HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 6, 1995 Budget & Finance040139
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE
(COMMISSIONERS RUSS BEIRICH, BOB BUSTER,
KAY CENICEROS, SYBIL JAFFY)
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS.
5A. Investment Policies.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the proposed Investment Policies
and Resolution No. 95-010 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission Establishing Investment policy for Commission Funds."
58. County of Riverside Investment Portfolio Reports.
Overview
Presented is the Monthly Disclosure Report on Investment Portfolio from the Office of
the Treasurer -Tax Collector, County of Riverside for receive and file.
5C. Request For Provo a/ For Federal i o b yis*
Overview
This item requests the action of the Commission to determine whether there is
justification for soliciting Requests For Proposals (RFP) from firms to provide Federal
legislative and policy issue representative services for the remainder of the
Commission's fiscal year. The item also asks the Commission for authorization to
develop and issue a RFP for those services and the appointment of three members of
the Legislative Committee to serve as a selection committee in the process.
Page 2
Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda
September 6, 1995
5D. Quarterly Financial and Cost & Schedule Reports.
Overview
Presented for receive and file, through the month ending July 31, 1995, are: 1)
Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
(Unaudited) and the Highway and Rail projects quarterly budget report for the Quarter
Funding June 30, 1995; and, 2) Cost and schedule status of the Measure A contracts,
segregated by Measure A Plan category and includes highway, rail and other plans and
programs, including Commission authorized funds to date, contractual commitments
to date, current monthly expenditures, and total expenditures to date.
6. SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE).
6A. Consultant Selection - Inland Empire Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic P/an.
Overview
Commission staff is the project manager for the development of the Inland Empire -
Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Plan. As project manager, staff, along
with eleven participating public agencies, has recently completed a consultant selection
process and is recommending the selection of the JHK team as the consultant to
perform this study effort.
6B. Lease/Purchase of Radio Communication Equipment for Freeway Service Patrol Program
and Termination of Lease Agreement.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the SAFE Board: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to
enter into a lease/purchase agreement with Bear Communications, subject to Legal
Counsel review, for radio communciations equipment for the Riverside County Freeway
Service Patrol program; and, 2) authorize the Executive Director to give Riverside
Communications thirty days' notice to terminate the lease.
7. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS.
7A. Contract Amendment #2 for Agreement No. RO-9219 with NBS Lowry - Design
Services on a Route 111 Project at Gene Autry Trail in the City of Palm Springs.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission approve Amendment #2 to Agreement RO-
9219 with NBS Lowry for a base amendment amount of $61,475.00 with an additional
extra work amount of $6,147.50 for unforeseen extra work to be authorized by the
Executive Director.
Page 3
Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda
September 6, 1995
8. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/PARK-N-RIDE/BICYCLE.
8A. Request from RTA to Reprogram Local Transportation Funds.
Overview
A request has been received from the Riverside Transit Agency to approve the
reprogramming of $213,423 in excess local transportation capital funds to two
projects —the Downtown Trolley and the Durahart Annex. RTA notified us that private
contributions had not met expected levels to offset capital and operating costs for the
Trolley. In addition, they have experienced cost overruns on their Durahart Street
Annex and request $76,393.61 for this project.
8B. Addition/ Allocation of SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Funds.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission allocate the unclaimed $80,000 of FY
1992-93 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities funds to finance the balance of the County
of Riverside's FY 1995-96 SB 821 Center Street Sidewalk project and the remaining
portion of the unclaimed funds, $46,753, to fund a proportion of the City of Indio's FY
1995-96 SB 821 Avenue 44 Project.
8C. Destination Based Rideshar/n Demonstration Project Bridge Funding Request.
Overview
A proposal was submitted to and awarded funding from Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) to develop and implement a destination based
rideshare demonstration project. As the project is designed to coincide with the
opening of Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County Line on October 2, 1995, and
state and federal approvals for the SCAG funds are not expected to be received within
the next month or more, staff is seeking approval to expend Measure A Commuter
Assistance Program funds as bridge funding.
8D. FY 95/97 Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee Request for
Proposals.
Overview
Staff is evaluating the feasibility of submitting a proposal in response to the Mobil
Sources Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee's FY 95/96 Request for Proposals.
This item is a place holder for possible action by the Commission to approve submittal
of a project proposal and allocation of co -funding.
Page 4
Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda
September 6, 1995
8E. Status Report on Short -Range Transit Plan; Transit Funding Shortfalls.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Approve the Attachment 2 as the
estimate of future transit operation and capital revenues; 2) review the plans for
Metrolink service to determine which service scenario should serve as the basis for rail
commitments to be considered priority for funding (Note: RCTC is still obligated to
provide "1993 Base Service" funding levels for RTA and other operators); and, 3)
equest a joint meeting with the Riverside Transit Agency to review and "Establish
Priority Funding Levels". It is acknowledged that some interest may exist in
determining some proportionate (i.e., percentage) earmarks for Metrolink and bus
operations rather than the (1) "1993 Base Service", (2) Rail Commitments, then (3)
Remainder Available for New Services approach now approved by RCTC. RCTC and
RTA staff should jointly explore alternatives prior to a joint meeting.
9. ADJOURNMENT.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
95-08
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES
August 2, 1995
1. CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee was called to order by Russell Beirich at
1:35 p.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Suite
100, Riverside, California.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
M/S/C to approve the minutes of the June 7, 1995 and July 5, 1995, Budget and Finance
Committee meetings as presented.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
There were no public comments.
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS.
There were no additions/revisions.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS.
5A. Third Annual World Car Conference Sponsorship.
M/S/C to participate as a sponsor of the Third World Car Conference.
Staff was directed to look at the budget and present the amount of sponsorship and
source of fundings on the Commission memorandum.
5B. Project Management Budget Amount.
M/S/C that the Commission authorize an amendment to the 94/95 Revised Budget for
855,000 for project management services.
5C. Establishment of Checkjna Account with Bank of America
M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to establish an
operating account at the Bank of America with an opening deposit of $100,000 from
the General Fund for the purpose of processing monthly cash disbursements; 2)
authorize the Executive Director to formally notify the Auditor Controller of the
Commission's intent to discontinue use of the County's accounting services, and to
express gratitude for the many yews of service provided by the Auditor Controller.
5D. County of Riverside Investment Portfolio Reports.
M/S/C that the Commission receive and file.
5E. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports.
M/S/C that the Commission receive and file.
6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS.
6A. Authorization to Issue Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. RO-9527 with Parsons
Brinckerhoff for Construction Management Services of Rail Projects.
M/S/C that the Commission authorize Amendment No. 2 to the Parsons Brinckerhoff
Construction Services, Inc. Agreement No. RO-9527 to provide funds in the amount
of $12,943.30 for needed overtime for PB on -site inspectors, and $6,268 for off -site
source inspection for the various construction materials used to construct the rail
stations, should Caltrans not perform this inspection for the RCTC projects. Funds will
be reimbursed from CMAQ/TSM approved grants.
6B. Amendment #4 to Contract RO-9324 with Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Inc.
M/S/C that the Commission approve Amendment #4 to contract RO-9324 with Daniel,
Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall for the review of the La Sierra Metrolink Rail Station
shop drawings. The amount of the amendment will be $12,102. The new total
contract amount will be $475,178.
6C. City of Riverside Public Utilities Reauest for Work to be done in Conjunction with
Riverside Station Track Extensions.
M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to approve needed
funds to SCRRA for completion of undergrounding electrical service as requested by
the City of Riverside given the following conditions: a) Schedule of completion of the
track extension and date ready for operation will not be slipped; b) any related cost of
the jacking operation in excess of the original cost of the City provided service be paid
by the City of Riverside to ensure the jacking is done at no additional cost to SCRRA
and RCTC.
6D. HOV Lanes On Measure A Projects - Routes 91, 60, and 1-215.
M/S/C that the Commission direct staff, working with CECERT, to: 1) Identify the
willingness of SCAG, SCAQMD, and other state and federal highway and
environmental agencies to work with us on this project; and, 2) develop a proposed
scope of work, project schedule, and budget for consideration by the Commission at
their September meeting. The scope of work and budget should be developed to allow
the project to be carried out in phases consisting of lower cost efforts such as research
of existing information, and the more costly efforts such as "new research", if
determined necessary, done in a later phase of the project.
7. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/PARK-N-RIDEBICYCLE.
7A. FY 1995-96 SB 821 Program.
M/S/C that the Commission approve the proposed FY 1995-96 Program totalling
$609,292 as recommended by the SB 821 Ad Hoc Committee.
There being no further business to come before the Budget and Finance Committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 6, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Controller
SUBJECT: Investment Policies
Enclosed is an investment policy drafted by legal counsel, the Commission's financial
advisor, and staff. The policy lists a number of investment alternatives from which
the Commission can select any or all as approved investments. Staff has arranged
for Wayne Watts, Treasurer for the County of Riverside, and the Commission's
financial advisor , Charles Bell Securities, to be present to assist the Commissioners
in developing an understanding of the various listed alternatives.
A public hearing has been scheduled to allow for public input to the Commission's
investment policies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve the proposed Investment Policies and Resolution No.
95-010 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing
Investment Policy for Commission Funds."
:jw
F: \USERS\PREPRINT\SEP.95\INVEST. DM
RESOLUTION NO. 95-10
RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING
INVESTMENT POLICY FOR COMMISSION FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission by enacting this
resolution intends to provide a set of parameters to guide the Commission and those responsible
for Commission investment in the systematic and prudent investment of Commission funds not
immediately required for public projects or Commission operations; and
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the policies set forth in this resolution will
provide adequate control over the Commission's financial assets and investment strategies, as
well as adequate direction to Commission staff in implementing the Commission's investment
policy;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County
Transportation Commission as follows:
1. The primary objective of this investment policy is (a) preservation of the
public's funds so that necessary public projects can be managed and constructed, (b) assurance
of liquidity to meet daily cash flow needs, and (c) obtaining the maximum investment yield
consistent with (a) and (b).
2. Pursuant to the Commission's Administrative Code and prior direction, the
Executive Director and his designee the Controller are hereby delegated the authority to
implement the investment policy set forth herein.
DH280581
3. Except for those funds necessary to assure maintenance of ongoing
Commission operations, Commission investments may include:
United States Treasury Bonds
United States Treasury Notes
United States Treasury Bills
United States Backed Agency Notes
Bank certificates of deposit (with collateral)
A -rated guaranteed investment contracts (with collateral)
A -rated commercial paper
Repurchase agreements
AA -rated corporate bonds
AAA -rated money market mutual funds investing in US Treasury
instruments
Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund
4. The list of permissible investments in Section 3 is intentionally more
limited than those set forth in California Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635.
5. Unless further restricted by state law, all investments hereunder shall be
limited to a maximum maturity date of five years from date of purchase.
6. Excluded from this resolution are investments of employee deferred
compensation, retirement plan, and Section 401(k) funds.
7. The Fiscal Officer or designee shall report to the Commission periodically
on the status of Commission investments, and shall suggest such amendments to this resolution
as he or she from time to time deems necessary or prudent.
ADOPTED this 13th day of September, 1995.
Alex Clifford, Chairman
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
Naty: Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Commission
DH280581
-2-
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
OFF:C= CF THE :RZA RER-TAX COLLECTOR
Oisc1osure Report cn Pooled Fund 'Investment Portfolio
July 31, 1995
Purpose: Though not required by law, the following report will ' e provided '
t monthly =Y
t :e County Treasurer to the .:.embers c_ the board cf Supervisors, Coun Ad.;
-.�
Officer, County Auditor -Controller, County Superintendent of Schools�- Y Administrative
of the public interested _.. the _n=oust .. and to any a --ben
The - will consider three essential areas thvolvinc the Treasurer's
-,4 -` _ management ci
portfolio; namely (1) the preservation of principal in the funds invested, the cost
(i.e., book value) vs. the current :market value of the securities in the portfolio, (2)
te liquidity position of the portfolio, and (3) the current yield cn the portfolio as
cf the report date.
Portfolio: The following is the composition of the portfolio ranked in accordance with
the perceived market risk cf the securities within the portfolio. A so displayed is the
cock and current market value of the securities in the portfolio reported by
custodian (i.e. The Bank cf New York).
cur bank
Risk
TYPE
COST
MARKET
_.0
S . Treasury bills
20,979,423
2220,979,423
U. S. Treasury Notes
449,0:0,259
434,647,620
37.4%
Federal cency Securities
43, 030, 000
40,923,635
3.6°
1 1
Repurchase Agreements (Govt Coll)
43,800,000
43,900,000
3.6%
1.1
Money Market Fund (Govt Ccll)5
50,000,000
50,d03,000
4.2%
1.1
Collateralized Cert of Deposit
5,300,000
5,300,000
0.4%
i:cipal Notes (Co Teeter Notes)
90,579,940
90,579,940
7.5%
_.2
Cc-me--421 ?apes (A --1/F--1)
229,773,936
228, 773, 936
19.0%
:.3
Bankers Acceptances
173,868,578
173,869,579
:4.5%
1.4
Medic:.,, Term Notes (::S Corp)
96,701,295
94, 612, 662
8.0%
2.0
Reverse Repurhase Agreements
0
0
Totals
1,202,012,421
1,183,494,794
0.0%
100.0%
Paper loss
18,517,627
1.5%
Grand Total
1,202,012,421
Footnotes:
Generally, the level cf risk takes into account two major components; the default or credit risk and the
market risk associated with the probability that the security will be affected by market changes in short-
term interest rates. Risk rankings have been assigned with 1.0 being the lowest level of risk and 2.0
being the highest. D.S. and Federal Agency Securities directly backed by the United States Treasury are
considered the safest. .liext in order of -safety are those -Federal agency securities that have an implied
guarantee of the ;mites States Treasury. The third category are those securities that have some form of
government collateral backing (i.e., Repurchase Agreements, Morey :Market Funds
Certificates cf Deposit fourth �► that and Collateralized
(i.e.,ied
Riverside CcLnty's looter Notes). �` are those have local government collateral backing
« , ). The fifth category constitutes an evaluation, of the credit worthiness,
capitali =acn and the time duration of the investment in D.
reflects -e risks associated with the n« 5. Corporate aabrokerag The sixth category
County having laa.:ed securities to a brokerage firm in meeting
temporary cash flow needs by waycfReverse-Repurchase Agreements and the fact that the County could be
subject to margin calls should the collateral have a reduced market value. Margin cads can affect the
--guicity position cf the Treasury in meeting current expenditure requirements.
while the above table denotes a current market value loss (i.e., a paper loss)on the
portfolio, nonetheless, it is the Treasurer's policy to avoid actual losses in
investment principal by holding securities to their maturity. The paper loss for .;vine
30, 1995 was S16,275,303 whereas the reported paper less for :u1y 31, 1995 .s
$'_9,517,627. The liquidity position of the portfolio is such that
` ..ere .s .._
contemplation or need to se_- securities prior to their maturity.
Structured Notes (aka Derivatives): The table notes S43,000,000 in Federal Agency
Seo.:ritjes. Within this amount are two Federal Home can Sank bends classified as
"derivatives" totalina $15,000,000 that carry an inverse -floating interest rat
e
that resets quarterly or semi-annually. Both securities were purchased in October and
November, 1993 and mature November 10th and December 16, 1998 respective_ _-v y. erse
floaters were the type of derivative product most commonly identified with the Orange
County bankruptcy, and so the undersigned identified and disclosed cur portfolio
holdings in these securities in our monthly disclosure reports to the Board. Since then
the County Treasurer has received the March 28, 1995 Audit Report on Orange County
issued by the California State Auditor in which there is an expansion and broader
definition as to what constitutes derivatives. Page 19 of this repc` states
"Derivative securities generally are described as financial instruments nts value is
based or., or der -red from, some underlying asset, reference rate, or index." The audit
reportfurther defined derivatives as being any inverse floater, floating or variable
rate security, step-up notes or range notes that have a structured formula in deriving
interest income.
Under this broader definition, the County Treasury did hold inthe ''' � 31st pc -:f .
,,: ..- .;;.��
::^.e following structured notes, (see appendix 1 for a more detailed description „—g
derivative securities) for =he following classifications:
TYPE C= STRUCTURED NOTES
BOOK VALUE
% OF PORTFOLIO
:nverse Floaters
S15,000,000
1.25%
County's Teeter Notes (Variable Rate)
(The County is contemplating
substituting these notes for fixed notes
during :995-96).
590,579,940
7.53%
Total
$105,579,940
9.75%
Bank Custodian/Security Lending: As of March 27, 1995, the Bank of New York was hired
to be the County's custodial bank for that portion of the portfolio for-eriy serviced -
by Swiss Sant. Swiss Bank had served as the County's security clearance agent from :uly
:3, :994 to December 13, :994, with the understanding that the County would participate
in a security•lending agreement as part of cur banking relationship. Since The County
Treasurer no longer believes this contractual arrangement to be in the best interest
of the County, the contract was terminated on December 13, 1994 and the securities
switched back to The Bank cf New Ycrk. The County Treasurer has no intention of again
entering into a security lending agreement with any bank for the foreseeable future.
