Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 07, 1996 Budget & FinancePik BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE 040140 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (COMMISSIONERS RUSS BEIRICH, BOB BUSTER, KAY CENICEROS, SYBIL JAFFY) WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 ::j.Jt�:%►!!tir i.4liiti RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 * SPECIAL MEETING * AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. 4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS. 5A. Establishing CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation (TUMF) Collection Policy. Overview The CVAG Executive Committee agenda for January 29, 1996 included an item to address and establish a policy for jurisdictions in Coachella Valley who do not collect TUMF. The proposed recommendation to the CVAG Executive Committee included a policy whereby an amount equal to uncollected TUMF would be taken out of the affected local jurisdiction's Measure A streets and roads funds. Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize staff to work with CVAG staff to resolve any problems which RCTC may face in implementing this policy. 5B. 1996 Series A Refunding Bonds. Overview The Commission authorized staff to issue up to $75,000,000 in bonds to refund the 1991 Series A Sales Tax Revenue bonds. This was accomplished on January 18, 1996 when the bonds were priced and sold, and will be closed on February 1, 1996. The total amount of the refunding was $61,765,000 which refunded the 1991 Series A term bond due June 1, 2009, and the two latter serial maturities due June 1, 2002; and 2003 for $6,945,000 and $7,405,000 respectively. The Commission had set a minimum target savings of 2%, but we were able to accomplish in excess of 3%. The total present value dollar savings amounts to approximately $1,862,750. This item is for receive and file. Page 2 Agenda - Budget/Finance Committee February 7, 1996 5C. Additional Bonds Test. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission not change its 2x additional bonds test policy at this time. 5D. Extension of Washington, D.C. Lobbyist Services Contract. Overview This item provides the Commission with information for consideration of extension of one of the contracts for lobbying services with our Washington. D.C. consultants. This item requests RCTC support of the extension of the contract through June 30, 1996. 5E. Final results of the FY 95 Audits. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize staff to draft responses to the management letter comments for review and discussion at the April meeting. 5F. Single Signature Authority Report. Overview For the six month period ending December 31, 1995, three contracts were executed under single signature authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. There was approximately $37,345 in unused and expired capacity at December 31, 1995. This item is for receive and file. 5G. LTF Revenue Estimate for FY 96/97. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the area apportionments based on the revenue estimate provided by staff and the Auditor Controller of the County of Riverside. 5H. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports. Overview Presented material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending December 31, 1995. This item is for receive and file. .. Page 3 Agenda - Budget/Finance Committee February 7, 1996 6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. 6A. Route 111 - Memorandum of Understanding with the City of La Quinta for Improvements at the Washington Street Intersection. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of La Quinta, subject to final legal review by Commission Legal Counsel. 66. Route 111 - Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Palm Desert for Improvements at the Deep Canyon Intersection. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Palm Desert. 6C. Amendment to FY 1994-1998 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement P/an for the City of Banning. Overview The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan of how those funds are to be expended in order to receive disbursements for local streets and roads. Any subsequent additions, deletions, or substitutions to the approved Plan must also'be approved by the Commission. The City of Banning is requesting Commission approval to amend their previously approved FY 1995-99 Plan. 7. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/PARK-N-RIDE/BICYCLE. 7A. Measure A Specialized Transit Funds for Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center and the In/and Aids Project. Overview Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center and the Inland Aids Project are requesting Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in the western Riverside County to provide the required local match on a FTA Section 16 capital grant. This is in compliance with the RCTC adopted policies for the Measure A Specialized Transit Program and there are sufficient funds budgeted to cover this item. Staff recommends approval of their request. 7B. Transit Capital Improvement Funds—RTA Bus Rehabilitation Project. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission consider options to provide the required Transit Capital Improvement match for this project. Page 4 Agenda - Budget/Finance Committee February 7, 1996 8. COMMUTER RAIL. 8A. Extension of 24 -Hour Security Guard Service at Rail Stations. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission approve extending temporary, 24 -hour security guard service at The Pedley Station, the West Corona Station and the La Sierra Station through June 30, 1996. 9. ADJOURNMENT. MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 96-01 BUDGET AND -FINANCE COMMITTEE January 3, 1996 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairperson Russ Beirich called the meeting of the Budget/Finance Committee to order at 1:32 p.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside, California 92501. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. M/S/C to approve the minutes of November 1 and December 6, 1995. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. There were no public comments. 4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. There were no additions/revisions. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS. 5A. Riverside County Transportation Improvement Program FY 1996-2002 Financial P/an Resolution No. 96-01. M/S/C that the Commission approve the 1996 Riverside County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Financial Resolution No. 96-01 for submittal to the Southern California Association of Governments. 5B. Senate Bill 866 - Revisions to Government Code Sections Relating to Local Governments. M/S/C that the Commission receive and file. 5C. Legal Debt Coverage Ratio. Commissioner Sybil Jaffy asked whether adoption of 2 times coverage will have impact on delivery of projects, and Dean responded that -there is very little likelihood that this action will have impact on the delivery of projects. M/S/C that the Commission adopt the two times coverage as the Commission's additional bonds test (i.e. debt coverage ratio) if it results in a rating upgrade, and authorize the Executive Director to make the necessary changes to the Master Bond Indenture. Commissioner Sybil Jaffy voted no. Page 2 Minutes - Budget/Finance Committee January 3, 1996 5D. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports. M/S/C that the Commission receive and file. 6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. 6A. Amendment to MOU with Cathedral City for Measure A Projects on State Route 111 in Cathedra/ City to Address ROW Acquisition. M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Direct staff to work with the City of Cathedral City and make approved project funds available for the acquisition of key "full take" parcels as appropriate after appraisals have been received and agreed to by both Cathedral City and RCTC staff and it has been demonstrated by Cathedral City that early acquisition will provide significant savings to the project in terms of dollars or schedule; 2) direct staff to amend the current MOU to allow for the early acquisition of key parcels when demonstrated savings can be realized andapproved by RCTC staff; and, 3) direct staff to work with the City of Cathedral City to finalize the design so that the final project budget can be obtained and the MOU can be fully amended to authorize the "implementation phase" of the project. 6B. Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. RO-9306 for Geotechnical Engineering Services for the Route 79, Gilman Springs Road to First Street Highway Widening Project. M/S/C that the Commission approve Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. RO-9306 in the amount of $24,495 for additional Geotechnical Services for the Route 79 Gilman Springs Road to First Street Measure A Highway Widening Project. The amendment will be reviewed by Legal Counsel. Commissioner Kay Ceniceros abstained. 6C. FY 1995-96 LTF Allocations for Streets and Roads - Palo Verde Valley. M/S/C that the Commission approve the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) allocations for streets and roads purposes in the Palo Verde Valley area. 7. COMMUTER RAIL. 7A. Orange Blossom Festival. M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Support operation of special charter Metrolink trains from Los Angeles and/or Orange counties to Riverside on April 20 and 21, 1996; 2) direct staff to work with Metrolink, transit providers and event organizers to develop an effective, cost-efficient operating scenario, with costs not to exceed $29,000 over revenues; and, 3) work to include special Orange Blossom event trains in Metrolink's annual marketing plans and budgets. Page 3 Minutes - Budget/Finance Committee January 3, 1996 8. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Budget/Finance Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:13 p.m. espectfully submitted, :jw Na i Kcenh r Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee Administrative Review FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Establishing CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Collection Policy The CVAG Executive Committee agenda for January 29, 1996 included an item to address and establish a policy for jurisdictions in Coachella Valley who do not collect TUMF. The proposed recommendation to the CVAG Executive Committee included a policy whereby an amount equal to uncollected TUMF would be taken out of the affected local jurisdiction's Measure A streets and roads funds. Staff understands the difficult position that CVAG is faced with and supports the concept. However, Legal Counsel advises that the policy may expose the Commission to legal challenge by affected local agencies. I suggest that the Commission authorize its staff to work with CVAG staff to resolve any problems which RCTC may face in implementing this policy. nk AGENDA ITEM #5B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller SUBJECT: 1996 Series A Refunding Bonds The Commission authorized staff to issue up to $75,000,000 in bonds to refund the 1991 Series A Sales Tax Revenue bonds. This was accomplished on January 18, 1996 when the bonds were priced and sold, and will be closed on February 1, 1996. The total amount of the refunding was $61,765,000 which refunded the 1991 Series A term bond due June 1, 2009, and the two latter serial maturities due June 1, 2002, and 2003 for $6,945,000 and $7,405,000 respectively. The Commission had set a minimum target savings of 2%, but we were able to accomplish in excess of 3%. The true interest cost (TIC) for the refunded bonds are 4.89%. The total present value dollar savings amounts to approximately $1,862,750. Staff will provide additional information/comments at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. :jw AGENDA ITEM #5C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller SUBJECT: Additional Bonds Test The Commission's Master Bond Indenture covering our outstanding senior debt issuances (1991 Series A and the 1993 Series A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds) does not permit the Commission to issue additional senior lien debt if the combined payments on the new and existing debt would bring the Commission below a 1.3 debt coverage ratio (i.e., for every dollar of debt service the Commission must be receiving no less than one dollar and thirty cents in sales tax revenues). The Commission has placed on itself a more stringent policy by requiring that we maintain 2x coverage. The rating agencies have taken great comfort in the Commission's more stringent policy. Based on discussions with analysts at Standard & Poors, the Commission's bond rating may be upgraded from an A + to either an AA- or a solid AA if the Commission is willing to make its 2x policy the required legal coverage in the Master Indenture. What would be the impact on the Commission? To date the Commission has only bonded for programs providing projects of major regional influence (i.e., highways and commuter rail, major interchanges, and regional arterial). All other Measure A programs have been on a pay as you go basis. The most significant other program dollars are those which are disbursed to local jurisdictions for streets and roads. The respective percentage of Measure A designated for the other programs is detailed below. Local Streets and Roads 39.8% Commuter Assistance & Seniors/Persons with Disabilities 3.5% Transit 2.8% Total 46.1% Once you include administrative costs, approximately fifty percent of the sales tax s revenues are for purposes that do not require the Commission to issue senior lien debt. Stated another way, the Commission has a built in 2x coverage ratio. Although'the Commission can borrow for local jurisdictions, and has made a financing program available to them, the policy guidelines for that program require that debt issued for local jurisdictions for street and road purposes be issued on a subordinate basis. It Page 2 appears that the local jurisdictions have elected a pay as you go strategy based on the significant Measure A balances a number of the locals have accumulated for future project needs. Nonetheless, any local jurisdiction in any part of the County desiring to borrow will be able to do so as long as they meet the previously established Commission financing guidelines. To incorporate the 2x coverage ratio into our legal documents would not impact either Western County or Coachella Valley highway/rail or regional arterial programs' ability to in the future issue debt on a senior lien or subordinate basis. Debt could still be issued for any of these programs to the extent that sales tax revenues are generated in each of the respective program areas. Currently, the revenues for each of the respective areas and programs are not sufficient to allow for new debt issuances. Summarized below are the pros and cons to changing the additional bonds test. PROS Stature among self help counties -one of the few to be rated AA. Community perception of financial strength and strong creditworthiness. Financial benefit to any future transaction if insurance not purchasec,cIower rates in the market. _ Facilitates trading of Commission bonds in secondary market due to strong underlying credit rating. CONS Reduced flexibility to issue senior lien debt, assuming the Commission was willing to temporarily use other program funds to finance highway, rail, or regional arterial projects. It would still be possible for the Commission to issue subordinated debt. The additional borrowing cost associated with subordinated debt according to our senior underwriter can be mitigated by purchasing insurance. Local jurisdictions limited to subordinated debt. Existing policy requiring subordinated debt issuances for local projects would not be changeable. The Commission has now issued refunding bonds for much of the 1991 Series A bonds. Those bonds were successfully sold in the market and achieved an impressive overall interest rate. Therefore, at this time, there would be minimal benefit to the Commission to change its 2x policy. Moody's which recently upgraded the Commission from an A to an Al, expressed strong confidence in the existing policy (a copy of Moody's credit report is attached). They have not indicated a willingness to consider further upgrades based on a change in the legal additional bonds test. Page 3 Conclusion Staff does not believe that now is the time to make any changes to our policy. It could potentially negatively impact the upgrade just received from Moody's. Though psychologically it may "feel good", there is no economic benefit to the Commission. Staff would recommend bringing this back for consideration if and when it appears more advantageous to do so. A memo from the Commission's financial advisor opposing the change is attached for your review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission not change its 2x additional bonds test policy at this time. :jw Moodys Investors Service ., ,. Mr. Jack Reagan, Exec. Dir. Riverside Co. Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave.,Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 1 99 Church Street New York, NY 10007 January 12, 1996 On behalf of Moody's Public Finance Department, I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to assist you in bringing your recent debt issue to market. We value your confidence in us, and are pleased to provide you with a full range of support for your debt issuance. Moody's distributed your rating electronically to every major participant in the municipal investment community as soon as you had been advised of it. Your rating also appears in our Daily Rating Recap and Municipal Credit Report, copies of which are enclosed As your debt issue was considered to be of potentially high public interest, we distributed a press release to nearly 2,000 regional and national news outlets. A copy of the press release is enclosed. As you know, Moody's continues to support your debt management efforts throughout the life of the issue. It is our pleasure to serve you. If there is any information we can provide you about specific credit issues, please don't hesitate to call the analyst whose name appears on your credit report. Sincerely yours, Daniel 1st Heimowitz/ Executive Vice President -Director Public Finance Ref: 00162878F0 L` L Moody's Municipal Daily Rating Recap Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Rating date: January 9, 1996 Moody's rating: Al (revised from A) Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, 1995 Series A Sale: $63,225,000 Date of Sale: Week of January 8 Type: Negotiated Underwriter: Smith Barney, Inc. and PaineWebber, Inc., San Francisco. Security: Limited obligation; first lien on 1/2 cent sales and use tax imposed in Riverside County for public transportation, net of State Board of Equalization admin- istration fees. Use of Proceeds: Refund Series 1991 A Bonds matur- ing in 2002, 2003 and term bonds due in 2009 and expected to be called for redemption on June 1, 2001. Based on preliminary numbers furnished by the under- writer, the commission is anticipating net present value savings of approximately 2.7% of the refunding bonds. Last Rating change: No change. Credit Comment: The rating on the Commission's Sales Tax Revenue bonds, including parity bonds issued in 1991 and 1992 and the current issue, has been revised from A to Al based on the favorable peak debt service coverage, policies and contraints which will help sustain coverage; and the continued growth of sales taxes despite the impact of the recession: • Growing sales tax provides favorable peak debt ser- vice coverage. Sales tax growth has helped maintain debt service coverage in excess of two times senior lien debt service, despite the severe regional recession and sharp declines in construction and building related sales during the early 1990s. Coverage of peak debt service is favorable. • Policy maintains coverage in excess of standard addi- tional bonds test. By policy, a minimum of two times debt service coverage is maintained. The formal 1.3 times additional bonds test is standard. Policies to limit bonding to certain programs and a legal debt limit, constrain new borrowing. Payout is rapid. • Economic recovery evident, despite construction and military declines. The county was hard hit by the recession, with declines in both construction and mili- tary employment leading to high unemployment rates. Inexpensive housing and labor, however, have contin- ued to attract employers and residents despite the recession. • Sales tax enjoyed unusually high voter support. Most California county sales taxes received only majority approval, but nearly 80% of voters approved the County's tax. After the program was underway, in 1992, during the height of the recession, voters also approved a 75% increase in the commission's debt limit. • Successful completion of significant components of transportation plan. While transportation is of keen interest throughout the state, transportation is espe- cially significant in the county due to the high propor- tion of residents who are employed out of the county and who must commute long distances to urban cen- ters. The commission has completed commuter rail links to Los Angeles and Irvine, as well as road widenings, high occupancy vehicle lanes, and con- struction of other links. 2 As of January 9, 1996 Moody's Municipal Daily Rating Reca: Riverside County Transportation Commission, California (continued) analyst: Nikolai J. Sklarof (415) 274-174• m Copyright 1996 by Moody's Investors Service, Inc., 99 Church Street, New York, New Yost 10007. All rights reserved. SUCH ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS COPYRIGHTED IN THE NAME OF MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. ("MOODY'S"), AND NONE OF REDLS7A INFORMATION R A O RESOLD, AYBE COPIED STORED FOROR O WSE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRAI�pTTED, TRAM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, SUBSEQUENT ' ANY SUCH PURPLE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM EVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. All information contained heiein,is obtained by MOODY'S from sources believed by it t be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of hwnan or mechanical arts as well as other factors, however, such information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind and MOODY'S, in partiadar, makes no to the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, merchantability or f for any particular umaaenntha shall wananty, express a implied, to any pin or entity for (a) any loss or damage in whole a in n of soy sods ation. Under at circumpenaa other MOOcums have `any liability y within or outside the control of MOODY'S or caused �8 �' a' t to, any error (procu ent n otherwise) c odm it circumstance a contingency any of � directors, officers, employees or agents in comxtion with the procurement, collection, corn communication, publication or delivery of any such information, or (b) any direct, indirect, special, corn or compilation, lout limitation, lost profits), even if MOODY'S is advised in advance of the possibility of such damages, dory ior nto use, any suchinforniation. cidental damages whatsoever (including without lute credit ratings, � of e ormation �� herein � and musttbbecocomnued solely se �as, statements of opinion and statements of fact or r commendations t ARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMJNFSS, CO MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN O� BY MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. Each rating or other opinion mast be weighed solely as one factor in any investment decision made by or on behalf of any user of the information contained herein, and each such user each must accordingly provider of credit support for, each security that it may consider purcl sing, make is own study and evaluation 17(b)of f the Securities ec and of each issuer3and gummier han discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and m g or Wit• to es, notes and vial Sectionpaper)and of the S preferred stock Act by M33, mows hereby assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MOODY'S for appraiul and services render byyy, it fees $1,000 t 3350,000. stock rated by MOODY'S have, prior to Moody's Municipal credit Report Riverside County Transportation Commission, California January 11, 1996 New Issue General Obligation/Special Tax sale: $63.225.000 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds. 1995 Series A date: Expected through negotiation the week of January 15 Moody's rating: Al (revised from A) Sales Tax Rennin credit comment: The rating on the Commission's Sales Tax Revenue bonds. including parity bonds issued in 1991 and 1992 and the current issue. has been revised from A to Al based on the favorable peak debt service cover- age, policies and contraints which will help sustain coverage. and the continued growth of sales taxes despite the impact of the recession: • Growing sales tax provides favorable peak debt service coverage. Sales tax growth has helped maintain debt service coverage in excess of two times senior lien debt service. despite the severe regional recession and sharp declines in construc- tion and building related sales during the early 1990s. Coverage of peak debt service is favorable. • Policy maintains coverage in excess of standard additional bonds test. By policy. a minimum of two times debt service coverage is maintained. The formal 1.3 times additional bonds test is stan- dard. Policies to limit bonding to certain pro- grams and a legal debt limit. constrain new borrowing. Payout is rapid. • Economic recovery evident. despite construction and military declines. The county was hard hit by the recession. with declines in both construction and military employment leading to high unem- ployment rates. Inexpensive housing and labor. however, have continued to attract employers and residents despite the recession. • Sales tax enjoyed unusually high voter support. Most California county sales taxes received only majority approval. but nearly 80% of voters approved the County's tax. After the program was underway. in 1992. during the height of the reces- sion. voters also approved a 75% increase in the commission's debt limit. • Successful completion of significant components of transportation plan. While transportation is of keen interest throughout the state. transportation is especially significant in the county due to the high proportion of residents who arc employed out of the county and who must commute long distances to urban centers. The commission has completed commuter rail links to Los Angeles and Irvine. as well as road widenings. high occupancy vehicle lanes. and construction of other links. key facts: Pledged Revenue: First lien on Proposition A sales tax: consists of'/ of 1% tax imposed upon • retail and use transactions throughout -Riverside County. less state administrative fee. Payout, Ten Years: 63.8% Addional Bonds Test: I.30x Policy coverage: 0 2.00x 2. General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 Riverside County Transportation Commission, Califomia Peak Debt Service Coverage, 1995 Revenues: 1996 Revenues: Average Annual Increase in Taxable Sales, 1989-94: 0.8% 1993-94: 5.8% Debt Limit: $525.0 million Debt Outstanding: $225.9 million Employment Statistics, 1990, Commuters as % of Employed Residents: 29.2% Construction Industry: 11.1% 2.15x 2.25x 1989 per Capita Income as % of, State: 88.4% U.S.: 100.6% Population Growth, 1980-95: 110.1 << Unemployment Rate 10/95, County: State: U.S.. 9.7% 5.2% a While the commission cannot adjust the sales tax rate. the commission has articulated a policy of maintuimng debt service coverage of two tines senior lien debt service. analysis: Growing Sales Tax Provides Favorable Peak Debt Service Coverage The Commission has been collecting sales taxes since September 1989, and actual revenues have never fallen below two times debt service. With level future debt service, current revenues already provide more than two times coverage of current peak debt service. Taxable sales in the county were affected by the regional recession, and the county experienced sharply slower growth in 1990 and a decline in taxa- ble sales in 1991. Nevertheless, the 15 -year history of taxable sales in the county reflects strong growth and the 1991 decline was the only decline exper- ienced in that period. Due to the rapid pace of development in the county during the 1980s, hous- ing -related sectors accounted for more than one -quar- ter of receipts by 1990: however, with the recession such receipts declined by one-third, leading to the 1991 decline in total sales of 6.4%. While the housing -related sectors have been more volatile, the proportion of taxes derived from housing sectors declined to 17.6% by 1994. Policy Maintains Coverage In Excess Of Stan- dard Additional Bonds Test Several factors constrain the commission's debt and help contribute to the favorable debt service coverage levels. By policy. the Commission maintains a mini- mum debt service coverage of two times by con- straining new debt issuance. The bond indenture: however. creates a legal covenant to maintain only 1.3 times coverage. While the commission has dis- cussed the possibility of increasing the covenant to match the policy, no such action has yet been taken. Apart from the legal covenant and the policy to maintain two times coverage. several other factors also constrain the agency's ability to leverage the sales tax revenues. The original ballot measure authorizing the tax limited the amount of bonds which may be outstanding at any one time to $300 million. This cap was increased to $525 million in 1992. In addition. by policy. the Commission has elected to bond only for the portions of the program allocated to highway,. commuter rail. and regional arterial roads: the local streets and roads and the specialized transit portions are not bonded. While the full sales taxes are pledged. by only bonding against a portion of the revenue stream. the commission has effectively ensured the maintenance of coverage in excess of the legal covenant. The tax expires on June 3072009 and all debt is scheduled to be retired prior to that date. In addition to constraining the ability to leverage future taxes. this time limit also creates an unusually rapid payout. with all debt fully repaid within 15 years. Economic Recovery Evident, Despite Construc- tion And Military Declines A largely residential county. which has benefited from inexpensive land costs to attract commuters'; the county was hard hit by the regional recession. With nearly a third of the labor force commuting outside o' the county, manufacturing and defense cutbacks in neighboring Los Angeles. Orange, and San Diego Counties contributed to high unemployment rates. In General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 Riverside County Transportation Commission, California { 3 addition. base closures and realignments in the Inland Empire - consisting of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties - and the sharp reduction in construction activity, further contributed to the economic slowdown. Notwithstanding the severity of the recession: how- ever. the county has continued to experience popula- tion growth as residents seek lower cost housing away from the Los Angeles Basin. Lower wage rates and inexpensive land costs have also helped to attract employers. As a result. the county is estimated to have experienced 19.1 % population growth just since 1990. Unemployment rates remain well in excess of state and national averages. but have been declining since peaking in 1993. Income levels are well below state averages. reflecting the relatively lower cost of living compared to the metropolitan communities. but compare favorably to national averages. The county economy, measured by total personal income. is larger than the economies of 10 states. Unlike Los Angeles. Orange. and San Diego Coun- ties which have each experienced declines in total employment during the recession. total annual employment has risen each year in Riverside County. Sales Tax Enjoyed Unusually High Voter Support Measure A was approved by 78.9% of county voters. By contrast. most California counties have passed their sales tax increases with only a simple majority vote. Litigation in Santa Clara County challenging a sales tax which has received only simple majoritq approval. instead of the two-thirds approval required by Proposition 62. clearly has no impact on this sales tax. More importantly. the strong voter approval for this tax. together with the support of the debt ceiling increase even after the program was underway and during the height of the recession. is a strong indica- tion of taxpayer support for the commission's program. Successful Completion Of Significant Compo- nents Of Manageable Transportation Plan While transportation is of keen interest throughout the state. transportation is especially significant in the county due to the high proportion of county residents who are employed out of the county and who must commute relatively long distances to urban centers. The commission has successfully completed com- muter rail links to Los Angeles and Irvine. and vari- ous road widenings. high occupancy vehicle lanes. and construction of other transportation links. General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 Riverside County Transportation Commission, California sale information: Legal Name of Issuer: Riverside County Transpor- tation Commission, California. Date of Bonds: January 1, 1996. Security: Limited obligation; first lien on 1/2 cent sales and use tax imposed in Riverside County for public transportation. net of State Board of Equaliza- tion administration fees. Use of Proceeds: Refund Series 1991 A Bonds maturing in 2002, 2003 and term bonds due in 2009 and expected to be called for redemption on June 1, 2001. Based on preliminary numbers furnished by the underwriter. the commission is anticipating net present value savings of approximately 3.0%. Key Contacts Chief Financial Officer: W. Dean Martin. Controller. Financial Advisor: Charles A. Bell Securities Corp., San Francisco. Underwriter: Smith Barney Inc. and PaineWebber Inc., San Francisco. Bond Counsel: O'Melveny & Myers. Los Angeles. Auditor: Ernst & Young LLP, Riverside (FY 1995). Trustee: First Trust of California National Associ- ation, Los Angeles. OO Consultant: Bechtel Civil, Inc. General Counsel: Best. Best & Krieger. M Book entry. The Depository. Trust Company. New York. rating history: January 1996: Al . January 1991: A analyst: Nikolai J. Sklaroff (415) 274-1741 General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 5 Riverside County Transportation Commission, California debt factors: Debt Statement as of 1/15/96 (S000) Amount Bonded debt outstanding Current offering (1/15/96) Gross bonded debt Note payable (] Commercial Paper Notes Gross direct debt Less: Refunded 1991 Bonds maturities Net direct debt Overlapping debt Riverside County Other S 162.751 63.225 $ 225.976 376 O 76.875 $ 303.227 59.325 $ 243.902 486.410 3.935.074 Overall net debt $4.665.386 C] Payable to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Riverside in connection with the purchase of property. © Authorization totals 5100 million and the notes are secured with a direct pay letter of credit up to S76.875.000. As (Whine 30. 1995. the Commission had S30 million outstanding and an additional S14 million was issued after the close of th Refunded 1991 Series maturities due 6/1/2002. 2003 and term bonds due 2009. For additional information please refer to Moody's 1995 Municipal and Government Manual. Defaults: No record found. Debt Ratios Net Debt Direct Overall Per Capita 175 3.348 Rate of Retirement % Median Principal Median O F.V. (%) p Amount Due $ 415 0.3 0.7 1.521. 6.1 3.0 O 1995 median for counties with population 1.000.000 and over. Amount % of ($000) Total In 5 years 5 63.575 27.7 In I0 years 146.335 63.8 In 15 years 229.420 1(x).0 0 Includes remaining.1991. 