Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 3, 1995 Budget & Finance(91-M 13'3- (c'rq RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAANSPIS iA�ON COMMISSION BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE (COMMISSIONERS RUSS BEIRICH, BOB BUSTER, KAY CENICEROS, SYBIL DAFFY) WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1995 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 NOTE: MEETING TIME CHANGED FOR MAY AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. 4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS. 5A. Responses to Ernst & Young Management Letter. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission accept staff responses and authorize staff to proceed with Ernst & Young recommendations. 5B. Mission and Goal Statements/Draft 95-96 Budget. Overview Staff is seeking Commission input prior to preparation of the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1996. The Proposed Budget will incorporate Commission desired changes and will be brought forward in June for final review, public hearing, and adoption. 5C. Investment Policies. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission determine if existing investment policy is sufficient or if additional criteria is needed. Page 2 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 1995 5D. Allocation of Potential Losses Related to Orange County Investments. Overview At the time the Orange County investment pool bankruptcy filing, RCTC's unexpended bond proceeds were held by the California Arbitrage Management Program (CAMP) pool, a portion of which were also invested in Orange County bonds; of the total $70.1 million, $2.5 million were in such bonds. Staff is recommending that the Commission retain Ernst & Young for an independent review and recommendation on staff suggested options. 5E. Revision to the City of Murrieta Loan Commitment. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Approve an amendment to the loan with the City of Murrieta to increase the cap from $2,250,000 to $4,250,000 and review the project scope as outlined on the attached proposal; and, 2) authorize the Executive Director to execute the needed changes to the various loan documents subject to Legal Counsel review. 5F. Renewal of Professional Services Contract with Vindar Batoosingh of CB Commercial for Brokerage Services. Overview Staff is recommending extension of the contract with Vindar Batoosingh of CB Commercial through June 1996. 5G. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports. Overview The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending March 31, 1995. This is a receive and file item. 6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. 6A. Sufficiency of the Coachella Valley Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee to Match Measure A Funds for Regional Arterials. Overview Staff recommends that no consideration is needed until after CVAG has the opportunity to receive and respond to the work being performed by Ernst & Young. This is provided for information only. Page 3 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 1995 6B. Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Project Priorities. Overview Staff is recommending that no consideration is needed until after CVAG has the opportunity to receive and respond to the work being performed by Ernst & Young. This is provided for information only. 6C. Delayed Expenditure of 1993 Series Bonds Reserved for Coachella Valley Regional Arteria/s. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to seek the voluntary cooperation of Riverside County and cities to tradeout Measure A local streets and roads funds for Coachella Valley reserved bond funds for project expenditures which will occur between now and February 1996; and, 2) authorize RCTC's General Counsel to determine the form of agreements, if any, which may be necessary to accomplish such tradeouts. 6D. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between RCTC and Cathedral City for Funding and Joint Development of State Highway 111 Improvement. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the Memorandum of Understanding with Cathedral City for Funding and Joint Development for State Highway 111 projects in Cathedral City. The funds will come from budgeted funds in FY 94-95 that will be rolled over to the FY 95-96 year. Staff will report on the estimated cost of the design effort at the Budget and Finance Committee. 6E. Approval of Consultant Contract with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. to Prepare Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E1 for the Northmoor Noise Wall Project on SR -91. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to enter into a Consultant Service Agreement with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. for PS&E Engineering Design Services for the Northmoor/SR-91 Noise Wall Project with a budget amount of $68,242.00 for the base contract amount, and $10,000 for extra work, subject to final Legal Counsel review. 6F. Amendment to City of Corona `s Measure A " Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads. Overview The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan of how those funds are to be expended in order to receive disbursements for local streets and roads. Any substitutions, additions or deletion to the approved plans must also be approved by the Commission. The City of Corona is requesting to amend its FY 1994-95 Plan. Page 4 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 1995 7. TRANSIT/RIDESHAREIPARK-N-RIPE/ 1CYCLE. 7A. Measure A Specialized Transit RFP Evaluation Recommendations. Overview Staff issued a request for projects for funding available under the TranSystems Specialized Transit Program to support transit services for seniors, persons with disabilities, and/or the truly needy. Twenty-four proposals were received from twenty agencies. This item provides a listing of all projects and the Evaluation Committee's recommendations for funding. 7B. Request from Family Services Association of Western Riverside County for Additional Allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit Funds for FY 1994-95. Overview Staff is recommendina that the Commission consider the request from Family Services Association of Western Riverside County for an additional allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit funds for FY 1994-95. 8. COMMUTER RAIL. 8A. Discussions with SCRRA and OCTA Regarding Mutually Acceptable Agreements Regarding Service Enhancements. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Authorize Metrolink to utilize two unused AMTRAK one-way movements to add a fourth roundtrip train between Oceanside and Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal; 2) allow an RCTC and farebox sponsored reverse train to Riverside and San Bernardino as an alternative to layover at Irvine; and, 3) RCTC and OCTA should work cooperatively to implement a destination based rideshare demonstration program to reduce demand for transit integration at rail stations in Orange County. RR FY 1995-95 fiieiroiin►c Preliminary Budget. Overview The proposed FY 1995-96 budget for Metrolink is presented to the Committee for review and action. Page 5 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 1995 8C. Amendment Pia. 3 to Contract RO-9324 with Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Inc. Overview Staff is recommending approval of Amendment No. 3 to Contract RO-9324 with Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Inc. for the performance of design changes; to assist the Commission in complying with the City of Riverside CUP/DRB requirements; and, add construction support services including bid evaluation for an amount of $31,200. 9. ADJOURNMENT. MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 95-04 BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE APRIL 5, 1995 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee was called to order by Chairman Russell Beirich at 1:35 p.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside, California. Members Present Member Absent Russ Beirich Bob Buster Sybil Jaffy 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Kay Ceniceros M/S/C to approve the minutes of the March 2, 1995, Budget and Finance Committee Meeting. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. There were no public comments. 4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. There were no additions/revisions. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS. 5A. Final Management Letter Report and Audit Results. Teresa Trevino, Ernst and Young, reviewed the Financial Management Letter Report and Audit Results. She reviewed their recommendations relating to: 1) Cash Reconciliations; 2) Measure A Five Year Plans; 3) Interfund Borrowings; and, 4) Program Effectiveness. Sally Anderson stated that included in the report is a letter on performance issues as it relates to Measure A and that part of the audit is to make sure that the laws and regulations of Measure A have been adhered to both the Commission level and at the claimant level. M/S/C to solicit comments from staff and bring back to the next Budget/Finance Committee meeting. Page 2 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Minutes April 5, 1995 5B. Investment Policies. Dean Martin reviewed the Investment Opinion Survey. He stated that four Commissioners responded to the survey and items of importance were ranked as follows: 1) Preservation of principle alone with reasonable yield; 2) Liquidity; 3) Preservation of principle; and, 4) Yield. The overall response on the use of derivatives was that it should only be used selectively based on criteria previously established by the Commission. There was a range of responses to various investment instruments with the following being acceptable: a} Riverside County pool; b) obligations of the US Government; c) money market funds; d) guaranteed investment contracts; and, e) bank certificates of deposit. One Commissioner noted that there should be established criteria for highly rated, including history of ratings and management. Two Commissioners felt that an investment oversight body should be established, one Commissioner felt that any decisions over $100,00❑ should be brought back to the full Commission; and the fourth Commissioner did not respond. The responding Commissioners clearly felt diversification is important and that investing in a pool such as the County pool would meet the diversification of the department and that other investment pools would be acceptable as long as they meet the same criteria as the County of other municipal pools. One Commissioner stated that the Budget/Finance Committee should make recommendations to the f vii Commission since public (elected) officials are ultimately responsible for public tax dollars. Commissioner Jaffy stated that Commission response to the investment Opinion Survey is vital to the program. She also stated that according to the March 10 issue of the Legislative Bulletin for the League of California Cities, there are currently twelve bills that deal with various aspects of limiting what local agencies can do in terms of investing public dollars. Staff was requested to encourage response on the survey from the remaining Commissioners and bring this item back to the Committee. M/S/C to solicit response on the survey from the remaining Commissioners and bring back to the Committee. 5C. Mission and Goal Statements/Draft 95/96 Budget. M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Review the Mission and Goal Statements for Fiscal Year 95/96; and, 2) review the Draft Budget and provide input to staff for desired changes. 5D. Measure A Five Year Projects for Local Agency Capital Improvement Programs. M/S/C to receive and file. 5E. Amendment to City of Calimesa Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads. M/S/C that the Commission amend the FY 1994-95 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Calimesa as submitted. Page 3 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Minutes April 5, 1995 5F. Co -Sponsorship of UCLA's Fall 1995 Symposium an "The Transportation, Land Use and Air Quality Connection". M/S/C that the Commission approve the expenditure of $5,000 as cosponsor of the 1995 Policy and Research Symposium on The Transportation, Land Use and Air Quality Connection, and further authorize the attendance of three Commissioners or staff members. 5G. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports. M/S/C to receive and file. 5H. Single Signature Authority Report. M/S/C to receive and file. 6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. 6A. 7995/96 Local Transportation Funds and Surface Transportation Program Planning Projects. M/S/C that the Commission approve the STP and LTF planning projects identified on Attachment A; and consideration of a biennial cycle for programming LTF Planning Funds. 6B. Sunrise Way/ Palm Canyon Drive Intersection - Amendment Number 2 Adjustment to Authorized NBS/Lowry Contract Amount (RCTC Agreement No. RO-92-19) . M/S/C that the Commission approve the NBS/Lowry contract Amendment No. 2 for $8,557.26 and a total contract value not -to -exceed $524,601.26. All terms and conditions of the original agreement (RO-92-19) and subsequent amendment (Amendment No. 1) will remain in effect except as revised by this amendment (Amendment 2). No further amendments to this agreement are anticipated. 