Liquidity Position: Although acknowledged to be excessive, the Treasurer's investment
policy guidelines dated December 8, 1994, established the following liquidity -target:
That 50% cf the securities in the portfolio have a maturity less than one year while the
remaining 50% cf the -securities have -a maturity of two to three years from the current
calendar date. The Treasurer's analysis indicates that it will take until August, 1996
for this objective to be achieved. The Treasurer's policy statement has also limited
future maturities to a maximum of three years.
-2-
Should they exist, the following factors could affect the liquidity position o` the
Treasury in meeting daily expenditure requirements: 1. The Treas::ry's s::scep-bi:_ty
margin calls cn reverse repurchase agreements. 2. The Treasury serving as a -depository
for governmental entities outside the County. 3. The Treasury serving as a depository
for incorporated cities within the County. 4. The Treasury having leveraged the
portfolio by buying securities from taxable tax and. revenue anticipation note bone
proceeds intended solely to enhance portfolio yield. None of these factors are oresen;
4.. -:.a Treriurer-Tdx Coll -ct ►1e Dortfolio The Tree e'"
,� - - - � V 1 r-tr we to ro
..-r =,F -_s a deocsitery for other ccvernme.^.tal entities
- „_ a _ v �^- +� ^^^ s outside the Cc•�nty. �cr does
P:G 4•4e w4.-1.4, -1.
^tV V " •4 + a ,nay %,1 ^Q* --.J ^ac -^m
NO- C -}+ „+tv Treas':+e- de cs 4
CC=Vtreasurer. - ^S c+ a + w1
:n analysis of the actual cash receipts and expenditures for calendar years 1992, :993
and 1994 indicate that there are sufficient revenues generated from the December and
April property tax receipts together with :monies received monthly from the State and
Federal Government to meet all the expenditure requirements for the calendar year
without having to require that securities be sold prior to their maturity. Therefore,
it is intended that the property tax receipts and revenues coming from the State and
Federal Government be invested in short-term securities with maturities anywhere from
1 to 120 days. In addition, the Treasurer's analysis has concluded that total cash
receipts have exceeded total cash disbursements during the so called "dry periods"
(i.e., between the April and December property tax collection periods) of the '
year,
thereby enabling the portfolio at , calendar
•-_--. each the three
even its lowest point, to :are y-^rphf;': --- size
g past three calendar years. On November :0 592 -e
'-
the portfolio totaled $9:-,496 63: cn -6 -" t' Slio'.:c d
- -� November y _353 the portfolio totaled
S566,3:c,::_2 and on November 21, :994 the total portfolio was S973,307,61:. It has been
determined that the liquidity position of the Treasury is sustainable if the portfolio
contains 20 to 268 in short-term securities at all times. The present position of
securities maturing within a year is 49.7%. The following schedule
Treasurer's ability to hoot projected cash -flow summarizes the
ected cis. low requirements in
hex: twelve months. .-- s the aggregate for -he
-3-
SUMMARY CASH FLOW STATEMENT
AUGUST 1995 THROUGH JULY 1996
AUGUST BEGINNING CHECKING ACCOUNT BAL 26.2
:AUGUST ESTIMATED REVENUE
$253.6
AUGUST ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($259.6)
'AUGUST M,ATL'RIN3 INVESTMENTS $298.2
:TOTAL
,SEPTEMBER ESTIMATED REVENUE
$323.4 S323.4.
$177.1
SEPTEMBER ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($216.3)
SEPTEMBER MATURING INVESTMENTS $141.9
:TOTAL
:OCTOBER ESTIMATED REVENUE
OCTOBER ESTIMATED WARRANTS
$102.7
$235.7
S426.1
($270.6)
OCTOBER MATURING INVESTMENTS $53.4
'TOTAL $18.5 S444.6
NOVEMBER ESTIMATED REVENUE $241.6
NOVEMBER ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($259.4)
NOVEMBER MATURING INVESTMENTS $17.9
'TOTAL S0.3 S444.9
.DECEMBER ESTIMATED REVENUE $597.5
DECEMBER ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($292.2)
DECEMBER MATURING INVES T MEI`JTS $19.5 -
TOTAL $324.8 5769.7
JANUARY ESTi!vATED REVENUE $237.9
JANUARY ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($467.9)
'JANUARY MATURING INVESTMENTS $0.0
.TOTAL •
FEBRUARY ESTIMATED REVENUE
FEBRUARY ESTifv1ATED WARRANTS ($326.0)
PAYMENT OF SCHOOL TRANS PLEDGE ($33.3)
FEBRUARY MATURING INVESTMENTS $22.2
'TOTAL ($56.6)
MARCH ESTIMATED REVENUE $249.5
MARCH ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($293.7)
MARCH MATURING INVEST v ENTS S7.0
TOTAL ($37.2) 5445.9
APRIL ESTIMATED REVENUE $569.6
APRIL ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($327.7)
APRIL MATURING INVESTMENTS $35.9
TOTAL $277.8 $723.7.
MAY ESTIMATED REVENUE $283.3
MAY ESTIMATED WARRANTS (S421.3)
MAY MATURING INVESTMENTS ($34.01
TOTAL
($230.0)
$280.5
S539.7
$483.1
($172.0) $551.7.
-4-
JUNE ESTIMATED REVENUE $217.5
JUNE ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($277.6)
JUNE MATURING INVESTMENTS $0.0
,PAY BACK OF COUNTY TRANS $0.0
PAY BACK OF SCHOOL TANS $0.0
TOTAL (S60.1) S491.6
JULY ESTIMATED REVENUE $215.4
JULY ESTIMATED WARRANTS ($292.2)
JULY MATURING INVESTMENTS $0.0
96/97 COUNTY TANS ISSUE $160.0
96/97 SCHOOL TANS ISSUE 583.9
PAY BACK OF CO TRANS 07-01-96 ($167.5)
PAY BACK OF SCH TANS 07-05-96 ($20.4)'
TOTAL (520.81 S470.8
-5-
As of July 31, 1995 the liquidity position of the portfolio was:
MATURITIES LL -SS ii-,ANii-,AN 1 YEAR
MATURITIES 1 TO 2 YEARS
MATURITIES 2 TO 3 YEARS
,w.AT 'I IT:ES 3 TO 4 YEARS
MA T LRiTLES 4 TO 5 YEARS
• MATURITIES GREATER T rAN 5 YEARS
597, 924, 754 ,
164,398,350'
'15,275,110'
333,334,478
0'
91.079.729
49.7%.
13.7%
1.3%:
r .! :o;
76`Mc
: JVEIGHTE:,) A'„G MAT (586 =AYS) TOTAL: 1.202.012,4_ 1, 1 G^ ^ \.. v 0
Footnote: The Treasurers Investment G .o.ines dared December 5. 1554 require trat future maturities be limited to a maxiumum of three years.
California law limits maturities v.".!hin the portfolio to a maximum all -A years unless t=ress approval has been ;rented by the Boa re of
Supervisors to exceed the five year limitat.on. The se:urities dentet having rnet.rules greeter than five years in the table above.:ors:i:i::e
:he Treasurers purcase of the Cs... dys Teeter notes after having first secured the approvel of the Board of Supervisors ;:.e.. 55:.:79.54C).
The remaining portion constitutes corporate bonds totaling S499.7E9 3urc;•iased by the cemetery districts and held !yew Treasurer on their
behalf.
Earnings Performance of the Portfolio:
The County Treasurer compares :he e.: rri;I s je, 1or manciee of the po :fo:io against :i a: cur he State
Treasurer's LAIF fund. The fciiowing depicts the average annual earnings performance c; the
Treasury Pccied Invest- -t for the cast six *'scat years to `h.at cf the a.r`= __c
_Sl _ ` ACC
• .�.�P r%
COUNT S-ATE,AF
8.O5 3.55
1989-90
8.76
1990-91 6.42
'991 5.64
1 992-3
i 4.15
1593-94 3 64
1994-95 4.60
8 00
2 .I. L
4._8
AV -
,..."-R 'v� ray /^� ,, • f' : f.; • ./�i.
n l �r1 .
v. V�
5:52
••••
The average weighted V iet ofthe pooled :^d w tfci: as ih i s' C' y
� �. 1... . vl t:.,rf.v � ofthe asl 'l:� � S day o: the fi^vh.: 1
during caier scar year 1994 and 1995 v:as:
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER 4.95
OCTOBER 5.01
NOVEMBER 5.08
DECEMBER 5.43
+'VERiGt7 V D; 4.71
1G94 1995
4.02 5.26
4.20
4.42
4.35
4.49
4.68
4.91
4.93
5.28
5.40
5.48
5.47
5.35
5.30
Specific Portfolio Practices: Responses
_r cn5e t.. questions perta:.. tc the a-- - _o
pc_ __o .io that occurred during the report :.cnth c: .:uly 3:, :995. •- -i`s .. _..
Yes No Questions:
z
,z
_z
1. Did the Treasurer contract er utilize the services
private investment manager?
cf
mid the Treasurer contract or utilize he services cf a -
advisor?
any outside,
3. Are there any investment agreement contracts outstanding affecting to
portfolio?
4.
Are any securities held in bank custody subject to a bank "Security
Lending Agreement"?
5. Are any securities cn loan to' a brokerage firm as a result of reverse -
repurchase agreements made by the Treasurer?
6. Is the Treasury susceptible to possible margin calls cn loaned
securities? -
7. Did the Treasurer sell any securities prior to maturity in order to
meet cash flow needs?
8. Did the Treasurer sell any security at a principal loss?
9. =id the Treasury buy Pr does it hold any t
security at carries an
inverse floating interest equation (i.e., a derivative)?
:0. Did the :reasurer buy any CMO's (i.e., collateralized mortgage
obligation)?
11.
Did the Treasurer buy any shares in a mutual bond fund where the
underlying value of the securities in the portfolio.are subject to
daily market value adjustments?
--• mid the,^ cpticn
enter into any "covered call"
contract "put Cr
13. Did the Treasury establish any new account and/or accept deposits from
any governmental entity not now a participant of the Treasury
investment pool?
Has the County entered into any taxable TRANs for the purpose of
further enhancing portfolio yield?
::rider penalty of perjury, : certify that the above information is true and correct as
cf the report date.
Carlene F. Holz
Assistant Treasurer -Tax Collector
zlept3
-7-
C OUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
OFFICE OF THE 1 REASURER-TAX COLLECTOR
STRUCTURED NOTES IN THE PORTFOLI O
JULY 31, 1995
APPEN DIX 1
TRANS CUSIP
NO
11393 313389ZT8
11490 313389G69
FHLB
FHLB
TOTAL
CNTY RIVITEETER
GRAND TO TAL
SEC TYPE DERIVATIVE MATURITY
TYPE DATE
INV. FLTR. 11-113-90
INV. FLTR. 12-16-98
INTEREST FORMULA CURRENT
INT. RATE
1 UY CM1 +3•/.-6M LIBOR 4.755% 10,000,000
8%-3 M LIBOR 1.56:8% 5 ,001,000
15,000,000
VARIABLE 8-15-01 1Y TB +50BP 7.082% 90,579,940
BOOK VALUE MARKET VALUE S OF
P ORT
8,907,400
4,35.1,365_
13, 261, 765 1.25%
90,579,940 7.53 %
105,579,940 103,841,705 8 .78 %
l
ACC OU NT:
•- .11_1_ ACCOUNTS s%I "F 0RTINL;
COUNTY OE I%1 VL_l<S 1 DE
INVE STME T HOLDINGS
,L •: 1
SEC ID
12607
12610
12635
12618
12679
12606
12634.
12694
12695
1 12665
12666
12633
12663
12664
12632
1 12691
12692
12693
12641
12688
1268Vi
12690
12642
12631"
12643
DESCRIPTION
DA - BANKERS ACCEPTANCE
ESA FUJI BANK NY
BA NORINCHULIN BANK NY
J)A NORINCHUKIN NY C T 101
DA NORINCHUKIN NY
BA MITSUBISHI NY
BA SANWA NY
BA DA I ICHI KANGYO C T 101
DA MITSUBISHI NY S T 3410
BA MITSUB/SHI NY
BA BANK OF TOKYO NY S T 0810
BA BANK OF TOKYO NY S T 3010
DA SANWA NY CO TRANS 101
BA DAI ICHI KANGYO S T 5210
BA DAI ICHI KANGYO NY
BA INDUST BK JAPAN C T 101
DA DANK OF TOKYO NY S T 1310
BA BANK OF TOKYO NY S T 0110
DA DANK OF TOKYO NY S T 3410
BA DAI ICHI KANOYO C T 101
DA BANK OF TOKYO NY S T 3910
BA BANK OF TOKYO NY S T 1810
BA BANK OF TOKYO. NY S T 1310
BA DAI ICHI KANOYO C T 101
DA FUJI NY CO TRANS 101
BA MITSUBISHI NY C T 101
SUBTOTAL
CORP - CORPORATE BONDS
FACE
RATE
I'OS .I . lON REPORT
AS OF 07/31/95
MATURITY LAST SET PURCHASE.
DATE D ATE YIELD
PAR
0.0000 08/()1/95 06/22/95 5.9694 20,000,000.00
0.0000 00/04/95 06/23/95 5.9615 5,000,000.00
0.0000 08/04/95 07/05/95 5.9599 12,000,000.00
0.0000 00/07/95 06/29/95 5.9500 5,000,000.00
0.0000 00/10/95 07/11/95 5.9665 8,000,000.00
0.0000 00/11/95 07/17/95 5.7736 10,00 0,000.00
0.0 000 00/22/95 07/05/95 5.9671 7, 000, 000.00
0. 0000 00/23 /95 07/10/95 5.7939 207,907.24
0.0000 00/23/95 07/18/95 5.79:,9 4,712,092.76
0.0000 09/01/95 07/06/95 5.9054 9,628,231.49
0.0000 07/01/95 07/06/95 5.9054 371,760.51
0.0000 09/20/95 07/05/95 5.9346 7,000,00 0.00
0.0000 09/21/95 07/06/95 5.9146 11,375,601.90
0.0000 09/21/95 07/06/95 5.9146 624,398.10
0.0000 10/02/95 07/05/95 5.8235 25,000,000.00
0.0000 10/02/95 07/10/95 5.7237 2,107,172.11
0.0000 10/02/95 07/18/95 5.7237 5,002,853.81
0.0000 10/02/ 95 07/18 /95 5.7237 4,009,974.00
0.0000 10/30/95 07/05/95 5.9218 5,000,000.00
0.0000 11/10/95 07/18/95 5.7400 6,650,308.92
0.0000 11/10/95 07/18/95 5.7480 1,274,125.03
0.0000 11/10/95 07/18/95 5.7480 75,566.05
0.0000 11/17/95 07/05/95 5.8976 5,000,000.00
0.0000 12/22/95 07/05/95 5.8300 10,000,000.00
0.0000 12/22/95 07/05/95 5.0589 10,000,000.00
176,000,000.00
amn=== ====am=mom:=========ms.msa
7389 CORP BOND PAC TEL & TEL CO 7.6250 06/01/09 06/01/95 7.81 .90
50,000.00
7171 CORP BOND SO DELL TEL & TEL 8.1250 05/01/17 05/01/95 8.1090 450,000.00
(3) LISIBX'3
SECURITY TYPE SEQUENCE
COST
19, 060, 22'2.23
4,965,466.67
11,940,700.00
4, 967,953.33
7, 961, 733.33
9,960,069.44
6,944,746. 67
206,240.09
4,684,951.11
9,539,050.00
360 ,325.0 0
6,912,262.78
11,233,500.00
616,590.67
24,645,236.11
2,082,127.20
5,022,441.27
4,752,804. 86
4,905,507.50
6,530,917.40
1,251,250.95
74,209.43
4,891,812.50
9,731,541.67
9,730,833.33
17.7,068,578.34
48,985.00
450,004.6?
ACCRUED
INTEREST
120, 4133.33
31,244.44
51,393.33
26,311.11
25,511.11
22,361.11.
29,920.89
590.05
9,001.15
39,114.6?
1,510.31
29,625.55
46,134.38
2,532.20
103,6.338.09
4,204.00
10,333.72
9,778.95
20,900.56
13,496.43
2,585.77
153.36
20,836.11
41,050.33
41,166.6.7
712,063.32
635.42
9,140.63
O/ -L1 -J ..'9.,
n
•l
'1
rJ
ACCOUNT: (U ._I_ - ALL ACCOUNT::; REPO RTING
SEC ID
71 12637
12657
12658
'1 12659
12602
12638
U 12644
12645
12696
O 12721
12697
12680
7, 12718
12719 CPD
12639 CF'D
12715 CPD
12716 CPD
12720 CPD
12640 CPD
12667 CPD
12668 CPD
12703 CPD
12709 CPD
12710 CPD
O 12711 CPD
12712 CPD
12713 CPD
O 12714 CPD
12724 . CPD
12725 CPD
O
O
DESCRIPTION
SUBTOTAL
CPD - COMMERCIAL PAPER - DISCOUNT
.=== ===== _:gymu i===7...===: ==== .
