,620,571 $953,429 37 .04 % 807 San Jacinto Local State Street Sidewalk Improvements $350,000 $264,000 $289,571 $60,429 17.27% 825 Temecula Local Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail $1,500,000 $1,214,000 $1,239,571 $260,429 17.36% Tota l Numbe r of TEA21 TEA Projects: 23 $13,383,995 N O Note. The adjusted programming amounts reflect the removal of Palm Desert's 1-10/Monterey Ave. TEA Project ($572,000) and distributed among ail projects. Calimesa and Corona 91/Main Street kept at 11.47% match. " AGENDA ITEM 7S " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Update on the Zero Emission Mobile Industrial Equipment (ZEMIE) Project PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Riverside County Economic Development Agency / Southern California Edison ZEMIE Project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June 1999, RCTC awarded $466,000 in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) and Southern California Edison (SCE). The funds were for a "zero emission mobile industrial equipment" (ZEMIE) buy -down grant program to pay for the incremental cost of electric forklifts, sweepers, tow tractors and other mobile industrial equipment. When EDA/SCE attempted to obligate the funds, the eligibility of the project was questioned by FHWA. After a 30 -month appeal process that included Congressman Baca, United States Department of Transportation Secretary Mineta ruled that the forklifts part of the project was ineligible, but suggested that electrified idling of medium and heavy duty on -road trucks or their trailers be explored as a ZEMIE project. RCTC staff is conducting discussions with Caltrans, FHWA, EDA and SCE to determine the feasibility of a timely electrification project, including identification of possible sites. EDA and SCE remain interested in seeking these sites. Given AB 1012 "Use it or Lose it" provisions, we need assurances the funds can be implemented in a timely manner. We have requested that EDA and SCE identify partners (e.g., refrigerated distribution centers or truck stops) in Western Riverside County that are willing and able to take advantage of the ZEMIE project. We have given EDA/SCE a 45 day timeframe to identify these partners. At the July Commission meeting we will report on the project status and either request approval of the modified ZEMIE program or request to reallocate the funds. 205 " AGENDA ITEM 7T " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Supplemental Cost Increase for State Route 60  Valley Way to University Avenue BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adjust unprogrammed Western County Regional Improvement Program fund balances subject to California Transportation Commission (CTC) action in June 2002; and, 2) Receive and file this staff report and supplemental cost increase for the SR 60 Valley Way to University Avenue project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Under SB 45 the California Transportation Commission established a process whereby projects programmed by regional agencies such as the RCTC and delivered by Caltrans would have a process to follow in completing the project and closing out the contract. This process is identified in the CTC State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Guidelines. Under the guidelines, once a project is "voted" by CTC any cost increases due to change orders and contractor claims is generally addressed through the provision of additional funds under CTC Resolution G12 which can provide a maximum of $200,000 plus 10% of the voted share amounts. Any cost increases over the G12 funding limitation is to be "shared" on the basis of how the agencies (either Caltrans or RCTC) may have proportionally funded the project. This type of request is called a Supplemental Fund Request. The one thing of note is while the request is initiated by Caltrans and can impact RCTC STIP funding shares, it does not require the approval of the RCTC. This is simply a contract close out procedure and while this experience has a direct financial impact, CTC, at the time of implementing SB 45, had to develop a process which determines how additional funds, if necessary, would be provided for a project. 209 There are several projects where RCTC and Caltrans have combined resources to program projects for delivery. Attached is a Supplemental Fund Request for the SR 60 Valley Way to University Avenue project. This project has exhausted the G12 funding ($3.148 million was previously approved by CTC for the project) and Caltrans as lead agency for delivering this project had several contractors working on the project at the same time. In addition, Caltrans had issues related to the design of the project. The reason for two contractors on the project is related to the structure/bridge work being split out as a seismic retrofit project and the roadway work for the addition of four lanes being carried out as a separate contract. The bottom line is that while this request is for a total of $1.5 million of funds ($1.2 million RCTC Regional Improvement Program funds; $300,000 of Caltrans SHOPP funds). It is expected that finalization of the claims and change orders will take time and when resolved will likely have a further impact on reducing unprogrammed Western County Regional Improvement Program funds. For your information the RCTC has $80.767 million of unprogrammed Western County Formula funds which are committed to the last segment of SR 91 Mary Street to Seventh Street (HOV lane) project. This action as proposed by Caltrans will reduce that commitment to $79.767 million with the expectation that there will be additional costs for the SR 60 project to come forward when settlement is reached with the contractors. It is anticipated that this Supplemental Fund Request for $1.5 million will be voted by CTC at their June 2002 meeting. Attachments: Supplemental Fund Request from Garry Cohoe dated March 20, 2002 Notice of Potential Claims List and Protested/Pending CCOs • • • 210 " " - State -of. California Memorandum MR. R. TERRY Program Manager, Budgets ATTENTION Ms. Deanna Ofoe From : Department of Transportation District 08 Subject : Request for Supplemental Vote This Supplemental Fund Request exceeds G-12 limits and will require a CTC allocation. It is recommended that $1,200,000 in supplemental funds be allocated from the 1996/97 Fiscal Year HB5/FCR (20.20.075.451) HOV Facilities Program, and that $300,000 in supplemental funds be allocated from the 1996/97 Fiscal Year HA22/RAS (20.20.201.120) Roadway Rehabilitation Program for the following Major project: 058036 Business, Transportation and Housing Authority 146 Date: March 20, 2002 File: 08-Riv-60- R6.7/12.2(PM) 08-Riv-215- 41.5/43.3(PM) 08-4632V4 1996/97 FY HB5/FCR Major HA22/RAS Major P.P. No. 38A Co -Rte -PM 08-Riv-60-R6.7/12.2(PM) 08-Riv-215-41.5/43.3(PM) 08-4632V4 (08-463221, 08-466821 and 08-424101) CTC Vote July 9,1997 G-12 Major 97-632 (SHOPP) G-12 Major 97-633 (STIP) Contract Allocation G-12 Major 99-595 G-12 Major 00-487 New Total Estimated Final Expenditure Deficit Description in and Near Riverside on Route 60 from 0.3 mile west of Valley Way Undercrossing to Route 215 Interchange and on Route 215 from Route 60 Interchange to University Avenue Undercrossing Widening, rehabilitation, soundwalls and retaining walls STIP $25,734,000 - 1,708,000 $24,026,000 2,500,000 648,000 $27,174,000 $28,374,000 $ 1,200,000 SHOPP Total $5,843,000 $31,577,000 - 389,000 - 389,000 - 1,708,000 $5,454,000 $29,480,000 2,500,000 648,000 5,454,000 $32,628,000 $5,754,000 $34,128,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000 211 MR. R. TERRY ATTENTION Ms. Deanna Ofoe Page 2 The construction contract was awarded December 18, 1997 and is federally funded: ACNHI-215-1(200) 99N, ACNH-P060 (101)N. The contract is 99% complete. The supplemental funds are required in order to resolve several Notices of Potential Claims (NOPC) the most expensive of which were delays and conflicts with an adjoining contract ($1,200,000) as shown on attachment. Several contract change orders were required due to differing site conditions and work was added for a median extension, including an increase in the number of concrete slabs replaced, increased landscaping work, extending soundwalls and other related costs. Copies of the G-12 Majors (97-632, 97-633, 99-595 and 00-487,) a copy of the Request for Additional Funds from the District Construction Branch and a Supplemental Vote Fact Sheet are all attached for your reference. The District recommends approval of this request for $1,500,000 to allow payment to the contractor in order to avoid future escalated claims with unnecessary additional cost of interest and other fees. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has been informed that the STIP portion of this request ($1,200,000) will be funded from their STIP share balance. This request of $1,500,000 is based on resolving several NOPCs that have been justified by audit or have been determined to have entitlement. An additional supplemental vote may be necessary in the future, in the event that an arbitration settlement awards additional compensation to the Contractor. It is further recommended that the Commission be requested to vote these funds at the May 2002 meeting. /S/ GARRY COHOE GARRY COHOE Deputy District Director Program/Project Management SLH:mc Attachments 1. Construction Branch Memo 2. Supplemental Vote Fact Sheet 3. G-12 Majors 97-632,633, 99-595 & 00-487 • • • 212 " State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Memorandum To JOE FEHRENKAMP District 08 - Program Management From Subject : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 08 - Construction Jabra Kawwa, Resident Engineer Request for Additional Funds Date March 20, 2002 File No.: 08-Riv-60, 215-R6.7/12.2, 41.5/43.3 08-4632V4 ACNHI-215-1(200) 99N, ACNH-P060(101)N Near Riverside on Rte 60 from Valley Way to Rte 215 and on Rte 215 from Rte 60 to University Ave. (Widening, Rehabilitate) Supplemental funds in the amount of $1,500,000.00 are requested for the above referenced project. Following are the details supporting this request: Financial Status of Contract Description Present Project Allotment Estimated Final Expenditures Contract Items $27,156,156.85 $27,414,085.08 Supplemental Work and Contingencies $4,792,743.15 $6,016,976.41 State Furnished Materials and Expense $679,100.00 $679,100.00 Total Authorized $32,628,000.00 $34,110,161.49 Estimated Deficit **$1,482,161.49 Call (Total Funds Request) * $1,500,000.00 * $1,200,000.00 for STIP and $300,000.00 for SHOPP **Total Needed Contingency Balance Amount Requested = $2,475,000.00 _ - $992,838.51 = $1,482,161.49 Justification for Request The increases for this contract are for resolving several Notices of Potential Claims (NOPC) that either have been justified by audit or have been determined to have entitlement (see attachment). The costliest NOPC resulted from delays and conflicts with an adjoining contract. The estimated value of this NOPC is $1,200,000.00. 213 Joe Fehrenkamp March 20, 2002 Page 2 Additional monies were spent for the construction of west end median extension (CCO #60), extending sound walls, replacing additional existing damaged PCCP slabs, changes in landscape and irrigation system and other associated costs. The discrepancy.between the contract plans and site conditions resulted in several number of contract change orders (CCO). Some of the CCO are being protested by the contractor and expected to cost much more than originally anticipated due to actual field conditions. The Resident Engineer, Designers, Maintenance and District Safety Review Committee requested the CCO with the concurrence of the Senior Construction Engineer, the Project Manager, Designers, Headquarters, Federal Highway Administration and others as needed. Without these CCO, the originally planned work could not have been completed as scoped. It is requested that the additional funds be provided as soon as possible to allow proper payments to the contractor in order to avoid future escalated claims with unnecessary additional cost of interests and other fees. Your expeditious handling of this request is appreciated. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (909) 275-0105 or Ashraf Mohamed at (909) 682-6385. Jabra Kawwa Resident Engineer Concurred by Ashraf Mohamed Senior Construction Engineer Attachment: Notice of Potential Claims List and Protested/Pending CCOs cc: Robert Pieplow Chuck Suszko Doug Saathoff Mike Perovich Bryce Johnston Alex Daouk David Thomas Fred Asef • • • 214 Notice Of Potential Claims List And Protested/Pending CCOs ** 08-4632V4 # Description * Estimated Value STIP SHOPP Date Received] 1 . Conflict with Other Contract Work $1,200,000.00 $976,320.00 $223.680.00 04-02-98 2 Approach Slab Work Conflict No Merit 04-06-98 3 4 Shoulder Strengthening Work Conflict No Merit 04-06-98 Clear & Grub Terri ora Easement " "-`=_ "`� r `� esofJeil' 5 CIDH Piles @ SW 363 Differing ��Resolveir „, �a;;Resolved T k': 05x2&-98 == - Site Condition No Merit 07-01-98 6 CIDH Piles @ SW 612 - Differing Site Condition No Merit 7 K -rail & Gawk Screen: u `Uet icl mss Openi 06-24-98 3 Resoliied:fY, X09=-t1�98: 8 Existing ='Sign t& J ., esoIvedif,-$1*25=.98% 9 : Sign K Foundation:: .-. • . eso►ve`d (�., 10 Fiber Optic Splice Vaults ' $50,000.00 • : � $9 320.00 . 12 16 98 11: 2-Feet-Grindin & ShdtIderStren a !n' ,>-. - -'16 8 -. 12 Buried e`5Ogiti24.00 0241 ' Man -Made Object (CTB) $35,000.00 $28,476.00 $6,524.00 04-15-99 13 Class 2 Aggregate Sub -base a9 Median No Merit ,14 G-2`Inlet @ Sp uee Apprarp7t: Slab - - acv esblved; e�6tued X04-15-99 06- 15 Profilographing & Grinding No Merit 99 06-21-99 16 PCCP Cracks Repair No Merit 1 10-01-99 17 Dowels Between Lanes - Differing Site Condition No Merit 01-21-00 18 Differing Site Condition @ Wall 415 CIDH Holes No Merit 04-05-00 19 CTB - Buried MM Object @ Shoulder No Merit 03-09-00 20 21 Roadway Excavation Differing Site Condition Due to Boulders $30,000.00 $24,408.00 $5,592.00 05-04-00 Differing Site Condition @ SW #421 No Merit 05-11-00 22 Decomposed Granite 2 East End No Merit 05-05-00 23 Differing Site Condition - Boulders SW #438 No Merit 06-01-00 24 A.C. Dike Removal @ Wall 415 "AFR" No Merit 08-30-00 25 LJ Const - Delay Cost (See NPC #11 No Merit 10-05-00 26 SW 466 CCO - Added Costs & Delays $100,000.00 $81,360.00 $18,640.00 06-01-00 27 Ret: Wall # 688', -at M- OOl y and{Ctia`n'ges R 6 " „ ` ' es°(ited .- . Reso`t�ied 28 PCCP Slab Replacement - Cure Time No Merit 1-20-00 12-20-00 29 _ Delay Due to Functional Testing No Merit 02-13-01 30 PCC Pavement Thickness - Deduction Taken No Merit 03-01-01 31' Joint Sealing at Chicago:Badge & 44ResolvedV �E2esorved Resolved "x03-0;61 32 Repair of Existing Bridge Joint No Merit 03- 33 Refinish Bridge Deck - Verbal Shutdown No Merit -01 03-14-01 34 Roadside Clearing and Final Clean Up No Meet 03-14-01 35 Contract Item 97 Quantity No Merit 03-16-01 36 Item 65 - Erosion Control Quantity, 5150b 000.00 $122040.00 $27,960_00 03-13-01 37 Item 106 - Change Joint Type.A"to B @ Spruce ' , atResolved• aResoived - Resolved ;y .0323'0.1; i38 Item 106 - Joint Seal "A":Change in.Character ,--_--Ii .'... Res:OWed esotved ; iL:Resotved 39 Item 97 - Clean Bridge Joint - Change in Character No Merit .� .,03-23-010 03-22-01 40 Removal of Traffic Stripe No Merit 05-10 41 Unmarked Storm Drain atBlaineSt � ; n z �,`. - �• ;;; � , Resirlved � r_. ��---_ •.. Resolved � Resolved 7:-.2 01 :05-�10-0-1= 42 Adjustment of Compensation CCO #54 .. - $1007 000.00 $81,360.00 $18,640.00 05-10-01 43 g4 ,'".<Y� # , ..,_ ,. - : .� Rescinded;, e ,•_.,. �aResctnded 3 s'.Rescinded - 'r: :,„;. 44 Traffic Control for Connector Closure $100.000.00 $81,360.00 $18,640.00 07-30-01 45 Removal of Existing Thermoplastic Striping $100,000.00 - $81,360.00 $18.640.00 07-30-01 46 SWPPP Clean Up in Summer- of. 2000' = <ReoWJ Resolved ;Resolved t 07-30-01,. 47 Additional Work for SWPPP Cleari`Up for _10-05 01 -->=Resolved tg Resolved 1 'Resolved .':;'.07-31'-01': 48 Phoneline for Landscaping $10,000.00 $8,136.00 $1,864.00 08-27-01 49 Deficiencies to the Overhead Signs 5150,000.00 $122,040.00 $27,960.00 01-11-02 50 "" Delay in Acceptance? $200,000.00 $162,720.00 $37,280.00 01-24-02 Protested/Pending CCOs $250 000.00 $203,400.00 $46,600.00 1 TOTAL $2,475,000.00 $2,013,660.00 $461,340.00 contractor's submittals and justifications. 215 " AGENDA ITEM 7V " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the following bill positions: No Position - SCA 5 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) as amended 2/13/02. Oppose - SB 1827 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) as introduced 2/22/02. Oppose Unless Amended - SB 1856 (Costa, D -Fresno) et al) as introduced 2/22/02. Support - AB 2098 (Bates, R -Laguna Niguel) as introduced 2/19/02 AB 2476 (Pacheco, R -Riverside) as introduced 2/21/02; 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update The last day for policy committees to report fiscal bills out of the policy committee of the house of origin is April 26, 2002. With this deadline, there has been a flurry of activity to move bills through this step of the legislative process. The budget and the $17.5 billion deficit continues to receive most of the attention from legislators with a strong undercurrent of concern of how the deficit will impact any legislation that has fiscal consequences. There has been little in the way of transportation policy legislation with the exception of SB 1262 (Torlakson), the bill requiring a minimum 10% set -aside of transportation Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds for a transit -oriented development and housing incentives program, and the bills referenced above for position consideration. SB 1262 passed out of the Senate Transportation Committee on April 2, 2002 on an 8-3 vote with 8 votes being the minimum to move the bill out of committee and on to Senate Appropriations Committee. 217 Also the Committee will recall two bills introduced that proposed to clarify the diesel fuel tax exemption as it relates to the definition of farming activities in the event that the BOE approved proposed regulation 1533.2. The bills are AB 2809 (Longville) and SB 10xxx (Sher). The bills are no longer being considered since the transit community and food processing industry reached an agreement and the BOE adopted the proposed regulation as agreed to by the two parties. Staff has analyzed and recommends the following bill positions for approval: SCA 5 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) - This measure is a Senate Constitutional Amendment that would place before California voters the ability to adopt a local option sales tax for transportation projects with a minimum of 25% of the revenues for smart -growth planning and development with a simple majority (50% + 1) vote. Staff recommends: NO POSITION. The staff analysis is attached. SB 1827 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) - Senate Bill 1827 redirects a portion of AB 2766 Air District fee revenues to implement a free bus pass pilot project in the South Coast AQMD by redirecting a portion of the AB 2766 vehicle registration fees to a small Los Angeles County public transit system for the purpose of establishing a free bus pass program. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The bill analysis is attached. SB 1856 (Costa, D -Fresno, et al) - This bill enacts the High -Speed Passenger Train Bond Act, which, subject to voter approval, would provide for the issuance of $6 billion of general obligation bonds to be used for the purpose of funding the planning and construction of a high-speed train system. Staff recommends: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED. The staff analysis is attached. AB 2098 (Bates, R -Laguna Niguel) - The purpose of this legislation is to conform California law to federal requirements related to repeat drunk driving offenders in order to permit flexibility in using federal highway funding. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. AB 2476 (Pacheco, R -Riverside) - This measure grants the Department of Housing and Community Development flexibility in awarding grants within the existing Jobs - Housing Balance Improvement Program. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. Federal Update Appropriations requests were due in the Transportation Appropriations Committee Chairmen's offices March 28, 2002 in the House and April 17, 2002 for the Senate. Staff will report back on those requests as information becomes available. • • 218 " " " The two Highway Funding Restoration Acts (S 1917 and HR 3694) are bipartisan bills that continue to garner veto proof support. As introduced, the measure restores the highway program from the $23.3 billion level of the president's budget to $27.7 billion, the FY 2003 level of highway authorizations found in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21' Century (TEA 21). While the Senate is considering going beyond the $27.7 billion level of restoration, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R -Alaska) is committed to not exceeding the $27.7 billion as part of an agreement worked out with the House's budget and appropriations leaders. Attachments: SCA 5 (Torlakson) - Bill Analysis SB 1827 (Torlakson) - Bill Analysis SB 1856 (Costa) - Bill Analysis AB 2098 (Bates) - Bill Analysis AB 2476 (Pacheco) - Bill Analysis Legislative Matrix 219 " " " Date of Analysis: April 9, 2002 Bill Number/Author: SCA 5 (Tom Torlakson, D -Antioch) As amended February 13, 2002 Subject: Set a simple majority vote requirement for local sales tax measures for transportation with a minimum 25% set -aside of revenues for smart growth planning and construction. Status: Introduced May 15, 2001 Amended February 13, 2002 Summary: The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax, such as transportation sales tax measures like Measure A or I, by a city, county, or special district upon the approval of 2/3of the voters of the city, county, or special district voting on that tax. SCA 5 as amended, places before California voters the ability to authorize a city, county, or the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the bay area, to impose a special tax to fund transportation projects and smart growth planning with a simple majority vote of the voters of the local jurisdiction. As a Senate Constitutional Amendment this bill must be approved by 2/3 of the membership of each house and approved by the voters of the State of California. Staff Comments: In its' introduced form, SCA 5 was a vehicle to reduce the super majority 2/3 - vote requirement for approval of transportation sales taxes to a simple majority. The proposal was identical to SCA 3 (Burton) from the last legislative session that was supported by both RCTC and SANBAG. SANBAG had taken a support if amended position on introduced version of SCA 5 with the amendment being changing the local vote threshold to a 55% majority. The author has since amended the bill to require that local sales tax measures approved under this constitutional provision would be required to set -aside 25% of the revenues for "smart -growth" planning and development. The amended bill retains the simple majority vote threshold. In Tight of the significant change in the bill to require 25% of the revenues be used for something other than transportation programs, thus limiting local control and specifically our ability to fund transportation projects that the 220 SANBAG Board and County voters deem necessary, staff recommends removing the qualified support for the bill and taking NO POSITION. Staff Recommendation: NO POSITION • • • 221 " " Date of Analysis: April 9, 2002 Bill Number/Author: SB 1827 (Tom Torlakson, D -Antioch) As introduced February 22, 2002 Subject: Demonstration project to fund free bus pass program from motor vehicle registration fees currently allocated to clean air programs by air districts and related entities. Status: Introduced February 22, 2002 Summary: Existing law permits any air quality management district or air pollution control district, except the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, that has been designated by the State Air Resources Board as a nonattainment area for any pollutant emitted by motor vehicles to levy a fee on motor vehicles registered in the district, and requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to collect, upon the request of a district, those fees upon renewal of the registration of any motor vehicle subject to the air pollution control laws of the state. The districts are required to use the motor vehicle registration fee revenues to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles, and for related planning, monitoring, enforcement, and technical studies to implement the California Clean Air Act of 