6C. Route 91 Auxiliary Lane and soundwall Prioritization Study. M/S/C that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to use the existing soundwall design budget in Griener's Contract No. RO-9101 in an amount not to exceed $67,177.94 for base work and $12,822.06 for extra work to perform an auxiliary lane and soundwall prioritization study for Route 91 between Magnolia Avenue and Mary Street in the City of Riverside. 7. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/PARK-N-RIDE/BICYCLE. 7A. FY 94/95 Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. Contract Funding Issues. M/S/C that the Commission approve the March 31, 1995 letter signed on behalf of the Commission by the Executive Director to Caltrans providing concurrence with the SCAG/CTS letter dated March 31, 1995 and requesting execution of the CTS contract amendment to facilitate the payment of RCTC's STP local funds ($176,688) to CTS pursuant to the adopted CTS FY 94/95 workplan. Page 4 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Minutes April 5, 1995 8. COMMUTER RAIL. 8A. Amendment to Capital Improvements Agreement. M/S/C that the Commission approve the negotiated terms and RCTC's funding participation of $7.43 million for the San Bernardino Subdivision capital improvements cost escalation and additional work. 8B. Tustin Commuter Rail Station. M/S/C that the Commission take no further action at this time. 8C. Amendment 2 to Micelles Contract RD -9430 to provide planning and preliminary engineering for Riverside -Do wn to wn Commuter Rail Station second passenger platform, pedestrian access between platforms, pedestrian access from surface streets, Metrolink train storage facility and possible future connections to San Jacinto Line service, M/S/C that the Commission approve the attached Amendment 2 to Agreement RO- 9345 with Miralles Associates to provide planning and preliminary engineering services for Riverside -Downtown Commuter Rail Station second passenger platform, pedestrian access between platforms, pedestrian access from surface streets, Metrolink train storage facility and possible future connections to San Jacinto Line service for an amount of $55,000 with an additional extra work amount of $8,250. 8D. Orange Blossom Festival Agreements. M/S/C M/S/C that the Commission authorize the Executive Director or his designee to: 1) Execute the appropriate indemnification agreements with Orange Empire Rail Museum and San Bernardino Railroad Historical Society; and, 2i Subject to Legal Counsel review, execute a contract with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority for the charter of Metrolink trains on April 22 and 23, 1995, in an amount not to exceed $28,000. 10. ADJOURNMENT. There being no other items on the agenda to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 3:46 p.m. ectfully submitted, Nat Cler of a Commission :jw AGENDA ITEM #5A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 3, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Responses to Ernst & Young Management Letter The management letter comment for the Commission itself was a commendation for implementation of prior year suggestions. Staff wishes to thank E & Y for recognizing our efforts. The comments below were for Measure A and TDA recipients. Staff responses are provided below each comment in bold type. Cash Reconciliations We noted significant unreconciled amounts in the cash reconciliations for a city which maintained transportation and transit funds. We understand that the bank balance is less than the book balance and that the City expects to allocate this loss proportionately to all funds. We encourage the Commission to review this City's cash situation and possibly require the City to transfer the unexpended funds to the Commission to be held on its behalf in order to ensure the safeguarding of the transportation and transit funds. The City could request disbursements as eligible expenditures are incurred until it demonstrates that adequate internal controls are in place to safeguard cash against loss from unauthorized use or disposition. Staff Response: Currently disbursements are not being made to this city due to excessive Measure A balances. Staff recommends continuing to withhold funds until the cash situation is reconciled, even if Measure A fund balances on hand are substantially reduced. We do not recommend attempting to transfer existing funds to the Commission. Obtaining funds once disbursed is very difficult to accomplish and would probably be resisted. Measure A Five Year Plans In accordance with the laws and regulations of Measure A, cities are required to submit annually to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) an approved Measure A budget including a five year expenditure plan. An expenditure must be included in the five year expenditure plan to be considered allowable for F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\EYAUD.DM Page 2 Measure A purposes. During our compliance procedures in the prior year, we noted a city that approved a project to be funded with Measure A funds; however, the five year expenditure plan submitted to the Commission was not amended to include these expenditures. We recommend that the Commission disallow the expenditure. Additionally, the Commission should require the expenditure plans to specify individual projects in order to better monitor the progress of these projects. Staff Response: Staff recommends having internal audit review the project to determine if it would have been eligible as a Measure A expenditure. If the determination is that it was an eligible project, then staff will request the City to submit it to the Commission for approval, with an admonition that any future occurrences will result in disallowance of the expenditure. Staff further recommends a clarification to language in the Funding Guide that provides for disallowance of any expenditures for projects for which the jurisdiction has failed to obtain approval for substitution in the Five Year Plan. Disallowed expenditures must be fully reimbursed to the Commission or redirected to an approved project. Carryover Funds Desert cities must be a participant in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program to receive Measure A funds. During our audit, we noted that one of the cities has not participated in the TUMF program for several years; however, they have carryover Measure A funds from 1989 through 1992 which have not been spent during the two years since they declined to continue participation in TUMF. We recommend that the Commission review the City's plans to expend the carryover funds and consider appropriate action. Staff response: Staff recommends requiring the city to submit a plan of expenditure for these remaining funds for review and approval by the Commission. Failure to meet the plan without sufficient justification (as determined by the Commission) will result in the city having to return the funds to the Commission. Separate Accountability Measure A funds are required to be accounted for separately and must not be commingled with other funds. We noted that one city commingled other revenues and expenditures relating to a non -Measure A storm drain project with the Measure A monies. Therefore, the City was not in conformance with this requirement. We suggest that the Commission review this finding with the City to ensure that only Measure A expenditures are recorded in the Measure A fund. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\EYAUD.DM Page 3 As noted in the prior year, one Measure A specialized transportation recipient does not have separate accounting records for Measure A activity. We recommend that the Commission discuss alternative acceptable methods of accounting with the recipient and encourage them to comply with the Measure A requirements. Staff response: Staff concurs with this recommendation. Unexpended Monies During 1993, the Commission notified recipients that excessive accumulation of Measure A funds would not be permitted and that cities found to have excessive Measure A funds would have future Measure A funds withheld until the accumulation was reduced. At June 30, 1994, we noted that a few cities had three to four years of unspent Measure A allocations. We encourage the Commission to continue monitoring excess funds at all cities and to enforce the policy of withholding funding where necessary. Staff response: Staff will be addressing this issue in the upcoming revisions to the Funding Guide. Interfund Borrowings Interfund loans are not permitted according to Measure A guidelines. Measure A program funds are restricted and cannot be used to support any other programs. During our audits, we noted one agency that lent its Measure A cash to fund operations and the cash was not available for Measure A purposes. We recommend that the Commission consider allocating money on a reimbursement basis to this agency. Additionally, the Commission should emphasize this requirement to all agencies applying for and receiving Measure A specialized transit funds, as the likelihood of commingling cash at these cash tight non-profit agencies is increased. Staff response: The Commission's Funding Guide states on Page 41 that "interfund borrowing...isstrictly prohibited. ...Evidenceof interfund borrowing...will result in the city or agency receiving funds from RCTC on a reimbursement basis only." Based on the policy staff recommends placing this agency on a reimbursement basis only for a period of one year. At the end of the year staff will review the agency and determine if the restriction should be continued. Program Effectiveness The Commission provides specialized Measure A grants primarily to non-profit organizations to meet existing transportation demands. The Commission expects the funded projects to effectively meet the transportation demands and provide a balance F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\EYAUD.DM Page 4 between the cost and the benefit derived from the project. During one of our a1,riits we noted that the organization's actual expenses were not comparable to the budget submitted in the grant application. This resulted in salaries and benefits expenditures appearing to be disproportionate to the services provided. Accordingly, we recommend that the Commission review the cost/benefit relationship in existing and potential projects to determine their feasibility and periodic (e.g. monthly or quarterly) financial and/or performance reports from the project providers to ensure that grant expenditures are spent in accordance with the approved budget and that the project goals are being met. Staff response: As required by the Measure A funding agreements, recipients currently provide the Commission with quarterly service reports. Staff periodically makes onsite visits to evaluate services. Staff will amend the funding agreement document to require that all program participants report year to date expenditure information. This information will be used to evaluate the agencies' budgetary predictions and performance. Eligible Expenditures One Measure A recipient has not yet resolved a questioned cost noted in the prior year. Although the amount is small, we recommend that the Commission resolve such questioned costs within a year of the finding. Staff response: Internal audit will meet with the city to determine if the cost is allowable. If ineligible, the city will be required to reimburse its Measure A fund with interest. Year-end Closing Process Audited financial statements for Measure A and Transportation Development Act recipients must be filed with the Commission and the State Controller's Office by December 31, 1994. During the course of our audits, we noted that several entities had not performed timely year end closing procedures. Some of these delays resulted in filing the required reports subsequent to the December 31, 1994, deadline. We recommend that the Commission continue to review the importance _ f the .. timeiy of year end financial and compliance information.~v� v� `ry Staff response: Staff recommends adoption of a policy that will require ail local jurisdictions who fail to meet year end closing must pay the additional audit fee associated with the extra time expended by the auditors. This will be incorporated into the next set of recommended policy revisions to the Funding Guide. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\EYAUD.DM Page 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission accept staff responses and authorize staff to proceed with Ernst & Young recommendations. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\EYAU D. DM AGENDA ITEM #5B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 3, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Mission and Goal Statements/Draft 95/96 Budget Staff is pleased to present to the Budget and Finance Committee the Draft Budget for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1996. The budget represents a continuing effort by staff to improve on the presentation of budget data and underlying assumptions. The budget itself provides detailed analysis from staff. The budget documents have been marked to show changes from the budget received in April. None of the changes are significant. Staff anticipates further changes will be made change for the Proposed Budget. Mission and Goal Statements are largely unchanged from the prior year. Most of the changes are in the areas of Administration and Finance and Accounting. With the Commission planning to discuss long term goals and strategic direction in the near future, changes to other program objectives did not seem appropriate for the moment. Staff is seeking Budget and Finance input prior to preparation of the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1996. The Proposed Budget will incorporate any desired changes and will be brought forward to the full Commission in June for final review, public hearing, and adoption. STAFF RECOMMENDATION' 1) Review the Mission and Goal Statements for Fiscal Year 95/96; and, 2) Review the Draft Budget and provide input to staff for desired changes. :jw Attachment F: USERSIPREPRINTWPR.95\AUDIT.DM DATE: TO: FROM: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 3, 1995 Budget and Finance Committee W. Dean Martin, Controller SUBJECT: Mission and Goal Statements/Draft 95-96 Budget The Proposed Budget will be mailed under separate cover prior to the Budget/Finance Committee meeting. :jw RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DRAFT BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 i. 9560 Unireraity Avenue, Suite 100 • Rive s (909) 787-7141 • FAX (909) 787-7920 California X01 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TABLE OP.CONTEIVTS 3560 University Avenue, snits 100 • Riverside, California 92601 (909) 787-7141 • FAX (909) 787-7920 TABLE OF CONTENTS Budget Highlights Administration and Personnel Page 1 Page 2 REVENUE Page 3 Sales Tax Revenues Page 4 State and Federal Funding Page 5 Other Revenue Sources Page 5 MANAGEMENT SERVICES Page 7 Administration Page 7 Intergovernmental Programs Page 7 Finance and Accounting Page 8 MEASURE A PROGRAMS Commuter Rail Development and Implementation Highway Project Development and Implementation OTHER MEASURE A PROGRAMS Special Transportation Programs Local and Regional Programs NON MEASURE A PROGRAMS Transportation Planning and Programming Commuter Rail Operations and Support Motorist Assistance Property Management Page 10 Page 10 Page 10 Page 12 Page 12 Page 15 Page 17 Page 17 Page 17 Page 19 Page 19 MISSION AND GOAL STATEMENTS Page 22 PROGRAM BUDGET Page 51 LINE ITEM BUDGET Page 66 INDIVIDUAL FUND BUDGET Page 69 APPENDIX Page 79 Fiscal year 1995/96 ' kAt a pivotal year for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. A number of challenging and perhaps even painful decisions may be made by the Board of Commissioners. Faced with dwindling federal and state resources, the Commission must either search for or create significant new revenue streams or modify the existing Transportation Improvement Plan of Measure A. This budget represents the completion of a schedule of projects decided upon by the Commission approximately three years ago, with the ani si nificant being the addition of somev s ernI interchange ' The 1996 fiscal year may well represent the final year in an aggressive and accelerated program launched soon after the passage of Measure A. Given the nature of the uncertainties facing the Commission, the Commission has adopted a pay as you go strategy as it sorts out the next level of project priorities and assesses the Con ission's rinanciai capacity for funding those projects. Budget Highlights Commuter rail project implementation —This category includes construction and right of way acquisitions, and capital contributions to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). Capital contributions in the amount of $1,061,464 are required to fund Metrolink expansion and capital replacement. All other capital requirements necessary for the opening of the Riverside to Irvine line trove tfterufaa met in prior year's budgets. The Commission has already -taken action to approve payment to Santa Fe Pacific Railroad for construction indexing costs of $2,500,000. Station construction costs for the La Sierra and West Corona stations amount to $4,977,500. Highway project development —Expenditures for engineering costs have shifted from the -major highway routes to the interchange program of Measure A. Reflecting the Commission's actions in late 1994, $900,000 has been budgeted for final design crnitOie Van Burer ijp, $1,352,000 for preliminary engineering and final design onfi r the Galena interchange, and $450,000 onOir final design fordf the Yuma Interchange. Highway project implementation —The effect of declining revenues and a pay as you go strategy are beginning to be felt in the 95/96 fiscal year . Expenditures in this area are projected to decline by nearly $9,000,000. Nonetheless, a $10,000,000 expenditure on Route 79 will complete the construction of Lambs Canyon, and over $6,000,000 will be expended for right of way acquisitions and construction on Route 111. Local and regional programs —The Coachella Valley continues to move forward with its regional arterial program, with considerable progress be , s>:: i having-been g made in 94195. ... s proiectecittAticipated to continue in thu 95/96 fiscal year s; sat Local jurisdictions are projected to receive $19,911,294 million for local streets and road repair, maintenance and construction. Commuter rail operations and support —Substantial increases are likely for commuter rail operations. With the opening of an additional commuter rail line planned for early fall, the Commission's operating subsidy to the SCRRA will increase foni $1,500,400 to $2,580,000 million. The number of stations maintained by the Commission will double from two to four security and maintenance costs for stations is similarly projected to double in fiscal year 95/96. 1 Administration and Personnel The Commission has been true to the enabling legislation that established the Commission. That legislation envisioned an agency that would be staffed by a small number of professionals with minimal support staff and heavy reliance on private industry expertise. The Commission has consistently met both the letter and the spirit of the enabling legislation. Commission staff stands at 19, with no projected increases for 95/96.47116 dt , clot n'ean that- where additional staffing needs have been identified, contracted consultants have substituted to a large degree: Support staff has also been minimized through pooling staff effort via a team approach to managing peak demands, and through improved state of the art computer technology. The 1995/96 Draft Budget reflects the Commission's commitment to expending available resources for project delivery and not for administration. Management services consisting of executive and office administration, intergovernmental coordination and legislative monitoring and advocacy, and finance and accounting, amounts to less than 2% of the total budget (exclusive of debt costs). That means that-over98% of available dollars are expended on projects. Total amount bud eted for overhead including administrative salaries and benefits is Additional consultant expenditures for administrative functions total ;968 All administrative costs are budgeted at .2704-2799040f07,0, or 2.2O%Z 18 of total expenditures (exclusive of debt costs).— The rvlat.onsI ;}.r of tFRs Cvr„e,s,SSW' II,C g . The graph illustrates that the Commission has consistently met its target of keeping administrative costs at less than four (4%) of total revenues, and that goal will continue to be met in the 95/96 fiscal year. Administration As a percentage of revenues 2 Personnel salaries and benefits are projected at the PERSONNEL EXPENDITURES BY TYPE $1,116,150 (7'2.2%) level aai the 94/95 fiscal year. An increase in salary has been partial* offset by a decline in the costs for employee health insurance. (Note: Salary and benefit recommend -actions have not yet 355,994 (3.6%) 538,692 (2.5%) 3110,534 (7.2%) 350,737 (3.3%) 3173,089 (11.2%) ® Salaries NO Retirerrent • hsurance IN Health /Dental • Other Defr Corrp been presented to the Personnel Committee or the Commission). Measure A administrative salaries and benefits are budgeted at .08% of Measure A revenues (i.e., sales tax revenues plus investment income), less than the 1% required by law. REVENUES Total revenues are projected to increase by 9.5% form the revised budget. The 56.5 million increase occurs in a riurulberr „f '$ revenue categories. Sales tax revenues finally break the $50 million dollar mark by $2,879,642, an increase of 5.8% fcrrmiiii4i the 95 budget of $49,648,993. This estimate of growth is consistent with the Commission's strategic plan and outlooks for the Inland Empire and California economies. Non Measure A sales tax revenues (i.e., Transportation Development Act (TDA) sales tax) increase $1,980,000. This increase is for additional transit allocations for rail operations. Reimbursements as -usual -represent monies expected from the State of Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for project implementation. Unlike prior years the 95/96 reimburseme nts are for rail rather than highway projects. Although the funds flow through Caltrans, they are principally federal funds fun,' the ongost.o1 litigation Funding Sources 552,528,635 (57.6%) • 35,747,000 (6.3%) 314,000,000 (15.3%) 33,670,955 (4.0%) 37,564,766 (8.396) 37,737,500 (8.596) lIndudes commercial paper proceeds I Debt • Non Measure Sales Tax MI Sales Tax -Measure - Reimbursements MI Other hterest 3 and-A-rr-fauafrt efsrbtrai-afh3tmerrt-from the is i of the Intermodai Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Nearly ninety percent (90%) of reimbursements will be from this source. The remaining amounts will be from state Transportation Systems Management (TSM) funding. Interest income increases by 21.9% due to higher anticipated interest yields for the next year as well as investment decisions made by the Commission for its bond proceeds. Both the construction funds and the Debt Reserve Fund for the 1993 Sales Tax Revenue bonds have been placed in guaranteed investment contracts. Both of -those -contracts are yielding in excess of 6.85%. The County pool is expected to yield between 4.5% and 5.25% compared to fiscal year 94/95 yields of 3.5% to 4%. Sales Tax Revenues After four years of substantially level growth as shorrn y''•" t{lG t -irrthe-sales Lan rcvcnuca, the Commission expects sale tax revenues to begin an upward climb. The Commission's most recent projections estimate sales tax to grow at a 6% rate for fiscal year 96. This rate of growth is actually tempered from what appears to be fairly strong growth in the 95 fiscal year. Table below demonstrates the allocation of the sales tax revenues by program and area. Coachella Palo Verde Western Valley Valley County Total Administration $2,101,145 Highway *2,049,877 $13,980,873 816,030,750 Rail *5,849,738 55,849,738 Regional Arterial 55,466,340 $5,466,340 Local *4,783,047 *705,985 814,422,262 $19,911,294 Special Transp. 81,802,782 81,802,782 Transit 81,386,585 *1,366,585 Total 4tq RRg f4Q4 A7105 4Rri a R ncc Acc 4 Sales Tax Revenue Projectio 90000 80000 c 70000 .2 E 60000 50000 cforan a" • z : :; Med b 't e to mission :L• .ate: _ Via' r*sw :: mated tl [ ie s nt • conservative Comparison b Actual II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 € i I i f i 1 1 1 I r l I I! I . i ' l ' I ! i P. Ir i = ' 3 I 1 1 ! ; t] i I I I 1 1 I 1 i l l I I 40000 i' r /I/ r it/ //if f if It/ - �• i•' I r - l r !•r�•, 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year State and Federal Funding !• AchallBudget ■ Strategic Ran of state and federal funding g ism not �.;: • .- = rosy picture. Both the federal and state governments are intent on balancing budgets and iralnattng deficits. Voters have made it clear that they are not likely to be easily convinced to accept additional burdens in the way of higher or new taxes. Aft-of-thisT•i' s has resulted in both state and federal governments targeting spending cuts in a number of areas, with transportation being no exception. The impact on the Commission's 1995/96 Draft Budget budget -has been a postponement of Route 974 right of wimprotective acquisitions and any major construction beyond Lamb's Canyon. No expenditures have been budgeted for the San Jacinto Branch Line due to funding uncertainty. All rail capital expenditures are for station sites along the Riverside to Irvine commuter rail line, expected to open in early fall. Staff anticipates receiving CMAQITSM reimbursements in the amount of $7,737,500 for the construction of the two stations. Other Revenue Sources Other revenue sources have remained virtually unchanged from the prior year. Regional arterial funds held by the Commission for the Coachella Valley are augmented by funds &e, aside '"`` ` ` `"`" 5 Ihitrgatiiai FolsillifiletNifi in the amount of $2,8$8,482. The Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program is primarily funded with state allocatio # :;_,,. An operating transfer from the Service Authority For Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) for $147,095 provides the difference needed to fund the program in total. Revenues from SAFE fees will remain unchanged at $1,000,000. Additional SAFE revenues include a state grant of $9 to fund the intelligent Transportation System (ITS) study. The Commission has been a part of the Measure A success program for local jurisdictions as well. Funding by the Commission has contributed to the maintenance of numerous streets and roads m throughout the County. The Commission has assisted soesev jurisdictions with acceleration of their local programs by providing loans or advances. Those loans will generate interest income for -the Coingi on of $582,858 t) = in fiscal year 95/96. Most of those eamings will accrue to the highway program. 