CPD GLAXO HLDGS CO TRANS 101
CPD RAYTHEON CO S T 7410
CPD RAYTHEON CO 5 T 991()
CPD
CF'I)
C.F' D
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
R AYTHEON CO
EXXON CORP
BALTIMORE GAS\EL C T 101
GTE NORTH INC C T 101
GTE NORTH INC
BELL SO COMMUNICATIONS
CARGILL FINANCE
BELL SO COMMUNICATIONS
SWEDISH EXPORT CR CORP
APPALACHIAN POWER CO
SMITH BARNEY
S CAROLINA EL\GAS CT 101
RAYTHEON CO 5 T 7410
RAYTHEON CO
PROGRESS FUNDING CORP
CARGILL FIN SERV C T 101
DANCAL TRI-STATE ST 3010
BANCAL TRI-STATE
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL
CHEVRON USA INC 5 T 3410
CHEVRON USA INC S T 4910
CHEVRON USA INC 5 T 0310
CHEVRON USA INC S T 5610
CHEVRON USA INC S T 6410
CHEVRON USA INC S T 7410
DANCAL TRI-STATE C T 101
DANCAL TRI-STATE
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
POSITION REPORT
AS OF 07/,1./95
FACE MATURITY LAST SET PURCHASE
RATE
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000 09/01/95
0.0000 09/01/95
0.0000 09/01/95
0.0000 09/15/95
0.0000 09/21/95
0.0000 09/21/95
0.0000 09/21/95
0.0000 09/21/95
0.0000 09/21/95
0.0000 09/21/95
0.0000 09/28/95
0.0000 09/28/95
DATE DATE NIEL .D PAR
08/01/95
08/02/95
08/02/95
0(1/02/95
08/02/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/04/95
08/07/95
08/09/95
08/14/95
08/15/95
08/18/95
08/18/95
08/23/95
07/05/95
07/05/95
07/05/95
07/05/95
07/12/95
07/05/95
07/05/95
07/05/95
07/18/95
07/27/95
07/18/95
07/11/95
07/27/95
07/27/95
07/05/95
07/26/95
07/26/95
07/27/95
07/05/95
07/06/95
07/06/95
07/20/95
07/26/95
07/26/95
07/26/95
07/26/95
07/26/95
07/26/95
07/31/95
07/31/95
6.0000
5.9571
5.9571
5.7571
5.6998
5.9697
5.9697
5.9697
5.7242
5.7064
5.7253
5.9656
5.7522
5.7360
5.9020
5.7515
5.7515
5.8359
5.8960
6.0070
6.0070
5.7320
5.7320
5.7320
5.7320
5.7320
5.7320
5.7320
5.7550
5.7550
500,000.00
20,000,000.00
3,022 ,954.21
10,4 .78,826.67
1,498,219.12
12,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
6,770,025.06
5,229,174.94
10,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
15,995,000.00
8,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
180,527.55
4,819,472.45
15,000,000,00
10,000,000.00
9,773,549.90
226,450.02
8,000,000.00
3,697,1(38.89
4,058,668.16
5,074,803.46
4,058,668.16
1,264,296.04
1,846,375.29
5,047,148.78
952,051.22
I= A GE:
SECURITY TYPE SEQUENCE
COST
499,789.69
19,910,300.00
3,009,011.67
10,430,496.00
1,491,:09. 00
11,960,240.00
19,904,300.0 0
6,738,426.66
3,213,723.34
9,974,622.22
9,988,916.67
4,986,518.06
15,926,381.4 5
7, 983, 417.78
9,971,400.00
19,864,700.00
179,866.67
4,801,829.16
14,934,637.50
9,905,911.11
9,601,475.00
224,316.67
7, 928, 053.33
3,663,938.84
4,022,167.2 0
5,029,164.06
4,022,167.20
1,252,925.81
1,829,770.22
5,000,000.00
943,950.00
ACCRUED
INTEREST
9,776.0!
86, 377.7(
12,946.6'
44,870.41
6,416.5•'
-35,973.3
85,000.0(
29,046.84
13,1353.11
20,619.41
6,333.3.
10,309.7:
50,820.51
5,102.2:'
6,355.31
85,800.00
143.67
3,835.30
9,683.3:
42,177.70
40,383.76
935.6(3
13,884.45
2,916.67
3,201.04
4,003.46
3,201.84
997.39
1,456.59
0.00
0.00
V •
W., '. .L .11 1. .1
2
ACCOUNT: ..-1_ - ALL ACCOUNTS kEl0(:1:I:NI:i
SEC ID
11809
10404
10589
11393
11490
11671
DESCRIPTION
SUBTOTAL
FHLB - FED HOME -LOAN DANK
FED HOME LOAN BANK '...
.FED HOME LOAN BANK
FED HOME LOAN BANK
FHLB-IF(10Y CMT+3Z-6M LIBOR)
FHLI) INV-VAR (8%-3M LIBOR)
SUBTOTAL
FHLC - FHLB - NORTO. CERT.
======_______===========_=====tat=
FHLB - MORTG. CERT.
SUBTOTAL
FNMA - FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.
COU NT `h RIVERSIDE
I N V L S T M( r HOLDINGS
FACE
RATE
POSITION RE PORT
AS OF 07/,,1/95
MATURITY LAST SET PURCHASE
DATE DATE YIELD
5.5500 04/12/96 04/12/95 5.5500
4.3600 04/25/96 04/25/95 4.3600
5 .2500 05/26/98 05/26/95 5.2500
4.7550 11/10/98 05/10/95 4.7550
1.5630 12/16/98 06/16/95 1.56 '. •': 0
PAR
SECURITY TYPE SEQUENCE
COST
2!9,995,000.00 220,773,9:5.62
5,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
3,0 00,000.00
35,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
35,000,000•
.00
4.7800 02/10/97 02/10/95 4.7800 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00
10388 FNMA 4.2500 04/22/96 04/22/95
10375
11160
_) 10580
10099
10234
SUBTOTAL
MTNO - MED TERM NOTES
MTNO INTERNTL LEASE FIN A+A2
MTNO DOW CHEMICAL A/A1
MTNO BANK OF AMERICA A/A2
MTNO A T & T CORP AA/Aa3
MTNO NO IL GAS & EL AA/Aa1
•
4.2500
3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00
5,000,000.00 5,000,000.0 0
5,000,000.00 5,000,00 0.00
4.8750 09/15/95 03/15/95 4.6530 5,000,000.00 5,025,050.00
4.6250 10/15/95 04/15/95 4.0811 2,000,000.00 2,023,800.00
5.8750 11/15/95 05/15/95 4.7300 5,000,000.00 5,132,050.00
4.5000 02/15/96 04/07/95 4.4427 10,000,000.00 10,014,300.00
4.5000 03/15/96 03/15/95 4.5264 7,000,000.00 6,994,400.00
ACCRUED
INTEREST
6'27,463. 37
04,020.83
116,266.67
47,395.03
1 06,987.50
9,768.75
364,439.50
60,115.00
68,115.00
58,437.50
58,437.50
93,437.50
27,493 .06
62,829.86
143,750.00
120,750.00
r")
'1
ACCOU NT: ALL
SEC ID
') 11592
11344.
10949
11330
0955
11462.
:) 11514
11741
11376
11377'
11370
3
•- ALL ACCOUNTS REPORTING
DESCRIPTION
MTNO SHEARSCIN LEHMAN A/A3
MTNO CATERPILLAR A -/A3
MTNO ASSOC CORPS AA-/Aa3
MTNO WASTE MANAGEMENT AA -/A1
MTNO G E CAPITAL AAA/Aaa
MTNO CAROLINA POWR & LT A/A2
MTNO MERRILL LYNCH Al/A+
MTNO AMERICAN GEN FIN A+/A1
MTNO ONTARIO HYDRO AA-/Aa3
MTNO ONTARIO HYDRO AA-/Aa3
MTNO ONTARIO HYDRO AA-/Aa3
SUBTOTAL
MULT - MUTUAL FUND
mam======a====m=m=xxm=x======m=m
12624 FDIC U S TREASURY MMF AAA
12706 AIM S -T INVMTS TR/TREAS AAA
12707 MILESTONE TREAS OBLIG AAA
12670
) 12671
)
)
)
SUBTOTAL
MUNI - MUNICIPAL BONDS
=m=ass xc esma¢asmmeaaiam=ommmmm xa x=xxa
MUNICIPAL BONDS 53-94 TEETER
MUNICIPAL BONDS 94-95 TEETER
SUBTOTAL
NOTE - U.S. TREASURY NOTES
asmm=mm=s=====a:==. =m===mam===a=x=
10408 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11114 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11175 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
I N V E S T M E N T HOLDINGS
POSITION REPORT
AS OF 07/31/9.,
FACE MATURITY L AST SET PURCHASE
RATEDATE DATE YIELD
10.7500 04/29/96 03/01/95 5.0934
5.0200 04/30/96 04/01/95 4.5020
4.7500 08/01/96 02/05/95 4.0621
7.0750 00/15/96 02/15/95 4.5209
7.2400 10/25/96 03/15/95 5.5703
4.8500 12/02/96 05/01/95 4.0900
5.0000 12/15/96 06/15/95 5.0600
5.6700 03/17/97 03/17/95 5.6750
5.8000 03/31 /98 03/31/95 5.1015
5.8000 03/31/90 03/31/95 5.1612
5.8000 03/31/98 03/31/95 5.09117
5.9000 09/29/95 07/29/95
5.4500 09/29/95 07/31/95
5.4500 09/29/95 07/31/95
6.0045
5.5222
5.5222
PAR
5,200,000.00
10,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
10,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
5, 000, 000.00
94,700,000.00
10,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
50,000,000.00
6.4550 00/15/00 07/07/95 6.4550 42,548,077.61
6.4550 08/15/01 07/7/95 4.4550 48,0331,061.97
4.6250 02/15/96 02/15/95
4.3750 08/15/96 02/15/95
4.3750 08/15/96 02/15/95
4.0698
3.9929
4.1265
90,579,939.50
10,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
1 0,000,000.00
r AiiE : 4
SECURITY TYPE SEQUENCE
COST
5,749,324.20
10,119,500.00
9,909,200.00
3,230,605.00
2,650,175.00
9,909,900.00
10,000,000.0 0
5,000,000.00
2,053,750.00
3,083,010.00
5,130, 350.00
ACCRUED
INTEREST
236,022.22
160,727.70
232,222.22
100,937.50
69,30'33.33
122,597.22
63,088.09
396,112.50
39,311.11
50,766.67
98, 277.701
96,201,495. 00 2,042,707.64
10,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
50,000,000.00
42,548,077.61
48,031,861.97
90,579,939.58
10,145,312.50
10,104 , 607. 50
10,067,1137.50
3,232.80
0.00
0.00
3,232.08
183,098.56
206,697.11
389,795.67
212,005.64
200, 621.55
200, 621.50
ACCULJNI _I_ - ALI_ ACCOU NTS 1'iEPUh'11Nu
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
INVESTM T HOLDINUS
1L •:
J
SEC ID
DESCRIPTION
11179 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11182 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11200 U.S. lREASURY NOTES
11211 U.S. 7' REASIJRY NOTES
11338 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11345 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
) 11693 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11241 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11248 'U.S. TREASURY NOTES
1 11249 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11300 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11517 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11320 1. 1.8. TREASURY NOTES
11331 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11332 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
0) 11335 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11336 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11337 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12 550 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12561 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12562 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
O 12563 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
125¢7 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12568 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
0 12569 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12583 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
12584 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11350 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11351 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11 352 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
O 11353 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11354 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11355 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
J 11356 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11357 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
11382 U.S. TREASURY NOTES
0 11306 U .S. TREASURY NOTES
.:1
J
FACE
RATE
POSITION REPORT
AS OF 07/31/95
MATURITY LAST SET F'Uf:CI-IASE
DATE DATE YIELD
PAR
4.3750 08/15/96 02/15/95 Al2.55 10,000,000.00
4.3750 00/15/9 6 02/15/95 4.177 0 10,000,000.00
4.3750 00/15/96 02/15/95 4.066 0 10,0 00,000.0 0
4.5750 00/15/96 02/15/95 4.0628 15,000,000.00
4.3750 08/15/96 02/15/95 4.1025 20,0 00,000.00
4.3750 08/15/96 02/15/95 4.2145 10,000,000.00
4.7500 02/15/97 02/15/95 4.9121 25,000,000.00
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/95 4.6791 10,000,000.00
4.7500 09/30/ 90 03/31/95 4.760 6 51 9,246.59
4.7500 09/3 0/917 03/31/95 4.7606 480,755.41
4.7500 09/5 0/98 03/31/9 5 4.6319 25,000,000.00
4.7500 09/30/90 03/31/ 95 4. 5925 10,000,000.00
4.7500 09/30/90 03/31/95 4.5602 10,000,000.00
4.7500 09/50/98 03/31/95 4.6902 20,000,000.00
4 .7500 09/50/98 03/31/95 4 .6840 10,000,000.00
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/95 4.713'33 10,000,000.00
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/95 4.7169 10,852,518.07
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/95 4.7169 147,481.93
4.7500 09/30/90 03/31/95 4.8140 4,901,900.57
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/95 4.7997 9,985,543.38
4.7500 09/30/98 03 /31/95 4.7997 14,456.62
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/95 4.8140 5,018,019.43
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/95 4.5292 25,000,000.00
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/95 4.5925 9,101,489.76
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/95 4.5925 898,510.24
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/95 4.6121 1,508,294.72
4.7500 09/30/98 03/31/95 4.6121 3,491,705.28
4.7500 10/31/98 04/30/95 4.6924 5,000,000.00
4.7500 10/31/90 04/30/95 4.7300 5,000,000. 00
4.7500 10/31/98 04/30/95 4.7051 10,000, 000.00
4.7500 10/31/98 04/30/95 4.7675 10,000,000.00
4.7500 10/31/98 04/30/95 4.7650 5,000,000.00
4.7500 10/31/98 04/30/95 4.7900 5,000,000.00
4.7500 10/31/98 04/30/95 4.7900 5,000,000.00
4.7500 10/31/98 04/30/95 4.7250 5,000,000.00
4.7500 10/31/913 04/30/95 4.8140 10,000,000.00
4.7500 10 /31/98 04/30/95 4.9594 15,000,000.00
SECURITY TYNE SEQUENCE
COST
10,067,107.50
10,053,125.00
10,002,01'2.50
15,125, 390.63
20,100,000.00
10,041,406.25
24,888,671.8 8
10,031,250.00
519,0 03.19
400, 5217.06
25,120, 906.25
10, 0617, 750.00
10, 002,812:5 0
20,051,562.50
10,020,125.00
10,015,625.00
10,867,779.42
147, 689.33
4,967,960.75
9,963,700.00
14,425.0 0
5,003,906.25
25, 242,187.50
9,164,062.50
904,687.50
1,517,368.06
3,512,710.07
5,012,700.00
5,004,400.00
10,019,800.00
9,992,300.00
4,996,700.00
4,991,200.00
4,991,200.00
5, 005, 500.00
9,971,875.00
14,07 5,781.25
ACCRUED
INTEREST
200, 621.55
200,621.55
200, 621.55
300,932.32
401,243.09
200, 621.55
544,544.20
158,333.33
0,221.40
7,611.93
395, 033.:: 3
150,533.3:;
150, 533.33
316,666.67
158,333.33
150, 333.3::
171,031.54
2,335.13
78,001.56
150,104.44
228.90
79,451.97
395,033.33
144,106.92
14,226 .41
23, 081.33
55, 205.35
59,375.00
59,375.00
118,750.00
118,750.00
59,375.00
59,375.00
59,375.00
59,375.00
110,750.00
170,125.00
" n
A c : C O U N " r : A L L
- A L L A C C O U N T S R E P O R T I N G
S E C I D D E S C R I P T I O N
1 1 5 8 ; 7 ,
1 2 0 9 7
1 2 4 3 5
1 2 5 0 1
1 2 5 0 2
1 2 5 1 0
. 1 1 2 5 1 9
1 1 6 4 6
1 1 6 4 0
1 1 1 6 6 0
1 1 6 6 1
1 1 6 6 2
1 2 0 9 4
1 2 3 6 4
1 2 4 3 4
" > 1 1 6 9 9
1 1 7 0 0
1 1 7 0 1
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . 1 " x : E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . 1 R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
" U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . 1 R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y N O T E S
S U B T O T A L
' R E P O - R E P U R C H A S E A G R E E M E N T
i m m m m a o = = = e x m m m s m a m m m a x x m x : o _ m = = _ s e _
1 2 7 2 6 R E P U R C H A S E A G R E E M E N T
1 2 1 3 4
1 2 1 4 0
J 1 2 1 5 4
1 2 1 9 8
1 2 3 5 0
J 1 2 5 5 9
: )
S U B T O T A L
1 " B I L - U . S . T R E A S U R Y B I L L S
s = x m m o a & = m m o m x = = A m m m r m m x x x x x x = = = = m s o
U . S . T R E A S U R Y B I L L S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y B I L L S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y B I L L S
U . S . T R E A S U R Y D I L L S
U . S . 1 " R E A S I J R Y D I L L S F U N D 3 3 1
U . S . 1 R E A S U R Y D I L L S F U N D 3 3 4
C O U N T Y O F R I V E R S I D E
I N V E S T M E N T H O L D I N G S
P O S I T I O N R E P O R T
A S O F 0 7 / : 1 / 9 5
F A C E M A T U R I T Y L A S T S E T
R A T E D A T E D A T E "
4 . 7 5 0 0 1 0 / 3 1 / 9 0
4 . 7 5 0 0 1 0 / 5 1 / 9 0
4 . 7 5 0 0 1 0 / 5 1 / 9 0
4 . 7 5 0 0 1 0 / 5 1 / 9 0
4 . 7 5 0 0 1 0 / 3 1 . / 9 0
4 . 7 5 0 0 1 0 / 5 1 / 9 8
4 . 7 5 0 0 1 0 / 3 1 / 9 0
5 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 / 3 1 / 9 9
5 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 / 3 1 / 9 9
5 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 / 3 1 / 9 9
5 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 / 3 1 / 9 9
5 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 / 3 1 / 9 9
5 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 / 3 1 / 9 9