1988. Existing law requires those motor vehicle fee revenues generated in the Air Quality Management Districts to be subvened to the district and used for specified purposes, including the implementation of ridesharing programs, purchase and lease of clean fuel buses for school districts and transit operators, provision of transportation services to rail and ferry stations and airports, implementation of local arterial traffic management, implementation of low -emission and zero -emission vehicle and smoking vehicleprograms, automobile buyback programs, and other specified emission -reduction programs. This bill would require Air Quality Management Districts, on January 1, 2003, or as soon as practicable thereafter, to provide fee revenues in an amount determined by each applicable district to specified small public transit systems, as defined, within their jurisdiction. The bill would also require the South Coast Air Quality Management District to provide fee revenues, in an amount determined by that district, to a small public transit system in Los Angeles County determined by the district. By imposing additional duties on specified districts, this bill would impose a state - mandated local program. Staff Comments: 222 Senate Bill 1827 redirects a portion of AB 2766 Air District fee revenues to implement a free bus pass pilot project in the South Coast AQMD by redirecting a portion of the AB 2766 vehicle registration fees to a small Los Angeles County public transit system for the purpose of establishing a free bus pass program. AB 2766 (Health & Safety Code Sections 44240-44247) stipulates that the $4 registration fee collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles be distributed as follows: • Thirty cents of every dollar shall be used by the AQMD for planning, monitoring, enforcement and technical studies that are authorized by, or necessary to implement, the California Clean Air Act; • Forty cents of every dollar shall be distributed by the AQMD to cities and counties located in the South Coast District to be used to reduce motor vehicle air pollution; and; • Thirty cents of every dollar shall be deposited by the AQMD in a discretionary account (the "Discretionary Fund") to be used to implement programs that reduce motor vehicle air pollution. To determine which projects should be funded by the Discretionary Fund, AB 2766 created the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee consisting of membership from the SCAQMD, county transportation commissions (including SANBAG and RCTC), the regional rideshare agency, and the regional transportation planning agency. The MSRC develops an annual work program, evaluates candidate air pollution reduction projects, and makes a final recommendation to the AQMD Governing Board as to which programs and/or projects should receive Discretionary Funds. The MSRC has provided considerable financial support to public transit agencies since its inception in 1990. This has been accomplished on a regional basis, ensuring small public transit agencies in each of the four counties that comprise the South Coast AQMD are treated equitably. SB 1827 appears to favor small transit operators in only Los Angeles County Finally, staff is concerned that Senate Bill 1827, if enacted, could potentially reduce the ability to fund other cost-effective air pollution reduction strategies. Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE • • 223 " " " Date of Analysis: April 9, 2002 Bill Number/Author: SB 1856 (Jim Costa, D -Fresno, et al.) As introduced February 22, 2002 Subject: Enacts the High Speed Rail Bond Act for the purpose of funding the planning and construction of a high-speed rail system. Status: Introduced February 22, 2002 Summary: Existing law creates the High -Speed Rail Authority with the responsibility of directing the development and implementation of intercity high-speed rail service. This bill would enact the High -Speed Passenger Train Bond Act of 2002, which, subject to voter approval, would provide for the issuance of an unspecified amount of general obligation bonds, the proceeds of which would be used for the purpose of funding planning and construction of a high-speed train system in this state pursuant to the business plan of the authority. The bill would provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters in accordance with specified law. Staff Comments: According to the High -Speed Rail Authority's adopted business plan, the total cost of the statewide high-speed rail system is estimated in today's dollars at $25 billion. The Statewide system stretches from Sacramento to the Bay Area, south through the central valley to Los Angeles, then inland to Ontario Airport and south through the Temecula Valley to San Diego. SB 1856 currently cites an unspecified amount in general obligation bond issuance to fund the project. Staff has learned that it is the author's intent to amend the bill to set the amount of GO bond issuance at- $6 billion and with that funding the High -Speed Rail Authority would move forward with what they call Segment 1 of the system which stretches from San Jose to Los Angeles Union Station. The problem here is that Segment 1 costs are estimated at $12 billion for planning, construction, vehicles, and support costs so the GO bond issuance only would fund half the costs. To ensure completion of Segment 1, the other $6 billion is necessary, placing extreme 224 pressure on decision -makers to identify sources of revenue for the project outside the bond financing mechanism, including general purpose transportation funds. If amended as expected by staff, the bond act would fund only half the estimated cost of the first segment of the high-speed rail network that does not extend to the Inland Empire. It is highly unlikely that California voters will approve a measure that funds half a segment of a high-speed rail system that has only limited statewide benefit, particularly if arguments are made that other transportation dollars may be at risk to fund the half of the first segment of the project not covered by the GO bond issue. So unless the bill is amended to address the variety of concerns cited above, staff recommends an oppose position. However, if the following amendments are incorporated into the bill staff would suggest removing the opposition. 1. The high-speed rail system shall be constructed as a single project as proposed by the High -Speed Rail Authority adopted business plan which includes segments through San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. This ensures that the High -Speed Rail Authority will realize adequate revenues to cover anticipated operational costs. This amendment will also allow a GO ballot measure to garner the state- wide support necessary for passage. 2. The bill should guarantee that general transportation dollars, including State Transportation Improvement Program, State Transit Assistance, Proposition 42 Sale tax on gasoline revenues, and Federal formula funds not be used to fund any part of the high-speed rail system including operations costs. Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED • • • 225 " " " Date of Analysis: April 9, 2002 Bill Number/Author: AB 2098 (Patricia Bates, R -Laguna Niguel) As introduced February 19, 2002 Subject: Conforms California law to federal requirements in order to permit flexibility in using federal highway funding. Status: Introduced February 19, 2002 Summary: Existing law requires that if any person is convicted of driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug and the offense occurred within 7 years of a separate violation of specified provisions relating to driving under the influence, which resulted in a conviction, that person be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 90 days nor more than one year and by a fine of not Tess $390 nor more than $1,000. The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle is also required to be suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles. If any person is convicted of driving under the influence and the offense occurred within 7 years of 2 separate violations of provisions relating to driving under the influence, which resulted in convictions, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine of not less than $390 nor more than $1,000. The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle is also required to be revoked, as specified. Under existing law, whenever a person is convicted of any specified provisions committed while driving a motor vehicle of which he or she is the owner, the court, at the time sentence is imposed on the person, is authorized to order the motor vehicle impounded for a period of not more than 6 months for a first conviction, and not more than 12 months for a 2nd or subsequent conviction. This bill would require that, for the above violations relating to driving under the influence, the person also be punished by the impoundment of his or her motor vehicle and receive an assessment regarding his or her alcohol abuse and, if applicable, treatment as determined by the court. Staff Comments: The federal statute regarding repeat drunk driving offenders requires each state to enact and enforce a law that provides that any individual convicted 226 of a second or subsequent offense for driving under the influence or while intoxicated to be subject to four penalties. California law meets the first (one year driver's license suspension) and fourth (30 days of community service or 5 days of imprisonment) requirements. This bill would clarify that repeat offenders are to receive an assessment regarding his or her alcohol abuse and treatment as determined by the court (the third requirement), and would make impoundment of the offender's vehicle mandatory, rather than permissive (the second requirement). As a result, this bill would amend the applicable California laws to comply with the second and third provisions of the federal repeat offenders statute in order to permit maximum federal highway funding flexibility. California is currently being penalized for noncompliance with the federal repeat offenders requirements. This penalty requires that 1.5% of the state's apportionments and associated obligation authority for the federal highway system, surface transportation, and interstate maintenance programs be -transferred to the state's safety program. Under federal law, this penalty will increase to 3% beginning October 1, 2002, and potentially could be over $45 million. These funds would have been available for maintenance, reconstruction, and certain additions to the interstate system, which includes all freeways throughout the state. Without the transfer of these penalty funds, more federal highways funds potentially would have been available for interstate maintenance or even regional transportation projects through the STIP. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT • • 227 " " " Date of Analysis: April 15, 2002 Bill Number/Author: AB 2476 (Rod Pacheco, R -Riverside) As introduced February 21, 2002 Subject: State Grant Funding for Jobs -to -Housing Studies Status: Introduced February 21, 2002 Assembly Transportation Hearing  April 22, 2002 Summary: Existing law, the Budget Act of 2000, provides for a transfer of $10,000,000 by the Controller from the General Fund to the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, and requires $5,000,000 of that amount to be distributed for collaborative work by a county, in partnership with certain governmental entities, to mitigate interregional impacts of substantial imbalances of jobs and housing. This bill would authorize the Department of Housing and Community Development, in accordance with provisions in the Budget Act of 2002, or a subsequent Budget Act, that are similar to the provision described above, to distribute funds for local, regional, or interregional studies that address interregional impacts relating to transportation systems, traffic congestion, and long commutes that result, in part, from the imbalance of jobs and housing. The bill would require those studies to focus on developing strategies to promote jobs -to -housing balance objectives. Staff Comments: The Inland Empire is projected to have the region's highest population growth over the next twenty years while Orange County is projected to create more jobs than it can fill with its' projected population growth. That means the workforce in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties will continue to commute to the jobs in Orange County resulting in increased congestion and traffic accidents. The 91 freeway is currently the only transportation corridor linking the two counties and is one of the most congested freeway in the United States. This measure grants the Department of Housing and Community Development flexibility in awarding grants within the existing Jobs -Housing Balance Improvement Program. AB 2476 will allow the Department to 228 consider inter -regional studies that address the imbalance of jobs and housing in awarding grant funds. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT • • • 229 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORT ATION COMMISSIOO AN BERN ARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS BILL WATCH 2002 - POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION " s �� ,, n��S-. ... ,,, , ,�� r ;.�� ,�� ",r f .. stir :r tey rY x M ,,.t x e S ., ��'. +"��?: - < ��' [�� - ., -`��'�� " o-'��:'����* ������;�� 'B ��, ��, +1 .:, ��" t;,w.. ��rr io ns �� . �� -�� .�� ,Y���� ;. : �� w �� .��z ��:.. �� .�� ', c 2��sv i 3 a ��i"��S �� �� $1 .._��. ,r�� " 7' .g ��s-'i[,��;+��r �� x ,���� ��F �� S,ora,.,��,��,. " r,��n.;, . �� .r" :<. - baetfeBoard _ .111 AB 227 (Dutra) AB 227 as introduced by Longville would extend indefinitely the period during which the Controller would be required to make the quarterly transfers from the General Fund to the TIF, and thereby would make an appropriation. Howe ver AB 227 has been amended to a non - transportation related activity and will be deleted from Bill Watch. N/A N/A SANBAG: 3/7/01 RCTC: 3/14/01 AB 381 (Papan) This bill would require that an unspecified percentage of the money in the account be available to the department for the purpose of providing incentives to local governments, local transit providers, private dev elopers and financial lenders for the citing and construction of transit -oriented and pedestrian -oriented development within one -quarter mile of an existing or planned transit station. Senate Housing and Community Development Comm. Hearing pending No positi on taken. AB 710 (Chavez) Existing law requires the DOT to develop contract specifications to conduct a statewide study of technically feasible and available cost- effective means to reduce 4- and 5 -a xle truck traffic from congested urban freeways during commute hours. This bill would delete the provisions of the existing law. This bill is dead. No position taken. AB 860 (Negrete- McLeod) " Spot Bill" that includes Legislative intent language to fund transportation projects that will mitigate the impacts of local traffic impacts caused by the construction of the Alameda Corridor. Died at Desk SUPPORT WITH AMEND MENTS SANB AG: 4/4/01 ROTC: 4/11/01 AB 1303 (Hollingsworth) This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature that alternative routes that may be used to travel from Riverside County to Orange County be evaluated and considered. Failed Asm . Trans, Died pursua nt to Art, IV Sec . 10 (c) No position taken. AB 1396 (Longville) This bill would create the Passenger Rail Improvement, Safety, and Modernization Program . Subaccount to the Public Transportation Account and appropriates $ 100,000,000 from the State General Fund to the subaccount to be used for commuter and light rail improvement, modernization and safety projects. Died pursuant to Art.IV Section 10(c) SUPPORT SANBAG: 4/4/01 RCTC: 4/11/01 F:\u sers\preprint\js\legmat.doc N 0 e g It b % .,, � !, i�"" : .. J + cpr Au i0 . s .,._ dz�r•i �' 1 r� "r �;i''D WI: 4 ` ,. ,�� �� � ;: phi_ . 5 Et a . .,' k: k4.. .... .`Y , .' �� ` •,a rn �r • . w :NI . ..fir . � akt_ 1a�u US .w Ps�ti Asa! � °. , a t R i ' nm o t00� it, AB 1587 (Pacheco) Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to improve and maintain the state highways . This bill, contingent upon an appropriation in the annual Budget Act for the purposes of the bill, would require the County of Riverside, in consultation with a steering committee comprised of representatives from Orange County, the Orange County Transportation Authority, the Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County, the City of Riverside, Riverside County Transportation Commission, the City of Corona, and Districts 8 and 12 of the department, to complete and submit to the Legislature, not later than July 1, 2003, a study and route alignment to develop and gain legislative approval for an alternative to the State Highway Route 91 transportation corridor from Riverside County to Orange County. The bill would require the study to address the issues of the jobs and housing balance in the area, the movement of goods and services, and environmental protections. Died pursuant to Art.IV Section 10(c) SUPPORT RCTC: 5/9/01 AB 2098 (Bates) The purpose of this legislation is to conform California law to federal requirements related to repeat drunk driving offenders in order to permit flexibility in using federal highway funding. Assembly Public Safety — Hearing 4/16/02 Recommended: SUPPORT AB 2476 (Pacheco ) This measure grants the Department of Housing and Community Development flexibility in awarding grants within the existing Jobs- Housing Balance Improvement Program. Assembly Housing and Community Dvlpmnt — Hearing 4/24/02 Recommended: SUPPORT SB 116 (Kuehl) This bill would prohibit a state or local agency from constructing, or approving the construction of any public road, or from making any improv ement to an existing road that substantially increases vehicular traffic capacity in or through any property under jurisdiction of the State Department of Parks and Recreation. Failed passage. Asm Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee OPPOSE SANB AG: 4/4/01 RCTC: 4/11/01 SB 171 (M cClintock) This bill would authorize a transportation gridlock emergency to be declared for the purpose of relieving traffic congestion on any highway or segment of highway for the DOT has determined that the average daily vehicle hours of delay, excluding weekends, exceeds 3,000 vehicle hours. Returned to Secretary of Senate No position taken. SB 790 (Karnette) This bill would specify that it is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that removes restrictions on county share advances from the State Transportation Improvement Program process to promote efficient use of transportation funding. Assembly Appropriations — Hearing pending No position taken. SB 910 (Dunn) This bill would prov ide that, in any action filed on or after January 1, 2002, challenging the validity of a housing element, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of nonvalidity of the element or amendment if the department has found that the element or amendment does not substantially comply. Assembly Local Gvt . — Hearing pending OPPOSE SANBAG: 5/2/01 RCTC: 4/11/01 F:\users\preprint\j s\legmat.doc N •W • • , . �, ,,, Legt,1 r � .:: .. .. .,,..ansb . e J�y ,, .v i �} � ,, , „r s� " Jf t M1 �xr����_ ' � A.Qt . •; e o ipti l r .. - a :i • r , i, ', i e�sclPt_iop� ry � M> "+Y�n �;4;vF9�f � u�e anf u?� � "i.� �.,. „ ".'� y, Ay ,. -�k ` ,t,y�. .. �� .: , .. . - .11 . - . , a � ..ie �� .1t t �� . art^t.', r,�; i �i ; �fJ1r ., ' 45— pa ,cl ��°. _ SB '1262 (Torlakson) This bill would provide for a county with more than 200,000 residents that not less than 10% of the funds available for regional impro vements shall be used for county transportation incentive programs that reward local jurisdictions that promote new development programs that reduce traffic congestion, provide a better balance of housing located near area employers, and promote new housing and other developments that are within walking distance of local schools, shops, and businesses . Senate Trans. Approve 8-3 Senate Appropriations 4/22/02 OPPOSE SANBAG: 3/6/02 RCTC: 3/13/02 SB '1827 (Torlakson) This bill would redirects a portion of AB 2766 Air District fee revenues to implement a free bus pass pilot project in the South Coast AQMD by redirecting a portion of the AB 2766 vehicle registration fees to a small Los Angeles County public transit system for the purpose of establishing a free bus pass program. Senate Transportation — 4/25/02 Recommended: OPPOSE SB 1856 (Costa) This bill enacts the High-speed Passenger Train Bond Act, which, subject to voter approval, would provide for the issuance of $6 billion of general obligation bonds to be used for the purpose of funding the planning and construction of a high-speed train system . Introduced February 22, 2002. Recommended: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED ACA 4 (Dutra, Longv ille) This measure would lock in, for transportation purposes, the dedication of the state's sales tax revenues collected at the gas pump that heretofore have accrued in the State General Fund . Proposition 42 approved by California voters 3/5/02 SUPPORT SANBAG: 5/2/01 RCTC: 5/9/01 ACA 9 (Dutra) Amended to a non -transportation related activity, provisions are now part of ACA 4. SUPPORT SANBAG: 5/2/01 RCTC: 5/9/01 ACR 81 Assembly Concurrent Resolution urging the California Department of Transportation, RCTC and OCTA to facilitate the establishment of an alternative transportation corridor between Riverside and Orange Counties. Senate Appropriations — Hearing date pending SUPPORT SANBAG: 7/11/01 RCTC: 7/11/01 SCA 5 Senate Constitutional Amendment to set a simple majority vote requirement for local transportation sales tax measures and require that 25% of revenues from sales tax measure approved under this constitutional prov ision be used for "smart -growth" planning and development. Senate Appropriations — Hearing date pending Recommended: Change to NO POSITION from SUPPORT SANBAG: 7/11/01 (with amendments) RCTC: 7/11/01 F:\users\preprint\j s\legmat.doc N " AGENDA ITEM 8 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Funding Adjustment for the State Route 74 Widening Project Between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve to increase the project budget for the State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris from $51,331,989 to $69,847,655. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Revised Budget The Measure "A" Strategic Plan includes improvements to SR 74, between 1-15 in the City of Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, a length of approximately 8.5 miles. The improvements will realign curves and widen the existing two (2) lane roadway to four (4) lanes with 8 foot shoulders and a continuous 14 foot paved median. The project is being designed in two segments. Segment 1 is from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road. Segment 11 is from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris. At its July 12, 2000 meeting, the Commission adopted a revised budget of $51.3 million for the SR 74 Measure "A" Project. At that time the budget was increased due to the additional cost to accelerate delivery and right-of-way costs related to environmental mitigation for the California Gnatcatcher, and inclusions of required acquisitions for temporary construction easements. The current project estimate is $69.8 million which reflects an estimated project cost increase of $18,515,666. The project increases are primarily due to additional right-of-way costs due to undertaking the project during a period of rising land values and an increase in the number of parcels requiring relocation. The number of estimated relocation parcels was underestimated in the right-of-way data report developed by Caltrans. The report estimated that four (4) relocations would be 233 necessary and the actual number is eighty-six (86) relocations. Additionally, the project approach is to comply, to the extent possible, with County of Riverside set back requirements in the after project implementation condition. What this means is that the County has a 20 foot set back requirement for residences from what will be the new SR 74 right of way line. Complying with the set back limits result in 24 of the 86 relocations. Also, below market rents along the route results in an increase in relocation costs due to limited number of comparable dwellings along the corridor which necessitates relocation of occupants outside the project area. The estimated increase in cost to complete right of way is $10,310,000. This project has been impacted by the following changes which occurred in the project area: Prior