6 Management Services MANAGEMENT SERVICES Management Services provides administrative oversight, legislative advocacy, general legal counsel activities which are not directly program or project related, and financing and accounting for the Commission's various programs. These services are allocated to the Commission's three major funding sources (Transportation Development A, Service Authority For Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), and Measure A, the local half cents sales tax, based on management's budgetary estimate of resource allocation. Currently the overhead costs are allocated at seventy-six percent (76%) to Measure A, eighteen percent ( 18%) to TDA (RCTC General Fund), and six percent (6%) to SAFE. Administration Day to day operations of the Commission is the responsibility of the Executive Director. A number of those responsibilities have been delegated to the Clerk of the Board including personnel administration, daily office functions such as clerical and secretarial support, agenda preparation and meeting minutes, and records archiving. The only changes anticipated in the current year budget is the addition of $20,000 to automate the Commission's document control procedures and records retention. The benefits to the Commission for this improved system is reduced storage space, more secure records, and the ease and efficiency of locating critical documents. This item was previously approved by the Commission at its February 1995 meeting, but is not expected to actually occur_ until the 95/96 fiscal year. , �_"' ' and fringe benefits casts of r : ,. ; .:':. , .....:.-, -.. ...-:: the Executive Director, the Clerk of the Board, and an allocated amount of clerical support; a,x! iagal cost for 113,p . tucai-neo spap info . . . ,-.o . fnA#IOf#'�i � activities fibula! cer �r.�.y tic! man- PribfirinflarrnlItion in the -new w l ac R- the a-,�-:=.,��`� ,:�,�; �. activities : �� ;- --: to }rubfc [ Staff -afso-plansttrisstre--r-rmarterfrrrevesfetter thatGr an will be ' . . interagenclOvireach.- ;; FA senior staff analyst and the Clerk of the Board will jointly manage this effort. - Intergovernmental programs The Commission for a number of years has retained a legislative advocate to promote the Commission's legislative agenda at the state level, and to monitor state legislation for its impact on Commission programs, ■•�-.- - • = - with itsj� legislative advocate and state lawmakers to protect Commission interests and promote its long term strategic direction. This program area is also charged with working with other agencies on common goals and developing a cooperative approach to problem resolution and program advocacy. A number of Commission staff members engage either full time or part time in this endeavor.-: 7 I salary and fringe benefits for the <-Assistant Director of Intergovernmental Programs, the Assistant Director of Planning and Programming, and staff analysts of 414i,�00, �rnf a cor+s�ltpl eL unt�aet for $4tJ,00e3�i $140 3 11. Finance and Accounting Safeguarding of assets is central to the Commission's fiduciary role. Completion of major capital projects is dependant on state and federal matching funds and the Commission's ability to leverage funding sources within its control. Cash needs must be planned to ensure adequate liquidity to meet capital and operating demands. Cash then needs to be invested in a prudent manner with reasonable returns. Finance and Accounting through risk management, cash and debt management, general ledger accounting, financial reporting, and budget preparation and monitoring addresses those needs. Budgeted costs to perform these functions are consistent with the prior year and include allocated overhead, , and salary and fringe benefits for the Controller and accounting staff totalling -$2-1-0706-70 3. The budget for financial advisory services has been increased to $130,000, as they are expected to assist the staff and the Commission in the Request For Proposal and selection process for a reconstituted team of investment bankers. As required by law, the ecrmmissiorrLstiaiiiiiiiiiiiA and its funding recipients will be audited by an independent firm. The amount indicated in the audit proposal of $235, 000 has been budgeted along with $50,000 to perform project consultant audits and a contingency of $40,000 if additional audit services are required. Debt Mranaga,..aut At June 30, 1996 the Commission will have $211,054,081 in outstanding sales tax revenue bonds. During the year $11,175,000 in principal payments will be retired along with $12,648,023 in interest payments. A total of $49,500,000 will be outstanding in commercial paper notes. it is estimated that the interest cost and investment banking fees on the commercial paper will amount to $2,812,012. Although it is expected that the commercial paper notes will be replaced with senior debt (i.e., sales tax revenue bonds), that is not anticipated to occur in the 1996 fiscal year. Other costs of $195,000 associated with debt management include bank liquidity support fees, trustee servicing fees, and rating agency fees. Those costs are paid out of the Commission's Debt Service Fund. The Commission is legally required to maintain a debt coverage ratio of 1.3 to 1 on all senior debt. The Commission has adopted a higher standard of 2 to 1 as policy . Figure below shows the Commission's historical performance and the expected ratio for fiscal year 95/96. 8 .recce;; ,,;;,. y,,;x.:,uea:•.c•.•r.,,:a,;;:.;wrcw.c: 9 Measure A Programs MEASURE A PROGRAMS Commut©r Rail Development and Implementation The budget for the 95/96 fiscal year focuses rail capital efforts on the opening of the Riverside to Irvine line. The Commission will contribute $1,061,464 to the SCRRA to meet our capital requirement. The SCRRA will expend those funds on the Riverside to Irvine Tine forenvironmental mitigation and track work extensions and for track enhancements on existing lines. Until the opening of the San Jacinto Branch Line, the Commission's capital contribution to the SCRRA should be minimal in the ensuing years. The Commission itseff-is ijl= managing the construction of two commuter rail stations. Both the La Sierra and the West Corona rail stations are expected to be fully operational in time for the opening of the Riverside to Irvine rail line. The La Sierra station construction - "`" ,n e " ' " e cost a total of $3,657,000, with $3,107,000 budgeted for the 95/98 fiscal year. West Corona is estimated to cost $2,420,500, with $1,870,500 earmarked for 95/98. The remaining amounts ithadOledioliiiii expended in the 94/95 fiscal year. The Commission expects to be reimbursed eighty- eight and one half percent (88.5%) from Congestion Management and Air Quality funds, with state Transportation Systems Management (TSM) funding comprising the difference. These projects will be advanced funded with commercial paper as both sources of funding are on a reimbursement basis. Other rail expenditures totalling 8991,000 are related -to the Riverside Downtown station including the expansion of available parking. Operating costs are fully discussed in the section "Commuter Rail Operations and Support". Highway Project Development and bnplementation The Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan envisioned that the capital improvements to the County's freeway system would be accomplished with local sales tax revenues supplementing rather than supplanting federal/state gas tax funds, with each providing approximately equal funding. That expectation is currently under assault as both the federal and state governments grapple with declining revenues and limited options. State and Federa/ Tranavortabon Funding Both state and federal departments of transportation are in the midst of significant restructuring. On the state side, Caltrans has been directly affected by the Governor's proposed Fiscal Year 1995-96 budget. Should the budget proposal remain intact through deliberations, Caltrans must reduce its workforce by 1,226 positions. Additionally, legislation has been introduced by Senator Kopp (Senate Bill 160) proposing to restructure Caltrans into two major functions, operations and maintenance. This legislation proposes to reduce the authority of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) over discretionary state highway funds and will place increasing flexibility and authority with local transportation agencies. At the federal level, the Clinton Administration has announced the restructuring of the federal Department of Transportation into three departments. Along with the restructuring, the Clinton Administration's proposal includes major layoffs. The departments proposed are aviation, maritime, and intermodalism. The Department of Intermodalism will include the forme -Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), feda,ol flaiho��f Adifiinistiatiun—IfR and >i :::>..: :. .::.i > f : ....... . ........:..:..>_ . The Clinton Administration is proposing a phased elimination of federal operating assistance and a reduction in appropriation levels for the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The proposed reductions for this Trexttiti fgOimp year are 20% in transit and 30% for highways. 10 The impact of restructuring and reductions in funding on Riverside County transit and highway programs may be: ❑ Further delays for projects programmed in the STIP. The projects likely to be delayed in Riverside County are: Route 86 stage three construction; Route 60 widening in three segments- - Valley Way to University Avenue: University Avenue to the 60/215/ East Junction, and the 60/215 East Junction to Redlands Boulevard; and the 60/215 new connectors. A delay in the 60/91/215 interchange project will mean that right of way acquisitions on Route 7974 from the city of Perris to the City of Lake Elsinore will not be completed. Up to $10,000,000 irrfundii- g was expected from the state for advance acquisition of proper -ties needed for the interchange project. ❑ The phased elimination of federal operating assistance for transit will heighten the competition for funding bus and rail operations in the county. Even though the federal operating assistance is a relatively small amount of total transit funding, any reduction in federal revenues places further reliance on limited local resources such as State Transit Assistance, Local Transportation Funds, and Measure A, While the budget reflects that the cornmuter rail operating program fully commits available transit resources, the final outcome will be determined through the Commission's Western County short range transit plan committee process. o One final impact of the federal and state transportation restructuring will be the increasing difficulty obtaining federal funds for projects due to the aforementioned state and federal staff reductions. This may create delays in the flow of federal and state funds and increase the Commission's financing costs. Program Management Much of the Commission's success in the early years of its Measure A program can be attributed to the Commission using private sector resources for program management. By employing Bechtel Civil, Inc., the Commission has been able to more swiftly and aggressively complete many of the Measure A projects. The combination of public funding and private expertise has served as a model of public/private partnership. As the Commission for the moment is apparently compelled to manage a pay as you go program, the role of program management consulting will be diminished. -The prejeL.lCommission will have to confront the decision on whether to maintain the 95/96 planned staffing level of prooram management cons-olt,,1g s= rvice,personnel beyond 95/96, especially if funds for construction of the projects discussed below later becomes available. The 1995/96 draft budget shows a decrease of eleven percent (11%) in program management consulting services. There are several highway and rail capital projects underway that begun in 1994/95 but will not be completed until 1995/96. Unless additional funding is found to start new projects after 95/96, project management consulting services for 1996/97 will be more significantly reduced. The total 95/96 budget for projectaiiiii management services is $1,200,000. E=ngineering and Design The majority of scope decisions and environmental impacts for the major highway widening projects have either been completed or will be completed in 1995/96. The focus of engineering and design activities are now centered on interchanges and state route 111 in the Coachella Valley. Van Buren , Yuma, Galena, and Route 215 are the targeted interchanges with a total budget of $2,952,000 Another $630,000 in engineering and final design has been budgeted for state Route 111. Final design on both the Route 74 project between the 1-15, and 1-215, and the Route 79 project between Newport and Keller will most likely be funded by Measure A revenues. 