5 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 / 3 1 / 9 9
5 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 / 3 1 / 9 9
5 . 5 0 0 0 0 2 / 2 8 / 9 9
5 . 5 0 0 0 0 2 / 2 8 / 9 9
5 . 5 0 0 0 0 2 / 2 8 / 4 9
0 4 / 5 0 / 9 5
0 4 / 3 0 / 9 5
0 4 / 3 0 / 9 5
0 4 / 3 0 / 9 5
1 1 / 0 0 / 9 3
0 4 / 3 0 / 9 5
0 4 / 3 0 / 9 5
0 7 / 3 1 / 9 5
0 7 / 3 1 / 9 5
0 7 / 3 1 / 9 5
0 7 / 3 1 / 9 5
0 7 / 3 1 / 9 5
0 7 / 3 1 / 9 5
0 7 / 3 1 / 9 5
0 7 / 3 1 / 9 5
0 2 / 2 0 / 9 5
0 2 / 2 0 / 9 5
0 2 / 2 0 / 9 5
F " ' U R C H A S E
" Y I E L D
4 . : 9 5 5 2
4 . 0 7 9 0
4 . 6 0 9 2
4 . 0 8 9 2
4 . 0 2 4 7
4 . 7 9 5 1
4 . 7 9 5 1
5 . 0 8 4 1
5 . 0 0 5 9
5 . 1 1 4 7
5 . 1 2 9 1
5 . 1 8 5 1
5 . 0 1 2 5
5 . 0 0 5 9
5 . 0 0 5 9
5 . 4 5 4 9
5 . 4 4 7 5
5 . 4 4 5 0
P A R
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
1 , 5 6 1 , 3 1 1 . . 0 5
2 , 7 4 1 , 1 9 9 . 3 9
1 1 , 0 1 5 . 0 0
6 0 4 , 9 7 9 . 7 4
4 , 9 5 0 , 6 4 6 . 2 4
4 1 , 5 5 5 . 7 6
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
1 9 , 0 7 9 , 6 3 8 . 3 6
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
9 6 5 , 5 6 0 . 5 7
1 5 4 , 0 0 1 . 0 7
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
4 4 7 , 9 9 9 , 5 0 5 . 1 6
5 . 5 5 0 0 0 0 / 0 1 / 9 5 0 7 / 3 1 / 9 5 5 . 5 5 0 0 4 3 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
"
0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 / 2 4 / 9 5 0 9 / 0 8 / 9 4 5 . 6 1 0 4
0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 / 2 4 / 9 5 0 9 / 1 3 / 9 4 5 . 6 5 4 7
0 . 0 0 0 0 0 9 / 2 1 / 9 5 0 9 / 2 2 / 9 4 5 . 0 4 8 2
0 . 0 0 0 0 1 0 / 1 9 / 9 5 1 0 / 2 4 / 9 4 6 . 2 4 3 0
0 . 0 0 0 0 0 2 / 0 0 / 9 6 0 2 / 0 9 / 9 5 7 . 0 2 0 0
0 . 0 0 0 0 0 2 / 0 0 / 9 6 " 0 2 / 0 9 / 9 5 7 . 0 2 0 0
4 3 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
1 , 6 0 6 , 6 4 0 . 4 3
5 5 5 , 5 4 9 . 4 0
P A G E : 6
S E C U R I T Y " r Y F " E S E Q U E N C E
C O S T
4 , 9 6 0 , 5 4 6 . 1 1 0
1 , 5 5 2 , 4 0 7 . 4 0
2 , 7 2 4 , 4 9 5 . 2 0
1 1 , 7 4 3 . 0 0
6 0 0 , 0 0 5 . 6 5
4 , 9 4 8 , 0 2 0 . 1 2
4 1 , 2 7 1 . 8 0
4 , 9 0 1 , 6 4 0 . 6 3
1 9 , 0 0 5 , 0 0 9 . 7 2
4 , 9 7 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
4 , 9 7 1 , 8 7 5 . 0 0
4 , 9 5 9 , 7 6 5 . 6 8
4 , 9 9 7 , 2 6 5 . 6 3
9 6 1 , 9 3 9 . 7 2
1 5 4 , 2 2 0 . 5 6
5 , 0 0 9 , 7 5 0 . 0 0
5 , 0 1 1 , 3 5 0 . 0 0
5 , 0 1 1 , 9 0 0 . 0 0
4 4 9 , 0 1 0 , 2 5 9 . 4 1
4 3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
4 3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
4 , 7 4 4 , 1 0 4 . 0 3
4 , 7 4 5 , 8 0 2 . 0 8
4 , 7 2 4 , 4 7 2 . 2 2
4 , 7 1 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
A C C R U E D
I N T E R E S T
5 9 , 3 7 5 . 0 (
1 8 , 5 4 0 . 5 .
3 2 , 5 5 1 . 7 ,
1 4 0 . 5 (
5 7 , 1 1 0 . 7 (
5 8 , 0 8 5 . 9 :
4 9 1 . 0 1
0 . 0 (
0 . 0 (
0 . 0 (
0 . 0 <
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 (
0 . 0 (
0 . 0 (
1 1 4 , 3 3 4 . 2 . 1
1 1 4 , 3 3 4 . 2 1
1 1 4 , 3 3 4 . 2 4
6 , 7 6 7 , 4 3 0 . 2 2
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
2 3 8 , 2 7 4 . 3 0
2 3 6 , 5 1 4 . 5 9
2 3 6 , 1 6 6 . 6 7
2 2 5 , 5 5 5 . 1 6
5 0 , 5 9 4 . L 1
1 6 , 7 9 0 . 1 . 1
,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 6, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Controller
SUBJECT: County of Riverside Investment Portfolio Reports
Enclosed for your review is the Monthly Disclosure Report on Investment Portfolio
from the Office of the Treasurer -Tax Collector, County of Riverside.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission receive and file.
:jw
Enclosure
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
MONTHLY DISCLOSURE REPORT
ON INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
July 31, 1995
R. WAYNE WATTS
TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Portfolio Composition, Risk Ranking, Market Value 1
2. Structured Notes 2
3. Bank Custodian/Security Lending 2
4. Liquidity Position of Portfolio 2, 3
5. Cash Flow Summary for the Next Twelve Months 4, 5
6. Liquidity Structure of the Portfolio 6
7. Earnings Performance of the Portfolio 6
8. Specific Portfolio Practices Identified 7
9. Appendix 1: Structured Notes in the Portfolio as ofJuly 31, 1995
10. Exhibit C: Portfolio Holdings as ofJuly 31, 1995
11. Chart Depicting Various Aspects of the Portfolio
r
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 6, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Louise Givens, Assistant Director Intergovernmental Programs
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Request For Proposal For Federal Lobbyist Services
BACKGROUND:
In June 1995, the Commission retained two Federal lobbyists on short term contracts
under the Executive Director's single signature authority. The need for that action
was the result of Commission direction to pursue funding for certain transportation
demonstration projects. The time frame for involvement in the related legislation was
immediate and the activity levels ha been intense.
The lobbyists selected were chosen for their specific skills and the orientation of their
firms. One, Cliff Madison, is highly knowledgeable about highway and rail projects
and has important contacts with the highway agencies and interested legislators.
The second, David Turch, has important contacts in the rail area and also works for
the Southern California Regional Authority (SCRRA). Both were chosen because of
their immediate availability and the fact that their firms work exclusively on
transportation issues. However, neither were selected through a formal public
process. For this reason, both contracts were intended to be of short duration which
terminate on September 30, 1995.
ISSUE:
Should the Commission replace its Federal lobbyists in order to have representation
on legislation and policy issues in Washington, D.C.?
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF NO ACTION:
The process for selection is competitive and time consuming for staff and
Commissioners who may be involved in the selection panel.
The continued use of short term, single purpose contracts is possible, and a limited
number of firms are willing to operate on this basis.
FAUSERSIPREPRINTISEP_-951FEDLBRFP.LG
rage .
The Commission would not have to budget and expend funds on a regular basis for
services of a Federal lobbyist.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF AN RFP FOR NEW SERVICES:
The legislative process moves very quickly and without lead time for hiring of firms
to provide the services that may be needed. Having a representative in place allows
the Commission to respond to the immediacy of issues.
Funding currently being sought for demonstration projects and new rail starts will
most likely be realized in legislation that is brought forward after the termination of
the existing contracts. The Amtrak Authorization Act and National Highway System
Act will be taken up again after Congress reconvenes in September. Activity on these
bills will only be seriously getting underway by the end of September.
The efforts for reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) is already underway. Representatives from the San Francisco Bay Area have
already become active, but there is little involvement from Southern California at this
time. Some discussion has already taken place about reducing the role of local
agencies under the new authorization. It is important to begin work now during the
early policy setting stages of the process and follow through until adoption.
We can no longer depend on others to "carry the ball" for our interests in Federal
legislation and policy issues. Other agencies within the Region have reduced their
involvement or refocused their efforts to deal with the immediacy of their internal
financial crises.
Most experienced firms will not represent clients on a single issue -short term contract
basis for an extended basis. Those firms willing to operate in this manner are often
building their business and need the work, but may not have the experience and
contacts to make a real difference on the issue.
The existing contracts can not be extended to function on a issue -by -issue contract
basis. The continuation of services provided by short term contracts for single
purpose activities may raise questions of sole source contracting and does not make
good public policy.
The standard for this type of service is the selection of a lobbying firm or firms for
their expertise and paying them a retainer for basic services. This arrangement allows
for the firm to available on an "on call" basis, as with legal representation and other
professional services.
F:\USERS\PREPRINTISEP.951FEDLBRFP.LG
rage .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission:
1) Determine if the Commission should solicit proposals from firms to provide
Federal legislative and policy issue representative services for the remainder of
the Commission's fiscal year.
2) If the decision is to proceed, authorize staff to develop and issue a Request For
Proposals (RFP) for lobbyists to provide services as Federal legislation and
policy issue representatives. The RFP would be reviewed and approved by the
Legislative Committee prior to release.
3) Authorize the Chairperson of the Legislative Committee to select three members
of the Legislative Committee to interview and recommend up to two firms to
represent the Commission as Federal lobbyists.
LG:jw
FAUSERSIPREPRINTISEP.951FEDLBRFP.LG
BUDG: 3. ACTU AL
OF THE 1+I VERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATION COMMISSION
For Twelve Months Ending June 30, 1995
REVENUES
Sales. tax All ocatio ns
D MV User Fees
Interest income
Reimbu rsements
Other in come
EX PENDIT UR ES
A dministration:
Salaries an d benefits
Pro fession al services
Office lease
Legal services
Other expen ses
Commissioners Per D iem
Programs:
Freeway Service Patrol (FSP)
Call Bo x Mainten ance
Call Box Installatio n
Call Box Operation
Measure A Management
Right of Way Acqu isition
Highway
Local street an d ro ads
Regional arterials
Park N Ride
Commu ter assistance
Co mmuter rail
Special transpitransit
Local Distributio ns
Capital Outlay
TOTAL RE VENUES
TO TAL ADMINISTRATI ON
TOTAL PROGRAMS
TOTAL EX PENDITU RES
REVENUES OVER (UN DER) EXPENDITURES
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Debt Proceeds
Operating tran sfers in (out)
OTHER FINAN CING SO URCES(USES)
AND REVENUES OVER(UN DER) EXPEN DITURE
FUN D BALA NCE -July 1,1994
FUND BALAN CE -June 30,1995
Actual
54,643,680
829,057
6,595,115
5,899,736
4,476,621
72,444,209
1,443,848
646,640
140,019
407,767
345,556
23,800
3,007,630
582,132
254,354
71,813
223,264
1,294,636
1,443,095
18,868,255
19,400,172
5,213,427
43,829
1,066,745
2,782,786
2,830,128
54,074,636
269,850
97,270
57,449,386
14,994,823
15,118,836
(23,326,344)
6,787,315
136,259,887
Budget
53,505,991
1,000,000
2,969,294
5,471,070
4,553,937
67,500,292
1,489,744
879,890
156,293
508,400
443,457
33,000
3,510,784
638,855
297,800
61,500
282,780
1,350,000
2,440,000
25,541,745
18,819,748
19,214,690
52,300
910,915
8,195,018
2,860,327
80,665,678
377,790
135,000
84,689,252
(17,188,960)
20,500,000
(24,355,186)
(21,044,146)
137,518,004
Remaining
Balance
($1,137,689)
$170,943
(3,625,821)
(428,666)
77,316
(4,943,917)
45,896
233,250
16,274
100,633
97,901
9,200
503,154
56,723
43,446
(10,313)
59,516
55,364
996,905
6,673,490
(580,424)
14,001,263
8,471
(155,830)
5,412,232
30,199
26,591,042
107,940
37,730
27,239,866
(32,183,783)
5,381,164
(1,028,842)
1,258,117
5143,047,202 5116,473, 858 (26,573,344)
P ercent
Utilizati on
102%
83%
222%
108%
98%
107%
97%
73%
90%
80%
78%
72%
86%
91%
85%
117%
79%
96%
59%
74%
103%
27%
84%
117%
34%
99%
67%
71%
72%
68%
-87%
74%
96%
COMBINED ST ATEME NT OF REVEN UES A ND EXPENDITURES A ND C HANGES IN FU ND BALANCES
OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION COMMISSIO N
For the Quarter Endi ng June 30, 1995 DR AFT
Wester n Easter n West Cty West Cty Coachell a Combining
General Co unty Co unty Comm P aper Const Const. SAFE / FSP Total
R EVENU ES
Sales tax allocations 4,857,699 35,522,915 14,263,066 S54,643,680
DMV User Fees 829,057 $829,057
In terest income 108,209 427,407 973,028 134,825 1,031,822 3,843,991 75,833 $6,595,115
Reimbursements 11,985 1,357,905 4,529,625 222 $5,899,736
Other 148,121 534,944 2,902,100 413,986 477,471 S4,476,621
TOTAL REVE NUES 5,126,014 37,843,171 18,138,194 5,078,436 1,032,044 3,843,991 1,382,360 $72,444,209
EXPENDITURES
A dmin istration:
Salaries and ben efits 979,507 364,138 100,203 $1,443,848 Professional services 596,869 10,250 ,646,640
Office lease 39,522 $646,640
131,618 8,401 $140,019
Legal services 226,934 168,808 12,026 $407,767
O ther expen ses 324,582 20,974 $345,556
Co mmissio ners Per Diem 22,372 1,428 S23,800
TO TAL ADMINISTRA TION 2,281,881 543,196 0 0 0 0 182,553 $3,001630
Pro grams:
Freeway Service Patrol (FSP)
Call Box Maintenan ce 582,132 $582,132
354354
Call Box In stallatio n 254
71,254
813 5571,813
Call Box Operation 223,264
Measure A managemen t 1,294,636
$223,264
- Right of Way Acquisition 1,166,822 268,427 S 1,294,636
Highway Engineenng 7,069 $,409,940
Bh y B 8 28,500 366,882 1,653,489 61,069 $2,109,940
Highway Con struction 16,469,065 196,700 92,551 $ 16,758,315
Local street an d roads 14,224,779 5,175,393 $19,400,172
Region al arterials 282,081 4,931,346
Park -N -Ride 43,829 $5,213,429
Con unu ter A ssistance 1,064,745 2,000 $43,829
Commuter rail 2,128,446 489,977 144,956 19,407 $ 2,782,786
2,780,786
Special transp tran sit 1,790,128 1,040,000 $
830,128
TOTAL PROGRAMS 2,156,946 20,441,797 6,499,474 18,390,981 341,655 5,112,219 1,131,562 $524,074634
Local Distribu tions 269,850 $269,850
Capital O utlay , 91,434 5,836 $97,270
TO TAL EXPEND ITURES 4,800111 20,984,992 6,499,474 18,390,981 341,655 5,112,219 1,319,951 $57,449,384
REVENUES O VER (UND ER) EXPEND ITURES 325,904 16,858,178 11,638,720 (13,312,545) 690,388 (1,268,229) 62,409 $1994,825
OTHER FIN ANCING SOUR CES (USES)
D ebt Proceeds •15,000,000 15,118,836
Operating tran sfers in (out) (15,856,315) (7,351,193) 1 18,836
OTHER FINA NCIN G SO URCES(USES) (18,836) (23,326,344)
AND REVENUES OVER(UN DER) EXPEN DITU 325,904 1,001,863 4,287,527 1,687,455 690,388 (1,268,229) 62,409 6,787,317
FUND BALAN CE -Ju ly 1, 1994 2,485,349 14,665,294 28,539,849 3,432,773 19,940,812 65,023,268 2,172,542 136,259,887
FUND BALANCE -June 30, 1995 ... $2,811, 253 $15,667,157 532,827 376 $5,120,228 S20,631,200 $63,755,039 $234 951 $143,047,204
CK T OTAL ` 143,047,204
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES -General, Measure A, SAFE, and FSP
BUDGET VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
June 30, 1995
Sales Tax Revenues:
Included in sales tax revenues is the annual TDA allocation for
planning and administration, and for commuter rail. Actual Measure
A sales tax receipts through year end increased 4.3*.