to performing the environmental re-evaluation, US Fish & Wildlife designated critical habitat for the California Gnatcatcher; the California Water Quality Control Board adopted rule 0-128 which established a zero tolerance rule with respect to pollutants reaching the impaired water bodies of Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore, and Caltrans recently amended their design standards in January 2002. The budget for SR 74 which was adopted in July of 2000 included an estimate of $1.0 million to address the mitigation for the California Gnatcatcher. The design cost increase and construction cost increase is largely due to the California Water Quality Control Board requirement that SR 74 in the post construction condition capture and treat all storm water that falls on the roadway. This has resulted in establishing 10 detention basins along SR 74, as well as, designing the roadway in order to separate the storm water falling on the roadway from the storm water flows outside of the project right of way. Caltrans design standard changes has required all of the grading plans for the project to be revised to meet, where achievable, a 4 to 1 slope instead of a 2 to 1 slope. The estimated additional cost of design, construction management and roadway construction is $7,050,609. Previously the Commission took action to include the Meadowbrook/Greenwald connection as part of the SR 74 project. The new estimated cost for constructing the Greenwald/Meadowbrook connection is $1,155,057. The SR 74 project is achievable with available Measure "A" funds while maintaining existing commitments to Measure "A" Strategic Plan projects already underway (State Route 60 - East Junction to Redlands Blvd, Van Buren interchange, Galena interchange). An action to approve the revised budget to move the project forward will require the Commission to re-examine the Strategic • • • 234 Plan and funding commitments to Measure projects in the period from 2005 through 2009. A re-examination of the Measure "A" Strategic Plan is already anticipated to be performed in the Spring of 2003 as part of the work associated with establishing a transitional work plan should the Measure "A" extension be approved by the voters in November 2002. Staff recommends approval of the revised budget through award of a construction contract for SR 74 Segment I, right of way acquisition for Segments I & II, and final design. The budget should be reviewed again prior to going out to bid for Segment II construction. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: See below Year: See below Amount: $ 18,515,666 Source of Funds: Bond Proceeds/State/Measure "A" Budget Adjustment: As Req'd Revenue Source Forecast of Expenditures Measure"A" = $30,083,170 State SHOPP = $ 4,264,485 Bond Proceeds =$35,500,000 Total = $69,847,655 FY 99-02 $18,980,095 FY 02-03 $20,400,000 FY 03-04 $19,700,000 FY 04-05 $ 9,767,560 FY 05-06 $ 1,000,000 Total = $69,847,655 Status of Project Expenditures to date Required to complete thru FY2002 Actuals to date = $ 7,881,087 Estimated by 6/30/02 = $11,099,008 Remaining Balance = $50,867,560 Total = $69,847,655 Fiscal Procedures Approved: <_._ ar - Date: 04/22/02 235 PROJECT BUDGET SUMMARY STATE ROUTE 74 REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING BETWEEN 1-15 AND 7TH STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS, CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AND COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 08-RIV-74 KP 32.5/41.1 EA 464111 RO-9954 HIGHWAY 74 Previous Project Budaet Additional Budget Reauired New Projected Budaet Right of Way Adminstration Costs Property Costs Gnatcatcher Mitigation Sub -Total $4,500,000 $11,953,652 $1,000,000 $500,000 $9,810,000 $0 $5,000,000 $21,763,652 $1,000,000 $17.453.652 $10.310.000 $27.763.652 Design $2.750.972 $1.332.609 $4.083.581 Roadway Construction Segment I Segment II Sub -Total $9,000,000 $15.900.000 $2,400,000 $2.100.000 $29.400,000 824.900.000 $4.500.000 Construction Manaaement Segment I Segment 11 S ,b -Total $1,992,000 (Included Above) S 1 21 8 000 $ 10 000 $1 99 000 Contingency (10% of Right of Way and Roadway Construction) $4.235.365 $0 $4.235.365 SUB -TOTAL HIGHWAY 74 $51.331,989 $17.360.609 $68.692,598 GREENWALD REALIGNMENT Right of Way Design Roadway Construction Construction Management (Cost is included in Segment I/11 1 Continaencv (Cost is included in Segment I/11 ) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $620,000 $135.057 $400.000 $0 $0 $620,000 8135.057 $400.000 $0 $0 SUB -TOTAL GREENWALD $0 $1,155,057 $1,155,057 GRAND TOTAL $51,331,989 $18,515,666 $69,847,655 • • 236 " AGENDA ITEM 9 " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Steven DeBaun, Legal Counsel - Best, Best & Krieger, LLC SUBJECT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 02-001, "Riverside County Transportation Commission Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance" RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Ordinance No. 02-001 requesting the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to place on the November 5, 2002 ballot a measure to levy, in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside, a retail and transactions use tax of '/2 of 1% for a 30 -year period for specified transportation purposes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission has been working to develop an expenditure plan for sales tax revenues from the possible extension of the Commission's current one-half percent Measure "A" sales tax. State law requires that the expenditure plan be adopted by an ordinance of the Commission. Ordinance No. 02-001 (attached) requests the County of Riverside to place on the ballot a proposition to approve a one-half cent transportation sales tax to be levied in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside. The tax would be imposed upon the expiration of the Commission's existing Measure "A" sales tax. The term of the tax would be 30 years, starting upon the expiration of the existing tax. The Ordinance formally adopts the expenditure plan. In addition, it provides the Commission with bonding authority of up to $500 million. The Ordinance is patterned after the Commission's existing sales tax ordinance, and includes a maintenance of effort requirement, cap of 1% on salaries and benefits for administration of Measure "A", and sets forth the procedure for processing expenditure plan amendments. Adoption of the Ordinance is required by State law to initiate the placement the sales tax measure on the ballot. 237 " " " ORDINANCE NO. 02-001 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN AND RETAIL TRANSACTION AND USE TAX ORDINANCE PREAMBLE The transportation system in Riverside County is rapidly deteriorating and our population and economy are growing rapidly. Maintenance and repairs of existing roadways and improvements to relieve congestion cannot be accomplished with available funds. Without additional funds, the system will bog down and pavement will crumble into permanent disrepair. State highway funds are inadequate and competition for funds is increasing. Projects in areas where local sales tax funds are available have been and will continue to be viewed much more favorably in the selection process of the California Transportation Commission. Local governments must either generate revenues to expand our system and maintain our investments or watch the system collapse and endanger the health, welfare and safety of all Riverside County residents. Continuation of our one-half percent sales tax for transportation to supplement traditional revenues and revenues to be generated through locally - adopted developer fees and assessment districts for transportation improvements is the only way local governments can be sure the transportation system will serve the current and future travel needs of Riverside County. Collection of the one-half percent sales tax will commence upon the expiration of the existing tax. The Riverside County Transportation Commission will continue to seek maximum funding for transportation improvements through State and federal programs. The Commission will not provide sales tax revenues to any city or to the County unless revenues currently used by that agency for transportation are continued to be used for transportation purposes. The Riverside County Transportation Commission ordains as follows: SECTION 1. SUMMARY. This Ordinance provides for the imposition of a retail transaction and use tax of one-half percent for a period of thirty (30) years, the authority to issue bonds secured by such taxes, and the administration of the tax proceeds and a county transportation expenditure plan. SECTION II. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply in this ordinance: A. Expenditure Plan. "The Expenditure Plan" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission Expenditure Plan (attached as Exhibit B) and adopted as part of this Ordinance including any future amendments thereto. B. "County" means the County of Riverside. 1 238 C. "Commission" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission s set forth in Sections 130053, 130053.5 and 130053.7 of the Public Utilities Code. D. "TUMF" means Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. This fee is charged on new development by local governments to assist with the building and improvement of regional arterials. E. "MSHCP" means the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan currently under development by the County of Riverside. F. "Existing Tax" means the 1/2 % retail transactions and use tax adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 88-01. SECTION III. AUTHORITY. This Ordinance is enacted, in part, pursuant to the provisions of Division 25 (commencing with Section 240000) of the Public Utilities Code, and Section 7252.22 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. SECTION IV. IMPOSITION OF RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX. Subject to voter approval of the same, the Commission shall impose, in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside, a retail transactions and use tax (referred to as the Measure "A" fund tax) at a zero percent (0%) rate until the expiration of the Existing Tax. Thereafter, a tax shall be collected for a thirty (30) year period at the rate of one-half of one percent (0.5%). This tax shall be in addition to any other taxes authorized by law, including any existing or future state or local sales tax or transactions and use tax. SECTION V. PURPOSES. Measure "A" funds may only be used for transportation purposes including the administration of Division 25, including legal actions related thereto, the construction, capital, acquisition, maintenance, and operation of streets, roads, highways, including state highways and public transit systems and for related purposes. These purposes include expenditures for the planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right-of-way acquisition. SECTION VI. BONDING AUTHORITY. Upon voter approval of Measure "A" , the Commission shall have the power to sell or issue, from time to time, on or before the collection of taxes, bonds, or other evidence of indebtedness, including, but not limited to, capital appreciation bonds, in the aggregate principal amount at any one time outstanding of not to exceed $500 million, and to secure such indebtedness solely by way of future collection of taxes, for capital outlay expenditure for the purposes set forth in Section V hereof, including to carry out the transportation projects described in the Expenditure Plan. SECTION VII. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT. The Commission, by the enactment of this Ordinance, intends the additional funds provided government agencies by this Chapter to supplement existing local revenues and required developer improvements being used for transportation purposes. The government agencies shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street, highway and public transit purposes pursuant to this Ordinance, and the Commission shall enforce this Section by appropriate actions including fiscal audits of the local agencies. 