1993 and 1996 bonds. Sales Tax Revenue Bonds ($000) Amount Rating Issued Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, 1991 Series A Al (revised from A) 1993 Series A Al (revised from A) Subtotal 1996 Series A Total O Based on refunding nt term bonds due in 2009. $112.997 136.610 5249.607 Al 63.225 $312.832 Amount — Outstanding — Before After Final Delivery Delivery Maturity $97.491 $38.166 06/1/04_ 124.585 124.585 s 6/1/09 $222.076 $162.751 0 63.225 6/1/09 $222.076 $225.976 6 General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Structure: Aggregate senior lien debt service is essentially level at $23.67 million, based on prelimi- nary debt service numbers. In addition, the district has $76.8 million of commercial paper outstanding under a 5100 million authorized program. Proceeds from the current issue will be used to advance refund Series 1991 bonds due in 2002 and 2003 and term bonds with sinking fund amortization payments due 2005 through 2009:Present value savings of approxi- mately 3.0% are expected to be taken over the life of the refunding. The refunding bonds are structured with principal payments to coincide with the refunded bonds. together with modest principal pay- ments in the intervening years. CIP/Future Borrowing: According to local officials. no specific borrowing plans are in place for the next several years. although expected growth in sales tax could provide the capacity for additional borrowing. Pursuant to a voter -approved increase. the commis- sion's debt issuance is restricted to not more than $525 million in outstanding sales tax obligations at any time. A policy of maintaining •2.0x coverage. however, will present a practical constraint on bor- rowing. The commission is contemplating convening its commercial paper to fixed rate debt. Subordinate lien debt or additional commercial paper could be issued and not be subject to the constraints on addi- tional senior lien debt: but no borrowing is contem- plated on projects currently regarded as high priorities. Borrowing Restrictions: Measure A. the ordinance imposing the retail transactions and use tax in the county and approved by voters in November 1988. established a debt limit of $300 million. which was increased to 5525 million by voters through Measure AA on November 3. 1992. Selected Debt Service Requirements ($000) Outstanding Current Issue Fiscal Year Bonds Principal Interest First year - 1996 Peak year - 1999 Final year - 2009 Sourer: Smith Rarnc). Inc.: based on an assumed TIC of 5.03% O+ Fiscal 1996 total includes interest payments made December I. 1995: peak remaining debt service is to 1999 $22.206 19.945 13.002 $325 31.5 10.155 $1.437 3.413 513 Total CI $23,968 23.673 23.670 Debt Service Coverage ($000) Net revenues OO Principal and interest (523.672.805 in 1999)(x) Fiscal years I99i.95 [7 I'rolatrd h% con ston. assuming 5% gmwth m net silks_ l7 Net Saks tax receipts. net of Slate Board of Equalization fee 3 Year D FY Ended FY Ended Average 6/30/95 6/30/96 O $49.461 -$50.786 $53.311 2.09 2.15 2.25 security provisions: Bond Security: First lien on the Measure A sales tax. a 'h of..l % tax imposed upon retail and use transactions in Riverside County. Tess an administra- tive fee paid to the State Board of Equalization. Flow of Funds: Standard: pledged revenues (sales taxes net of administrative fees) transmitted by State Board of Equalization directly to trustee where they are deposited in Revenue Fund and then disbursed in the tollowing order of priority: (1) Interest Fund: (2) Principal Fund. Sinking Accounts: (3) Bond Reserve Fund: (4) Rebate Fund: (5) Subordinate Obligation Fund: (6) Subordinate Obligation Reserve Fund. Any remaining funds are transferred to the issuing and paying agenct with respect to the authority's subordinate commercial paper notes and after making all payments are transferred to the commission for any lawful purpose. Covenants: Commission covenants: (I ) to punctu- ally pay principal and interest on bonds: (2) that it has duly levied the retail and transactions tax in General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 ',7 Riverside County Transportation Commission, California accordance with the law and the ordinance; (3) the ordinance has and will not be amended, modified or altered so long as any of the bonds are outstanding in any manner which would reduce the amount of or timing of receipt of sales tax revenues and the Com- mission will continue to levy and collect such trans- actions and use taxes to the full amount permitted by law. Reserve Requirement: Adequate: equal to maxi- mum annual debt service and fully funded from pro- ceeds. In replacement of monies on deposit in Bond Reserve Account. irrevocable letter of credit. surety bond or insurance policy are allowed pursuant to certain conditions. Reserve investments are limited to five year maturities or less. administrative factors: Form of Govemment: Created in 1976, the com- mission is comprised of three Riverside County Supervisors, three city members, one of whom is from the City of Riverside, one citizen member appointed by the commission, one nonvoting member appointed by the governor and several alternates. The Commission acts as the policy -making board for Riv- erside County transportation activities and is respon- sible for carrying out the collection and allocation of the sales tax. Management is directed by an Execu- tive Director. Jack Reagan, who has served in that role since 1988. The commission is one of five members of the South- ern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). a joint powers authority created in 1992 to implement a regional commuter rail system (Metrolink) in the five southern California counties. The commission's prorata share of Metrolink capital and operating costs was 53.497.789 in 1995. Public Employees: Currently there are 19 staff members who serve the commission. The commis- sion hires consultants on an as -needed basis. includ- ing a consultant contract for program development with Bechtel Corporation. Interest Rate Swaps: The commission had two interest rate swap agreeements with Goldman Sachs in which it agreed to pay a floating rate in exchange for a fixed rate on amounts totaling $188.962 million. The commission unwound both swaps: an $80 mil- lion swap maturing on April 7. 1999 was sold. The commission has received quarterly installments since December 1992 on the remaining $108.962 million. The final payment will be received in March 1996. Pensions: All permanent employees are eligible to participate in the State's Public Employee's Retire- ment System. The Commission pays the employees' required contribution of 79c of regular salary. and the commission's own obligation under the system was approximately 99c in 1994. There was an overfunded pension benefit obligation of $341.141 as of the June 30. 1994 actuarial valuation. Risk Management: Construction projects and rail properties are covered by a combination of commer- cial insurance. insurance required of Commission consultants and a self-insurance fund established by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. Investments: Substantially all cash is deposited with the Riverside County Treasury pool. The California Arbitrage Management Program (CAMP) holds approximately $2.5 million of unexpended Commis- sion bond proceeds: CAMP has invested in Orange County pension obligation bonds which are currently rated Caa. While payment has been made on the interest on the bonds. the Commission does not know how much. if any. loss on its investment CAMP might allocate to the Commission. In September 1995. the Commission adopted a new investment policy. which restricted investments to a more limited set of investments than permitted under state law. Litigation/Legislation/Referenda: There is report- edly no litigation against the commission concerning - the validity of the bonds. the political existence of the commission. or the commission's ability to impose and collect the sales tax. 8 General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Snurcc• C:dtlorAta State Board of Equalization 0 As calculated he Smith Barney. Inc.. includes Household & Home t urnlshangs. Household Appliance Dealers. Second -Hand Merchandise. Budding Matenal Group and 411 -MI5: of the Other Category. as defined by the State Board of Equalization Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Sales Tax: The sales and use tax of t/ of I% on the gross receipts was imposed under the terms of Mea- sure A. approved by 78.9% of the electorate in the county in November 1988. The sales tax is one of the few in the state which has received approval by a supermajority of voters. The ordinance imposed the tax for 20 years. beginning in July 1989 and ending June 30. 2009. The ordinance imposed a limit of $300 million of bonds which might be outstanding at any one time; this was increased to $525 million in accordance with Measure AA approved by voters in November 1992. Measure allocates sales tax revenues to three defined geographic areas of the county in proportion to the funds generated within those areas: • Western County: • Coachella Valley Area: 70.92% 27.59% • Palo Verde Valley Area: 1.49% Revenues must then be allocated to the programs of the geographic areas according to percentages defined by Measure A: Westem County Local Streets and Roads: Highways: Commuter Rail: Specialized Transit: Coachella Valley Area Regional Arterial: Local Streets and Roads: Highways: Specialized Transit: Palo Verde Valley Area Local Streets and Roads: 40% 39% 16% 5C/ 40% 35%k 15% 10%k 100% Taxable Sales Trends Housing Related - Total Taxable Sales - Sectors O Year ($ million) % Change % 9 ($ million) Change $3.274 3,546 3.578 4.089 4.874 5.403 5.959 6.741 7.550 8.796 9.523 8.911 9.227 9.275 9.815 8.3 0.9 14.3 19.2 10.9 10.3 13.1 12.0 16.5 8.3 -6.4 3.5 0.5 5.8 $697 717 683 809 1.037 1.197 1.395 1.602 1.825 2.188 2.422 1.622 1.576 1.597 1.725 2.9 -4.7 18.5 28.2 15.4 16.5 14.8 13.9 19.9 10.7 -33.0 -2.9 1.3 8.0 Housing as • % of Taxable Sales 21.3 20.2 19.1 19.8 21.3 •12 23.4 23.8 24.2 24.9 25.4 18.2 17.1 17.2 17.6 General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 9 Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Taxable Transactions by Type: Riverside County ($000) Taxable Sales % of Total 1988 1990 1992 1994 1988 1990 ' 1992 1994 Apparel $ 262.428 $ 331.428 $ 389.382 $ 406.973 3 3 4 4 General Merchandise 808.269 1.014.701 1.203.911 1.350.233 11 11 13 14 Specialty 384.282 563.669 616.778 649.285 5 6 7 7 Liquor 66.403 68.095 62.328 53.418 1 I .1 1 Food stores 544.908 689.392 786.616 648.486 7 7 9 7 Eating and drinking 651.868 784.723 827.009 884.970 9 8 9 9 Home furnishings 256.814 314.541 266.409 299.746 3 3 3 3 Agricultural supplies 179.227 191.827 133.320 144.845 2 2 1 1 Building 579.137 666.347 490.306 550.512 8 7 5 6 Automotive 1.745 276 1.963.533 1.898.666 2.130.049 23 21 21 12 Business/Rersonal 415.489 523.638 494.770 496.395 6 5 5 5 Other 1.655.780 2.410.737 2.057.938 2.199.621 22 25 22 2li 2 Total $7.549.881 $9.522.631 $9.227.433 $9.814.533 Taxable Transaction Growth: Riverside County Sales Sales Sales Retail % Other % Total % Calendar Year ($000) Change ($000) Change (S000) Change 1989 $6,257,222 $2,539.137 - $8.796.359 1990 6.596.974 5.4 2.925.657 15.2 9.522.631 8.3 1991 6,389.890 -3.1 2.521.231 -13.8 8.91 1.121 . -6.4 1992 6,684.107 4.6 2.543.326 0.9 9.227.433 3.5 1993 6,716.703 0.5 2.558.573 0.6 9,275.276 0.5 1994 7,131,216 6.2 2.683,317 4.9 9.814,533 5.8 Source: California Sate Equalization Board General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 Riverside County Transportation Commission, Califomia County Sales Tax Comparisons Average Per Annual Capita Sales Growth Income 1994 Taxable per in Sales as % of County Sales ($000)17 Capita 1989-94 State Source: California State Equalization Board and U.S. Bureau of Census. ID Most recent full year of data available. Alameda $14.164,148 $10.832 2.0 107 Contra Costa 7,818.165 9.301 1.2 126 Imperial 1.041,052 8,072 3.8 56 Los Angeles 76.898,666 8.494 -1.1 98 Orange 28,276,259 11.380 0.5 121 Riverside 9,814.533 7.617 0.8 88 Santa Barbara 3.177.546 8.462 9.0 105 San Bernadino 11.843,466 7.719 1.2 81 San Diego 22.375.143 8.602 0.7 99 San Francisco 8,798.349 12.070 0.6 120 San Mateo 8,172,772 12.317 1.0 137 Santa Clara 19,633.186 12.845 2.3 124 property valuation and tax data: Riverside County Transportation Commission Fiscal Assessed Levy % Current Year Valuation ($000) % Change ($000) Collected 1991 $62,254.000 1992 $759.601 92.4 69.277.000 1 1.3 862.081 90.9 1993 1994 73.502.000 6.1 930.931 90.9 76.108,(X)0 3..5 1995 941.680 91.7 76.044.000 -0.1 948.728 92.0 1995 Full Valuation: 1995 Equalization Rate: $76.044.0(X).000 Average Annual Growth F.V.. 1991-95: 5.1% I00.0% 1995 F.V. per Capita: $54.571 economic factors: Population: Riverside County Year Population Area % Change (sq. mi.) Density County State U.S. Source U.S. Census Bureau. Lind area in 1990 ..-an indicate an area change without a boundary change due to new measurement technique V7 Estimated by Commission. based on State Department of Finance data. as reported in Official Statement 1970 456.916 7.176 64 49.2 27.1 198() 663.199 7,176 - 18.5 111.4.4 1995 D 13.3 1990 92 45.1 1.170.413 O 7.208 162 76.5 25.7 9.8 1.393.500 7,208 193 19.1 General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 11 Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Location: The Commission serves the entire County of Riverside, located east of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The county is bordered to the north • by San Bernardino County and to the south by San Diego and Imperial counties. The fourth largest county in the state. the county extends from the Arizona border to within 20'miles of the Pacific Ocean and encompasses 24 incorporated cities. Population and Housing Characteristics: Riverside County County 1980 Population: Median age % school age Ck working age C% 65 and over No. persons/household Income: Median family income C% below poverty level % children below poverty level Per capita income Housing: % vacant Ck owner occupied % built before 1939 Ck built since last census Owner occupied median value Median gross rent Occupied housing units Source. U.S. Census Bureau. State 1990 1990 U.S. 1990 31.7 31.5 31.5 32.9 20.2 19.5 18.0 18.2 57.3 58.3 •63.4 61.7 14.9 13.2 10.5 12.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6 $18,682 $37.694 $40.559 $35.225 11.3 11.5 12.5 13.1 15.8 18.2 18.3 $7.477 $14.510 $16.409 $14.420 68.4 6.4 43.9 $67,700 $270 242.937 7.4 67.4 3.3 43.6 5139.100 $572 402.067 1.7 3.0 55.6 64.2 10.7 18.4 22.9 20.7 $195.5(10 $79.10(1 $620 $447 Labor Market Characteristics: Riverside County Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 10/94 10/95 Labor Total % Unemployed Force Employed County _ _ _ State 541,035 489,323 573,375 507,718 577.949 510.321 589.381 526,926 595.298 535,331 600.335 542.395 11.5 11.7 10.6 10.1 9.7 Source•.L.ocal Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS1. Bureau of Labor Statistics. r lon.hiy estimates are not seasonally adjusted. I.AIJS estimates staning in January 1994 are conceptually differem from those available for earlier periods. 9.6 7.5 9.1 9.2 8.6 7.4 7.4 U.S. 6.7 7.4 6.8 6.1 5.4 5.2 12 General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Per Capita Income Year Income County County State 1979 $ 7,477 1989 14.510 94.1 129.5 97.8 % Change County as % of U.S. State U.S. 132.4 97.7 90.1 88.4 102.5 100.6 Largest Employers: Riverside County Employer Riverside County March Air Force Base Palm Desert Town Center Valley Health Services Marriott Desert Springs Resort Stater Brothers Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. Desert Hospital Kaiser Permanente Eisenhower Medical Center Source Official Statement: Inland Empire Economic Partnership. Business Government Military base Shopping center Health care Resort hotel Grocery Manufactured housing Health care Health care Health care Employees 1995 10.400 9.026 2.500 2.000 2.000 1.900 1.892 1.800 1.800 1.689 Comparative Employment Statistics 17 County San Bernardino Los Angeles. Orange R i vcrsidc San Diego San Francisco Source: US Census Bureau. D Employed person%. 16 years and over. Employed Residents 1980 1990 357.494 3.371.041 959.100 251.975 820.998 332.535 594.667 4.102.210 1.273.955 480.502 1.220.271 380.720 % Employed - Out of County - 1980 1990 25 31.7 4 5.6 20 18.1 22 29.2 2 2.6 14 19.3 % Construction - Industry 1980 7.6 4.6 6.5 9.0 5.9 3.8 Total Employment Growth 1990 1980-90 9.5 66.3 6.0 21.7 6.9 32.8 1 1. 1 90.7 7.3 48.6 4.4 14.5 financial factors: Operating Funds Financial Performance (fiscal years ended 12/31 $000)13 Revenues Expenditures Operating surplus (deficit) 0 D General. Special Revenue tincluding Measure A funds) and Debt Service Funds Imodified accrual method of accounting) 3 General and Special Revenue Fund only. million of commercial paper proceeds C I Ludes 527.5 million of net transfers in. representing transfers from the Capital Projects Fund which received 5135.4 million of hond proceeds and 525 1993 1994 1995 1993-94hange1994-95 $5.5.216 78.521 4.171 $65.575 80.125 (14.550) $67.290 61.408 5.882 18.8 2.0 -448.9 2.6 -23.4 -140.4 General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 ''13 Riverside County Transportation Commission, Califomia • 1995 Sources of Revenue Sales tax Reimbursements Interest Other 1995 Items of Expenditure 81.2 . Debt service 9.2 Local streets and roads 4.3 Commuter rail 5.3 Specialized transportation/transit Highways Other administrative expeneses Motorist assistance Commuter assistance Salaries and benefits 38.1 31.8 10.6 7.9 2.5 2.4 ,1 1.6 1.2 General and Special Fund Financial Position (fiscal years ended 12/31 $000) . 