11 Engineering for Route 86 projects and the 60/91/215 interchange will be performed by Caltrans as STIP projects. The Commission will stay involved providing assistance wherewith staff and program management support where possible and monitoring Caltrans as STIP projectsfor adherence to agreed upon scope issues. A study will be managed by the Commission working with Caltrans to determine where additional improvements . such as construction of auxiliary lanes and soundwalls, can be made to Route 91. The Commission or Caltrans can accomplish these improvements once funding and timing of construction are identified. Construction and Right of Way Acquisitions Construction of Route 79 between First Street in the cityC of Beaumont and Gilman Springs Road and the related interchange, will be completed in 1995/96. The remaining construction projects (see Commuter Rail Development and Implementation for a discussion of commuter rail construction projects managed by the Commission) will be on Route 1 11 in the Coachella Valley and the Van Buren and Galena interchanges in westem Riverside County. These construction contracts, while funded by the Commission, will likely be managed by local agencies and Caltrans. The 1995/96 budget contains $2,640,000 for construction along Route 111 in the City of Rancho Mirage, and $3,385,000 for r right of way acquisition. �rrri=a:�h--.:.`r'':-.r:� �... �_+bo-2u?`v._::�tiJ s?"l/�t)u�'.'-=9RR�":::�\±]Y_}�,.:•\-:,-;:_ � •_-_.- ----- :Ide•a Other Measure A Programs Commuter Assistance Due to Measure A the Commission has been able to make substantial investments in infrastructure in the County of Riverside to address congestion and air quality problems. Millions of dollars have been spent to construct high occupancy vehicle (i.e., carpool) lane additions to major state routes located in the County and initiate commuter rail service (Metrolink) from Riverside to Los Angeles and Orange Counties.- To ensure that this investment is used to its fullest capacity, steps are being taken to foster the development and maintenance of carpools, vanpools and buspools, and regular use of public bus and commuter rail. The Measure A Commuter Assistance Program has a single goal— to change the driving patterns of single occupant vehicle drivers through commuter education, incentives and employer support services. While the goal seems simple, it is not easily accomplished. Success is measured in small increments through increased use of infrastructure. The Commission's program has been recognized for its effectiveness and elements have been replicated as a result of its success to date. The Commission is committed to the goals of its Commuter Assistance Program as demonstrated by a , budgeted amount for fiscal year 1995/96 that has increased by :"" :'' ' percent f2!%27%? to X5&5* _ t55 05 (exclusive of overhead and personnel allocations and direct charges). Incentive Programs The Local - Incentive Program has been a huge success, so much so � g that its budget has been increased by $45,000. Its success can be partly attributed to the high percentage of employees who live and work within western Riverside County, and the joint effort of the Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. (CTS) and the Commission to deliver a full range of educational and incentive programs. These programs empower employer transportation coordinators by increasing their skill level and offering support services and financial incentives. The Freeway terniiiuterilncentive Program, while more difficult to implement outside of the County, is still experiencing growth. That is expected to continue with the fall opening of the Metrolink Riverside to Irvine commuter rail line. Though goal projections will not be met for this year, it is still gratifying that the program continues to grow in light of less aggressive marketing by Orange and Los Angeles counties' employers, and budget reductions at CTS which limit its outreach efforts outside of the Inland Empire. 12 Measure A Budget Highway Development and #nplement'Bon Fiscal Year 1995/96 Route 91 IVan Buren Interchange 111 [Various Varosus 215 15 Galena Interchange Yuma Total Dirvelopnrent Icomirudicgtemlitif 79 I Lambs Canyon 91 Van Buren Hook Ramp ran 111 Rancho Mirage Various Total Construction 550O,ODO Final 5120. 5510, S25O, $552,000 53,9!=,400 $10,000. $250,000 5425,000 52,640,000 53,385,000 Final Design Final Design f Environmental mitigatian(Sertas Club) Right of Way Aoquisition(ncluding Sunrise Way) Telecavnmuti iNo of Riverside Crwn will enter its fourth year of operation.telecomrrtutinp are being evaluated to increase use of the Work -v nTler ;� dits aA number e . The � and its cost effectiveness. The budgeted expenditures of 5132.700 . --.. . ," "., ` .. '��'�'�.. �, _.,• _ will be partially offset by rental and lease revenues of $31,500.=>:5everal new employers were added in 94/95, and it is expected that [nand ., nthe i will expand into existing reserved in 95/96. improve the utilization rate, different rental bases will be negotiated into all nnewcleeases and any renewals to encourage better employee use. Instead of charging a flat monthly fee, fee :_ ___ _ _ _ _ to ho heed ..�: the amour -ft of time Used - --_, the 'o� �� F+�v1�vSeo by the employer, which provides incentive to have their employees telecommute on a regular basis. Commuter Exchange The Commuter Exchange, the Commission' mobile resource center for ridesharing information; is directly operated by the Commission through a consultant. The budget has bean increased ten percent (10%) to $93,850. It was developed from actual experience and new program goals including educational outreach to schools. Funds for materials geared to children and youth including inexpensive give e,,, F^ -N ggeligInattorlals have been budgeted. Special Project Development The budget proposes to establish funding for new project development for fiscal year 95/96 in the amount of $150,000. Possible projects under consideration include development and production of an Employee Transportation Coordinator Resource Directory as a tool for local employers containing employers data and trip reduction program statistics, cross-referenced vendor providers, and other useful information. Another possible project is the development and implementation of a Guaranteed Ride Horne Program which any employer could access. Further, Sonothriat:Ctkkmi arts is Additional detail on these programs and other commuter assistance projects can be found in the Appendix. The budgeted costs for the full range of commuter assistance projects including overhead and personnel costs are identified in the schedule below. Program Category Incentive Programs Club Ride Commuter Exchange Telecommuting Center Riversides Bicycle Commuter Coalition sus ,is Special Projects Other — Allocated Personnel & Overhead Total Budget $ ►; 0174,960 093,85' 0132 700 043 300 0150,000 14 ocess d 11 s -expected . Actual budget amount is currently $1,261,000 exclusive of overhead allocations and personnel costs. A listing of the ONWprograms *without duIlar0•.touitla is included in the Appendix. Local and Regional Programs Local Streets and Roads for the Measure A local streets and roads. The budgeted amount is set by formula established in the Measure A Local jurisdictions will receive $19,911,294 for local streets and roads maintenance, repair, and construction. Each jurisdiction's respective allocation is based on population and sales tax generated. FigareWeii to the right and on the next page show the respective allocations for each local jurisdiction. A number of jurisdictions in the Western County have entered into loan agreements with the Commission for advance acceleration of their Measure A streets and roads allocations. The annual principal and interest payments for these loans are deducted by the Commission from each city's respective disbursements based on the terms of the loan agreements. The participating jurisdictions are the cities of Canyon Lake, Corona, Murietta, and Perris. The Commission serves as the funding and compliance review agency g A 0 Western County Estimated Street & Road Allocation 0.1 0.2 0 3 M T TEM ECULA IRRIS M kiRR1ETA LAKE ELSINORE NOlitco BANNING SA JACINTO BEAU ONT CANYON LAKES CALIMESA ■ $3,892,284 ■ $3,561,585 '&$1,793,566 x$1,531,155 IN $810,154 In $749,530 ■ $445,837 ■ $408,477 ■ $376,018 ■ $353,039 ■ $329,337 ■ $294,363 111$154,253 Those Jurisdictions wkh loan arrangements wkh RCTC wil receive ® $147,651 an amount less than shown per the terns of the loan or a dva nce. ■ $142,074 15 There are three cities in the Coachella Valley which do not parti-cips tagia Mitigation Fee Program (TUMF). The Measure A allocations of those three cities,r nC ac elllla,,r T La nrfonn Quints, and Desert Hot Springs are remitted to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) in lieu of the TUMF. Total Measure A funding under the local streets and roads programs to be received by CVAG is $610,483. The Coachella Valley has a discretionary five percent of their sales tax revenues that may be allocated for either streets and roads or transit as determined by CVAG. For the 1995/96 fiscal year , CVAG has allocated that five percent to transit. That decision is reflected in the Commission's 1995/96 Daft Budget. 1 _ Coachella Valley 1, et j& goad abcaton O 0.05 0.1 0.15 02 RANcHOIAIRAGE i f LAIQUJNTA I DESERT HOT SPRINGS COACHELLA INDIAN WELLS 1 Caachela, Dysart Hot Springs, and La Qum elocution$ are remitted to the Coachella VaIey Assoc. of Govts. 0.25 ■ $1,054,832 ■ $938,774 ■ $689,283 x$633,157 ▪ $608,875 ® $369,703 $279,438 IN $166,228 •$164,817 !$115,524 The Palo Verde Valley Area is divided proportionately .between the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside based on population and sales tax generated as shown in the chart below. Palo Verde Valley Estimated Street & Road AIocalion BLYTI-E RNERSCE COUNTY *171,133 (24.2%) Regioo&I Anode/ The Coachella Valley Association of Governments has been designated as the body to administer the Regional Arterial Program. Budgeted amount of $27,707,919 has been obtained from CVAG. Their estimates are developed based on input from the various local jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley.-::; Additional information can be obtained from CVAG on the regional arterial program. 16 Non Measure A Programs NON MEASURE A PROGRAMS Transportation Planning and Programring The restructuring occurring in both state and federal transportation departments (for a discussion of the restructuring see Highway Project Implementation), makes it difficult to predict how the Commission's existing processes and programs may be impacted. With this as an overriding condition the anticipated work effort will be concentrated on the Commission's traditional activities outside of Measure A. Transportation Planning The Commission's role in regional decision making and planning during next year will involve working with local, regional, state and federal agencies to ensure local agency (s) project (s)are included in the federally approved Regional Transportation Improvement Program -(RTIP). Information —will be shared with other agencies in the regional discussions on air quality and RTIP conformity. Being a participant in this process will enable the Commission to continue to be a resource to local agencies by facilitating the exchange of information on the evolving state and federal transportation arena. As the designated Congestion Management Agency for the County of Riverside, the Commission administers and updates the state mandated Congestion Management Progra £ :. The Commission provides staff support aalunki consulting support for this responsibility. The draft 1995/96 budget includes $30,000 for the services of a congestion management consulting firm. agencies are supported by the Commission in performing short range transit planning functions, such as the Western Riverside Short Range Transit Plan Committee and the SCRRA Technical Advisory Committee. Staff support is also provided to the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee which makes recommendations to the Commission on transit planning issues including coordination of social service transportation issues. During the 1995/96 fiscal year, the Commission will conduct unmet needs hearings; develop, review and approve annual Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP); and allocate transit funding resources. Transit funding includes local transportation and state transit assistance funds under the state Transportation Development Act (TDA), and various Federal Transit Administration 0sourcesas well. Transportation Programming There are a number of federal and state funding sources that are programmed by the Commission. Coordination of the annual Transit Capital Improvement project submittal to Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission must be done through the Commission. Annually Commission staff administers bicycle and pedestrian funds made available through TDA funding sources and selects eligible projects which meet established criteria. TrEirteijiirtiitiOri planning funds are also disbursed by the Commission after a call for projects and an eligibility screening process. Federal funds allocated to various agencies under ISTEA must be approved by the Commission prior to submittal to the state. Those funds include STP discretionary and Congestion and Air Quality Mitigation funds, and the Transportation Enhancement Activities program (TEA). As with the bicycle and pedestrian funds, projects are ranked and selected based on meeting eligibility standards. These activities are carried out with the staff supported involvement of the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee. The Table on the following page details how Commission resources will be expended for the transportation planning and programming activities in fiscal year 1995/96. Commuter Rail Operations and Support The commuter rail program was made possible by the Measure A sales tax. sales tax capital or ;sitivr, fo, art • : r s r r.ce, thvr operations. ``2 operations. The most exciting development will be the opening of the Riverside to Irvine commuter rail line. It is projected that the Riverside to Irvine line ridership will average 1684 daily passengers. 