DMV User Fees
DMV user fees have only been received through the month of April.
The State has historically been two months behind in remitting DMV
user fees.
Interest Income
Interest income from the County is posted quarterly in arrears.
Fourth quarter interest earnings will not be totally posted by the
County until July. The Commission's interest earnings on its
guaranteed investment contract as well as higher than expected
earnings on the County pool has resulted in much higher interest
earnings than originally estimated by staff.
EXPENDITURES
Local Distributions
WRCOG has received the entire allotment for Western County LTF'
planning funds. CVAG has not yet submitted their claim for
Coachella Valley LTF planning funds.
Call Box Installation
Significantly over budget through June due to late billings(for
four callbox installations) that GTE inadvertently failed to
invoice the Commission from FY94.
Eighway(including Right of Way Acguisition)and Commuter Rail
Timing on a number or projects including right of way acquisitions
has slipped. A number of these expenditures will now occur in the
first half of fiscal year 1995/96. Station construction on La
Sierra and West Corona did not began until late June.
Regional Arterial
Although, the pace of regional arterial expenditures is increasing,
based on requisitions received to date, it appears that the
budgeted amount for FY94/95 will not be fully utilized. This may
chahge once all accruals have been accounted for.
Commuter Assistance
Currently includes disbursements for the SANBAG commuter incentive
programs. At year end, once financial statements are prepared
those disbursements will be recorded as receivables from SANBAG and
not as expenditures.
Debt Proceeds
Due to project timing slippage actual commercial paper issuance was
less than the budgeted amount. That capacity not used in FY94/95
will quickly be exhausted in FY95/96.
Note: The budgeted amounts are
revenues and expenditures are on
reflect accruals. A number
significantly under budget will
are determined and posted.
on an accrual basis, whereas the
a cash basis and therefore do not
of the areas that are showing
approximate budget once accruals
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
ROUTE 60 PR OJECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Environ
(RO9218,9232,9303,9304,9305,9308)
SUBTOTAL ROUTES*;;
RO UTE 74 PROJECTS
Cooperative Agreement
Preliminary Engrg/Environ/Final Engrg
(R09012,9106,9115,9117,9122)
Construction & ROW (RO9225,9228,9206,9207)
(9012 Constr./ROW Only)R09329,9330,9331)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74
ROUTE 79 PROJECTS
Preliminary Engrg/EnvironJROW
(RO9111,9112,9118,9118,9301,9302,9337,9308)
Lambs Canyon Project (R09423,9429,9518)
Sanderson Project (R09011)
s11BT0*1�1. Rt7U`I`fE?0 .:
ROUTE 86 PROJECTS
Final Design (R08907)
Construction & Mitigation
(RO9213,9227,9342,9343,9106)
SUBTOTAL ROME 9e
ROUTE 111 PRO JECTS
Corridor Study (R09016,9219,9234,9523,9227,
9530,9537)
.00001. Raca<tr~
COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL
• AUTHORIZED C OMMITMENTS
ALLOCATION TO DATE
83,839,295
83,839,295
(4)
$3,358,713
$8,183,914
$11,142,027;
$8,981,388
$21,073,703
$23,115,000
853,150,069
$1,219,000
$20,115,078
(4)
821,334,078
81,954,115
$1,9$4410
$3,411,944
83,411,944
$3,358,713
$8,183,914
811,s4ti 027$
$8,455,649
$19,937,168
$13,022,522
841,418,339
$1,219,000
$16,148,369
(4) .
=17,307;36$
81,692,616
1,0112,111
Page 1 of 4
% COM MITTED EXPENDITURE FOR
AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED
ALLOCATION July 31,1995
88.9 %
98.9%
100.0%
100.0%
94.4%
94 .6%
56.3%
774%
100.0%
80.3%
91.4%
86. 6%
K9%
831,868
81,427,604
31,459.472
80
$28,400
928,400
% EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
TO DATE CO MMITMNTS TO DATE
$2,839,778
$2,939,778
$2,937,277
$7,482,777
310420,0¢4
$8,243,822
$12,987,396
$11,965,913
833;197;131
$1,210,000
815,927,436
817,137,435
$1,464,031
$1,464,031
83 .2%
$3.2%
87 .5%
91 .4%
90.3%
97.5%
65 .1%
91.9%
99.3%
98.6%
99,7%
86 .5%
96.5%
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS
BUDGET REP ORT BY ROUTE
COMMISSION C ONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
PROJECT . , AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH . MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
DESCRIPTION ALLOCATI ON TO DATE ALLOCATION July 31,1995 TO DATE CO MP/GIANTS TO DATE
ROUTE Si PR OJECTS
Magnolia to OCL (HOV) R08801,8901,8902,9001
9002,9133,9214,)
City of Corona (Smith, Maple, Lincoln IC) (3)
Magnolia to M ary
(ROM 01,9102,9103,9105,9212,9415, 9308,9524)
SR71 to I-15 (R09123,9128,9129,9130)
1-15 to 1-215 (R09131)
McKinley Undercrossing (R09326)
Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp
SUBtO FAL ROUTE 91
1-215 PRO JECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Envlron. (R09008, 9018) (5)
Right -of -Way (R0 9003, 9004,9009,9336, 9222
0007PR1 /2d, 0007PR3/4, 0007HS3-5,9411)
$UBT'CTAi,141f
INTERCHANGE IM PROV. PROG RAM
Prelim. Engrg (PSR'S) (9107,9124-9127 )
RT91 Interchange (Maple & Lincoln) (3)
Eastddge Overcrossing (R09132)
Galena Interchange (R09014)
Yuma IC Ffnai Design (PS&E) R09428
Yuma IC (City of Norco R09237)
SUBToT4INTERCHANGE
(1)
BECHTEL PROJECT MG MT SERV.
(RO8900,9000,9100,9200,9300,9400,9500,9600)
8U8'f'#1'AI„ BEtyHTEI.'. .;
$30,982,198
$8,104,137
110,812,508
$3,393,807
$108,792
$1,614,951
$2,300,000
$56,010,383
$6,726,504
832,760,000
$30,486504
$3,666,628
11,288,240
$1,500,000
$73,980
$1,200,000
$650,000
55,37;848
111,389,236
$114494130
230
$27,055,658
$7,015,976
$10,530,460
$3,261,015
$108,792
11,614,951
$2,300,000
$411,604,662
.. .. .. ... ...... .. ..
$5,450,721
$32,760,000
0410,721:
$3,666,628
$1,288,240
$900,000
173,980
$1,099,975
$650,000
$7,678,823
111,091,236
$11,0916
Page 2of4
87.3%
86.6 %
97 .4%
96 .1%
100.0%
100.0%
$0.1%
81 .0 %
100 .0%
9..8%
100.0%
100.0%
60.0%
100.0%
91. 7%
100. 0%
91.6%
97.4%
97A%
$27,154
1,351
$41,129
$41,128
8110,778
$110,778
$26,878,754
$7,015,976
$7,891,690
12,642,335
$108,792
11,371,759
$44,537,647
$5,363,080
130,695,836
$3$:,000,816
11,807,776
11,288,240
173,980
$574,081
1280,000
$4,024,077
$9,322,827
$9,322,127
99 .3%
100 .0%
74 .9%
81 .0%
100 .0%
84 .9%
98.4 %
93 .7%
.4A%
49.3%
100.0 %
100 .0%
52 .2%
43 .1 %
52A%
84 .1%
14 .1%
$5,275,161
$689,450
$2,683,729
$9, 69,340
$4,692,257
$4,692,067
$4,344,168
$92,776,388
SOriltotti
*312;713,023
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
COMMISSION C ONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR
PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS A GAINST AUTH . M ONTH ENDED % EXPENDITURES
DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
ALLOCATI ON TO DATE ALLOCATION July 31, 1995 TO DATE COM MITMNTS TO DATE
PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES
Program Studies
(R 09006, 9010, 9013, 9108, 9119, 9227
9307,0007PC2/3/4SACOG/DTIM)
Corridor Studies
(R09017,9110,9120)
Mapping Control/DA (R09007)
sUBT 1TAL PROGRAM;.'PLAN
PARK-N.RIDEANCENT. PROGRAM
(R09113,9114,9121,9134,9202,9203,9412,9413
9204,9205,9211,9210,0007CA2/3,Impr,9410
9236,9311,9328,9332,9344,9401,9402,9403,9418
9501-9506,95149517,9519,9528,9528)
SUBTOTAL PARK,01
COMMUTER RAL
Studies/Engineering
(R09021,9105,9220,9309,9319,9321,9310,9407
9325,9235,9323,9327,0007RS3-BB&K, 9421
9320. 9322,9324,9333,9345,9414,9227,9420,9430)
Station/Site Acq/OP Costs
(R0 8905,9201,9209,9009,9221/23/24,0007RF3-5,
9527,9417,0007RA2-4,9416,9424,9510, 9529,31,32
0007RS3 ,9335,9341,9340,00041P39521, IMPR.
SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAL
TOTALS
NOTE: (1) Loan against Interchange Improvement programs.
(2) M ay be reduced by passage of SB 300 funds.
(3) RCTC project actual share after portion allocated to RT 91, IC Improvement Program (loan) & Local Streets & Roads Program.
(4) RCTC portion only of Caltrans Contract
(5) SANBAG responsible for 25%
Report does not Include Legal and Financial services or salary and hinge benefits
A9 values are for total ProjecVcon(act and not related to fiscal year budgets.
95,275,161
$640,467
$2,883,729
St 6911317
$4,692,257
$4,092,267
$4,344,168
$92,548,805
100 .0%
92 .9%
100 .0%
100 .0%
00.0%,
100.0%
99 .8%
99%
$6,015
$1,995
$8,010
$52,890
$62,990
$78,742
$323,974
$402.716
$96,992,973.
$266,770.170
Page 3 of 4
92.3%
$2,136,900
$3,201,593
$634,915
$2,630,543
$11,447;011
94,257,416
K.2$r,41s
$4,294,331
$82,808,801
087,103,132
$256,829.396
60 .7%
99.1%
98.0%
46.2%
90.7 %
90.7%
98.9%
89.5 %
09.0%
Status M o. Endi ng 07/31/03
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS
BUD GET REPORT BY PROJECT
EXPENDITURE FOR T OTAL 16. EXPENDITURES
PROJECT APPROVED M ONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES L OAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST
DESCRIPTION COMMIT MENT July 31,1995 TO DATE BALANCE COMMIT MENT APPROVED COMMIT .
CITY OF MURRIETA
Loan Agreement I-15/1-215
Interchange improvements (R09334)
SUBTOTAL MURRIETA . OAI
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Final Design and Construction of
Rafroad Canyon Rd Improvements (R09422)
SIJ13TO TAL 1.ANYt)IY tAKE 49 -
CITY OF CORONA
Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges &
Storm drainage structure
SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORO
TOTAis
$17,000,000
017,000,000
$1,600,000
1,600 000
$5,212,623
$8,2i2,623
00
0
#03,812,0x3 80
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs
(2) M ay be reduced by passage of SB 300 funds.
All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
$2,379,711
03,379,711
$1,600,000
,668,000.
35,212,623
tt:;212.623
• 09,18x,334:
$1,140,487
81,140,487
$1,600,000
81,e09,90q
$5,212,623
$0,21:;02$
87,983,110
815,859,513
$10,009;013
80
Page 4 of 4
14 .0%
4.011
100.0%
109.0"
100 .0%
1000%
386%
S bfus Mo. Ending 07/31/05
J IA
1992 1993 1994
ISIOINID JIFIMIAIMIJIJIAI5JOINIDJIFIMIA1MIJIJIAISI01NID
RT15 AT YUMA DR - CONSTRUCT INTERCHANGE
RT74 I15 TO 7TH ST - WIDEN TO 4 LANES
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
J IF IM IA IM IJ 1J IAJS IO IN ID JIF IM IA IM IJ IJ IA IS IO IN ID IJ IF IM IA IM IJ IJ IA jS IO IN ID JIL iA IM1 IJ IA JS IO IN JD IJ IF IM IA IM IJ
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
i
RT74 G ST TO I215 - WIDEN TO 4 LANES
RT74 GILMAN SPR TO 1ST ST - WIDEN TO 4 LANES
aa eeasmej PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E
RIGHT OF WAY
FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E
RIGHT OF WAY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
RIGHT OF WAY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL
RT79 KELLER ST TO NEWPORT ST - WIDEN TO 4 LANES
1 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING it ENVIRONMENTAL
RIGHT OF WAY
RT 7q NEWPORT TO NEWPORT GAP
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
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
aeaaeaeee� RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION ONLY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
RT91 SR71 TO I15 - OUTSIDE WIDENING
CONSTRUCTION
RT111 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS ( 6 LOCATIONS )
RT215 E60/215 JCT TO SBCI - WIDEN TO 8 LANES
Plot Date 2gAUGgS
Data Date IBAUGg5
Pr oJect.Start 2JANB9
Protect Finish ISNAROO
(c) Prisoners Systems. Inc.
ty write t -
a�twt an
eNlstavr�iy aetiatr
PROJECT STUDY REPORT (PSR) ONLY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERIII
NG t ENVIRONMENTAL
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISS'00 101 2
N
RCTC LEAD AGENCY
SUMMARY SCHEDULE - BY RCTC
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
Date
BECHTEL CORP
Revisio n
Checked( Approved
‘r7ErtSV laNru uVgNR1c1 001
1992
J IA 1510,1N 1D
1993
J IF 1M IA IM IJ IJ IA IS IO IN ID
1994
JIFIM IA IMIJIJIA15I0
1995
J IJ IAJS 10 IN
N ID
J IF IM
IM
RT215 60/91/215 CONN B 60/91/215 TO E60/215 .1CT
ID
1996
J IF 'MIA IM IJ IJ IA 1S 101N ID
1997
JIFIMIAIMIJ IJ IAISIpINID
COMMUTER RAIL DOWNTOWN INTERIM STATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING B ENVIRONMENTAL
FINAL DESIGN AND PSBE
RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION
COMMUTER RAIL PEDLEY STATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING B ENVIRONMENTAL
FINAL DESIGN AND PSBE
RIGHT Ot WAY
CONSTRUCTION
( I
Icy
1998
J IF IM IA IMIJ IJ IA 15 10 IN ID
1999
J IF IMIAIM IJ
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING B ENVIRONMENTAL
Beimo mI
COMMUTER RAIL WEST CORONA STATION
COMMUTER RAIL LA SIERRA STATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER NG 1 ENVIRONMENTAL
FINAL DESIGN AND PRE
11111 1 CONSTRUCTION
COMMUTER RAIL CITY OF PERRIS STATION
(
lemmiumi
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING B ENVIRONMENTAL
FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E
Om 1 CONSTRUCTION
STUDY
COMMUTER RAIL - HIGHGROVE LAYOVER B CONN TRACK
•
COMMUTER RAIL - SAN JACINTO RAIL LINE STUDY
Plot Date 29AUG95.
Date Date 18AUG95
Protect Start 2JANe9
ProJe• 'nish 1SNAROO
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING B ENVIRONMENTAL
FINAL DESIGN AND PSBE
STUDY
tc) Pi . _.are Systems, Inc.