1993 1994 Cash and investments Operating loans Other current liabilities O Year-end cash surplus Receivables Fund balance Undesignated fund balance Designated for contingency 3 Nei of deferred gain. $43.981 $47.820 6.877 4.031 $37.104 $ 6.691 $61,956 $43.788 $ 6.772 $49.365 12.060 2.110 1995 $41.917 5.370 $36.547 $18.549 $55.597 2.051 3.928 Sales Tax Revenues and Debt Service Coverage Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 199600 1997 1998 M 1999 0 20(X)IJ 3 Nine month. onl. Total Taxable Sales °k ($000) © Change 59.522.631 8.91 1.121 9.227.433 9.275.276 9.814.533 Net Sales Total Tax Debt Revenues % Service (S000) Change ($000) 8.3 El $36.238 - 0 -6.4 48.286 33.2 52.906 3.5 46.107 -4.5 10.825 0.5 48.926 6.1 13.779 5.8 48.672 -0.5 23.822 50.786 4.3 23.822 53.311 5.0 0 23.456 56.036 5.1 0 23.677 58.898 5.1 0 23.681 61.902 5.1 0 23.680 65.056 5.1 0 23.679 'J Commission protections based on an assumed 5(r annual growth in taxable .ale.. M A..uincs an effective interest rate on the 1996 bond. of 5.05(4. M Rased on a peak debt service of S23.672.805 in 1999 California State I:quahzation Board. Debt Service Coverage (x) NA 16.62 4.26 3.55 2.04 1.13 2.27 2.37 2.49 2.61 2.75 Peak Debt Service Coverage (x) O 1.53 2.04 1.95 2.07 2.06 2.15 2.25 2.37 2.49 2.61 2.75 162878F01 ■ 14 General Obligation/Special Tax January 11, 1996 Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Copyright 199i, by Moo dy's Investor. Service. Inc.. 99 Church Street. New York. New York 10007. All right. reserved. ALI. INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS COPYRIGHTED IN THE NAME OF MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. ("MOODY'S"), AND NONE: OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED. DISSEMINATED. REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD. OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER. BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. All ndonnation contained herein is obtained by 1►1OODl"S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factor.. however. such mfonnation ix provided as is'. without warranty of any kind and MOODY'S. in panrcular. makes no representation or warranty. express or implied. as to the accuracy. timeliness. completeness. merchantability or fitness for any panicular purpose of any such information. Under no circumstances shall MOODY'S have any liability to any person or entity for uu any loss or damage in whole or in pan caused hy. resulting from. or relating to. any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of 111001)1"S or any of its directors. officers. employees or agents in connection with the procurement. collection. compilation. analysis. interpretation. communication. publication or deliver of any such information. or (b) any direct. indirect. special. consequential. compensatory or incidental damages whatsoever (including without limitation. lost profits). even if MOODY'S is advised in advance of the possibility of such damages. resulting from the use of or inability to use. any such information. The credo ratings. if any. constituting pan of the information contained herein are. and must be construed solely as. statements of opinion and not statements of fact or mntendahons to purchase. sell or hold any securities. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS,.COMPLETENESS. .t CHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE 1.1 MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. Each rating or other opinion must be weighed solely as one factor in any investment decision made by or on hehal l of any user of the information contained herein. and each such user must accordingly make its own study and evaluation of each security and of each issuer and guarantor of. and each provider of credit suof debt ppon for. each .ecunty that it may consider purchasing. holding or selling. Pursuant to Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933. MOODY'S hereby a.•tenmcmmo most ratiUg. agreeti 10 pay rto MOODY'S for appraisal and ratting services rendered by ittffees ranging from 51.0001 50.000 stock rated by MOODY'S have. prim to Charles A. Bell & Co., Inc. 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 960 San Francisco, Califomia 94104-2804 (415) 433-0270 FAX (415) 433-2185 MEMORANDUM TR .y; TO: Dean Martin Controller Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue Riverside, California 92501 FROM: A. Christopher St. James Managing Director DAM: January 11, 1996 RE: Merits of Formalizing the Commission's 2x Debt Service Coverage Policy Dear Mr. Martin: RCTC, unlike many other sales tax issuers, is constrained by both a sunset on sales tax collections and by a total debt limitation. As a consequence, financial flexibility may be an even more important factor to the Commission than to other such issuers in achieving its objectives. Obviously, whatever else 2x coverage does, it will limit flexibility and capacity on the senior lien level going forward. The 1.30x coverage level which is the current "legal" level has served the Commission well. The Commission has been able to effectively leverage its sale taxes and achieve high investment grade ratings of A/A+ from Moody's & S&P respectively. Moody's has adjusted its rating to the "correct" level of Al. An Al/A+ rating is a very strong attractive sales tax rating. Moody's had focussed on the region's economy rather than on coverage level, as 1.30x coverage represents a strong and adequate level of coverage for sales tax supported bonds such as the Commissions. Prior to the Commission's recent rating agency presentations in New York and in Riverside, discussions on raising the senior debt coverage had focused primarily on obtaining an upgrade from Moody's which is now in hand. Standard and Poors has offered to raise the Commission's rating to AA if RCTC goes to a legal coverage of 2x debt service, however, neither Moody's or Fitch would be likely to do so. As a result, the Commission would again have a split rating, with only one rating in the double AA category. Even if Moody's moved to AA as well, the current refunding issue would still likely achieve a lower TIC on an insured basis, rather than on a "stand-alone" basis due to the very competitive insurance rates now available. San Francisco • Los Angeles Riverside County Transportation Commission January 11, 1996 Page Two Until recently, no future new money debt financings were contemplated by the Commission. In the absence of a new issue, the major benefit of a double AA rating would be to raise the value of any outstanding uninsured Commission bonds. Outstanding insured bonds would not be effected. If new money bondsare issued in the future, a 2x coverage will diminish overall bonding -capacity whether the senior lien is closed or whether the bonds are issued as subordinate bonds. I would not recommend that the legal coverage be increased. AGENDA ITEM #5D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Louise Givens, Assistant Director Intergovernmental Programs SUBJECT: Extension of Washington, D.C. Lobbyist Services Contract This item provides the Commission with information for consideration of extension of the contract for lobbying services with our Washington, D.C. consultant, David Turch. This item requests, RCTC support of the extension of the contract through June 30, 1996. The attached contract extension has been prepared by legal counsel for your review and approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the extension of Washington, D.C. Lobbyist Services Contract. LG:jw Attachment THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES 1. Parties and Date. This Amendment to the Agreement for Consulting Services is made and entered into this day of 1996 by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as "RCTC," and David Turch & Associates, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." 2. Recitals. 2.1 The parties have entered into an agreement for consulting services dated June 28, 1995 ("the Master Agreement"). 2.2 The parties subsequently entered into a First Amendment and a Second Amendment to the Master Agreement. 2.3 Subsequent to the Second Amendment, the parties agreed to extend the term and all operative provisions of the Master Agreement, as amended by the First and Second Amendments, for the period between January 1, 1996 and February 14, 1996. 2.4 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement, as amended by the First and Second Amendments, to extend the term thereof. 3. Terms. 3.1 The parties hereby agree that each recital in this Amendment is true and correct. 3.2 The term of the Master Agreement is hereby extended until June 30, 1996, or until terminated pursuant to the relevant terms of the Master Agreement. 3.3 This Amendment shall become effective on February 15, 1996. 3.4 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master Agreement and the First and Second Amendments thereto, 2 CXS299538 including without limitation provisions, shall remain in full the actions of the parties under RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Alex Clifford, Chair REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: Jack Reagan, Executive Director REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: By: Dean Martin, Controller APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission CXS299538 3 the indemnity and insurance force and effect and shall govern this Amendment. DAVID TURCH AND ASSOCIATES By: By: (Title) (Title) AGENDA ITEM #5E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller SUBJECT: Final results of the FY95 Audits Ernst & Young will present the final results of the 1994/94 audit of the Commission and the TDA/Measure A recipients. Draft copies of the management letters will be provided for discussion purposes. E & Y will also be prepared to discuss the status and performance of the MBE firm which assisted on the TDA audits. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize staff to draft responses to the management letter comments for review and discussion at the April meeting. :jw 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget and Finance Committee Meeting February 7, 1996 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget and Finance Committee February 7, 1996 Review of Compliance and Internal Control Reports • Report of Independent Auditors on the Internal Control Structure in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards • Report of Independent Auditors on Compliance with Laws and Regulations in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards • Management Letter Review of Subcontractor Relationship Co -development Plan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Report of Independent Auditors on the Inte C. ► �i l Structure in Accordance with Government Audit ! • ndards Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission as of and for the year ended June 30, 1995, and have issued our report thereon dated October 6, 1995. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement. The management of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of internal control structure policies and procedures. The objectives of an internal control structure are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, and that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of general purpose financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Because of inherent limitations in any internal control structure, errors or irregularities may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of the structure to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate. In planning and performing our audit of the general purpose financial statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the year ended June 30, 1995, we obtained an understanding of the internal control structure. With respect to the internal control structure, we obtained an understanding of the design of relevant policies and procedures and whether they have been placed in operation, and we assessed control risk in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the general purpose financial statements and not to provide an opinion on the internal control structure. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 1 Page 2 Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control structure that might be material weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the specific internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that would be material in relation to the general purpose financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined above. We noted other matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we have reported to the management of the Riverside County Transportation Commission in a separate letter dated October 6, 1995. This report is intended for the information of management, the Board of Commissioners, and the California State Controller's Office. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. DRAFT October 6, 1995 Report of Independent Auditors on Comp IZ) with Laws and Regulations in Accord Government Auditing Standar Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission as of and for the year ended June 30, 1995, and have issued our report thereon dated October 6, 1995. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement. Compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to the Local Transportation Fund, including the Transportation Development Act, as summarized in the "Guidelines on Auditing Conformance" published by the Southern California Association of Governments, is the responsibility of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's management. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. However, the objective of our audit of the general purpose financial statements was not to provide an opinion on overall compliance with such provisions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported herein under Government Auditing Standards. This report is intended for the information of management, the Board of Commissioners, and the California State Controller's Office. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. October 6, 1995 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr. Jack Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission DRAFT In planning and performing our audit of the general purpose financial statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) for the year ended June 30, 1995, we considered its internal control structure in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the general purpose financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control structure. During our audit, the following matters came to our attention that we believe merit your consideration: * * * * * * Implementation of Accounting System We would like to recognize the Commission's efforts in implementing our recommendations from prior years related to evaluating and determining its need for acquiring a new accounting system. Management researched and evaluated several available systems before purchasing its current system which was implemented in fiscal 1996. We encourage management to continue to assess its accounting system needs. Implementation of Program and Funding Guide We would also like to commend management for conducting meetings with Measure A recipient representatives to resolve certain Program and Funding Guide issues which we have noted in prior years. We understand that the Commission's Program and Funding Guide has been submitted to the Commission for approval in fiscal 1996. We recommend that management revise the Program and Funding Guide as deemed necessary in order to keep management and recipients abreast of new requirements or changes to existing requirements. Advance Receivables Included on the Commission's June 30, 1995 balance sheet is a receivable of $9.2 million representing a disbursement to the County of Riverside (County) advanced on behalf of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) for certain right of way acquisitions. As the properties are obtained and funds actually expended by the County, the receivable has been 1 1 1 DRAFT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 2 and will continue to be reduced and bond proceeds expended. During our Measure A audit of CVAG, we noted that the amount of expended bond proceeds did not agree with the Commission's records and required an adjustment of $3,869,000. We encourage communication among all three entities regarding this arrangement to ensure proper recording of such activity by each entity. Close -Out Process of Capital Grants We have observed that transit operators usually receive Transportation Development Act (TDA) capital grant funds in advance of actual expenditures and that recipients are not required to report on the status of such grants. As a result, we have noted amounts that have expired or have been used for other capital projects, requiring subsequent approval from the Commission. We recommend that the Commission review its TDA capital grant process to determine whether funds should be disbursed on a reimbursement basis and to establish a periodic grant reporting and close-out process. The Commission should consider using the funding and reporting process established by the Federal Transit Administration. Implementation of such procedures would ensure that funds are spent as intended and are available for priority projects. Timely Billings The Commission assessed a $1,500 audit fee to seven cities which required an Article 8 audit due to unexpended Article 8 monies at June 30, 1994. During our testwork, we noted that the Commission had not invoiced the cities for the audit fees. Similar fees were also assessed for the 1995 audits. We recommend that the Commission prepare and submit timely billings to ensure that the amounts are collected in a timely manner and that adequate supporting documentation is maintained. Resolution of Questioned Costs During the 1994 and 1993 Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimant audits, we reported a noncompliance matter related to a transit operator, resulting in questioned costs of approximately $5,400 and $4,900, respectively. During the current year audits, we noted that the Commission had determined that the questioned costs were immaterial and reimbursement was not required; however, this resolution was not documented. We recommend that the Commission document, in writing, resolution of all questioned costs and other instances of noncompliance. Payment of Measure A Disbursements During our Measure A recipient audits, we noted that one city had not received its October 1994 Measure A disbursement. Due to an error, the required disbursement was overlooked. Additionally, we noted that one city which had not submitted its five-year plan received a 1 Page 3 Measure A allocation for one month; however, management discovered this error and discontinued future payments until a plan was filed. We recommend that the Commission implement a review process to ensure that appropriate Measure A disbursements are made. Updating Five Year Plans During our Measure A recipient audits, we noted instances in which costs were incurred relating to projects not included in the most current Measure A five year plan submitted by the cities; however, such projects often were listed on prior year plans. The Commission should review the process for preparing five year plans with Measure A recipients to ensure that all projects including carryover projects, whose expenditures are anticipated to be incurred in the following fiscal years, are properly identified in sufficient detail on the five year plan which is approved annually. ****** This letter is intended solely for the information and use of management, the Budget and Finance Committee, and the Board of Commissioners. We would be pleased to discuss the above matters or to respond to any questions, at your convenience. DRAFT October 11, 1995 1 AGENDA ITEM #5F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report For the six month period ending December 31, 1995, three contracts were executed under single signature authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. Those contracts are outlined on the attached report. There was approximately $37,345 in unused and expired capacity at December 31, 1995. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. :jw Attachment CONTRACTS AUTHORIZED UNDER SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1995 CONSULTANT Friends of Jeff erson H ouse Mary Sue O'Melia David Turch & Asso ciate s TOTAL DESCRIPTION CONTRACT EXPENDED REMAINING OF SERVICES AMOUNT AMOUNT BALANCE Cleaning of all FOUR Rail Stations One month Service (October) 4,155 Evaluate RTA's prop osed bus feed er service for Metrolink C ommuter Rail service (One m onth service -October) 2,500 720 Legislative advocate -3 m onths service (Oct ober through December) 6,000 4,000 12,655 AMOUNT AV AILABLE JULY 1, 1995 THRU DECEMBER 31, 1995 50,000 AMOUNT REMAINING THRU DECEMBER 31, 1995 37,345 4,155 0 1,780 2,000 8,875 3,780 AGENDA ITEM #5G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller SUBJECT: LTF Revenue Estimate for FY96/97 Annually, the County of Riverside (i.e., the Auditor Controller) is required by statute to estimate revenues for the Local Transportation Fund. The source of funding is a one quarter cent sales tax authorized to be levied on the entire county under the Transportation Development Act (TDA). Though this tax legally is collected by the County of Riverside, administrative and apportionment responsibilities rest with the Commission. The County of Riverside is also responsible for disbursement of the LTF funds once approved by the Commission. Although the legal requirement rests with the County to provide the revenue estimate, in practice RCTC staff has developed the estimate, and then submitted it to the County for revision and approval. In most cases the County has accepted the estimate of Commission staff. That estimate is then approved by the Commission, at which time it becomes the basis for apportionment to the three geographic areas of the County. Staff is estimating that revenues for 1996/97 will be $27,500,000. Based on the most recent actual data available to staff, LTF revenues for the current fiscal year will be approximately $26,500,000. Our estimate for 1997 is a 4% increase over the projected 1996 revenues, and consists of an assumption of inflation growth of 3% and real growth of 1 %. Staff will report at the Commission if the County agrees with this estimate, or if there is disagreement, the County's estimate will be provided along with the underlying assumptions. The apportionment per area is provided in the attached spreadsheet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the areas apportionments based on the revenue estimate provided by staff and the Auditor Controller of the County of Riverside. ATTACHMENT TO: AGENDA ITEM #5G LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1996/97 APPORTIONMENTS Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $1,100,000 Est Receipts TOTAL $27,500,000 Auditor $28,600,000 CTC Admin. $12,000 CTC Planning (396) SCAG Planning BALANCE $81,8130 SB 821 (296) $27,208,200 BALANCE AVAILABLE $544,164 $26,664,036 ANNUAL POPULATION APPORTIONMENT 96 of Total Westem 76.346896 Coachella Valley 320,357,126 Palo Verde Valley 22.088196 $5,889,585 1.566196 $417,325 100.0096 $26,664,036 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change • AGENDA ITEM #5H IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Gary Martin, Measure A Project Manager Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending December 31, 1995. Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and cooperative agreements is available from Bechtel staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. :jw Attachments RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTI ON ROUTE 60 PR OJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ (R09218,9232,9303,9304,9305,9306) SUBTOTAL ROUTE BO ROUTE 74 PRO JECTS Cooperative Agreement Preliminary Engrg/Environ/Final Engrg (R09012, 9115) Construction & ROW (R0 9012) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 ROUTE 79 PRO JECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. /ROW (R09111, 9116, 9301,9302, 9306,9337) Lambs Canyon Proj. (RO9423,9429,9518,9522) Sanderson Project (R09011) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 RO UTE 86 PROJECTS Final Design (R08907) Construction & Mitigation (R09213) . . .. .. .. ....... . SUBTOTAL ROUTE 86 ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R0 9219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538) St!UBTO TAL ROttT 111 CO MMISSI ON AUTHORIZED ALLOCATI ON $3,839,295 $3,839,296 (4) $3,358,713 $8,183,914 $11,642,627 *961,366 $21,073,703 $23,115,000 $53,150,069'. $1,219,000 $20,115,078 (4) 221,334,078' $6,550,115 $6,500,115 C ONTRACTURAL % COM MITTED COM MITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. TO DATE ALLOCATI ON $3,411,944 $3,411,944 $3,358,713 $8,183,914 $11;642',627 $8,455,649 $19,937,168 $13,022,522 $41,415;339 $1,219,000 $16,148,369 (4) $17,367,389 ' $6,288,616 $6,288,616 . : . ... .. ... . Page 1 of 4 88.9% 99 .9% 100.0% 100 .0 % 190 .8% 94 .4 % 94 .6 % 56.3% 77 .9% 100.0 % 80.3% 8t 4% 9'6. 0% EXPENDITURE F OR % EXPENDITURES MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST December 31, 1995 TO DATE CO MMIT MNTS TO DATE 30 $4,501 $1,416 85,917 $102,887 3102,887 $2,839,778 82,839,778. $2,937,277 $7,482,777 3111,420054 $8,372,167 $17,484,896 $11,965,913 ;37,822,975 $1,210,000 $15,927,436 $17,137,436 $1,623,454 21,623,484 83 .2% 83 .2% 87 .5% 91.4 % 90.3% 99.0 % 87.7% 91 .9 % 81.3% 99.3 % 98.6 % 98 .7% 25.8 % 26.9% RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUD GET REPORT BY ROUTE PR OJECT DESCRIPTION ROUTE 91 PROJECTS M agnolia to OCL (HOV) (R O 9133) City of Corona (Smith, Maple, Lincoln IC) (2) Magnolia to Mary (R09101, 9308, 9415, 9524) SR71 to 1-15 (R0 9123,9128,9129,9130) 1-15 to 1-215 (R09131) M cKinley Undercro ssing (R09326) Van Buren Blvd. Fry Hook Ramp SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 1-216 PRO JECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) (4) Right -of -Way (RO 9004,9009, 9622, 9336) SUBTOTAL I-215 INTERCHANG E IMPRO V. PROGRAM Prelim. Engrg (PSR'S) (R09107,9124-9127 ) RT91 Interchange (Maple & Lincoln) (2) Eastridge Overcrossing (R09132) Galena Interchange (R09014) Yuma IC Final Design (PS&E) (R09428) Yuma IC (City of Norco R09237) SUSTOTALINTERCHANGE BECHTEL PROJECT MGMT SERV. (R08900 thru R09600) SUBTOTAL BECH EL (1) COMMISSI ON AUTHORIZED ALLOCATION $30,982,198 $8,104,137 $10,812,508 $3,393,807 $108,792 $1,614,951 CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE F OR COMMIT MENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED TO DATE ALLOCATI ON December 31, 1995 $27,055,658 $7,015,976 $10,530,460 $3,261,015 $108,792 $1,614,951 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 •365,018,393 349,586,852, $6,726,504 $32,770,000 $39,495,604 $3,666,628 $1,288,240 $1,500,000 $73,980 $1,200,000 $650,000 $8,375,848 $11,389,236 $11,3$9,2361 $5,450,721 $32,770,000 $38,220,721 $3,666,628 $1,288,240 $900,000 $73,980 $1,099,975 $650,000 $7,578,823 $11,091,236 $11,091,236 Page 2 of 4 87.3% 86.6 % 97.4% 96.1% 100 .0% 100 .0% $33,603 $15,785 901% $33,603 . 81 .0% 100.0% 96.8% 100 .0% 100.0% 60.0% 100.0% 91. 7% 100. 0% 91.6% 97.4% 97.4% $0 $54,717 $54,717 $0 % EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST TO DATE C OMMIT MNTS TO DATE $26,878,754 $7,015,976 $8,286,162 $2,642,335 $108,792 $1,393,440 $44,932,019 $5,405,791 $30,705,836 $36;111,627 $1,807,776 $1,288,240 $73,980 $926,204 $280,000 $4,376,200 $9,798,923 $9,798,923 99.3% 100 .0 % 78.7% 81 .0% 100 .0 % 86.3% 90.6% 99 .2% 93.7% 94.5% 49.3% 100 .0% 100.0% 84 .2% 43.1% 57 .0% 88 .3% 88.3% RCT C MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY R OUTE PR OJECT DESCRIPTION PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES Program Studies (R09006,9119,9227, 9307) Corridor Studies (R09017,9110,9120) Mapping Control/QA (R09007) SUBTOTAL PROGRAM PLAN & SVCS. PARK-N-RIDEANCENT. PROG RAM (R09121,9134, 9311, 9418, 9526, 9501- 9506 9514- 9517, 9526, 9528, 9601 - 9613, Impress) SUBTOTAL PARR -N -RIDE CO MMUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering (RO 9323, 9324, 9325, 9333, 9407, 9414, 9420, 9430) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs (R09209,9009,9221, 9416, 9417, 9424, 9510, 9521 9527, 9529, 9531, 9532, 9533, 9536, 9620, 9626, Impress) SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL TOTALS C OMMISSION CONTRACTURAL AUTHORIZED C OMMIT MENTS ALL OCATI ON TO DATE $5,275,161 $689,450 $2,683,729 98,048,340. $6,729,966 $6,729,9$6 $4,547,311 $92,776,388 $97,323.699 $319,559,875 $5,275,161 $640,467 $2,683,729 98,899,351 .... .. ... . $6,729,966 $6,729466 $4,547,311 $92,548,805 997,096;116 $295,817,022 % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR A GAINST AUTH . MONTH ENDED ALLOCATION Decemb er 31, 1995 100 .0% 92.9% 100 .0 % 99 .4%: 100 .0% 100.0% 100 .0% 99 .8 % 99.8% 92.5% 9118.173' $12,529 $99,056 5111,885 NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. (2) RCTC project actual share after portion allocated to RT 91, IC Improvement Program (loan) & Local Streets & Roads Program . (3) RCTC portion only of Caftans Contract (4) SANBAG responsible for 25% Report doe s not include Legal and Financial services or salary and fringe benefits All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. r Page 3 of 4 9423,882 % EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES TO -DATE A GAINST TO DATE COMMIT MNTS TO DATE $3,201,593 $634,915 $2,634,267 56,470,776 $5,043,611 $89,011,720 993,478,167 5270,055,010 60.7% 99.1% 98 .2 % 75.2% 74.9 % 74.9% 98.2% 96.2% 98.3% 91 .4% Status Mo . Endi ng 12/31/93 RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REP ORT BY PROJECT PROJECT APPROVED DESCRIPTION COMMITMENT CITY OF MURRIETA Loan Agreement 1-15/1-215 Interchange improvements (R09334) ... ... .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .... . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .... .... ... .. SUBTOTAL MURRIETA LOAN (1) CITY OF CANYON LAKE Final Design and Construction of Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements (R09422) SUBTOTAL CANON LAKE LOAN CITY OF CO RONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA ... .. . ... . ........ . . .. ........ . . ..... . . TOTALS $17,000,000 $17,000,000 $1,600,000 $1;605,000, $5,212623 $6,212,623 $23,912,623 . ..... .. ... .. . .. .......: . EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL % EXPENDITURES MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST December 31, 1995 TO DATE BALANCE C OMMITMENT APPR OVED COMMIT . $0 $0 NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. $2,379,711 $$379,711 $1,600,000 $1,609,000 $5,212,623 • $6,212,623 $8,192,334 $1,140,487 $1,140,487 $1,600,000 :$:1,600000: $5,212,623 $5212,623 7,963,110 $15,859,513 $1$,959,613 $o $0 $0 $16,859,613 14.0% 14 .0% 100.0 % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 38.6% Page 4 of 4 Status Mo. Ending 12/31,95 1992 1993 JIJSJOIND J IF IM IA IM IJ IJ 141510 IN ID J IF IM IA RT15 AT YUMA DR - CONSTRUCT INTERCHANGE RT74 I1S TO 7TH ST - WIDEN TO 4 LANES 1994 IMIJ IJ IAISIO IN ID jJ 1995 1996 1997 IFIMIAIMIJIJIAISO INIDJ FIMIAIMIJIJIAISIOIN-ID 1JIFIMIAIMIJIJTAISIOINIDJ PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING B, ENVIRONMENTAL RT74 G 5T TO I215 - WIDEN TO 4 LANES FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION RT79 GILMAN SPR TO 1ST ST - WIDEN TO 4 LANES emery PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY RT79 KELLER ST TO NEWPORT ST - WIDEN TO 4 LANES PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL H CONSTRUCTION 1998 1 1999 IF IM IA NO -01A Islo IN ID 1J IF ►MIAIM►J PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHT OF WAY RT 79 NEWPORT TO NEWPORT GAP RT91 MAIN ST TO MAGNOLIA AVE - MEDIAN HOV CONSTRUCTION RT91 ORANGE COUNTY LINE TO MAIN ST - MEDIAN HOV CONSTRUCTION RT91 MAGNOLIA AVE TO MARY ST - MEDIAN HOV FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION ONLY I 11 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL RT91 SR71 TO I15 - OUTSIDE WIDENING CON TRUCTION RT111 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS ( 6 LOCATIONS ) RT215 E607215 JCT TO SBCL - WIDEN TO 8 LANES Plot Date 30,141,16 Data Date 26JAN96 Pr oject Star t 2JAN89 Pro ject Finish 1SMAROO PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT STUDY REPORT (PSR) ONLY (c) Primavera Systems, Inc. t I Surly Bar/Ear lyY Detee 4 Critical Designator Pr ... 5, Activity RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN Sh eet RCTC LEAD AGENCY SUMMARY SCHEDULE - BY RCTC Date BECHTEL CORP Re vision Che cked Appro ved ri,USER$\ne itllAtE‘9UletfCt0 001 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D JIFIM A M J_J A S 0 N D JF M A M J J A S O_N D J F MIA M J J A S O_NJD J F M A MIJ JAS 0 N D J FIM A MJJIJIA 5 O N D JIF M AIM J RT215 60/91/215 CONN & 60/91/215 TO E60/215 JCT l 1 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUTER RAIL DOWNTOWN INTERIM STATION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL 1 FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E I RIGHT OF WAY I 1 CONSTRUCTION COMMUTER RAIL PEDLEY STATION I PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E 1 RIGHT OF WAY I� 1 CONSTRUCTION COMMUTER RAIL WEST CORONA STATION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING B ENVIRONMENTAL I FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E CONSTRUCTION COMMUTER RAIL LA SIERRA STATION 1 I�� 1 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E CONSTRUCTION COMMUTER RAIL CITY OF PERRIS STATION STUDY COMMUTER RAIL - HIGHGROVE LAYOVER & CONN TRACK B ENVIRONMENTAL PS&E I 1 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING I� 1 FINAL DESIGN AND COMMUTER RAIL - SAN JACINTO RAIL LINE STUDY STUDY Plot Date• 30J 96 i i Scary e.r iErl Dates ' L/100 Shoot 2 of 2 BECHTEL CORP Data Date 26JA 96 1`"t"a'°ee' or RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN ProJect Start 2JAN89 ProJect Finish 1SMAROO (c) Primaver a Systems, Inc. ��oM OT N1leetone iilgActivitr RCTC LEAD AGENCY SUMMARY SCHEDULE - BY RCTC Date Revision Checked Approved r, W520SVMAAT INIEWRTC 10 002 1992 1993 JIAISIOINIDIJIFIMIAIMIJIJIAISIOINID 1994 J IF IM IA IM IJ IJ IA IS 10 IN ID IJ IF RT60 VALLEY WAY TO UNIVERSITY -WIDEN TO 6 LANES IM 1995 IA INIJIJIAIslo IN ID JJFIMIA 1996 1997 IM 1.1 IJ IA I5 IO IN ID IJ IF IM IA IM 1J IJ IA IS 10 IN ID PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY RT60 I215 TO REDLANDS BLVD - WIDEN TO 6 LANES ( J 1FIMIA IM 1998 IJ PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING B ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY RT60 VALLEY WAY TO JCT I15 - WIDEN TO 8 LANES RT86 DILLON RD TO AVE 58 -WIDEN oy RIGHT OF WAY RT86 AVE 66 TO AVE 58 - WIDEN RIGHT OF WAY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E IAA I5IO IN ID 1999 JIFIM CONSTRUCTION IA ►M CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY RT86 AVE 82 TO AVE 66 - WIDEN FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY Plot Date 30JAN96 Data Date 26JAN96 Project Start 2JAN89 Project Finish 1SNAROO (c) Prima vera Systems, Inc S4 y 9.NE -1,r Date. 1 CritIp11••Igitm 0/P. R1ll..t,, fflg Activity RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN Sheet lot4 CALTRANS LEAD AGENCY SUMMARY SCHEDULE - BY CALTRANS Date BECHTEL CORP Revision Checked Approved f:\USERS\IYR TIMIE\SUMCMI4 001 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 J F IM IA M J IJ IA IS OINDJFMAMJ J IA 5 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D J IF M AM J J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S ONDJFMAMJJASO N ID J F M A M J J A S 0 N D RT 60 GALENA INTERCHANGE ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL PRELIMINARY RT74 7TH ST TO G STUN PERRIS) - WIDEN TO 4 LANE CONSTRUCTION RT79 SANDERSON BRIDGE REPLACMNT(S .JACINTO ENGINEERING RIVER) & ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY RT91 SMITH/MAPLE/LINCOLN OVERCROSS-WIDEN TO 4 LN CONSTRUCTION RT91 VAN BUREN BLVD/FWY HOOK RAMP • & ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING I I ImmE4 CONSTRUCTION Plot Date 30JAN96 Data Date 26JAN96 ProJect Start 2JAN89 ProJect Finish 1SMAROQ [ c 1 Primavera Systems, Inc. i s..nrr e.r�¢�j ost.. MOO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN Sheet ��� ' OTHER AGENCIES AS LEADS SUMMARY SCHEDULE - BY OTHERS BECHTEL CORP r1 o.rti«io..,g,.I' 0/ P Ki1estae°FFlagActi ty Date —Revision Checked App roved r,NusErov mnute\wrorwIo ow RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Deputy Project Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Route 111 - Memorandum of Understanding with the City of La Quinta for Improvements at the Washington Street Intersection In July of 1994, the Commission approved an expenditure plan for implementation of improvements on Route 111 and directed Staff to move forward with Cooperative Agreements with projects that were expected to be implemented in the short term. In accordance with the approved plan for Route 111 and the 1995 Measure A budget, Staff is recommending approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of La Quinta for a project to be located at the Washington Street intersection with Route 1 1 1. This Washington Street project at Route 1 1 1 was identified to receive Measure A funds by the approved plan in the 1994/1995 fiscal year. RCTC has budgeted $462,000 for the La Quinta Route 111 project. The MOU is attached for your review. It identifies the respective roles and responsibilities of RCTC and the City of La Quinta. The $462,000 will be utilized by La Quinta to pay for a $112,000 traffic signal at Washington Street and Route 1 1 1 and the remaining $350,000 will be designated for right of way acquisition. The City of La Quinta has already reviewed and approved the attached MOU. Funds have been budgeted in the FY 1995/1996 Measure A Budget for this project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize the Executive Director to enter into the attached Memorandum of Understanding with the City of La Quinta, subject to final legal review by Commission Legal Counsel. :jw MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS 1. this RIVERSIDE LA QUINTA Parties and Date. 1.1 This executed and entered into day of 1995, by and between the COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF ("City"). 