2 • • 239 " " " The local cities and the County shall annually submit to the Commission a list of the proposed uses for these funds and a certification that the maintenance of effort requirement is being met. If in any fiscal year the maintenance of effort requirement is not met, the agency shall not be eligible for any Measure "A" funds in the following fiscal year. Such funds shall be distributed to the remaining local governments using the formula for the area. SECTION VIII. RETURN TO SOURCE. Funds for transportation purposes shall be allocated to the Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas proportionate to the Measure "A" funds generated within these areas. SECTION IX. ADMINISTRATION OF PLANS. The Commission shall impose and collect Measure "A" funds, shall allocate revenues derived, and shall administer the Expenditure Plan consistent with the authority cited herein. SECTION X. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. The Commission shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from Measure "A" for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities pursuant to Division 25, and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent (1 %) of the annual net amount of revenue raised by Measure "A". SECTION XI. ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT. The annual appropriations limit has been established pursuant to Ordinance 88-01 pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution and Section 240308(b) of the Public Utilities Code. The appropriations limit has and shall be subject to adjustment as provided by law. SECTION XII. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES. Subject to voter approval, this Ordinance shall take effect at the close of the polls on November 5, 2002. SECTION XIII. ELECTION. The Commission requests the Board of Supervisors to call an election for voter approval of Measure "A " (Exhibit A), which election shall be held on November 5, 2002. The election shall be called and conducted in the same manner as provided by law for the conduct of elections by a county. Pursuant to Section 240308 of the Public Utilities Code, the sample ballot to be mailed to the voters shall be the full proposition as set forth in the Ordinance, and the voter information handbook shall include the entire Expenditure Plan. Approval of the attached proposition, and the imposition of the Measure "A" retail sales and use tax described herein, shall require the affirmative vote of 2/3rds of the electors voting on the attached proposition at the election described in this section. SECTION XIV. EXPENDITURE PLAN AMENDMENTS. The Expenditure Plan for Measure "A" funds may only be amended, if required, in accordance with Public Utilities Code section 240302, as amended. This section currently provides the following process for amendment: (1) initiation of the amendment by the Commission reciting findings of necessity; (2) approval by the Board of Supervisors; and, (3) approval by a majority of the cities constituting a majority of the incorporated population, unless such process is amended in a manner consistent with State legislation. 3 240 Commencing in 2019 and at least every ten years thereafter, the Commission shall review and, where necessary propose revisions to the Expenditure Plan. Such revisions shall be submitted for approval according to the procedures set forth in this Section XIV. Until approved, the then existing Expenditure Plan shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION XV. SEVERABILITY. If any tax or provision of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining Measure "A" funds or provisions, and the Commission declares that it would have passed each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part. SECTION XVI. THE EXISTING TAX. Nothing in the ordinance is intended to modify, repeal, alter or increase the Existing Tax. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply solely to the retail transactions and use tax adopted herein, and not to the collection or administration of the Existing Tax. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at its meeting on Wednesday, May 8, 2002. ATTESTED: By: By: John F. Tavaglione, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 4 • • • 241 " Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan Approved April 10, 2002 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY BY SUPPLEMENTING EX/STING FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION Reduce current congestion and provide adequate transportation facilities to accommodate reasonable growth in the future. Provide funding for the adequate maintenance and improvement of local streets and roads in the cities and unincorporated areas. " " Enhance Riverside County's ability to secure state and federal funding for transportation by offering local matching funds. PROVIDE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE EXPENDITURE OF TAX PAYER FUNDS Provides for mandatory dedication of sales tax funds only for the transportation improvements and programs identified in the Expenditure Plan and no other purpose. Provides for a mandatory, annual financial audit of program expenditures to insure that all funds are spent in accordance with this voter adopted Plan and associated legal ordinance. Provides for a Maintenance of Effort requirement in funds made available to city and county governments for local street and road programs to insure the new money for this purpose is adding to current funding levels. Provides for the strict limitation of administrative staff costs in implementing this Plan, by limiting, in law, funds expended for salaries and benefits to no more than one (1) percent of the annual net amount of revenues raised by Measure "A". 1 242 Provides for the Plan to be updated every 10 years for the period it is in effect to insure that the changing needs and priorities of the county are met. Provides for the mandatory termination of the tax in 2039, requiring additional voter approval for extension at a County General Election according to state law. PROVIDE FOR EQUITY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF MEASURE "A" REVENUES Return funds to the Western County, Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley proportionate to the funds generated in those areas. Adopt a Transportation Improvement Plan, which address the unique needs of each of the areas of the county. Provide a reasonable balance between competing highway, commuter rail, transit, and local streets and roads needs. PROVIDE FOR LOCAL CONTROL OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Provide for cost effective, local administration of the program through the existing Riverside County Transportation Commission. No new agency would be required to administer these funds. Delegates appropriate administrative responsibility to the cities and the county and other local agencies for local programs. This TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN, which shall act as the County's Expenditure Plan, was prepared by the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the purpose of extending the current '/2 cent local transaction and use tax for transportation to be collected for an additional 30 years, if approved by the voters on November 5, 2002 — Measure "A". This is proposed by the Commission as a means to fill the funding shortfall to: implement necessary highway, commuter rail, and transit projects; secure new transportation corridors through environmental clearance and right of way purchases; provide adequate maintenance and improvements on the local street and road system; promote economic growth throughout the county; and provide specialized programs to meet the needs of commuters and the specialized needs of the growing senior and disabled population. 2 • • • 243 " " " TAXPAYER ACCOUNTABILITY SAFEGUARDS LEGAL DEDICATION OF FUNDS Measure "A" funds may only be used for transportation purposes and described in the local ordinance governing this program, including the construction, environmental mitigation of transportation projects, capital activities, acquisition, maintenance, and operation of streets, roads, highways, including state highways and public transit systems and for related purposes. These purposes include but are not limited to expenditures for the planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, related right-of-way acquisition, and construction, engineering and administration. MANDATORY ANNUAL FISCAL AUDIT No Tess than annually, the RCTC shall conduct an independent fiscal audit of the expenditure of all sales tax funds raised by this measure. The audit, which shall be made available to the public, shall report on evidence that the expenditure of funds is in accordance with the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan as adopted by the voters in approving the sales tax measure on November 5, 2002. In addition, the audit shall determine that Maintenance of Effort requirements, other requirements regarding local government participation in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Programs, as well as requirements described in Section 5 of the Plan entitled "Local Streets and Roads" have been complied with. The audit shall also insure that no more than 1 (one) percent of total sales tax expenditures are used for administrative staff salaries and benefits in implementing this Plan. MANDATORY PLAN UPDATE AND TERMINATION OF SALES TAX This Plan shall be updated by RCTC every 10 years that the sales tax is in effect to reflect current and changing priorities and needs in the County, as defined by the duly elected local government representatives on the RCTC Board. Any changes to this Plan must be adopted in accordance with current law in effect at the time of the update and must be based on findings of necessity for change by the Commission. The sales tax authorized to be collected by the voters shall be terminated on March 31, 2039, unless reauthorized by the voters to extend the sales tax prior to the termination date as required under state law in effect at the time of the vote for extension. 3 244 SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY The Expenditure Plan Map illustrates the Western and Coachella Valley areas. The Western County area includes the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Riverside, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. It also includes the unincorporated communities of Jurupa, Mira Loma, Menifee, Wildomar, and Sun City and other more sparsely populated areas, and the reservations of the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, the Soboba Band of Mission Indians, the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Morongo Band of Indians. 1. STATE HIGHWAYS Many more state highway improvement projects are needed to deal with congestion and safety problems than existing state and federal revenues can fund. Projected formula funds from these sources over the 30 years is estimated to be $640 million and will fund less than Y2 of the improvements needed and identified in the Expenditure Plan, which are estimated to cost $1.66 billion in current dollars. Measure "A" funds will supplement those funding sources by an estimated $1.02 billion and will cover the remaining costs estimated to accomplish these improvements. The Highway projects to be implemented with funding returned to the Western County Area by extending the Measure "A" Program are as follows: 4 • • • 245 " " ROUTE LIMITS PROJECT EST. COST 91, 60, 1-15, & 1-215 Reducing congestion on these routes will require that new transportation corridors are constructed See Section 2 Rte 91 Pierce Street to Orange County Line Add 1 lane each direction $ 161 91/1-15 Interchange Add new Connector from 1-15 North to 91 West $ 243 91/71 Interchange Improve Interchange $ 26 Rte 71 Rte 91 to San Bernardino County Line Widen to 3 lanes each direction $ 68 1-215 60/91/215 to San Bernardino County Line Add 2 lanes each direction $ 231 1-215 Eucalyptus Ave to 1-15 Add 1 lane each direction $ 210 1-15 Rte 60 to San Diego County Line Add 1 lane each direction $ 359 1-10 San Bernardino County Line to Banning Add eastbound truck climbing lane $ 75 1-10/60 Interchange Construct new interchange $ 129 Rte 60 Badlands area, east of Moreno Valley Add truck climbing lane $ 26 Rte 79 Ramona Expressway to Domenigoni Parkway Realign highway $ 132 SUBTOTAL Measure "A" Funding State & Federal Formula Funds $1.02 Billion $0.64 Billion TOTAL $1.66 Billion The Commission may add additional State Highway projects, should additional Measure "A" revenue become available. An estimated 5% of the total cost for these highway projects ($83 million) will be used for environmental purposes to mitigate the cumulative and indirect impacts associated with construction of these projects. 