7 aeriferl Celee
4 SvM ip1 INi�
MMTIPC=1:1411=111ftectiv ib
Sheet 2 of 2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN
RCTC " 'D AGENCY
SUMMARY Se JLE - BY RCTC
Date
BECHTEL CORP
Revisio n
C cke 'roved
fA2fEelVwtt lelEViOJIMS2 002
1
1992
J IA IS IO IN ID
1993
JIFIMIAIMJJIJIAISIOINIDfJIF
IM IA
1994
IMIJIJ IAISIO
RT60 VALLEY WAY TO UNIVERSITY -WIDEN TO 6 LANES
IN ID IJ IF IM IA
IM
1
RT60 1215 TO REDLANDS BLVD - WIDEN TO 6 LANES
1995
IJ IJ IA
1996
S10INID�JIFIMIA1M1J IA IS 10 IN IDJIFIMIAIMIJIJ7IAIS
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E
1 RIGHT OF WAY
ID
IN
ID
J IF IM IA IM
1998 1999
IJ IJ IA IS IO IN ID IJ IF IM IAIM IJ
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 6 ENVIRONMENTAL
RT60 VALLEY WAY TO JCT I15 - WIDEN TO 8 LANES
FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E
RIGHT OF WAY
RT86 DILLON RD TO AVE 58 -WIDEN
!@ RIGHT OF WAY
RT86 AVE 66 TO AVE 58 - WIDEN
RIGHT OF WAY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING B ENVIRONMENTAL
FINAL DESIGN AND PS6E
CONSTRUCTION
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 29AUG95
Date Date 1BAUG95
Protect Start 2JANe9
Protect Finish ISNAROO
tcl Primavera Systems, Inc.
an evr�is ietI Iy
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSShoot I of 1
N
CALTRANS LEAD AGENCY
SUMMARY SCHEDULE - BY CALTRANS
Date
BECHTEL CORP
Revision
Checked
Aaaroved-
f \1T IKV MiI,IVo4orel t ml
1992
JIAISIOINID
1993
JIFIMIAIMIJIJIAISI0INID
RT 60 GALENA INTERCHANGE
1994
JIFIMIAIMIJIJIA
5
10
IN ID
J IF
MIA
111
1995
LJ
J
IA
SIOINID
1996
J IF (M IA IM IJ IJ IA IS
0 N J IF
RT74 7TH ST TO G STUN PERRIS) - WIDEN TO 4 LANE
CONSTRUCTION
RT79 SANDERSON BRIDGE REPLACMNT(S.JACINTO RIVER)
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING g ENVIRONMENTAL
FINAL DESIGN AND PSC
I RIGHT OF WAY
1997
M IA IM IJ IJ IA IS 10 IN ID
1998
J IF IM IA IMIJ IJ IA -15 IO IN ID
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING g ENVIRONMENTAL
1999
J IF IM IAIM IJ
RT91 SMITH/MAPLE/LINCOLN OVERCROSS-WIDEN TO 4 IN
�a>1 CONSTRUCTION
RT91 VAN BUREN BLVD/FWY HOOK RAMP
Plot Date 29AUG95
Data Date 18AUG95
Protect Rtert 2JAN89
Prole ' fish ISMAROO
I1 c) Pri.vdra Systems, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING g ENVIRONMENTAL
�) FINAL DESIGN AND PSBE
RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION
erlyt heat Mw
alNnhi
M l..t ,rrIIM activity
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN I Ier
OTHER AGr ' ES AS LEADS
SUMMARY SCh. .LE — BY OTHERS
Date
KCHTEL CORP
Revisio n
Checker' ^oved
rAricnsv .wn.o aeu m o0I
r
September 6, 1995
DATE:
TO:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: W. Dean Martin, Controller
Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial and Cost & Schedule Reports
Attached are Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balances (Unaudited) and the Highway and Rail Projects Quarterly Budget Report
for the quarter ending June 30, 1995. Also attached is the cost and schedule status
of the Measure A Contracts. The contracts are segregated by Measure A Plan
Category and includes highway, rail and other plans and programs. The cost
information includes Commission authorized funds to date, contractual commitments
to date, current monthly expenditures, and total expenditures to date. The cost and
schedule reports are through the month ending July 31, 1995, prepared by Bechtel
Civil, Inc.
Detailed supporting material for all contracts and Cooperative Agreements is available
from Bechtel staff. Staff will be available at the meeting to answer any questions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission receive and file.
:jw
Attachments
F:\USERS\PREPRINT\SEP.95\QUARFIN. WDM/LM
w
116
lb
s'
AC:COUI ALL - ALL ACCOUNTS REPORTING'
SEC ID
DESCRIPTION
12.60 U.S. TREASURY BILLS
SUBTOTAL
TCD - TIME DEPOSITS
,==============i. =======x m m:ss asammm
12430 TCD INLAND EMPIRE NATL BANE;
12452 '• TCD CHINO VALLEY DANK
SUBTOTAL
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
INVESTM 'T HOLDINGS
FACE
RATE
POSITION REP ORT
AS OF 07/'331% 95
MATURITY LAST SET PURCHASE
DATE • DATE YIELD
PAR
0.0000 02/00/96 02/09/95
4.0200 57,002.09
6.1200 10/02/95 06/30/95 6.2704
COST
53,965.22
22,200,000.00 20,978,423.5 5
6.0000 10/12/95 06/30/95 6.1463 000,000.00
5,000,000.00
ACCOUNT SUBTOTAL
AVERAGE WEIGHTED YIELD 5.30
AVERAGE WEIGHTED DAYS TO MATURITY
586.50
300,000.0 0
5,000,000.00
5,300,000.00 5,;00,000.00
AGE: 7 •
SECURITY TYPE SEOUENCL
ACCRUED
INTEREST
1,813.0
1,005,516.:;
1,501.0
25,033.3
27,414.3
1204,074,244.74 1202,012,421.1 9 12,077,192.3
=====M=======
== mmmm:smmammmmms= ssmammmxassmsmx•
PORTFOLIO COMPO SITION
TYPE
JUNE 30,1995
A JULY 31 1995 CHANGE
T-OILL
50.821,015
20.979.423
(29,642,5921
T -NOTE
449,010,259
449,010,259
0
FED
43,000,000
43,000,000
0
CP
145,941,035
228,773,938
62,632,901
9A
113,556,420
173,668,578
80,312,158
REPO
47,200,000
43,600,000
(3,400,000)
IMF
30,000,000
50.000,000
20,000,000
CCD
5,300,000
5,300,000
0
MUNI
90,579,940
90,579,940
, 0
M TN
98,782,865
96,701,285
(2,081,400)
REVERSE REPO
0
0
0
BOOK VALUE
1,073,971,354
1,202,012,421
128,041,087
MV -L058
(18,275,303)
(18,517,627)
2,242,324
MARKET VALUE
1,067,698,051
1,183,494,794
125,798,743
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
■
C HANGE IN PORTFOUO COM POSITION
■
TEL MCP
T4 011 a
M MII MM R IVERS! REPO
Iso CCO
TO TAL POO L FUND INVESTMEN T PORTFOLIO
JULY 1996 TO JUNE 1996
o 1•
AAN NW ` OCT* NOV el MC 10 WIN FSN WAN MHOS MAYO A NN
600
400
100
C OUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR
MONTHLY REPORT ON POOLED FUND INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
JULY 31, 1995
P ORTFOU O MIX OF SECUR ITIE6
AS OVJULY 31, 1996
137.4%1 TREASURY NOTES
11.7%1 TREASURY BELLS
18.0%1 MED TERM NOTES
119 .0%) COMM PAPER
17 .6%) TEETER
18.2%1 OT1496
13 .6%) FED AGENCY
1143%) BA NKERS ACCEPTANCES
( 612E 81,202,012,421
M IEN o IM6
TOTAL GASH DI88URSMENTS
1994 VS 1996
ON Pu NM MN WY AN
IM 1994
4a
ON PS PAM 0.11 MA Y AN JUL MAO NP OCT NOV DEC
i TO1 YH9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
EARNIN GS PERFORMANCE
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN J UL
AU G
4 tOEME
MIAO W MO NO YS RP MNI
•
SEPT OCT NOV DEC
0 1994 .1995
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 6, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director of Planning and Programming
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Consultant Selection - Inland Empire Intelligent Transportation Systems
Strategic Plan
Staff has completed the consultant selection process to support the Inland Empire
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)Strategic Plan. The process included the
development of a request for proposal (RFP), a technical review of all proposals to
establish a shortlist, and interviews of the shortlisted candidates which resulted in
a recommendation from the technical evaluation committee to the Commission.
The chronology of the selection process was:
o Development of the RFP
o Issuance of the RFP
o Proposals due to RCTC
o Technical Evaluation
o Consultant interviews
April 1995 - June 1995
June 20, 1995
July 20, 1995 (Five proposals received)
August 3, 1995 (Three firms shortlisted for
interview)
August 23, 1995
The Commission received proposals from five consultant teams, DKS, JHK, Kimley -
Horn, Meyer - Mohaddes, and NET/WSA. The technical review established a shortlist
including DKS, JHK and Kimley - Horn for interviews. After the interviews were
concluded DKS and JHK met the minimum criteria for opening their respective cost
proposals and the final recommendation from the evaluation committee to the
Commission is to select JHK team as the consultant to develop the Inland Empire
Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Plan. For your information the JHK team
consists of JHK, RMSL, Valley Research and Planning, LD King, Kingsley Group,
Arthur Bauer and Associates and incorporates an expert panel for advisement
purposes.
For your information, the evaluation committee was comprised of representatives from
SANBAG, CVAG, WRCOG, RTA, SunLine, Omnitrans, Caltrans District 08, CHP,
Caltrans New Technology, SCAG, City of Ontario, and RCTC. Due to summer
vacations eleven of the 12 participating agencies participated in the technical review
(shorlisting) and nine of the 12 participated in the interview process.
F:IUSERSIPREPRINTISEP.95UTSCONSE. HS
Page 2
The budget for this study, previously approved by the Commission is $500,000. The
budget is comprised of $400,000 of federal ITS planning funds, $50,000 of state
funds, $25,000 from SANBAG, and $25,000 from RCTC. The RCTC funds of
$25,000 are provided for as in -kind staff costs to support the project and the amount
available for the study effort is $475,000. The necessary Cooperative Agreements
with Caltrans and SANBAG have been executed and according to Caltrans, the
funding is secured.
The JHK proposed cost to perform the study is $451,894.76. Staff recommends the
Commission approve the selection of the JHK team at the price of $451,894.76 and
include an extra work category of $23, 105.24 for contingency purposes. As this
study will evolve over an approximate 16 month time frame and the scope of the
study covers the greater portion of the two county Inland Empire area, staff
recommends the inclusion of the contingency as a safeguard to address unanticipated
issues which may arise.
Staff, at this time recommends that the approval be contingent on the completion of
two items:
o That the JHK team proposal meets the minimum RCTC DBE threshold of
18.5%, and
o That JHK meets the requirements of a Caltrans pre -award audit
Staff is following up on these qualifying items and intends on updating the
Commission at the meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1) That the Commission approve, contingent upon on an affirmative finding of
meeting RCTC's DBE goal of 18.5% for the project and obtaining Caltrans
approval of a pre -award audit of JHK, the selection of the JHK team to develop
the Inland Empire Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Plan.
2) That the Commission authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract
with JHK to develop the Inland Empire Intelligent Transportation Systems
Strategic Plan in the amount of $451,894.76 and approve $23,105.24 as
contingency for the project. This action is subject to the DBE and pre -award
audit contingencies identified above.
:jw
F:\USERS\PREPRINT\SEP.95 ITSCONSE.HS
AGENDA ITEM #6B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 13, 1995
TO: Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies
FROM: Jerry Rivera, Staff Analyst III
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Lease/Purchase of Radio Communication Equipment for Freeway Service
Patrol Program and Termination of Lease Agreement
The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program operates eight tow trucks
five days a week during the morning and afternoon peak commute hours (5:00 a.m.
to 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) on SR -91 from the Riverside/Orange County
line to the SR -91/60/I-215 interchange and on SR -60/I-215 from the interchange to
the 60/215 interchange in Moreno Valley. There are four FSP beats that cover
approximately 26 miles of county freeways. The program operates as a cooperative
effort between Caltrans District 8, the California Highway Patrol, and RCTC, with the
Commission administering the tow truck contract and Caltrans and CHP providing
daily field supervision of the program.
Currently, the Commission leases the radio communications equipment used by the
program to link the CHP and the tow trucks from Riverside Communications. The
original agreement was a two year lease at $1,110.90 per month and has continued
on a month -to -month basis since June 1995. The CHP dispatchers have had
problems periodically with the 900 MHz radio system since the program's inception,
so the CHP field supervisor have been searching for a new radio system that would
better meet the needs of the FSP program.
The following vendors were contacted by the CHP field supervisor:
Anaheim Communications, Anaheim, California
Bear Communications, Riverside, California
Communications Center, Anaheim, California
Multi -Path Repeater Company
OS-Com System, Bloomington, California
Only Bear Communications and Communications. Center responded with
demonstrations of radio equipment to meet the needs of the FSP program, but only
Bear Communications followed up with a bid proposal for a 220 MHz radio system.
The CHP field tested the equipment and they are confident it will meet the program's
needs.
FAUSERSTRFPRINTISEP.95WSPRADIO.RI
Page 2
Bear Communications is proposing a lease/purchase agreement payable in twenty-four
monthly installments of $612.55 plus a monthly fee of $18 per radio, or $216 per
month, for unlimited air time. The agreement provides for one (1) base station, eleven
(111 mobile radios (eight trucks, two CHP vehicles and one back-up radio), as well as
repeater service from three radio sites. Furthermore, the lease/purchase agreement
includes a Non -Appropriation of Funds clause which allows the Commission to
terminate the lease should State funding be eliminated or significantly reduced. Also,
at the end of the lease, the equipment becomes the property of the Commission for
the sum of $1.00 and we will only need to pay for the radio air time. It is estimated
the program will save approximately $3,000 per year the first two years and about
$10,700 per year once the Commission owns the equipment.
As previously mentioned, the current lease with Riverside Communications is a month -
to -month agreement and the Commission must give a thirty (30) days' notice if it
decides to terminate the lease.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board:
1) Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a lease/purchase agreement with
Bear Communications, subject to Legal Counsel review, for radio
communications equipment for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol
program, and
2) Authorize the Executive Director to give Riverside Communications thirty days'
notice to terminate the lease.
:jw
F:\USERS\PREPRINT\SEP.95\FSPRAOIO. RI
..
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 6, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Tom Horkan, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment #2 for Agreement No. RO-9219 with NBS Lowry -
Design Services on a Route 111 Project at Gene Autry Trail in the City
of Palm Springs
Agreement RO-9219 with NBS Lowry was approved by RCTC in February of 1992.
The Agreement include services to complete preliminary engineering studies on several
Measure A project on Route 111 in the Coachella Valley. Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement RO-9219 was entered into in August of 1994 to increase the scope of
work to include final design of the Sunrise Way intersection with Route 111 for an
additional amount of $40,383. NBS was selected for the final design based on the
preliminary work that was done on Sunrise and the request of the City of Palm
Springs.
RCTC recently approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Palm
Springs to proceed with final design of the Gene Autry Trail and Route 111
intersection. Preliminary design was completed by NBS Lowry under the original
scope of RO-9219. The City of Palm Springs has again requested that RCTC amend
the contract with NBS Lowry to include preparation of plans, specifications and
estimates for the Gene Autry Trail and Route 111 intersection.
Per City and RCTC staff direction, NBS Lowry has prepared the attached proposal for
the design effort. The estimated cost of services would be $61,475.00. Staff
would recommend a contingency amount of 10%, or $6,147.50, be establLlhed for
unforeseen extra work that may occur during the design effort. The total amount to
be allocated for completion of Amendment #2 would be $67,622.50.
Exhibits A, B, and C areattached outlining scope, schedule and fees for the work.
These exhibits will become the relevant attachments to the standard contract
amendment language. Funds for the design of the Gene Autry Trail and Route 111
intersection were included in the FY 1996 Measure A Highway Budget for Route 111
projects.
F: USERSIPREPRINTISEP.951GENEAUT.TH
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve Amendment #2 to Agreement RO-9219 with NBS
Lowry for a base amendment amount of 561,475.00 with an additional extra work
amount of $6,147.50 for unforeseen extra work to be authorized by the Executive
Director.
:jw
Attachments
F:\USERS\PREPRINT\SEP.9MG ENEAUT.TH
August 28 1995
SCOPE OF WORK
PREUMINIRI?Y PHASE
EXHIBIT "A"
TASK DESCRIPTION
Initial Design Prior to commencing final design activities on the proposed
Meeting project, a .meeting will be held with the City of Palm Springs
staff to jointly accomplish the following:
• Agree on the scope of the final project.
• Evaluate and discuss known project issues and the
findings of a field reconnaissance and the existing field
survey provided by JayKim.
• Discuss and develop an initial project schedule for
design, advertisement, award and construction that will
enhance the City's opportunities for the best
competitive bidding. The schedule will include
progress meetings, phasing, City reviews, milestone
points and deliverables.
• Establish a project team approach which involves
representatives of NBS/Lowry, the staff of the City of
Palm Springs, RCTC, CVAG, Caltrans and other
affected agencies and utility companies.
Data Gather and review relevant technical data, reference
Collection drawings, available reports and other background information
pertinent to the project, including existing improvement plans,
current City of Palm Springs design standards, property
boundary and ownership records, utility as -built drawings,
location maps and master plans.