2. Recitals. Agreement is 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/20) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates 20 million dollars for the construction of improvements along Route 111 from Ramon to Indio Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et sect., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City is planning certain improvements at or near the intersection of State Highway 111 and Washington Street. 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify in part for Highway 111 Funds. RCTC's funding of the project is expressly contingent upon completion of adequate final environ- mental review. In the event that adequate final environmental review is not completed, all funds disbursed to the City pursuant to this Agreement shall be refunded to RCTC. 2.7 RCTC intends by this Funding Agreement to allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein. 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Funding Agreement is intended to allocate Highway 111 Funds to partially fund the purchase of right-of-way for and the construction of authorized portions of the Washington Street intersection improvements currently being planned within the City of La Quints (the "Project"). The Project is more fully described in Exhibit "A" ,•attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as requested by the City and approved by RCTC. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Funding Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Funding Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. RCTC's funding of the Project is expressly contingent upon completion of adequate final environmental review. In the event that adequate final environmental review is not completed, all funds disbursed to the City pursuant to this Agreement shall be refunded to RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amounts; Authorized Expenditures. RCTC hereby agrees to allocate to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, the maximum sum of four hundred and sixty-two thousand dollars ($462,000) ("Funding Amount"). In no event shall the Funding Amount exceed four hundred sixty-two thousand dollars ($462,000). Funds allocated under this Agreement shall only be used for the following purposes: (1) applicable right-of-way acquisition and reasonable billboard relocation costs paid directly to land owner(s) or tenant(s), and City -incurred legal fees; and (2) signal improvements at the Washington Street intersection. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the City and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative. 3.4 Independent Contractors. Any persons or entities retained by the City or any consultant shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the project shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the City or consul- tant, whichever is applicable. The City or consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connec- tion with their performance of services on the project and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Term/Notice of Completion. The term of this Funding Agreement shall be from the date first hereinabove written until the date the'City provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC or until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. DRD289741 -2- 3.6 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Funding Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. 3.7 The City's Representative. The City hereby desig- nates David M. Cosper, Public Works Director, its Project Coordinator as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority•to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Funding Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. The City's Representative shall be available to RCTC staff at all reasonable times. Any substitution in the City's Representative shall be approved in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.8 Standard of Care; Licenses. The City represents and maintains that it shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.9 Review of Services. The City shall allow RCTC's Representative to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Funding Agreement are being met. 3.10 Termination. 3.10.1 Notice. Either RCTC or the City may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice of termination from RCTC, or upon deposit of a written notice of termination from the City in the U.S. Mail, the City shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway 111 Funds pursuant to this Funding Agreement. Neither the City nor RCTC may terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.10.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination, RCTC shall allocate Highway 111 Funds for Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination, provided the Cost does not exceed the maximum Funding Amount. The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. ORD289741 -3- 3.10.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.10.4 Waivers. The City, in executing this Agreement, shall be deemed to have waived any and all claims for damages which may otherwise arise from RCTC's termination of this Agreement, as provided in this Section 3.10. 3.11 Prevailing Wages. The City and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 seg., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The City shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project.. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from any failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 seg. 3.12 Copies of Materials. RCTC shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its records copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the City under this Agreement. 3.13 Indemnification. 3.13.1 Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.13.2 Effect of Acceptance. The City shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. RCTC's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the City or any other person or entity under this Agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights RCTC may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons' or entities' performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. DRD289741 -4- 3.14 Design/Construction Liability. It is understood and agreed that RCTC shall not be responsible or liable for any damages or liabilities arising out of the design or construction of the Project, and that the City, design consultant(s), contractor(s) or other persons or entities shall be responsible and liable for such damages, according to law. 3.15 Insurance. The City shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their Subconsultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Funding Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.15.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.15.1.1 Name RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insureds with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverageor the protection afforded to these insureds; 3.15.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and insureds provisions. 3.15.1.3 Contain standard separation of 3.15.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.15.3 Professional ility and omissions liability insurance with a i itlof unot el sErrors $1,000,000.00 shall be maintained for a minimum of five years following completion of the Project. Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design professionals. 3.15.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. DRD289741 -5- 3.15.5 Coverage Maintenance. All persons or entities hired to perform services on. .the Project shall replace certificates, policies and endorsements for any insurance expiring prior to completion of the Project or termination of this Funding Agreement, whichever occurs last. Further, those parties' shall maintain such insurance from the time their services commence until the Project is completed or this Funding Agreement is terminated, whichever occurs last, except as otherwise provided by this Agreement. 3.15.6 Licensed Insurer. All persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project shall place such insurance with insurers having A.M. Best Company ratings of no less than A:VIII and licensed to do business in California, unless otherwise approved, in writing, by RCTC's Representative. 3.16 Payment of Funding Amount. 3.16.1 Payment. RCTC shall pay for all costs as they are incurred and invoiced for any services under its responsibility, which payments shall serve as a credit towards its Funding Amount. The City shall submit to RCTC a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of services rendered on the Project. The statement shall describe the amount of work completed, as well as the services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. RCTC shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.16.2 SB 300 Reimbursements. Any SB 300 (Streets & Highways Code Section 2600) reimbursements for the Project shall be proportionally split between the City and RCTC. The proportionate split, or calculation ratio, shall equal the ratio that represents each party's respective funding share with respect to the eligible portions of the Project that are co -funded with SB-300 funds. The City and RCTC shall jointly and reasonably determine the calculation ratio. 3.16.3 Progress Reports. The City shall submit to RCTC monthly progress reports and spreadsheets for services and hours performed on the Project during the preceding month and for the total Project to date. Each report shall include a cover sheet bearing a certification signed by the City's Project Manager or other authorized officer. 3.16.4 Reimbursement for Expenses. The City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.17 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the DRD289741 -6- case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any .present or anticipated, material benefit arising therefrom. 3.18 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise makereasonable corrective efforts. In addition, as discussed above in Section 3.13, RCTC shall not be responsible or liable for any damages or liabilities arising out of the design or construction of the Project. 3.19 Books and Records. The City shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. The City shall make available for examination by RCTC, its authorized agents, officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to RCTC pursuant to this Agreement. Further, the City shall furnish to RCTC, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by the City. All such information shall be retained by the City for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and RCTC shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.20 Equal Opportunity Employment. The City represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discrimi- nate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities .related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. The City shall also comply with all relevant provi- sions of RCTC's Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related RCTC programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.21 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.22 Attorneys' Fees. If -either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. DRD289741 -7- 3.23 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each ..and every provision of this Agreement. 3.24 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings..contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.25 Notification. All notices hereunder and communi- cations regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by' the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of La Quinta P. 0. Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: David M. Cosper Public Works Director RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave., Ste. 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.26 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.27 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.28 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. DRD289741 -8- 3.29 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF LA QUINTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Alex Clifford, Chair REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: Jack Reagan, Executive Director REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: By: Dean Martin, Controller APPROVED AS TO FORM:' By: /t' Best -ger nse o th- R side o - y Transp ation ommission DRD289741 -9- Glenda L. Bangerte S ayor EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT WASHINGTON: The intersection of Washington Street and State Route 111 shall be improved as follows: 1. Additional through lanes in each direction on State Highway 111 and Washington Street. 2. Additional turn lanes shall be added. 3. Signal improvements shall be made. DRD289741 A-1 AGENDA ITEM #6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVISED AGENDA ITEM DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Deputy Project Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Route 111 - Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Palm Desert for Improvements at the Deep Canyon Intersection In July of 1994, the Commission approved an expenditure plan for implementation of improvements on Route 111 and directed Staff to move forward with Cooperative Agreements with projects that were expected to be implemented in the short term. In accordance with the approved plan for Route 111 and the 1995 Measure A budget, Staff is recommending approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Palm Desert for a project to be located at the Deep Canyon intersection with Route 111. This project at Route 111 was identified to receive Measure A funds by the approved plan in the 1994/1995 fiscal year. RCTC has budgeted $779,000 for the La Quinta Palm Desert Route 111 project. The attached MOU identifies the respective roles and responsibilities of RCTC and the City of Palm Desert. The $779,000 will be utilized by Palm Desert to pay for project development and construction. The City of Palm Desert has already reviewed and approved the attached MOU. Although the MOU was signed by all parties prior to Commission approval, no Measure A funds have been transferred to the City of Palm Desert at this time. Staff has implemented a process to prevent recurrence. Funds have been budgeted in the FY 1995/1996 Measure A Budget for this project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Palm Desert. :jw RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Deputy Project Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Route 111 - Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Palm Desert for Improvements at the Deep Canyon Intersection In July of 1994, the Commission approved an expenditure plan for implementation of improvements on Route 111 and directed Staff to move forward with Cooperative Agreements with projects that were expected to be implemented in the short term. In accordance with the approved plan for Route 111 and the 1995 Measure A budget, Staff is recommending approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Palm Desert for a project to be located at the Deep Canyon intersection with Route 111. This project at Route 111 was identified to receive Measure A funds by the approved plan in the 1994/1995 fiscal year. RCTC has budgeted $779,000 for the La Quinta Route 111 project. The attached MOU identifies the respective roles and responsibilities of RCTC and the City of Palm Desert. The $779,000 will be utilized by Palm Desert to pay for project development and construction. The City of Palm Desert has already reviewed and approved the attached MOU. Although the MOU was signed by all parties prior to Commission approval, no Measure A funds have been transferred to the City of Palm Desert at this time. Staff has implemented a process to prevent recurrence. Funds have been budgeted in the FY 1995/1996 Measure A Budget for this project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Palm Desert. :jw DL'3�� 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS 1. parties and Date.-'''" 25th1.1 This 1 eement this day of RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PALM DESERT ("City"). 2. Recitals. is executed and entered into , 1995, by and between the COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates 20 million dollars for the construction of improvements along Route 111 from Ramon to Palm Desert Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 At Q. , RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements at or near the intersection of State Highway 111 and Deep Canyon. 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify in part for Highway 111 Funds. 2.7 RCTC intends by this Agreement to allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. 3. Teima. 