5 246 2. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS State Routes 91 and 60 and Interstate Routes 15 and 215 cannot cost effectively be widened enough to provide for the traffic expected as Riverside County continues to grow. In addition to the specific highway improvements listed in Section 1 above, congestion relief for these highways will require that new north —south and east -west transportation corridors will have to be developed to provide mobility within Riverside County and between Riverside County and its neighboring Orange and San Bernardino Counties. Four new Transportation Corridors have been identified as necessary through the Community Environmental Transportation Approval Process (CETAP) currently underway. An estimated $370 million in Measure "A" matching funds to leverage local, state and federal funding will be made available for environmental clearance, right of way, and construction of these new corridors. An estimated $70 million of these funds will be used to mitigate the cumulative and indirect impacts associated with construction of these projects. 3. PUBLIC TRANSIT The Transportation Improvement Plan will provide an estimated $390 million to expand commuter rail, implement intercity bus services and to continue and expand programs to assist the elderly, disabled and commuters. A. Discount Fares and Transit Services for Seniors and Disabled Persons Seniors and disabled persons are becoming an increasing percentage of the population each year. They are currently charged a fare on fixed route transit services that is one-half the normal fare for service within the Western County area. In addition a number of specialized transportation programs have been implemented which meet specialized needs for transportation to medical services, social service agencies and programs, shopping and other purposes that cannot be met by conventional transit. A minimum of $85 million in Measure "A" funds will be used to guarantee these services. 6 • • • 247 " " " B. Commuter Rail and Intercity Bus Service Metrolink has provided a viable alternative to the automobile for thousands of daily commuters to Orange and Los Angeles counties and reduces the demand on our freeways. The current service level needs to double in the future and expansion of the system to Moreno Valley and Perris is needed to relieve congestion on 1-215. In addition, an intercity express bus service that feeds the Metrolink service and provides a reasonable alternative to the automobile for daily commuters who travel within the region is needed. Measure "A" funds will be made available for operations of these services and to match federal funds for capital. C. Commuter Services, Ridesharing, Vanpools, Buspools, Park -N -Ride Commuter traffic created by Riverside County residents traveling to jobs in neighboring Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties adds significantly to the peak hour congestion on the freeway and highway system. A number of programs have been implemented to assist commuters to share rides, reduce congestion, and take advantage of travel in the "carpool" lanes. These programs include; rideshare matching services; incentive programs; vanpool "seed money"; buspool subsidies; and park -n -ride lot leasing. These programs will become even more necessary in the future as traffic increases. A minimum of $50 million in Measure "A" funds will be used for this purpose. 4. REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM The freeway and state highway system can no longer be expected to handle the traffic demands for travel between and through the cities of the Western County area, with the development projected for the future. A system of regional arterials (major local roadways) with limited access, freeway interchanges, grade separations, and coordinated traffic signals are needed to supplement the highway backbone system. The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), in conjunction with the cities and the County, has developed this system of roadways to meet this need. This roadway system will be periodically updated by the Commission, or the Western Riverside Council of Governments, to reflect actual development trends. 7 248 Funding to widen existing roads and construct new roads on this system will be funded by an estimated $300 million in revenues generated by Measure "A" and by matching revenues to be generated by the cities and County implementing a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) administered by the Commission or the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). Examples of the roadways on the regional arterial system that may be eligible to receive Measure "A" and TUMF funding for widening and other improvements to increase capacity and traffic flow are: • Van Buren Boulevard from 1-215 to State Route 60 • Alessandro Boulevard from 1-215 westerly to Central Avenue • Central Avenue from Alessandro Blvd to Van Buren Boulevard • Arlington Avenue from Central Avenue to Van Buren Boulevard • Green River Road from Dominguez Ranch Rd to State Route 91 • Foothill Parkway from Lincoln Ave to Green River Road • Scott Road from State Route 79 to 1-215 • Clinton Keith Road from State Route 79 to 1-215 • Date Street from State Route 79 to 1-15 • State Route 79/1-10 Interchange Improvements and possible bypass to 1-10 • Ramsey Street from Banning City Limits to Field Road • Ramona Expressway from San Jacinto to 1-215 • Cajalco Road from 1-215 to 1-15 • Perris Boulevard from State Route 74 to San Bernardino Co. Line • Pyrite Street from San Bernardino County Line to State Route 60 • Schleisman Road from San Bernardino County Line to 1-15 and Arlington Avenue • Domenigoni Parkway from State Street to 1-215 • Railroad Canyon/Newport Road from 1-215 to 1-15 The final scope and project limits of all improvements proposed for the regional arterial system will be determined through the environmental clearance process. 5. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS The local street and road system is critical to the every day movement of people within the cities and the county. This system is reaching "middle age", with potholes and is in need of continued maintenance and rehabilitation. New local roads adjacent to new residential and business developments will continue to be constructed and paid for by the developers. 8 • • • 249 Current resources, without the extension of the existing sales tax revenues for transportation, cannot provide adequate funding to maintain the local street and road system at the level necessary to adequately serve the public. The Transportation Improvement Plan will provide an estimated $970 million specifically for this purpose. The funds made available in the Western County area will be distributed to the cities and the county by a formula based 75% on proportionate population and 25% on revenues generated by Measure "A". In order to be eligible for these funds, each agency will be required to: 1) File a Five -Year Capital Improvement Program, updated annually, with the Commission; 2) Participate in a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program to be developed and administered by the Commission or the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG); and, 3) Participate in the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) currently under development by the County of Riverside by endorsing the Permit Application and signing the Implementation Agreement. The TUMF Program shall be adopted according to all applicable laws and shall provide that the first $400 million of TUMF revenues will be made available to the Commission to fund equally the: 1) Regional Arterial System, as described above; and, 2) Development of New Corridors ("CETAP") described above. 6. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM The need to attract new commercial and industrial development and jobs to Riverside County to reduce the need for long commutes to Orange and Los Angeles counties is important to the economic vitality and quality of life of Western Riverside County. A greater jobs — housing balance is needed immediately. The Transportation Improvement Plan will provide an estimated $40 million for this purpose. These funds will be used to create an Infrastructure Improvement Bank to improve existing interchanges, construct new interchanges, provide public transit linkages or stations, and make other improvements to the transportation system. Given the limited amount of funds available, the RCTC shall develop a program of competitive incentives to attract commercial and industrial development and jobs to locate within the Western Riverside County area. 9 250 In particular, the highest priority for these funds shall be for use in attracting key industrial development. For example, Western Riverside County through the provision of a needed interchange or transit service as a part of an overall package of incentives, could attract industrial development, which may have otherwise located elsewhere in California, in the United States or internationally. 7. BOND FINANCING Construction of the highway and rail projects and implementation of the local streets and roads and other programs identified in the Transportation Improvement Plan are needed as soon as possible. In order to accomplish this, some level of borrowing will be required. The Commission will determine the extent of borrowing that is reasonable as the program is implemented. Up to $270 million, 8% of the revenues expected to be generated, will be made available for this purpose. COACHELLA VALLEY AREA The Coachella Valley area is located in the central part of Riverside County and includes the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage. It also includes the unincorporated areas, and the reservations of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The Transportation Improvement Plan is designed to give flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances and to: • Improve Traffic Flow and Reduce Congestion on Highway 1 1 1 • Add/Improve Interchanges on Highway 86 and 1-10 • Provide funding for Local Streets and Roads Improvements • Improve Safety and Visibility at Major Intersections and Arterial Roads • Reduce Congestion by Improving Major Roadways Identified as Important by Local Governments in the Coachella Valley • Provide Express East-West Transit Routes in the Coachella Valley • Improve and Expand Public and Specialty Transit Service 10 • • 251 " " " 1. STATE HIGHWAYS AND MAJOR REGIONAL ROAD PROJECT Fifty percent (50%) of the Measure "A" revenues will be used for State highways and regional road improvements. The Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS), developed through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), will function as the Plan for future needs. Preventive maintenance of these Measure "A" funded arterials will be allowed, if a majority of the Coachella Valley local governments give approval. The system improvements will be accomplished with a mix of Measure "A" funds, state and federal highway funds, and the existing Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) on new development. This segment of the Measure "A" Expenditure Plan will be implemented through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. 2. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Thirty-five percent (35%) of the Measure "A" revenues will be returned to the cities and the county in the Coachella Valley and shall be used to assist with the funding local street and road improvements. These funds will supplement existing federal, state, and local funds. Local street improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments will continue to be paid for by the developers. Cities and the county in the Coachella Valley must participate in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program to assist in the financing of the priority regional arterial system in order to receive these funds. If a city or the county chooses not to levy the TUMF, the funds they would otherwise receive for local streets and roads will be added to the Measure "A" funds for the Regional Arterial Program. Allocations of funds to the cities and the county will be based on a formula weighted 50% on proportionate dwelling units and 50% on Measure "A" revenues generated within each jurisdiction. A Five -Year Capital Improvement Program for the use of these funds will be prepared and annually updated with public participation by each city and the county. 