Drainage A drainage analysis will be performed to evaluate existing
Analysis conditions in the drainage swales adjacent to the roadway. A
preliminary design cost estimate will be prepared for review
by the City prior to preparation of final design. This,
w
Exhibit A-1. SCOPE OF WORK
Utilities
preliminary design will propose that the swale will be replaced
with a pipe between Gene Autry Trail and Broadmoor Drive.
As the existing landscaping areas are maintained by adjoining
property owner associations, any significant deviation from the
existing design should be reviewed and approved by them.
Establish contacts in writing with affected utilities and initiate
coordination to identify type, location, size, depth, potential
relocations and design conflicts, as well as prior rights for
each affected utility, and other relevant information pertinent
to the facilities within the project limits. (We are currently
estimating 10 potholes, traffic control and permit costs at
$6,500. 8 hours of survey time is estimated for location tie
outs.)
Permits Initiate appropriate agency contacts (Caltrans, etc.), submit
preliminary applications and documents as requested for
review. City wlli be advised of any required fees not covered
in this scope of work for permit issuance.
As this project involves Route 111 of the State Highway
system, approvals must be obtained from the State through
the preparation and submittal of an Encroachment Permit.
This will require that a submittal of complete drawings,
calculations, specifications and estimates be made to Caltrans
District 8 prior to receiving permission to modify the highway
within the State right-of-way. By experience, this review
requires at least two submittals of multiple copies of the
contract documents. In addition, it is recommended that this
submittal be made at the 65% completion level after reviews
by the City. Typically, Caltrans will require 3 to 4 weeks (or
more) per review before approval of the permit.
Right -of -Way Review existing right-of-way data and prepare legal
descriptions and sketches for use by the City in providing
Tor additional right-of-way dedication to the State along with
appropriate temporary construction easements as necessary.
It is anticipated that the City will handle all property transfers.
(NBS/Lowry can provide acquisition and transfer services if
requested). Preliminary title reports will be obtained for
preparation of legal descriptions. ($800 has been included for
these reports for estimating purposes. The cost may be more
depending upon the complexity of the reports).
BUDGET FOR THIS PHASE $18,505.00
Exhibit A-2 SCOPE OF WORK
FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN
TASK DESCRIPTION
Final PS&E Upon completion of the preliminary design phase, fii§al
Construction plans, including storm drain and signal
modification plans, traffic control plans, specifications and
estimates will be prepared using the following criteria:
Construction drawings will be prepared using
MicroStation Version 5 InXpress design software (the
same format in which the RCTC/Caltrans work was
performed) in conformance with City of Palm Springs
Standards on 24" x 36" mylar sheets at a scale of one
inch equals forty feet (1"=40').Profile information will
use one inch equals forty feet (1"=40') and one inch
equals four feet (1"=4').
Contract specification P package will be assembled
using the City's standard format per Caltrans
specifications. Technical Provisions will be prepared by
the design team.
•
An engineer's estimate of probable construction cost
will be prepared at the completion of the construction
plans, along with a breakdown of bid items, quantities
and cost extensions for use in analyzing contractor
bids. Backup calculations for construction Item takeoffs
will be provided to the City for their review and
construction records.
City Five blueline copies of the Construction Drawings Reviews specifications and cost estimates will be submitted to the City
of Palm Springs for review and comment at 95% and final
completion. Specifications and cost estimates will be included
in both submittals.
Progress NBS/Lowry will maintain continuous contact with the City's
Meetings designated Project Manager during the design
Should a technical issue be encountered which merits
discussion and direction from the City, a meeting will be
scheduled accordingly. Three such meetings have been
assumed and budgeted during this project. NBS/Lowry's
Project Manager will always be available to the City Staff:to
answer questions and discuss project design issues. Project
Exhibit A-3. SCOPE OP WORK
progress status will be provided in the form of a Monthly
Progress Report included with progress billings.
Approval and
Final Delivery
iP
Upon acceptance and approval by the City of the final PSBE,
and approval by Caltrans of the encroachment permit,
NBS/Lowry will deliver the following to the City of Palm
Springs:
► One set of completed original construction drawings
plotted, in ink, . on mylar, signed by a California
registered civil engineer along with original stamped
and signed legal descriptions and plats for defined
right-of-way acquisitions.
► One set of camera-ready master contract specifications
in hard copy and digital format using Word Perfect.
▪ Original copies of all required permits and clearances.
BUDGET FOR THIS PHASE.. 538,780.00
CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES
TASK DESCRIPTION
Bidding Assist the City of Palm Springs with the construction bidding
and Award process by:
► clarifying and interpreting information to bidders by
addendum if necessary
► attendance at a prebid conference and field review
► evaluation of bids
► field support to resolve unforseen design conflicts (16
hrs. maximum)
► As -built set of final drawings for archival purposes (27
hrs. maximum)
BUDGET FOR THIS PHASE........ .... S4,190.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR PS&E.........Ss1.475.00
Exhibit A-4 SCOPE OF WORK
w
NOTE: The work shall be performed under a time -and -materials contract with a not -
to -exceed -without -further authorization budget. Monthly progress invoices
will be based on actual hours at current billing rates. Direct costs will
include a 15% markup.
ANTICIPATED PLAN SHEETS:
Title Sheet (1)
Details and Typical Sections (1)
Plan and Profile (Roadway) (3)
Plan and Profile (Storm Drain)(2)
Drainage Details (1)
Intersection Details (20 Scale) (1)
Signal Modification Plan (1)
Signing and Striping Plan (1)
Traffic Control Plan (2)
Cross Sections (Caltrans) (1)
Demolition Plan (3)
Total Estimated Sheets - 17
Exhibit A-5 SCOPE OF WORK
August 28, 1995
Preliminary Planning,
InNlal Dospn Mp.
Dago Collection
Project So
Imo, Reason*
Riga lW.y Rosanna
Meeting d b Agency
SIP
Preliminary Design
S000Nleaeons
unary Coordination
,s% SubmNdl
Fine; P881
Cornell Aural to
Advertise
Canard! Awrd of 511
Conetnnallen
EXHIBIT "B"
GENE AUTRY TRAIL AT EAST PALM CANYON DRIVE - FINAL DESIGN
PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESIGN SCHEDULE
%Min
1 234557851011 12131415151715152021 nac2d 25 21127 21213031 3333343131
■1
0
i
i
i
r
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
SUBJECT:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
September 6, 1995
Budget and Finance Committee
Cathy Bechtel, Senior Staff Analyst
Jack Reagan, Executive Director
Request from RTA to Reprogram Local Transportation Funds
We have received a request from the Riverside .Transit Agency to reprogram
$213,423 in excess local transportation capital funds to two projects --the Downtown
Trolley and the Durahart Annex (Attachment 1). RTA notified us that private
contributions had not met expected levels to offset capital costs for the Trolley and
they will require an additional $137,029.20 to offset project costs. Staff is reluctant
to provide concurrence with this request in light of the tight financial situation
explained in our SRTP status report, and realize the identified carryover funds may be
needed to support other transit operations. It was decided it was best to bring this
request forward for the Commission's consideration.
In FY 1994 and FY 1995 the Commission approved a total of $2,339,871 in
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to support the expenses for the
Trolley Project. (An additional $250,000 in CMAQ operating was also approved for
FY 1996). Noted below is a table which outlines allocation of the funds:
FY93/94 (capital)
FY94/95 (capital)
FY94/95 (operating)
Total
CMAQ
$1,242,346
$ 624,000
$ 473.525
$2,339,871
Reauired Match Total Project
$310,586 (20%) $1,552,932
$ 81,085 (11.5%) $ 705,085
$ 61.531 (11.5%) $ 535.056
$453,202 (16.2%) $2,793,073
Capital expenses as of year end FY1995 are $1,469,090 (Attachment 2). The RTA
has charged $1,172,746 to CMAQ (80%). The remaining $296,344 is required
match. When the funds were awarded it was clearly stated by RTA that matching
funds would be provided through AB2766 ($134,800), Petroleum Violation Escrow
Account ($100,000), private contributions and advertising revenues.
Additionally, RTA is requesting to apply $37,528.17 of carryover operating funds to
offset trolley operating costs in FY1995. Private donations were not sufficient to
provide the required match. Again we have a question on this item since we were
informed that year end operating costs on the Trolley is $187,082.63. Required
match on this should be $21,514.50 (11.5%).
F:\USERS\PREPRINT\SEP.95\RTAREPRG.CB
Page 2
The Durahart Annex is located next door to the RTA facility and houses their
Marketing, Personnel and Finance Departments. The Commission approved 5525,000
in local transportation funds for this project back in March 1993. Apparently this
project experienced cost overruns of $76,393.61 and RTA is requesting approval to
transfer excess local transportation funds from two completed projects to close out
this capital project. According to our Short Range Transit Plan Guidelines any project
experiencing a greater than 10% change in budget requires a SRTP Amendment. We
were not informed that the project would be going over budget nor was an
amendment requested.
As was discussed in the earlier SRTP status update, projected Western County transit
revenues are not sufficient to sustain current operating levels. RTA has identified
$213,422.81 in excess local transportation funds which they would like to use for the
Trolley and Durahart Annex. The Trolley was supposed to be funded from revenue
sources other than local transportation funds. Due to the on -going discussions
between our agencies, staff felt it inappropriate to grant an administrative decision on
this request and thought it best to have the Commission consider the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission consider the request from Riverside Transit Agency to reprogram
local transportation funds.
:jw
F:\USERS\PREPRINT\SEP.95\RTAREPRG.CB
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
TDA Action Requests RECEIVED
Air: 2'q 95
:!r
T�RA�lSI".iF'i1.1?fL:; Cc!"`;BSIDN
1. Action Requested: prove Re programming of Existing TDA & Local Match Fundin
Listed Below to Offset Trolley Capital Private Donations
Source Grant Type Funding
CA -90-0474 1 Local Match
Line Item Description
Amount
vans
STA/TDA 93/94 Local Match g Minivans with Whesicheir
FY92
TDA FY95
DA FY94
TDA FY93
1.622.90
100% TDA vans (beisnosj
100% TDA Expansion Van (.lurups)
100% TDA amity improvements
100% TDA mss anca Spas Components
76,000.00
23.254.72
16.744.74
2.932.22
17,774.021
Trolley Private Contribution Offset Capital Portion
$137,029.20
. Action Requested: Approve Offset of Trolley Private Donations
Operating Portion
against RTA FY 1995 TDA Ca
nyfonnrard Monies
Trolley Private Contribution Offset Operating Portion
3. Action Requested:
$37 528.17
Approve Re programming of Existing TDA Funding
Listed Below to Close out the Durahart Annex Capital Line Item
Tres Funding
Line item Description
Amount
ATTACHMENT 1
Riverside Transit Agency
Trolley Capital Portion
08/30/06
10:23:02
Purchase of 4 CNG and 1 Diesel Cost
$1,469,090.47
The Above Purchase was Funded as Follows
Federal Section 9 (X 587)
AB 2766
Private Donations
Private Contribution Offset
Total
81,172,746.27
134,800.00
24515.00
137,029.20
$1,469,090.47
Trolley Operating Portion
$1,469,090.47
w Operating Costs FY1995 Year -End $187,082.63
Charged to CHAQ $149,554.45
Match (at 20Z) $ 37,528.17 (Per John Davenport 8/30/95)
Trolley Private Contribution Operating Portion
Mayflower Operations invoices 817.952.83
Advertising & Promotion 19,575.34
$37,528.17
$37,528.17
$37,528.17
.
r
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 6, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: David Ledwitz, Staff Analyst I
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Additional Allocation of SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Funds
The City of Riverside was awarded $80,000 to fund various bicycle trails as part of
the FY 1992-93 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program. The City also
applied for, and subsequently received, Proposition 116 funding for the project. As
a result of the City's receipt of the Proposition 116 funds, City staff have informed
the Commission that the City will not require the FY 1992-93 SB 821 program funds
and have requested that the Commission re -allocate the funds to support other
projects.
The $80,000 not be claimed by the City of Riverside is now available to fund
additional SB 821 Program requests submitted for consideration as part of the
Commission's FY 1995-96 SB 821 Program. The SB 821 Evaluation Committee and
staff recommend that the Commission fund the next highest ranked projects which
would include the balance of the County of Riverside's Center Street Sidewalk project
for an additional $33,247 (a total project allocation of $69,500) with the remaining
portion of the unclaimed $80,000 ($46,753) going to fund approximately half of the
requested amount of the City of Indio's Avenue 44 Sidewalk project. The City had
requested $97,300 in SB 821 funds for this project; however, they have indicated to
Commission staff that this allocation of $46,753 will allow the City to complete half
of the project.
SB 821 EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission allocate the unclaimed $80,000 of FY 1992-93 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities funds to finance the balance of the County of Riverside's FY
1995-96 SB 821 Center Street Sidewalk project with the remaining portion of the
unclaimed funds, $46,753, to fund a portion of the City of Indio's FY 1995-96 SB
821 Avenue 44 project.
:jw
F:IUSERSIPREPRINT\SEP.951821 ADDFD.DL
"
C I T Y O F R o W a a i d e o D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S
3 9 0 0 M A I N S T R E E T " R I V E R S I D E , C A U F O R N I A 9 2 5 2 2 - 0 3 1 1 " 7 8 2 - 5 6 7 0
B A R R Y B E C K
P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r
D I V I S I O N S
A d m i n i s t r a b o n
C o d e C o m p l i a n c e
E n g i n e e r i n g
S e w a g e S y s t e m s
S o l i d W a s t e
S t r e e t S e r v i c e s
T r a f f i c & P a r k i n g
R E C E I V E D
I : ��. .
A U G 3 n 9 5
1 1 1 f 1 1 4 : . . " 1 . , r : : t 4 1 1
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
A u g u s t 2 8 , 1 9 9 5
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
3 5 6 0 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e , S u i t e 1 0 0 0
R i v e r s i d e , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 5 0 1
A t t e n t i o n : M r . J a c k R e a g a n , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S u b j e c t : F Y 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 S B 8 2 1 F u n d A l l o c a t i o n s
D e a r J a c k :
0 1 9 2 5 7
I n f i s c a l y e a r 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 t h e C i t y r e q u e s t e d a n d r e c e i v e d S B 8 2 1 f u n d i n g a p p r o v a l f o r n i n e
b i k e l a n e p r o j e c t s . P r i o r t o S B 8 2 1 f u n d i n g a p p r o v a l w e a l s o a p p l i e d t o t h e S t a t e f o r
P r o p o s i t i o n 1 1 6 f u n d s n o t k n o w i n g w h i c h f u n d s w e w o u l d r e c e i v e . A s i t t u r n e d o u t , w e
r e c e i v e d a p p r o v a l f o r b o t h S B 8 2 1 a n d P r o p o s i t i o n 1 1 6 f u n d s . W e e l e c t e d t o c o n s t r u c t
t h e p r o j e c t w i t h p r o p o s i t i o n 1 1 6 f u n d s s i n c e i t f u l l y f u n d e d t h e p r o j e c t . C i t y c r e w s w e r e
a l s o u s e d a n d t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d u c e d p r o j e c t c o s t s . W e t h e r e f o r e d o n o t n e e d t h e S B
8 2 1 f u n d s a p p r o v e d f o r f i s c a l y e a r 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 .
T h e S t a t e r e i m b u r s e m e n t p r o c e s s w a s r e a l s l o w b u t w e w e r e r e i m b u r s e d a b o u t a y e a r
a f t e r t h e w o r k w a s c o m p l e t e d . A s y o u a r e a w a r e , P r o p o s i t i o n 1 1 6 f u n d i n g i s n o l o n g e r
a v a i l a b l e , s o w e w i l l c o n t i n u e a p p l y i n g f o r S B 8 2 1 f u n d s f o r f u t u r e b i k e l a n e p r o j e c t s .
S i n c
a r r y B e c k
P u b l i c W o r k s D j e c t o r
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 6, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Marilyn Williams, Senior Staff Analyst
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Destination Based Ridesharing Demonstration Project Bridge Funding
Request
Included in the FY95/96 state funding allocation to the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) for provision of ridesharing services was $1.2
million for transportation demand management (TDM) projects. The region was given
discretion to selection the TDM projects as long as they were in addition to the
established core ridesharing program.
Through a process at the Regional Transportation Agencies' Coalition (RTAC) projects
were developed and submitted by the county transportation commissions, Caltrans
and SCAG. The RTAC reviewed and selected projects for funding. The SCAG
Regional Council approved the RTAC list of projects at its August meeting.
Pursuant to Commission approval at its June 1995 meeting, staff submitted a project
to RTAC to develop and implement a demonstration project that would facilitate the
formation of innovative station to work "feeder service" by commuters and/or their
employers. The destination based rideshare project, funded at $185,000, is being
designed within the context of RCTC's existing commuter incentive programs. It is
scheduled to coincide with the opening of the Inland Empire - Orange County Line
commuter rail service beginning October 2, 1995 and is aimed at increasing commuter
rail ridership through creation of rideshare arrangements from a commuter's
destination station whose work sites is not served by public transit feeder service.