17 :IRCPC PLANNING FUNDS FY 95196 AGENCY PROJECT TYPE/CATEGORY LTF LOCAL LTF-RCTC TOTAL LTF AIR Q17ALTIY 2 RCTC WRCOG AIR QUALITY AIR QUALITY 140.000 541.156 3 RCTC , SCAQMD PM10I%CHDIICAL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM TOTAL AIR QUALITY 'CONGEST/ON MMLA1 TYSOGRAlli::: i: :: 520,000 Sf0A0 3 X0 336 510;000 000 541.136 3181.16E 4 WRCOG CMP TECHNICAL ASST TANCE 550.000 5 RCTC CONaram N MAMA[ ,R TOTAL CONGESSTION MANAGEMENT PROGIR.A16 MAO 548.583 -:33%000 -348.383 7.DCAL PROGRAMMIING FUNDS (iinERAL) 6 RCTC CMAQ/STP 7 IRCTC IFTA 1 WRCOG TOTAL FEDERAL PROGRAMMING REG1ONAL-PLAN11gR4fi SCAG PLAN 11. LEAga 1'ATION 336,504 120327 336.504 •520,72/ SO 557,231 357,231 375.000 9 10 RCTC RCTC TRANSPORTATION alHANCEMENT ACTIVIIIEStr&A) SITIVT P 11 12 13 RCTC WRCOG RCTC SHORT RANGE TRANS[f PLAN LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM REGIONAL PLANS REVIEW TOTAL REGIONAL PLANNING 537.000 5112.800 312.679 331,816 580,571 516,258 $141,280 375,000 112,629 .131;115 7! 337.000 4.16;2S8 5231.210 14 15 JWRCOG 16 )CVAG 17IRCTC WRCOG 18 191 RCTC RCTC r MARCH AIR FORCE BASE ORCULATION STUDY CAJALCO CORRIDOR STUDY PROJECT 2020 :RIV COUNTY OFF OF ED. 0IS CONTRACT TOTAL SUB,REGIONAL PLANNING STATE PROGRAMMING TDA PROGRAMMING STA PROGRAMMING $6.497 3106.536 • 315,000 3138,013 TOTAL STATE PROGRAMMING SO SO 316,448 34,354 520,002 36,497 SO 1106,536 513,000 slu,4n1 116,441 34,54 620.801 COITITGENCY 20 I RCTC SPECIAL STUDIES OTHER 335.339 535,339 2] RCTC PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING 1 FY MS K TOTALS • Additional information to be obtained from CVAG. NOTE: Admen strun a finds not included. 529.109 3150,033 f' 3173,5,00 524109 . :ST23$131 By the end of fiscal year 1995/96 the Commission will provide the funding for two rail lines served by four stations. Total operating subsidy to the SCRRA is projected to be $2,580,000. An additional $160,100 has been budgeted to cover maintenance of track along the Riverside to Los Angeles line. The Commission is unique among the transportation commissions for its decision to own, operate_ And manage commuter mg!! stations. Tha r ' uparraujIQ budget for the four stations (two existing and two to be constructed) includes $240,000 for security, $103,880 for maintenance (Iandsca in vandalism), and $90,370 for utilities and other services. p g, graffiti removal, Commuter rail is supported by a number of consultants and staffing resources. Those support costs budgeted are *75,000 for legal services, 834,293 for personnel salary and fringes, and *175,000 for rail consulting services. The table on the ne.ct page 20 details the estimated cost for each commuter rail station. The costs were developed based on 94/95 actual amounts from the existing rail stations projected to year end. - MOTORIST ASSISTANCE The motorist assistance programs are prime examples of the Commission's commitment to approach freeway congestion and traffic flow disruption with a number of different solutions. The Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) and the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) are designed to furnish motorists with individual assistance while stranded on the county's freeway system. Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies The Commission's callbox system has in place 1,091 phones covering 534 miles within the county. It is expected that the system will generate 88,000 calls and approximately 17,500 commuters will be provided with assistance ranging from changing flat tires to providing a gallon of gas. To maintain this system the Commission expects to expend 8305,960 for operations, and another $343,971 for maintenance. Freeway Service Patrol The Freeway Service Patrol has proven to be highly successful, not to mention immensely popular with commuters. There is some uncertainty, however, that the state will budget funds to continue this program. While SAFE funds approximately twenty total program expenditures, the remaining eighty O percent 1f the s te the fails to fund this program, it is unlikely that the ommissionwi l contied by the state. t nue the FSP program. Total expenditures are projected to be $735,500 for fiscal year 95/96. Intelligent Transportation System An exciting new endeavor funded in the 95/96 budget is the development of an Inland Empire intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Strategic Deployment Plan (formerly known as Intelligent Vehicle Highway System or (VHS). The Commission will receive a grant of $450,000 to manage the project. This is a coordination effort involving San Bernardino Associated Governments and Caltrans local district office and the Caltrans Office of New Technology. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT With the acquisition of hiohwau and rail right of way, the Commission has become a substantial landowner. With no significant acquisitions planned in the 95/96 fiscal year, the Commission owns over 5,000,000 square feet of real property in the County of Riverside. While other transportation commissions have shifted this responsibility to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), the Commission has elected to manage its properties. The administration and maintenance functions associated with property management have bean assigned to Finance and Accounting. Development opportunities are administered by the Executive Director under the direction of the Commission. Lease and rental income from the various properties are expected to generate approximately *200,000 to cover maintenance costs, personnel expenditures, and engineering and legal fees. 19 MISSION AND GOAL STATEMENTS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION Mission Statement Cord the actiritries of a minimal staff cornplerneraed with consultants so as to effectuate sound transportation policies and delivery of capital programs consistent with Commission direction, Program Description The program for administration includes executive management, office management, and community relations. The Executive Director is responsible for the day to day operation of the Commission. The Clerk of the Board performs a number of administrative responsibilities to assist the Executive Director including equipment and office supplies procurement_, functional operation of Commission headquarters, agenda preparation, and human resources , All of the Commission's non accounting clerical support is included in this program area. Program Costs: Staffing Operating Expenditures Projects Other Direct Cost Total Program Goals: 24 1994/95 Revised Budget $275,542 €80,312 R4.4S a'AAD +1 D❑ 1995/96 Draft Dollar Budget Changes 86,447 =5,135 0 105,000 JOEfi Percentasie Changes 7.6% 4% 24.5% Implement and maintain a well documented employee appraisal process which provides clear, understandable, and measurable performance criteria for all employees. Ensure that Commission policy direction is received and documented prior to inflating or implementing specific action plans. Develop a program which promotes high visibility of the Commission within the community especially as it relates to significant accomplishments achieved through Measure A or other funding sources controlled or administered by the Commission. While maintaining a small staff, promote its effectiveness by improving and developing staff skills, using state of the art working tools , and fostering an environment that encourages and rewards team effort. Improve and maintain communications with other agencies to heighten their awareness of the role of the Commission and its impact on those agencies and their co endeavor to ensure that the goals and objectives of the Commission's nstidueare acheived. Program are Significant expenditure and staffing changes None Sing Summary: Performance/Woridoad indicators: Survey Commissioners on quality and timeliness of agendas. Record of staff training and development. Auditor review of performance appraisal procedures. Opinion survey of county residents on perception of Commission and its accomplishments. Number of marketing events and favorable newspaper coverage. Annual review with Chairperson on Commission directives(as documented in agenda minutes) and how achieved. 25 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS Mission Statement 7b ensure the aoars: of the ennui* adopted le9isiathre program and provide effective communications with representabVes Assembly, other state grad local s organizations in s and the � to further the goals orate Commission, including air quality end congestion managenura Program Desciption. pst,rptioni The Commission must interact with a number of local, regional, and state agencies on a continual basis. Relationships with other agencies is key to a coordinated approach to transportation issues including congestion relief and air quality attainment. Program Coats: Staffing Operating Expenditures Projects Other Direct Costs Total Program Goals: 1994/95 1995/96 Revised ra Dollar Percentage Budget Budeet Chaneee, Changes 5140,020 44,733 46,650 0 0 46,000 46,000 5230,753 • 1,917 4.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% izug Protect current funding levels for transportation programs including CTC S77P allocations, state ballot measures, TDA and TDP, and state4ocal partnership matching. Maximize flexibility in the use of existing transportation revenues by supporting legislation allowing gas tax revenues to be used for congestion relief projects, telecommuting, and park -n -ride; development of administrative policies that provide credit for accelerated S77P ROW purchases; to finance Congestion Management programs; to exempt projects delayed by unanticipated SE1R from being reprogrammed in STIP process. Support increases in transportation revenues and funding sources which enhance the County's ability to implement its transportation plans. z% Take appropriate steps to meet state and federal clean air standards. but ensure the practical validity of regulatory requirements in achieving air quality conformity. Streamline administrative and regigato y ,,...,.e....e.. Significant expenditure and staffing changes None Staffing Summary; 1..00 .12 38 Performance/Workload indicators; a 21 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING Mission Statement Soak Mincing altunathsa that complainant the Cornmission'strategic *action. Safeguard tha Commission" awaits by maintaining and print sisal controls In animating, accounting, budgating and martial reporting including ongoing d►sclvsan to al irisarestpatties. Program Description Finance and Accounting activities include investing the Commissions cash resources, planning financing endeavors and subsequent maintenance of legal and regulatory requirements with respect to finanaingsfinarices. Fiscal accountability involves receiving all funds due the Commission and payment of all Commission obligations, general ledger accounting, and regular reporting of the Commission fiscal results. Budget preparation and monitoring is another fundion performed by Finance and Accounting. Program Costs: Staffing Operating Projects Other Direct Costs Total Program Goals: 1995/96 1995/96 Revised Draft Dollar Percentage Budget Budget Changes Changes 5128,053 5156;4 _ 42,757 52,399 9,642 22.6% 0 0 0 0.0% Slit ;71 S1O lflll a571) -1.7% 5689,381 Review the Commission' team of underwriters and develop a Request for Proposal for selection of the team that will assist with future debt issuances. Protect the Commissions cash resources by regular monitoring of investment practices of any entity with which the Commission chooses to invest. Ensure that all interested parties receive full and regular disclosure from the Commission on its activities and financial status in accordance with the standards established by the Securities Exchange Commission(SEC). in addition to meeting SEC disclosure requirements, rating agencies and bankers to