3.1 Desc ,n ion •of Tmprovements. This Agreement is• intended to allocate Highway 111 Funds to provide design and other services for authorized portiortnsofl the funding, Canyon Road and Route 111 improvements currently being planned within the City of Palm Desert (the "Project"). The more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and rpur er is to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as request dby the city and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to initially allocate to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, the sum of seven hundred and seventy nine thousand dollars (779,000), ("Funding Amount"). It is also understood and agreed that the City estimated share of the project in the Measure A Expenditure Plan is one million five hundred forty nine thousand ($1,549,000). Therefore, the Initial Funding Amount represents approximately thirty-three and five/tenths percent (33.5%) of the estimated Total Project Cost, as defined in Sections 3.14.1 and 3.14.2 below. This cost/funding allocation percentage ("Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage") is subject to an adjustment pursuant to Section 3.14.3 below. In addition, the Funding Amount is subject to an adjustment pursuant to Section 3.14.5 based upon the final Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage and the final Total Project Cost. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the City and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 Term/Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first hereinabove written until the date the City provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9 or until December 31, 1999, whichever occurs first. A11 applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.5 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. 3.6 The City's Representative. The City hereby desig- nates Richard Folkers or his designee as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority to act` on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's AGREE.pdt -2- AGREE.pdt responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate ull with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies whichmayfhave jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care; Licenses. The City and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necess o all services, duties and obligations re �' to pyrfarm required adequately complete the Project. to fully and RCTC's 3.Representative Review of Services. The City and RCTC shall allow eorp review the progress Representative, respectively, to inspect order to we p gress of the Project at any reasonable determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Ternd n t i nn • 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying e effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice ofttermination, RCTC or the City, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway 111 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effie of R+ ,-mi„a ion RCTC or the City, Upon termination by RCTC shall allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. Such allocation shall be determined by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage (which shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 3.13.3) by the amount of the Total Project Cost, as defined in Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, incurred prior to the date of termination. The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate Representative to show the Project Costs incurred any Prof ct improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the City of the written notice of termination. remedies of the Parties �1nu1ative R mad i e • The rights and any other rights provided in this Section are in addition to remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. and 3.10 Prevailing Wageas. The City and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seg., which would require the payment of the services or any portion thereof determined to be ang bagel ware public work, • -3-- as defined therein. The City or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 At . RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or including ncluding without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et AAg. 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its records copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.12 Indemn i f i r•at i on. 3.12.1 City Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its subconsultants. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities by this Agreement including .all design gvv sd due to negligent acts and construction activittreies, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC or its subconsultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees,.incurred by the City, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC. 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City and RCTC shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. One party's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the other party or any other person or entity under this Agreement shall not be construed to operate of any rights the other party hereto may hold under d this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons' or entities' AGREE.pdt -4- performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. In addition, RCTC shall be and remain liable to the City, in accordance with applicable lafi', for all damages to the City caused by RCTC's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision any services provided to complete the Project. Fervision of 3.13 Ins ura+,a. The City and RCTC shall re persons perform services on the P or entities hired to Projerect all quire their s obtain, and re j t�ubconsultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and City. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Comm rci 81 _oner� 1 T i �bi i t. Tneuranne occurrence version commercial • general equivalent form with a combinedsinge limit l ofy note less c than $1,000,000.00•per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insureds with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insureds; 3.13.1.2 rograms Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance RCTC or City, officials, officers, employees, agents, andnconsultants; and their 3.13.1.3 Contain -tandard separation of insureds provisions. AGREE.pdt 3.13.2 Business automobile liability insurance combined single limit of not less occurrence. Such insurance shall include and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 or equivalent form with a than $1,.000,000.00 per coverage for owned, hired. and omissions liability insurance nwith� a ilimitTof not less $1,000,000.00. Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4 Workers' Compe resat 4 w T Workers' compensation insurance with statutory liability insurance with limits of not les than $1,000,000.00 limits and y each accident. ,/ 3.14 pant of Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Total Project Cost. The total Project cost ("Total Project Cost") shall include the following items: (1) funds expended by in preparation of preliminary engineering study (2) funds expended for preparation of environmental review documentation for the Project; (3) all costs associated with right- of-way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City, and costs of reviewing appraisals andoffers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Project construction contract; (7) construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the City and RCTC; and (8) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and agreed that these costs include costs already incurred by RCTC and the City towards completion of,the Project. 3.14.2 Excluded Total Project Cost. The Total Project Cost shall not include the following items which shall be borne solely by the individual parties -without reimbursement: (1) RCTC management costs for Project coordination which are attributed to its total State Highway 111 project of Measure A; Project coordination costs; (3) City and/or RCTC costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and and/or RCTC fees attributed to the processing of the Project.City 3.14.3 Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage Determination. The final determination of the appropriate Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made by the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator using the guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein reference, and the best available cost estimate information from the project design engineer. The determination of the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made after the desi review has terminated, but prior to the award of the Project forprocess public contracting purposes. In the event of a disc City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinatornregarding tthhe Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, RCTC's Executive Director and the City Manager shall review the determination and attempt to resolve the dispute. If the City Manager and Executive Director are unable to agree, either party may appeal, in writing, to the RCTC Board. The RCTC Board's determination regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be final. • • 3.14.4 consultant costs as they right-of-way services responsibilities, which AGREE -pit payment. RCTC shall pay for all are incurred and invoiced for design work, and any other services under its payments shall serve as a credit towards -6- its Funding Amount. The City -shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultant and other costs for services under its responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced, which amounts, if appropriate pursuant to Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, shall be applied towards the Total Project Cost. 3.14.5 Funding Amount/Adjustment. If the Project is completed before December 31, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator shall meet with the City's Representative within thirty (30) days following the filing of a proper written Notice of Completion of the Project by the City to determine. the Funding Amount. This determination shall be made by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage by the Total Project Cost. The Total Project Cost shall be determined upon completion of the Project. In the event the Project is not completed by December 31, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator and the City's Representative shall meet to determine the Funding Amount to be December 31 2009. allocated up through The City shall not be entitled to any funding pursuant to this Agreement after December 31, 1998. If as a result of payments made under Section 3.14.4, above, either the City or RCTC has paid in excess of its allowable share of the Total Project Cost, the other party shall reimburse said party for the excess within 30 days of the determination and approval Amount by the City Representative and RCTCProject Coo dinator. 3.14.6 SB 3 00 Re; mazurQ ze (Streets & Highways Code SB 300 Section 2600) reimbursements received from the state for the Project shall be split proportionally according to the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, and credited towards each party's funding of the Total Project Cost. 3.14.7 Progress Re rtH. Either art may request the other party to inform it poof delays in the Pro ect and provide it with any requested progress reports. 3.14.8 Reimi»>rsement for gye,ensg shall not be reimbursed for an The City Y writing by RCTC's Representative expenses unless authorized in 3.15 change 0—�a. Any change orders in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and City. 3.16 con 7ie!t of Interest. For the term of Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or RCTC,CT during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this A gre ent, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefitemarrising therefrom. AGREE.pdt 3.17 Limited Scope pie b ti el. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to, those -7- described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous. condition or activity and. fails to report such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise make reasonable corrective efforts. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City for the Project or for the -construction of the Project. 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination p its authorized agents, officers or employeesa any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes -of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The City and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party__ reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essencg. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.23 BAAdinga. Article and Section Headings, captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement arerafor convenience' only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. AGREE.pdt -8- 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communi- cations regarding interpretation•of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of Pali Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn:Richard Folkers RTC Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave., Ste. 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of,service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.27 ETltire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. AGREE.pdt RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO By: Chair REVIEWED AND FOR APPROVAL By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: COMMENDED Best, Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT By: APPROVED By: FORM: City i"ttorney AGREE .pdt -10- EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES 1. Completion of Project Development Activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards and Project Development Guidelines. The project is expected to be completed under encroachment permit as a Minor Project under $1,000,000. 2. Preparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with Caltrans procedures and State and Federal statutes. 3. All needed right-of-way services and acquisition of property needed for improvements. exhibits. AGREE.pdt 3. Construction of improvements as shown in attached A-1 t r EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OP PARTIES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse City with appropriate funding contribution at completion of project. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall Project in conjunction with City of Palm Desert prior to award of construction contract by the City. CITY OF PALM DESERT SHALL: Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all Construction Management of the construction activities. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the City. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the City are subject to change. Any such change must be acknowledged and approved in writing by RCTC and the City. Such written acknowledgement need not be in the form of an executed agreement and may consist of more than one written document. AGREE.pdt B-1 EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Signage Decals. RCTC shall provide any decals it has which are needed by the City to properly sign the Project during construction, .as discussed below. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Property Acquisition/Eminent Domain Proceedings. All right of way acquisition activities shall be solely administered by the City. 2. Project Planning. The City has already provided for the preliminary design, plans and specifications of the Project, as well as the preparations of preliminary engineering and environmental review documentation. The overall Project is being completed in phases, some of which may have already been completed. 3. Contract Bidding, Awarding and Administration. The City shall solely be responsible for the bidding, awarding and administration of the construction contract for the Project. 4. Construction Management, Material Testing, Inspection and Staking Services. The City shall retain a Caltrans approved management consultant to administer construction construction material testing and inspection activities. 5. Signacre. The City shall properly sign the Project during construction indicating that the Project is jointly financed by City and RCTC Measure A funds. DRD289741 B-1 EIEIBIT "C" IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY FOR COST BEARING ON DEEP CANYON/ROUTE 211 PROJECT Route 111 Costs Measure A Highway funds will be used to all improvements that occur as a result of the widenfor ing of and Route 111 for the Project. Those improvements might include, but not be limited to, additional through lanes, acceleration tapers, deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, utility relocations, street lighting, necessary landscaping, traffic signal installations and modifications, and necessary right-of-way acquisition and services. The intersection area of commonality between Route 111 and the cross street shall be funded with Measure A Highway funds. AGREE.pdt Cross St eet Costs The City will be responsible for funding any and all cross street improvements. The cross street improvements would include, but not be limited to, additional through lanes, turn lanes, acceleration tapers, deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, utility relocations, street lighting, necessary landscaping, traffic signal installations and modifications, and necessary right-of- way acquisition and services. The dividing line between Route 111 and the cross street is defined as the projection of the Route 111 right-of-way line across the cross street. In the event of an unclear definition of right of way points, a line connecting the cross street beginning and end of curbs will be drawn. disagree on a clear right of way line If the pa�r�s limit will be used. Projection the curb return desi The lines will be used as a guide for the gn engineer preparing the estimate to calculate a Route 111 quantities and costs, and a Pstreetate appropriate quantities and costs. cross street Costs for the traffic signal that controls Route 111 and the cross street will be paid entirely with Measure A Highway funds regardless of pole locations in the Route 111 or cross street defined boundaries. Intersection si intersections on Route 111 will be paid for other Paid by Measure A Highway funds, and intersection si the cross street will be li a for other intersections on paid byyaLLocal funds. Landscaping..will be in accordance with State and City standards and be included in the cost sharing in the appropriate or cross street areas. Excessive landscaping will not be paid for with the Measure A Highway funds. Excessive landscaping is a C-1 subjective measure, but the intent is not to use Measure A . Highway funds to pay for landscaping in excess of what is appropriate for a typical highway project in the Coachella Valley. Right of Way would be paid for by the appropriate funds dependent upon the area of the take, as described above. AGREE.pdt C-2 AGENDA ITEM #6C DATE: TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION February 7, 1996 Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller Jerry Rivera, Staff Analyst III THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to FY 1995-1999 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Banning The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive disbursements for local streets and roads. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are also required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) accompanied by documentation supporting the calculation. The City of Banning's Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan was approved by the Commission at its September 14, 1994 meeting. Subsequent to the Commission's approval of the Plan, the City Council of the City of Banning had made some minor changes to the street resurfacing list for FY 1994-95. The City of Banning is requesting approval of an amendment to their FY 1995-99 Measure "A" Plan in order to alleviate concerns of the Commission's auditors. The changes made by the City at the time of the award of the construction contract were essential to complete the street resurfacing in certain neighborhoods and to avoid any future street cuts in conjunction with relocation of utilities. All of the projects included in the amended Plan were within the Commission's guidelines for the Measure "A" program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve an amendment to the FY 1995-1999 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Banning as submitted. :jw 023970 CITY OF BANNING v:7 J 99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 Banning. California 92220 " I Telephone (909) 922-1230 FAX (909) 922-0433 Jan 26, 1996 • ►S. '• -,j :� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Mr. Jack Reagan, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside California 92501 ATTENTION: Hideo Sugita SUBJECT: MEASURE "A" AMENDMENT TO THE 5 -YEAR CIP Gentlemen: The City of Banning is requesting approval of the revised 5 -year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1994-95. Approval of the revised program is essential to alleviate the concerns of program auditors. Riverside Transportation Commission had approved the city's 5 -year Capital Improvement Program. Subsequent to the approval of said 5 -year Capital Improvement Program, the City Council of the City of Banning had made some minor changes to the street resurfacing list. The changes made by the city at the time of the award of the construction cotract were essential to complete the street resurfacing in certain neighborhoods and to avoid any future street cuts in conjunction with relocation of utilities. Please note that the changes made in the 5 -year Capital Improvement Program, which were submitted to Riverside County Transportation Commission, are minor and all the work done under the Measure "A" project is well within the guidelines of the Measure "A" expenditure program established by R.C.T.C. Enclosed is the new list of the amended 5 -year CIP for your approval. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me or Mr. Kahono Oei, Associate Engineer, at (909) 922-1230. Sincerely, Paul Toor, City Engineer/Public Works Director RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 Agency: City of Banning Prepared By: Kahono Oei Amended: Jan. 19, 1996 ITEM PROJECT NAMES / LIMITS TOTAL CONST MEASURE "A" NO ($1,000) FUND ($1,000) 1 5th St - Highland Springs to Apex 17 17 2 Jacinto - Omar East of 40th 6 6 3 Hillside - Mountain View to West End 15 15 4 Sims - George to Wilson 4 4 5 Hays - West of 16th to East of 16th St 4 4 6 Roberge (west side) - Nicolet to 21st St 4 4 7 Roberge (east side) - Nicolet to 21st St 4 4 8 Williams - 8th to 16th St 18 18 9 Indian School Ln - 8th to 4th St 9 9 10 Gilman - Alessandro to Murray 2 2 11 Indian School Ln - Durward to Hargrave 9 9 12 Murray - Summit to North of Summit 4 4 13 Meadow Lark - Alessandro to Durward 4 4 14 All View - Alessandro to East End 2 2 15 Gilman - Durward to Florida 4 4 16 San Gorgonio - Livingston to Ramsey 2 2 17 Livingston - Alessandro to San Gorgonio 4 4 18 Hathaway - Charles to Wesley 9 9 19 Apex - 5th St to Ramsey 4 4 20 Mockingbird - Mountain to Hillside 13 13 21 Summit - San Gorgonio to Murray 2 2 22 Durward - Meadow Lark to Lombardy 2 2 23 40th St - Jacinto to George 6 6 Page 1 file:W:\Kahono\A.doc RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 Agency: City of Banning Prepared By: Kahono Oei Amended: Jan. 19, 1996 ITEM PROJECT NAMES / LIMITS TOTAL CONST MEASURE "A" NO ($1,000) FUND ($1,000) 24 41st - Jacinto to Wilson 12 12 25 George - 40th St to 41st St 4 4 26 Blanchard - Gilman to Theodore 4 4 27 Ramsey - 2nd St to San Gorgonio 4 4 28 Williams - Martin to Hargrave 13 13 29 Alessandro - Santa Rita to Summit 9 9 30 Hathaway - Ramsey to Nicolet 10 10 31 Jacinto View - Hathaway to Evans 3 3 32 Evans - Williams to Nicolet 4 4 33 Cherry - Williams to Nicolet 4 4 34 Allen - Williams to Nicolet 4 4 35 Charles - Hargrave East to end of street 51 51 36 Wilson - Omar to Highland Home 13 13 37 Hargrave (east side) - Repplier Rd 300' S of 2 2 Repplier Page 2 file:W:vc,hono\a.aoc RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1996-99 Agency: City of Banning Prepared By: Kahono Oei Amended: Jan. 19, 1996 ITEM PROJECT NAMES / LIMITS TOTAL CONST MEASURE "A" NO ($1,000) FUND ($1,000) 1 Wilson EJ16th St - W/12th St fronting Gilman 59 59 Ranch (SB 300) 2 Allen - Nicolet to George 15 15 3 George - Hargrave to Allen 36 36 4 Evans - Nicolet to George 15 15 5 Phillips - Ramsey to Nicolet 33 33 6 Williams - Philips to Evans 22 22 7 Summit - Murray to East of Alessandro 7 7 8 Drury - Nicolet North to Dead End 13 13 9 Martin - Nicolet North to Dead End 13 13 10 Fay - Nicolet to South of Nicolet 7 7 11 Hargrave - Ramsey to Indian School 75 75 12 Linda Vista - Gilman to Wilson 22 22 13 King St - East of 1st St 2 2 14 1st St - Wilson to Gilman 20 20 15 Prince - East of 1st 2 2 16 Gilman - Linda Vista to San Gorgonio 5 5 17 Theodore - East of 4th St 3 3 18 Pendleton - 4th to Indian School Lane 15 15 19 Roosevelt - East to 4th St 3 3 20 April - South of Westward 15 15 21 12th St - Barbour to South of Westward 25 25 22 Grove - North of George 4 4 Page 3 rI1«w:vc,nonow.aoc RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1996-99 Agency: City of Banning Prepared By: Kahono Oei Amended: Jan. 19, 1996 ITEM PROJECT NAMES / LIMITS TOTAL CONST MEASURE "A" NO ($1,000) FUND ($1,000) 23 Woodland - North of George 5 5 24 2nd St - Williams to Nicolet 7 7 25 Alessandro - Livingston to Ramsey 4 4 26 Livingston - Alessandro to Ramsey 23 23 27 Santa Rita - San Gorgonio to Florida 29 29 28 Durward - Hoffer to Gilman 11 11 29 Durward - Santa Rita to Lombardy 6 6 30 King - Hermosa to Hargrave 5 5 31 Hermosa - Hoffer to Theodore 15 15 32 Gilman - Blanchard to Cherry 15 15 33 Almond Way - Nicolet to George 9 9 34 Blanchard - Wilson to Gilman 20 20 35 Blanchard - Theodore to Indian School 10 10 36 Blanchard - Christi to George 5 5 37 Ramsey - Sunset to 3559 W. Ramsey 94 94 38 Almond Way - Hoffer to North Indian School 33 33 Lane 39 Nicolet - Almond Way to Hathaway 30 30 40 Hathaway - Nicolet to North of Hoffer 30 30 41 Florida - theodore to San Andreas 15 15 42 Martin -:Indian School Lane and Repplier 10 10 43 Murray Indian School Lane and Repplier 10 10 44 Sydney - North of Repplier 2 2 Page 4 file:W:Ucah000\ .doc RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1996-99 Agency: City of Banning Prepared By: Kahono Oei Amended: Jan. 19, 1996 ITEM PROJECT NAMES / LIMITS TOTAL CONST MEASURE "A" NO ($1,000) FUND ($1,000) 45 Repplier - Indian School Lane to San Gorgonio 15 15 46 Indian School Lane - Durward and 4th St 48 48 47 Indian School - Hargrave to Almond Way 5 5 48 Victor St - Indian School to Jennifer Way 4 4 49 Jennifer Way - East of Victor 4 4 50 Lombardy - San Gorgonio to Durward 18 18 51 Murray - Summit to Lombardy 10 10 52 San Gorgonio - Wilson to North of Summit 77 77 53 Livingston - San Gorgonio to 6th St 27 27 54 6th St - Livingston to Ramsey 5 5 55 3rd St - Livingston to George 64 64 56 Livingston - San Gorgonio to 6th St 27 27 57 6th St. - Livingston to Ramsey 5 5 58 3rd St. - Livingston to George 64 64 59 Ramsey - 2nd St to 8th St 53 53 60 1st St. - Livingston to Hays 15 15 61 2nd St - Livingston to Hays 11 11 62 4th St - Williams to Livingston 12 12 63 Christie - 6th to 8th St 10 10 64 Montclair - S/O Hoffer 9 9 65 4th Place - Gilman to Hoffer 22 22 66 Hoffer - Phillips to Allen 10 10 67 Theodore - Hargrave to E/O Phillips 20 20 Page 5 sie:W:\x,honow.aoc RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1996-99 Agency: City of Banning Prepared By: Kahono Oei Amended: Jan. 19, 1996 ITEM PROJECT NAMES / LIMITS TOTAL CONST MEASURE "A" NO ($1,000) FUND ($1,000) 68 Phillips - Theodore to Hoffer 20 20 69 Allen - Hoffer to George 20 20 70 Christie - Allen to W/O Cherry 10 10 71 Cherry - Hoffer to Gilman 10 10 72 Florida - Wilson to Gilman 20 20 Page 6 s1e:W:Wahono'. & aoc AGENDA ITEM #7A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Specialized Transit Funds for Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center and the Inland Aids Project The FTA Section 16 program provides capital grants for the purpose of assisting agencies providing transportation services to meet the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities. The program provides 80% of the cost of the capital. The grantee is responsible for providing the required 20% local match. Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center provides transportation service for seniors and persons with disabilities in the city of Moreno Valley and within a 35 -mile radius of the city. They were recently notified by Caltrans that they have been approved for funding under the FTA Section 16 program for a replacement small bus ($50,000). The Friends are requesting that the required 20% match ($12,500) be funded from Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in the western Riverside County. The Inland Aids Project was also a successful applicant in the program and hive been awarded $32,000 in federal funds to purchase a new mini -van. The Inland Aids Project currently operates a vehicle to provide transportation to their clients for necessary medical and counseling services. The Inland Aids Project has also requested that the required local match of $8,000 be funded using available western county Measure A Specialized Transit funding. These requests are in compliance with the RCTC adopted policies for the Measure A Specialized Transit Program and there are sufficient funds budgeted to cover this item. Staff recommends approval of these requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit Funds available in the Western Riverside County to Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center - ($12, 500) and the Inland Aids Project ($8,000) to be used as the required 20% federal match for the purchase of a vehicles. :jw AGENDA ITEM #7B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transit Capital Improvement Funds--RTA Bus Rehabilitation Project We have been informed by Caltrans that there is a problem with the identified matching funds for Riverside Transit Agency's bus rehabilitation project. When the Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) application was submitted, the required 50% match was clearly identified as Federal Section 9 dollars. The California Transportation Commission approved the project as submitted. Subsequent to this action, Caltrans informed us that the 50% match must be nonfederal funds. They expressed regret at not bringing this to our attention at the time of application submittal. This is quite problematic for RTA since the rehabilitation project is already underway. The federal funds were approved last year and when they received written approval of the TCI funds from Caltrans, they began the project. We have written to Caltrans requesting an exception, but were denied. We are currently communicating with the CTC staff to find out our options, but may be forced to provide local matching funds in order to retain the TCI funds. Staff will provide an update on our options at the meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee consider options to provide the required Transit Capital Improvement match for this project. :jw 4e 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transit Capital Improvement Funds--RTA Bus Rehabilitation Project We have been informed by Caltrans that there is a problem with the identified matching funds for Riverside Transit Agency's bus rehabilitation project. When the Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) application was submitted, the required 50% match was clearly identified as Federal Section 9 dollars. The California Transportation Commission approved the project as submitted, Subsequent to this action, Caltrans informed us that the 50% match must be nonfederal funds. They expressed regret at not bringing this to our attention at the time of application submittal. This is quite problematic for RTA since the rehabilitation project is already underway. The federal funds were approved last year and when they received written approval of the TCI funds from Caltrans, they began the project. We have written to Caltrans requesting an exception, but were denied. We have talked with CTC staff and they confirmed that non-federal funds must be used to match TCI funds. In order to retain the TCI funds, staff recommends that local transportation funds (LTF) be used to provide the required $200,000 match. In July 1995, the Commission approved allocation of $300,000 in local transportation funds to Riverside Transit Agency for capital projects. To date, RTA has identified and claimed $196,651 in LTF capital funding, leaving an available balance of $103,349. RTA already has $64,000 in LTF for this project, which was approved in FY 95. Therefore, an additional allocation of $32,651 is needed to provide the necessary match. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission allocate Riverside Transit Agency an additional $32,651 in local transportation funds to be used as capital match for this project. :jw AGENDA ITEM #8A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 7, 1996 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Claudia Chase, Property Technician Susan Cornelison, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Extension of 24 -Hour Security Guard Service at Rail Stations Ever since commuter rail service was implemented in Riverside County, RCTC has provided security guards during operating hours at the stations it owns and maintains. The attached summary of passenger responses to Metrolink's most recent survey of the Riverside Line shows just how important a safe environment is to our customers. Last November, in response to several serious, overnight acts of vandalism, the Commission approved 24 -hour security guard coverage for the La Sierra and West Corona stations for a period of 90 days. (Downtown Riverside has always had around -the -clock coverage due to Metrolink's provisions to guard the train sets overnight). In December, after a significant loss at The Pedley Station, staff added that station to the expanded security arrangement. Staff is in the process of obtaining information on types of surveillance systems that may be employed. We have met with one vendor, to look into different types of video surveillance equipment. Staff has also toured the stations with Thomas Day, Manager of Security Projects, for Bechtel Corporation and have now asked Bechtel to perform a feasibility study and cost analysis to determine the most effective form of security. While methods of securing the stations are being reviewed, staff suggests that the 24 - hour security guard coverage be extended thru the end of this fiscal year. This will allow staff enough time to review the study, examine the costs, and make a recommendation to the Commission. The cost of one security officer, armed, is $10.24 per hour, with an additional security supervisor cost of $1.00 per hour. The total additional cost for the added hours of security for a period of five months is $76,409.52 for the three stations. This additional cost was not included in the operational budget, therefore, if needed,,the cost will be shared by the rail lease revenues. Page 2 F STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve extending temporary, 24 -hour security guard service at The Pedley Station, the West Corona Station and the La Sierra Station through June 30, 1996. :jw RIVERSIDE UNE IMPORTANCE SATISFACTION RATINGS • LINK FE AT T On -time arrivals On -time departures Personal safety on board the train Pro fessionalism and courtesy of the c onductor Cleanliness of the trains ecurity of m}+ automobile in the stati on parking of Personal safety at stations Frequency of morning trains Frequency of evening trains Seat co mfort Convenient transit connection Professionalism and courtesy of station ambassadors Professionalism and courtesy of telep o ne information staff at 808 -LINK Adequacy of weather protection at stations Professionalism and courtesy of ticket se lers at Union Station Ease o using ticket vending machines Ease of reading train schedules Frequency of mid -day trains IMPORTANCE 9 .1 9.0 8.9 LIM" 8 .7 8.6 UMW 111111111111 8.0 7.9 6.6 6 .5 6.4 SATISFACTION 7.9 9.0 8.6 8 .9 8.0 6 .6 6 .9 UM" 7 .6 6 .2 8 .0