While funding has been approved by SCAG, the funds have yet to be programmed in
the TIP and the necessary state and federal approval process must also be completed.
As the color of money does not allow for expenditure of funds prior to approval and
given the typical approval process takes several months, staff is requesting
Commission approval to allocate up to $75,000 as bridge funding to ensure the timely
implementation of the demonstration project. Funds are available from the Measure
A Commuter Assistance Program carry over balance. Staff will continue to work
closely with SCAG to obtain the earliest approval date and thereby reduce the amount
of Measure A bridge funding necessary.
F:\USERS\PRPRINT\SEP.95\RIDE.MW
Page 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Thai the Commission approve the expenditure of up to $75,000 in Measure A
Commuter Assistance Program carry-over funds to provide bridge funding for the
implementation of a destination based rideshare demonstration project approved and
funded by SCAG.
:jw
F:IUSERSIPREPRINT\SEP.951RIDE.M W
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 6, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Marilyn Williams, Senior Staff Analyst
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: FY 95/97 Mobil Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee
Request For Proposals
This agenda item is being written as a place holder. Staff is in the process of
evaluating project concepts in response to the FY 95/97 (AB 2766) Mobil Source Air
Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) Request for Proposal for Rail
Feeder/Rail Station Distribution Service. Under the MSRC program, $5.5 million has
been set aside for award to three separate RFP categories: Rail Feeder, Transportation
Control Measures, and Research and Development.
Should a proposal be developed which staff believes would be competitive given the
stringent RFP requirements, staff will seek Commission approval to submit a project
proposal by the September 19, 1995 due date. Staff would also be seeking
authorization to commit up to $50,000 from Measure A Commuter Assistance carry-
over funds to meet the RFP's co -funding requirement.
:jw •
F:\USERS\PREPRI NT\SEP.95\MSRCRFP. M W
..
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
TO:
FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
September 13, 1995
Riverside County Transportation Commission
SUBJECT: Status Report on Short -Range Transit Plan; Transit Funding Shortfalls
For the last several months, the Western County Short -Range Transit Planning
Committee, composed of representatives of RCTC, RTA, municipal operators,
Metrolink and social service operators, has been meeting to attempt to update a multi-
year SRTP. The Committee has been at impasse because it is clear that the collective
individual desires for future transit service levels will far exceed reasonably expected
revenues. In order to provide for continuing funding of transit operations while
planning continued, a FY 1995-96 (i.e., one year) plan was prepared by the
Committee and submitted for approval by the Commission during its June 14, 1995
meeting. At that time, it was expected that the Committee would recommend a
longer term plan for consideration during the September 13, 1995 meeting. However,
the Committee has not been able to reconcile funding issues. In fact, it now appears
that the one-year plan approved by the Commission proposes level of funding for
operators which cannot be sustained. Combined LTF allocations for FY 1995-96
Western County transit operations are $20,967,199 whereas only $17,879,265 of
new LTF revenues are forecasted; the difference ($3,087,934) has been made up
from $3,409,620 of prior years LTF carryover funds attributed to the Commission's
prior decision to suspend local streets and roads allocations and reserve funds for
transit.
The Development of an Integrated Transit Planning Process for Western Riverside
County (Barton-Aschman and Associates), was approved by RCTC on June 9, 1993
as the process for developing the Western County SRTP. Chapter 5,
"Recommendations" is included as Attachment 1. Exhibit 4 of that document charts
the transit decision making process. Please note that the first two phases of that
process vest responsibility with RCTC for "Forecasting" and "Priority Setting". The
difficulties which the SRTP Committee is experiencing in developing the multi -year
plan may be attributed to RCTC. Two problems which may be attributed to RCTC are
as follows:
1. RCTC has not taken action to "Forecast" an estimate of future operating and
capital revenues. Given the unstable State and Federal funding picture (e.g.
SB75, proposed major cuts to Federal operating assistance, suspension of
Transit Capital Improvement project funds) it is difficult for RCTC to make
dependable funding projections.
F:USERS\PREPRINT1SEP.95\SRTPFUND.JR
Page 2
a. The cycle for updating the SRTP has not been consistent with the timing
of current revenue information. Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
estimates were available in March; State Transit Assistance (STA) fund
estimates were not available until August; the Federal funds available for
bus and rail capital and bus operations are still not finally determined.
RCTC staff has prepared and included an estimate of funding which is
included as Attachment 2. The accuracy of the estimates, particularly
related to STA and federal funds beyond FY 1995-96 are questionable.
b. RCTC adopted a seven-year plan for Metrolink in August 1994, but
questions remain regarding the fundability of operations beyond services
within the FY 1995-96 budget. Attachment 3 includes a summary of
the RCTC approved seven year Metrolink plan which can be segmented
into three tiers of service which include:
(1) Existing service from Riverside to Los Angeles on the Union
Pacific line and service from San Bernardino/Riverside to Irvine on
ATSF lines (to be initiated October 2, 1995);
(2) Additional service from Riverside via Fullerton to Los Angeles on
ATSF lines (to be initiated in the future depending upon the
availability of rolling stock); and,
(3) Additional service from Moreno Valley to Riverside (using
equipment from (2) above, to be initiated in the future depending
upon the ability of the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
to allocate $25 million for improvements now included in the
adopted State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)). CTC
current requirement is that service be initiated on this line by FY
2000 or RCTC would be obligated to reimburse $6 million of
Proposition 108 bond funds made available for acquisition of the
line.
The Commission must determine the Metrolink service which it desires
to use as the basis for its estimate of rail operating costs.
2. The potential problem of RCTC approving funding for transit operations which
may not be sustainable may also be because of RCTC's desire to be
accommodating of the requests of transit operators and an interpretation that
the three steps under Exhibit 4/Establish Priority Funding Levels would be
applied "annually" rather than "sequentially over multiple years". Examples of
transit expenditures beyond the "1993 Base Service" include the following:
F:\USERS\PREPRINT\SEP.95\SRTPFUND.JR
Page 3
a. Rail Feeder Service;
b. Dial -A -Ride improvements to provide ADA complementary paratransit
service and for general improved service coverage and capacity; and,
c. Fixed -Route Service in the Pass Area (RTA Routes 35 & 36, Cabazon
Demonstration Service).
Had these additions not been approved, a much more substantial LTF carryover
would exist to enable additional initially higher costs for rail lines until fare
revenues equal forecasts, major capital improvements, etc. As it exists now,
some reductions in bus transit operations must necessarily occur to get back
to the level of funding for the "1993 Base Service" as (1) LTF Carryover funds
are used up and (2) planned Metrolink services are implemented.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission:
1) Approve the Attachment 2 as the estimate of future transit operation and
capital revenues;
2) Review the plans for Metrolink service to determine which service scenario
should serve as the basis for rail commitments to be considered priority for
funding (Note: RCTC is still obligated to provide "1993 Base Service" funding
levels for RTA and other operators); and,
3) Request a joint meeting with the Riverside Transit Agency to review and
"Establish Priority Funding Levels". It is acknowledged that some interest may
exist in determining some proportionate (i.e., percentage) earmarks for
Metrolink and bus operations rather than the (1) "1993 Base Service", (2) Rail
Commitments, then (3) Remainder Available for New Services approach now
approved by RCTC. RCTC and RTA staff should jointly explore alternatives
prior to a joint meeting.
:jw
Attachment
F:\USERS\PREPRINTISEP.95\SRTPFUND.JR
d
95/96
642.2
159.9
50. 7
1,516.3
151.2
556.9
3,077.2
95/96
3,077 .2
may a vocate to ave passengers transfer at Fullerton, a nd run trains back and forth to liverside, resu
efficient, level of service; however, this could double RCTC's line operating costs and our share of Common Costs would probably increase
to the reduction of train miles traveled in L. A. & Orange c ou nties. ore
pr op ortio nate
h
L.A. -bound
Metrolink Operating Subsidy Forecasts (Net of Revenue)
- No increase in service levels on Riverside -Los Angeles (UP) Li ne.
- Only 2 peak -period round trips San Bdno-Riverside-Irvi ne.
- Only 2 peak -period round trips Riverside-Fullerton-L.A. •
- Only 2 peak -period round trip extensions to Moreno Valley.
- Ignores previo us inten tion for additional trains to Orange County, 1999.
- Assumes no changes in service levels in any of the other counties.
96/97
564.7
120.7
59.1
1,803.5
156.5
550.0
(125.0)
3,129.5
96/97
220.7
168 .5
389.2
3,518.7
97/98
587. 9
108. 4
61.2
1,866.7
161 .9
603.5
(125.0)
3,264.6
97/98
128.4
174.3
302.7
3,567.3
98/99
612.0
106.4
63.3
1,931 .9
167.6
710.6
(125.0)
3,466.8
98/99
116.4
180.5
296 .9
3,763.7
99/00
636.9
00/01
662.7
104 .7 I 103 .3
65 .5
1,999.6
173.5
735.5
(125.01
3,590.7
99/00
104.7
186.7
291.4
3,882.1
ATTACHMENT 3
ASSUMPTIONS
- All in 1995 do llars.
- 3. 5% per year cost increase factored for labor & inflation.
- No capital co sts included (but should assume capitalized maintenance
on existin g system will continue at approximately $ 1 million per year).
- Curren t method of allocatin g system costs to county agencies.
- Assumes increasing fare recovery ratio 1996-2002.
TIER 1 - Service Lev els as Budgeted 1995/96
Riverside -Lo s Angeles v ia U.P. 112 mo.)
4 peak -period round trips, 1 off-peak RT, 2 reverse trains
SB-Riverside-Irvine (9 mo. ) 2 peak -perio d round trips
SB-Riverside-Irvine 112 mo.) 2 peak -period round trips
Ambassadors (1 station added in 1998 & 1999)
RCTC share of System ("Common") Costs, 7.95%
Main ten ance of Way 1RCTC a o nly 1.4% )
.- Support co sts, incl. admin istration , station operatio ns &
maintenance, legal & consultant support, lo cal marketing.
Add 1 station 1997/98 & 1 station 1998/99.
(Less applicatio n of some lease revenues)
Sub -total TIER 1
TIER 2
Incremental Added Costs - Riverside-Fullerto n-L.A. •
Riverside-Fullerton-L. A. 2 peak -period round trips •
RCTC's share of System Costs, increases to appro x. 10%
Negligible M OW increase; No Station s or Ambassadors
Sub -total TIER 2
Sub -total TIER 1 + TIER 2
RCTC
67.8
2,069.6
179.6
761.2
(125.0)
3,719.2
00101
103.3
193.3
01/02
689.4
102 .1
70 .2
2,142.0
185 .9
787.8
1125.0)
3,852 .4
01/02
102.1
200 .1
J
296.6 302.2
4,015.8 4,154 .6
Iti ng in a h g •r, an m
DRAFT TIER 3 SCHEDULE * - To be refined before Budget & Fin ance Committee meeting
TIER 3
Incremental Added Costs - Moren o Valley Extension
Moreno Valley -Riverside ex tension, 2 peak -period RT's
al via Southern Pacific
b) via San Jac - Highgrove
Ar'J ,ssadors, incremental add-on
Assume share of Common Costs now 13%
al via Southern Pacific
b) via San Jac - Highgrove
Incremental Increase: Maintenance of Way
al SP: miles @ $49. 5K/mile + _ miles @ $15K/mile
bi SJ: _ miles @ $49.5K/mile + miles @ $15K/mile
Less Santa Fe payment for MOW
1 additional station, operating & maintenance
: Sub total TIER 3a (via Southem Pacific)
Sub -tots: TIER 3b (via San Jac - Highgrov e)
Sub -total TIER 1 + TIER 2 + TIER 3a
Sub -total TIER 1 + TIER 2 + TIER 3b
•
Estimated TIER 3 only,
Incremental Costs of Moreno Valley Extension:
Approximation based en in flated 1995/96 average
subsidy per train mile plus additional station &
services
95/96 96/97
97/98
98/99
t
99/00
00/01
01/02
TBD
TBD
TBD
12.2
655.9
12 .6
678.8
13.1
702 .5
930.0
(400.0)
110.8
962.6
1414.0)
114.8
996.2
1428 .5)
118.7
2,029 .5
2,100.5
2.174.0
ATTACH MENT
Estimat e of Av ailabl e Transit Revenues
Local Transportati on Fund
FY1996 Apportionment
Carryover from FY 1995
Ava ilable for Allocation
LTF*Allocatio ns YID
Balance Aveilsble
Amo unt Planned as Federal Match
Carryover Balance
Measure A Specialized Transit
FY 1996 Appo rtion ment
Carryover fro m FY 1995
Available for Allocatio n
Allocations YID
Carryo ver Balance in Weste rn Co.
5096 Reserved for no n -pro fits
Available for Allocatio n to Opera tors
Sta te Transit Assistan ce Fun ds
FY 1996 Appo rtion men t
Allocations YID
Carryover Bala nce
Loca l Transporta tion Funds pi
M easure A Specia lized Transit (as
Federal Opera ting Assista nce (a(
Amoun t Availa ble for Ope ra ting
Federal Capital Funds --Rail (4)
Federal Capital Funds --Bus (et
State Transit Assistance (a)
Amou nt Avatsble for Ca pital
1 FY 1995-96 1
817,879,265
83,409,620
821,288,885
(920,967,199)
9321,686
(9321,688)
90
$840,000
91,937,767
92,777,767
($1,233,008)
91,544,759
(9772,380)
9772,379
91,667,173
($1,543,000)
9124,173
( FY 1998-97 1
918,505,039
91,207,079
9712,000
920,424.118
92,667,255
94,113,514
91,386,735
98.187.504
Feder al Operating Assistance (est .)
FY98 Sec . 9 Riv UZA
FY96 Sec . 9 Hemet UZA
FY98 S ec. 18
Avalable f or All oc ation
Amo unt Planned for Pr ogramming
Carry over B alance
Federal Capital Assistance -R ail (est.)
FY1998 Apportionment
Carry over from FY 1995
Available f or Alloc ation
Federal C apital Assistance -Bus (est.)
FY96 Sec. 9 Riv UZA
Carryover from FY 1995
FY98 Sec . 9 Hemet UZA
Carryover fr om FY 1995
Av alabl e for Allocation
Amount Planned f or Progr amming
Carry over Bal ance
1 FY 1997-98 1 1 FY 1998-99 1
919,060,190 (1) 919,441,394
9447,741 (4 9456,E
8569,600 (a( 9455,680
920,077.531 920.353,770
92,667,255 (4
$3,145,489 (e)
$1,290,609 (w
97.109,333
Notes:
(1) FY 1998 Apportio nment x CPI Increase of 3.596 in FY97, 3.0% in FY98, and 2% in FY99-2002.
(2) Assumes 5096 of available funds ($1,544,759 carryover from FY 1996 + new allocatio n of $840,000 x 3.5% CPI). In FY98 3% CPI used, 2% for FY99-2002. No carryover from pr evi ous
(3) Assumes 2096 redu ction In appo rtion men t each yea r.
(4) �� on �� apportionmen t. Amounts will be higher in subse quentrte'
q years due to 4 ). No levels of in subsequexactnt
t e dependent upon servic e levels in S.B. C ounty. Amt . needs to be
(5) Assu mes same allocation as FY1998 + carryover ($2,888,929+9477,146+$988,045). No carryo ver in subsequent ye ars.
(6) Assumes allocation based on population b rmuia of 77.413096 for Western Co unty with sa me allo catio n as FY 1998- -$1,887,173. (9124,173 c arryover in FY97).
$2,667,255
$3,145,489
$1,290,609
97.103,333
1 FY 1999-00 1
919,830,222
$465,830
$364,544
920,860,596
FY 1995-96 1
$500,000
$200,000
9190,000
$890,000
($890,000)
$0
92,667,255
91,427,832
84,095,087
$2,668,323
91,535,525
$477,146
$748,776
$5,429,770
(94,481,725)
$968,045
1 FY 2000-01 1
920,226,827
$475,148
9291,635
920,993,608
82,667,255
$3,145,489
91,290,609
97.103.333
1 FY 2001-02 1
920,831,383
$484,849
9233,308
921.349,321
92,667,255
$3,145,469
81,290,609
97.103.333
$2,867,255
$3,145,469
$1,290,609
97.103,333
NBS/LOWRY, INC.
ugust 28, 1995
i
GENE AUTRY TRAIL AT ROUTE 111 • FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT DESIGN BUDGET ESTIMATE BY TASK XH T
ROUTE 111 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
RCTC/CVAG
TASK I FIEJECT
DESCRIPTION' MANAGER
=100.00
►REUMINARy PHASE •
PROJECT
ENGINEER
MOD
SENIOR I CARD CLERICAL 1 SURVEY I SUBTOTAL
DESIGNER DRAFTER CREW MANNO� DIRECT I LOWRY
i75.O0 ia6.00 845.00 1140
AMOuNTS COST
Some ebmenb of ti�
ORM have
of the offal neoessery complete ry � this to eenbog completed dss under the PSR phase et this contract. The hours shown here are an estimate
begin final design.
Exhibit C'1 DESIGN BUDGET BY TASK