be regularly updated on the Commission, its strategic direction, and its capital and operating results. ZS Ensure the Commission com" s with Measure A laws and regulations as they relate to annual fiscal am compliance audits dose cooperation and coordnation with independent auo tors, Maintain budgetary control through regular monitoring of results and requiring accountability from departments for budget deviations. Significant expenditure and staffing changes None Staffing Summary: :92 :40 72 Full; Tr A Performance/Workload indicators: Monthly agenda reports on Commission investments. Quarterly financial reporting to the Commission. Written report to the Commission on rating agency discussions. Certificate of Achievement from the Govemment Finance Officers Association. Submission of 95/96 Budget to GFOA for suggestions on presentation improvements. •a RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMUTER RAIL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION Mission Statement 7b wadi i planning design andimpismonlation of tail stweik*. The Commuter Rail program includes development of short and long range transit plans; identificationlpursuit of funding to underwrite the cost of implementing commuter rail improvements leading to service implementation; and implementation of rail capital improvements, including but not limited to, purchase of equipment, construction of stations, and construction of redline improvements. Program Costs: Staffing Operating Projects Other Direct Costs Total Program Goals: 1994/95 Revised Budget $23,672 8,322 5,700,818 e $5,732,812 1995/96 Draft Dollar Percentage Budaet Changes Changes 11,497 9,529,964 e 3,175 3,829,146 Complete trackage improvements through Santa Fe, and administer core station and layover facility projects to support implementation of Riverside/Orange County services . • Pursue implementation of service on the San Jacinto Branch line based on the results of the San JociintoJtnfo Branch Line study and Commission direction. Continue efforts to involve appropriate parties, including the adjacent communities and local jurisdictions in planning and development of additional rail stations, Continue to exert leadership in the evolving and expanding SCRRA (Metrolink) regional commuter rail system. .5% 38.1% 0% 67.0% Significant expenditure and staffing changes Capital contributions to the SCRRA include $2,500,000 to pay Santa Fe construction inflation costs(Note: the Commission approved $7.7 million in total, but it is expected that $5.2 million will be paid by the state. The budget will be revised if it becomes necessary for the Commission to advance €u dg the entire amount). Station and other construction costs total $5,968,500, an increase of fifty-one percent(51 %) over 1994/95 Revised Budget. The increase is primarily for ;onstruction of the La Sierra and West Corona rail stations. 31 Staffing Summary: 9 Performance/Workload indicators: Opening of the Riverside/Orange County line in fall of 95. Completion of construction of the La Sierra and West Corona rail stations, 32. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HIGHWAY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Mission Statement lb ensure that octal prgirds are anvironmanfaily.Cc.ptabM, tochnicelb. sound and aillciantt' **mid in a manner that is and cost elWlw. Program Description Advance preparation must the completed prior to acquisition of right of way and construction of major projects. Advance preparation includes environmental studies, preliminary engineering, and final design. Program Coats: Staffing Operating Expenditures Projects Other Direct Costs Total Program Goals: • 1994/95 1995/96 Revised D Budket Bndrat S211,817 --worm 315,214 315,277 3,947,390 n $4,474,421 Dollar Changes 63 • Percentage Chairs! 0.0% n (. Continue to work towards completion of highway planning, environmental, and engineering studies to create sheff ready Measure A identified projects to enable rapid implementation as funding permits. Achieve reasonable resolution of outstanding project scope and cost issues with Caltrans through the environmental process. Maintain good management control jointly with and Caltrans. Significant expenditure and staffing changes None 33 Staffing Summary: Performance/Workload indicators: Number of contracts managed by Resolution of scope and cost Issues with Calhans. Number of shelf ready projects completed or in process. 34 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HIGHWAY PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Mission Statement To keep the Commission"* compact with the voters of Riverdale County by emigrating the planning, programming, and implementation of pr to and programs in the Measure A Danspostation improvement Plan to the extent that ids are enable.. Program Description Accelerated delivery of capital improvements to major highways throughout the County of Riverside. Those improvements include additional lane capacity, more efficient interchanges, larger bridges, and traffic control measures such as ramp metering. The Commission will continue protective acquisition of highway rights of way as funds permit. Program Costs: Staffing Operating Projects , Other Direct Costs RAWL Total Program Goals: 1994195 Revised Budget $58,875 16,645 25,436,655 .Ini 116 S25,815,291 • 1995196 Draft Budeet gam 71(,(1(3(1 Dollar Changes Perseatate assure! raw -30.7% atiti Continue prudent rights of way protection and preservation activities for Measure A projects to control long range project costs and project feasibility. Work strategically with Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission and pursue increased state and federal funding participation in light of limited Measure A receipts, to expedite improvements on the identified system. Build upon and further sbengthen the partnership with Caltrans toward timely delivery of identified Measure A and S77P projects. To the extent permitted by law, pursue reasonable involvement of local firms and minority and women business enterprises in Measure contract work. Provide effective communication of project ' `'` P 1 goals, objectives, and progress to p board members, public, local agencies, Caltrans, and FHWA. 35 Significant expenditure and staffing changes Highway consbuction expendtures reflect the c.�..,..�:��.:....�_ �__:_:__ projects on a -- --•••••••Y�•�r• � .+v�as�url used on limited resources to complete Pay as you go basis. The only budgeted construction dollars in the Western County completion of Lamb's Canyon(Route 79) , limited construction at the Van Buren interchange in the City of �e Riverside, and initial construction projects on Route 111 in the Coachella Valley. Staffing Summary: 4 .58 Wilater***0 Performance/Workload indicators: Completion of construction on Route 79, Lamb's Canyon. Completion of soundwall mitigation on Route 91. Completion of the Van Buren hook ramp. Start of construction projects along Route 111. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION Mission Statement 'lb enhance transportation options br commuters, maniocs and persons with disabilities through innovation and community h*rne= Program Description Often characterized as the "soft" programs of Measure A, these programs provide a valuable service to the community. Ridesharing is encouraged and promoted through various incentive and educational programs which provide a broad array of services to commuters and employers in a coontnated effort to reduce highway congestion and improve air quality. Substantial support is furnished to social service and public transit agencies which serve special and unique needs of the seniors and persons with disabilities. Program Costs: Staffing Operating Expenditures Projects Other Direct Costs Total Program Goals: 1994/95 Revised B_ diet 5153,515 55,969 3,771,242 1(046? 54,017,588 1.995!96 Draft Budget 57,926 ? 5 non Dollar Percentage Chansed C7sanees Commuter Assistance Continue management and assessment of the telecommuting demonstration program and its effectiveness as a transportation control measure. -32.2% Reduce single occupant commute trips through rideshare incentive and educational programs that support all alternate modes of transportation including related facilityrtechnology improvements. Provide Measure A Specialized Transit Funds to support services which will increase mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities, and the truly needy. Continue to provide staffresources to assist in the coordination of transit services. 57 Work with Ca!trans and social service agencies to develop a competitive program for Federal Transit Assistance (FTA) Section 16 program, Provide timely information le pyblit and support public; -- .---•-- ....., vii�}+ana Nuunc relations activities of Measure A. Significant expenditure and staffing charges None Staffing Summary: .04 1:13 :31 .45 Perfonnance/Workload indicators: Commuter Assistance Number of single occupant commute trips reduced Number of Club Ride memberships and business discount partnerships. Utilization rate of the Te/ecommuting ' Number of public/commuters served by Commuter Exchange. Seniors and Persons With Disabilities Number of specialized transportation grants. Establishment of Section 16 compete program. Amount of specialized transportation grant funds disbursed for improved mobility. Completion of Fiscal Year 1996/97 Measure A Specialized Transit Call for Projects. 38 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS Mission Statement Promote lac& gammon tprjects byAh ► /Liming and pro ding advanced funding under astabkarad criteria, Program Description The Riverside County Transportation Commission provides funding to local igand subregional agencies for maintenance and construction of local streets and mads as well as major capital improvements to area arterials. The Commission provides oversight, ensuring that funds are spent on eligible projects and in compliance with local and state regulations. For jurisdictions which desire to accelerate their programs, the Commission provides financing under its bonding authority. Program Casts 1994/95 1995/96 Revised Digit ] Ia1 Percentire Budret Budret Chances Changes Staffing 6 0 0 0 0.0% Operating Expenditures Q 0 0 0 0.0% Projects :,,.: -�.h. , 38,034,438 47,409,134 9,374,696 24.6% Other Direct Costs _ D n 0 Total ___'_._: S38,034,438 547,409,134 $9,374,696 24.6% Program Goals: Provide timely allocation of funds to local governments for eligible projects funded through Measure A. Assure financial accountability for Measure A funded projects through ongoing reviews and annual audits. Assure public recognition of Measure A contributions toward local projects by requiring local agencies to use Measure A signs. Expand debt financing opportunities for local government use of Measure A funding for eligible projects to the extent funding does not impact other programs and is financially feasible and prudent 39 Significant expenditure and staffing changes The Coachella Valley is accelerating its pace of project completion. Budgeted expenditures for regional arterial have increased 43.1% to $27,497,840 from the 94/95 level of $19,214,690. Staffing Summary: (To be provided) Performance/Workload indicators: 100% signs on all Measure A local streets end roads projects. Complete internal audit of fifty percent of local jurisdictions. Coordinate with independent audtors to attempt to complete all audits by state mandated deadline. perpent ..... ....... +0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING Mission Statement To turf leader** hi provld ig a sound planning baala fbr transpar#atlon polidoo and programs ms and to *chime maximum Winged return of todetal and state rssouress on boat inwshnes t Program Description The Commission is responsible for short range transportation planning and programming. Planning includes the development of the county wide short range transit plan including caoordJnation and input to long range transportation planning efforts at the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and the Western Riverside Council of Governments. RCTC is the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Riverside County and is responsible for developing and maintaining the Congestion Management Program (CMP). Programming includes program development, review and approval of fundingpmgrams/projeds to be incorporated into the county wide Transportation Improvement Plan (77P). The funding programs RCTC has responsibility for include: Measure A programs/projects, Local Transportation Funds (L TF), State Transit Assistance (STA), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ), Federal Congestion Relief (FCR), and Federal Transit Assistance (FTA Sections 9,16,18). Program Costs: Staffing Operating Expenditures - « F3 - Projects Other Direct Costs �F . .. Total Program Goals: 1994/95 Revised Budget $310,790 120,573 1,803,929 1741R7 $2,359,679 1995/96 Draft Dollar Peraenta¢e Budget Changes Changes 122,485 1,912 1.6% 1,573,500 (230,429) 55 MD (69 'i87)_ -55.8% f400 k100.0) ICA Contribute toward the completion of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan as principal input to regional transportation and air quality planning process and local Congestion Management Program. Build upon relationship with sub regional planning ' -__ " and other affected agencies to coordinate long range planning with the Commission's responsibilities. Seek stronger role for county transportation agencies in the broader regional transportation and air quality programs of the Southem California Association of Governments and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 42. Ensure involvement of affected local agencies in the air quality conformity arena by seeking input and maintaining regular lines of communication. Continue support for applying the recommendations of the Barton-Aschman study t+o comprehensively review transit planning, resource allocation, and implementation policies requirements, including appropriate coordination of commuter rail, inter -county and inter -city bus, local bus and paratransit, and social service transportation services. Work strategically with Callrans, California Transportation Commission, and other commissions to provide maximum programming of projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program. Work with = `. :. . -, ; <:_ . ��::; - :_ -- , r :. .