11 252 3. PUBLIC TRANSIT Fifteen percent (15%) of the Measure "A" revenues will be used to improve and expand public transit and specialized transportation services. A. Discount Fares and Expanded Transportation Services for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities For Seniors (age 60 and older) and persons with disabilities, access to healthcare, social services, shopping, and recreation is a key to quality of life. Sunline Transit Agency offers a full array of public transit and specialized transportation services at reduced prices to individuals in these special groups. Measure "A" funds will guarantee discounts continue for the next 30 years. Funds will also be used to expand services to meet future needs of the growing population of the valley. B. Specialized Transportation Services In addition to providing SunBus public transit service, SunDial paratransit service, and SunLink express commuter service to Riverside, the Sunline Transit Agency offers specialized transportation services to Coachella Valley residents and visitors. These services include the Vets Express that provides free transportation to the Veterans Hospital in Loma Linda; SunTrip, that enables those beyond Sunline's fixed route service area to receive reimbursement they can pay to volunteer drivers; and SunRide that coordinates the transportation services offered by many non-profit social service organizations. All of Sunline's vehicles operate on clean, alternative fuels thereby preserving the environment and creating a healthier community while increasing access. Measure "A" funds will assist these and other types of specialized transportation services which may be implemented. C. Bus Replacement and More Frequent Service Public bus transportation offers communities many benefits — reduced traffic congestion, reduced wear and tear on roads, reduced parking demand, and lower emissions. By providing access to schools, jobs and shopping, it is also a vital force in economic development. This is especially true in the Coachella Valley where nearly 75% of the 4 million annual SunBus riders take a bus to work and/or school. Public 12 • • • 253 " " " transit buses have a 12 -year life. Passage of Measure "A" will enable Sunline's fleet to be replaced as needed. Funds will also be used to increase frequency of service, which is the single most important factor in use of public transportation. PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA The Palo Verde Valley area is located in the far eastern part of Riverside County. It is geographically separated from the Western and Coachella Valley areas. The population within the area is relatively small, and significant growth over the next 30 years is not anticipated. The Palo Verde Valley is served by Interstate 10 which provides adequate connections to the more westerly portions of Riverside County and easterly to Arizona. Increasing transit needs can be adequately met using existing revenue sources available for that purpose. The greatest need for the Palo Verde Valley is additional funding to adequately maintain and rehabilitate local streets and roads. All of the funding generated by Measure "A" returned to the Palo Verde Valley is to be used for local streets and roads. Funds shall be distributed to the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside by formula. The formula distribution is based 75% on proportionate population and 25% on sales tax revenues generated in each area. MEASURE "A" REVENUE ALLOCATIONS ($ millions) Western County Area Highway Improvements $1,020 New Corridors $ 370 Commuter Rail / Intercity Bus/ Specialized $ 390 Transit/ Commuter Services Regional Arterial Projects $ 300 Local Streets and Road Improvements $ 970 Bond Finance $ 270 Economic Development Projects $ 40 TOTAL $3,360 Coachella Valley Highways and Regional Arterials Local Streets and Roads Specialized and Public Transit TOTAL $ 628 $ 439 $ 188 $1,255 Palo Verde Valley Area Local Street and Road Improvements $ 47 TOTAL $ 47 13 254 " (INSERT MAP HERE ) " " 14 255 " " GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1. BASIS FOR REVENUE ESTIMATES Federal and state participation for highways, commuter rail, new corridors, and major non -highway roadway improvements is assumed to be $40 million per year allocated biannually by the California Transportation Commission through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process. The Riverside County Transportation Commission currently programs 24.2% of these funds on a discretionary basis for projects. This practice will be continued in order to fund major improvements that will arise and have not been anticipated by this Transportation Improvement Plan. Measure "A" revenue estimates have not been adjusted to reflect inflation. It is assumed that inflation revenue increases will be offset by inflation costs to deliver the projects. "Real Growth" is assumed to parallel countywide population growth. Based upon these factors Measure "A" revenues over the 30 -year period are assumed to be about $4.665 billion. 2. BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES All cost estimates for highway projects were developed by Caltrans based on a specific scope of improvements and are based on 2001 values. Future costs may increase due to inflation or other factors beyond the control of the Commission. The 2001 costs estimates are to be used to determine the proportionate distribution of funds to the categories of projects and programs identified in the transportation program. 3. STATE HIGHWAY AND MAJOR ARTERIAL PROGRAMS A. Eligible state highway project costs include preliminary engineering, environmental clearances, design engineering, project management, right of way acquisition and long-term leases and construction. Measure "A" funds are intended to supplement and not replace existing federal and state sources. If it is determined by the Commission that Riverside County is not receiving its fair share of existing funds, sales tax funds may be directed to other types of transportation needs. 15 256 B. The actual scope of the highway, and major arterial projects to be implemented is to be determined through a prioritization process, required environmental analysis, and full consideration of reasonable alternatives. Public participation during the environmental analysis process is required. C. The Commission shall establish a "State Highway Account" for funding capital expenditures for state highway improvements. 4. PUBLIC TRANSIT A. Eligible programs include: special discount fares for the elderly and persons with disabilities; funding for computer assisted rideshare programs; commuter incentive programs; "seed" programs to encourage the creation of vanpools and buspools; bus capital replacement and additional bus service in the Coachella Valley; and capital and operating assistance for commuter rail expansion and intercity bus service implementation in the Western County area. B. Western County area commuter rail services are anticipated to continue to be operated by Metrolink on existing rail lines to Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties. Increasing the level of services will require negotiation of the appropriate agreements with the railroads and appropriate cost sharing between the counties served. Extension of service to the Moreno Valley area and the City of Perris is anticipated to be along the San Jacinto Branch Line owned by the Commission. Measure "A" funds will be used for operating costs and to match federal and state funds for capital improvements. C. Western County area intercity bus express services to be implemented are intended to specifically target commuters and provide a viable connection to the Metrolink service and transportation between and to key employment centers within the region. D. The Commission shall establish a "Public Transit Account" for funding these programs. The Commission shall determine which public transportation or specialized transportation services operators, and carpool/vanpool facilitating agencies, shall receive funding assistance. The Commission may directly provide or operate these services and programs if it is determined that they are the most appropriate agency to do so in the Western County area. In the Coachella Valley area, the services will be provided by the SunLine Transit Agency. Based on 30 year funding estimates, the amount of funds should be $340 million for the Western County and $188 million for the Coachella Valley area. 16 • • 257 " " " 5. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROJECTS A. Eligible local street and road project costs include any environmental review and mitigation, engineering, right of way acquisition and, capital or maintenance cost. Decisions on projects are to be made by local jurisdictions, but subject to capital Improvement requirements. B. Annual population estimates used for the distribution formula for the Western County and Palo Verde Valley areas shall be from the State Department of Finance. Dwelling unit estimates used for the distribution formula in the Coachella Valley shall be from the Riverside County Planning Department. Actual State Board of Equalization retail sales transactions shall be used for the formula in all three areas. The County Planning Department shall estimate the share for each of the unincorporated areas for the three areas, from the total retail sales transactions for the total unincorporated area. C. The Commission shall assure the cities and the County are in compliance with maintenance of effort requirements before allocating funds for local streets and roads. Further, the Commission shall not allocate funds to an individual city or the County for local streets and roads within the Western County and Coachella Valley areas unless the local agency is certified by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments or in the Western County Area by the Commission or the Western Riverside County Association of Governments as applicable, to be a participant in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program necessary for the implementation of the Regional Arterial Program in their area. The cities and the county in the Western County Area must participate in the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) by endorsing the Permit Allocation and executing the Implementation Agreement with the resources agencies in order to be eligible to receive local streets and roads funds. D. Funding which is not allocated to a city or the county because it is not a participant in the TUMF program in the Coachella Valley area and the TUMF and the MSHCP in the Western County area shall be allocated to the Regional Arterial Program in the geographic area in which the city or portion of the county is located. 17 258 " 6. FUNDING FLEXIBILITY AND BONDING TO EXPEDITE PROJECTS The Commission may make maximum use of available funds by temporarily shifting allocations between geographic areas and transportation purposes. However, the proportionate shares for areas and purposes over the 30 -year period may not be changed without an amendment of the Transportation Improvement Plan as required by law. Shifts may not be made without previous consultation with the affected agencies and two-thirds majority approval of the Board of Commissioners. The Commission may also use bonds to speed implementation of some projects. Bonding will not be used without first determining that the benefits of an accelerated program outweigh the additional cost of interest on borrowing funds. 7. INFORMING THE PUBLIC OF LOCAL FUNDING SUPPORT All state highway, commuter rail, and regional arterial projects using $1 million or more of sales tax revenues shall be signed to inform the public that local voter approved revenues are being used to support the project. 8. SEVERANCE PROVISIONS If any provision of this Transportation Improvement Plan is for any reason held invalid and unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not effect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the Commission declares that it would have passed each part of the Plan irrespective of the validity of any other part. 18