��u� �Y �.�.�::-: CVAG, and local a the Traffic Impact Analysis process of the -Congestion. - --_-`. -.e`. "` agencies to implement Msna9emen#Program. Significant expenditure and staffing changes None Staffing Summary; 80 : 1.69 Semo' 128 ?tart 95 A1fo 4.02 Fun :Time ;Ev Performance/Workload indicators: Programming of projects in the STIP. Completion of Comprehensive Transportation Improvement Plan. Complete Fiscal Year 1995-96 and 96-97 Call for projects and programming of STP, STP Discretionary and CMAQ Complete rrcC AL-Y-g4R°�: , _: _�- 1994.95 SB 821 Call for projects and claims adrninisfratian. Compete in the Fiscal Year 1995-96 statewide call for TCI funds. Work with WRCOG in purposes. tachnical support for traffic impact analysis for CMP 4.3 Complete annual update of Countywide Short Range Transit Plans. Continued involvement in the air quality arena to facilitate the implementation of transportation projects (SCAG, SCAQMD, CARE, EPA, FHWA, FTA). Provide timely processing of RTIP amendments. Completion of Fiscal Year 1996-97 State Trans' t Assistance Call forprojects. Continue support for LTF claims administration. 4+ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMUTER RAIL OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT Mission Statement PIrMde Riverside County commuters w,* an alorrioitvo to Mg _ commuloo bbyrnvr p M a commuter ra * join* with the =RA dean, socuro, and co Program Description The Commission provides funding and technical assistance (via staff participation in the SCRRA Technical Advisory Committee) t the-SCRRA- far the operation of a commuter rail system in Southern California. Currently there is one line, between Riverside and Los Angeles which serves Riverside County commuters. An additional line will be opened in the fall between Riverside and Orange County. The Commission by the fall will directly operate four rail stations including security and maintenance, and arranging for station amenities. The counsel, and va ous rail 4 rng capital implementation is supported by Commission slaty legal Program Costa Staffing Operating Expenditures Projects Other Direct Costs . Total Program Goals: Arttah ImitOt 1994/95 1995/96 Revised Draft Budget Budget Dollar C8�°lam 540,345 WOMISE w,,... 12,484 11,939 (545) 2,364,200 3,430,100 1,065,900 119 57R 7 flf?t} (4.4 57R) 52,536,607 ,, Pere_v_guaE Cla usLs -4.4% 40.0% Cooperatively with the SCRRA maintain a commuter rail system which is clean, secure, and convenient Expand ancillary services offered to commuters at the Co.,.,missior;'s rail stations. Work with the SCRRA to develop system wide criteria for the types of ancillary services to be offered at commuter rail stations. Support efforts to encourage all SCRRA members to provide a consistent level of service at rail stations throughout the system. Seek to establish the SCRRA as a body independent of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Promote expanded ridership on existing and new lines. 45 Closely work with : , , --.- ' on devising a marketing strategy to improve the bi--directional flow of commuter rail traffic from Los Angeles to Riverside County. Significant expenditure and staffing changes With the opening of the Riverside to Irvine commuter rail line, the operating subsidy to the SCRRA has increased S1,080,000 for 1995/96. Staffing Summary: 41 A r19 . ..., :39 Performance/Workload indicators: Ten percent ridership increase on existing lines. Ancillary services offered at rail stations. Fare box recovery ratio from 30% to 35% Increase in bi-directional traffic from Los Angeles County. 4( RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MOTORIST ASSISTANCE 1 Mission Statement ro improve Wily andcwr r� to gists rot* experience mechanical oftikuity on the Program Description The Service Authority For Freeway Emergencies is 40 call box system that allows motorists to call for assistance in the event of a mechanical breakdown on the freeway_ Addlionally, the Freeway Service Patrol actually will help motorists of the freeway by towing, changing tires, providing gasoline. Program Costs: Staffing Operating Expenditures Projects Other Direct Costs Total Program Goals: 1994/95 Revised Budget $62,721 28,089 1,248,580 149 979 $1,489,319 1995/96 Dry Budget 28,300 frvi Dollar Changes 211 Pereeatag! Changes 0.8% Work closely with consultants to monitor the performance of the callbox system. Along with state and federal agencies support the study and development of an intelligent Transportation System. Continue the Freeway Service Patrol as long as state funding levels do not change. Explore cost effective a y; to provide access to persons with (*abilities. Sign ficant expenditure and staffing changes No callbox installations arc planned for Fiscal Year 1995/96. SAFE is providing Transportation System(ITS) for the Inland Empirc. The Commission is receiving a state manageto ithisstudy study of the Intelligent in the amount amount of $450,000. 47 Staffing Summary: 17 *da. 0-54 Performance/Workload indicators: 4S RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT i Mission Statement To manage propedges Ih a oust Often manner wLh awareness ofpotenNal *commit bens* to be de►tved from the sage, lMase, or development of Commission assets. Program Description A number of properties have been acquired by the Commission in the course of project implementation. Those properties have to be managed, accounted for, and potentially converted to a revenue stream. Program Costs_ Staffing Operating Expenditures Projects Other Direct Costs Total Program Goals: Through jazi 1994/95 - 1995/96 Revised Draft Dollar Pr Budget ntAge Budget Chs�_ Changes S84,389 OM iirtwo .... .. 42,653 i' 45,324 2,671 6.3% 130,000 130,000 0 o.o% L. 75,OLL .-17-,11.3_ S294,899 Weft 98.1% Sfit7Aut 'AM Establish contacts with commercial real estate brokers to generate leads for potential joint development projects for the Commission's excess properties. Establish community participation, involvement, and trust in areas impacted by a Commission Proposed joint development venture. Increase existing sources of property management revenues th ufi updated valuation of licenses and leases. Ensure timely mailing of billings and collection of fees and payments. Promptly respond to and resolve property maintenance operational issues. Cultivate and maintain a working relationship with affected railroads for ongoing rail property issues requiring their participation. 49 Significant expenditure and staffing changes None Staffing Summary: Corer ro T Performance/Workload indicators: 50 PROGRAM BUDGET Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1996 Sales Tax Rovenues4dessura.A Sales Tax Revenues —Non Measure A STA TransltAllocation.. SAFE User Fees Reimbursements Other Revenue interest Income TOTAL REVENUES: DCPEND/TURES: MANAGEMENT .SERV/CES: Administration intergovernmental Programs Finance end Accounting TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES MEASURE A PROGRAMS: Commuter Rail Project Development and Implementation Highway Project Development Highway Project Implementation Special Transportation Programs Local and Regional Programs TOTAL MEASURE A PROGRAM NON MEASURE A PROGRAMS Transportation Planning and Programming Commuter Rail Operations and Support Motorist Assistance Property Management TOTAL NON MEASUE A PROGRAMS Contingency Total Expenditures Excess(DeficlencyJot Revenues Over Other Financing Sources(Uses): Operating Transfers Commercial Paper Net Financing Sources(Uses) Excess(Deficiency )of Revenues Over Expenditures 'or Year Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 49,616;993 54525,135 3,867,000 ,:4747,000 1220,172 1,996348 1,000,000 1;000,000 5,471,070 7;737,500 x.axt »x 4553,237 449.1,418 4 s1t _ 41-0:12.545 2170.!,55 89464717 ::77;173,856 473.1,112 4474420 25815,291 407,588 38.0!34,[39 76074 5550 2,359,680 2,536,607 1,469,318 .22AD26 4680, 1, 754000 0 0.0'11 06.115.386 4 2,179,142 �11lG 1,:97,000 440% 76176 4.11% 0 0.0% 2,266,430 41.4% (60,519) -1,3%, 158.410 21.114 7,714139 11.1% (18,401,871) " ti 4-,::a b (2435.1,181) f7401a71# 212.02/2012 141221IINI 13;856,116) (12010,731) (7;8 545) 881 [x.0471 s�LT�fr (1155,545) 211.5% (22;256,857) .nxr ial rb,� '♦137,518,004 116,261,147 (22,256,857) -18.279 115,261;147 fi-:; W, ....v ..,.. __ Jam: 5Z Personnel Salary a Fringe: Directcr Senior. Staff Analyst .. Clerk of the Board Total Personnel Salary 8 Fringe Benefits Overhead Allocation Projects: 37136 Cali Box Maintenance. 37137 Cell boxhrstaliaticui .37136 Cali Bo. Operation Freeway Service Par 43021 Consultants/Managwnent 43170 Highway 43171 Right-OAWay 43173 Speclla/zed Transportation . 43175 Commuter 43176 Commuter Raii 43176 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Constnicdon 43181 Commuter Ralf:Engineering 43183 Commuter Rail Construction 43184 Park-N-R/de 48185 R.O.W. SupportH/ghway Total Projects Other Direct Cost: 43051 Professional Service.00er 43101 Bond Counsel (Debt Financing) 43104 Financial Advisory Services 43158 Legislative: Advocate 43166 Audit Services 43201 Professional Svcs:,Adryn. 43701 Legal Services TotalOtherDlree:t Cost Total Administration fINEW • 152,834 22,087 104 441 274542 • = -a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4135 0 • :0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 O o a O t1 O -.0 0 O - 0 O 20,000 A 0 O 0 O o O 0 O 0 84;345 85,000 1'345 !04000 440799 lr 0 0 0 0 0 0 14000 104 24;55 53 Personnel Salary & Fringe: Assistant Director-PParathip Assistant Dirrmr Senior Staff Analyst Senior Staff Analyst Total Personnel:Salary:A Fringe Benefits Overhead Allocation 37136 Call Box Maintenance 37137 Call Box Installation 37138 Call Box Operation Freeway Service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 Right -01 43173 Specilaized Transportation 43175 Commuter Assistance 43176 Commuter Rail 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Rail Engineering 43183 Commuter Rall Construction 43184 Park -N -Ride 48185 R.O.W. SupportHlghway Total Protects Other Direct Cost 43051 Professional SerWce.Oyrp 43101 Bond Counsel (DebtFJnsndngj 43104 Financial Advisory: Services 43158 Legislative Advocate 43166 Audit Services 43201 Professional Svcs-Admin. 43701 Legal Services Total OtherDirect:Cost Total intergovernmental Programs 44950 0. 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O . 0 0 .0 0 o O .o O 0 0 0 0 a 0 48,000: 0 0 0 0. 0 0 48;000 46,000 44. tux -1;917 43% 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 -a -0 B .1- 0 46,000 - -40% 23°,753 "; ' :r.:::........................... : rx .A« 5+ -,, Personnel Salary Fringe: Na3R? Controller SrafAnalyst ll! Total Personnel Sdary 6 Fringe Benelba Overhead Allocation Projects: 37136 Cell Box Maintenance 37137 Call Box installation 37138 CaII. Box Operation Freeway Service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 isiyin- Of- Way 43173 Spec/18170d Transportation 43175 DemanderAsslstance 43176 Commuter Rap 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Rap Engineering 43183 Commuter Rail Construction 43184 Park-N-R/de 48185 R.O.W. Support Highway Total Projects Other Direct Cost 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Counsel (Debt Flnaneingj 43176 Commuter Rap 43104 Financial Advisory: Services 43158 Legislative Advocate 43166 Audit Services 43201 Professional Svcs,Adrnln. 43701 Legal Services ti N 124053 y54,42iV- 04101313 42,E '0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0• • .0 0: $. . 0 0 O 9.642 218% 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 60,000 44000 (70, 0000) 54000 50,000 0 O 0 0 115,000 130,000 1+.inOn 0 279,720 275,000 (4,720) .1.7% 0 0 0 13,651 15,000 1,149 8.336 518,571 510000 (8,67f) -1.7% 0 689,381 O .0 55 Personnel Salary & Fringe: Senior Staff Analyst Total Personnel Salary IL Fringe Benefits Overhead Allocation Projects: 37136 Cali Box Maintenance 37137 Call Box installation 37138 can Box :Ope nden Freeway Service Patrol 43021 Consuhanrsilanagarnent 43170 Highway 43171 Right-OFWay 43173 Speclleized Transportation 43175 Commuter Assistance 43176 Commuter Rail 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Rail Engineering 43182 Professional Services-CornmuterRall ROW 43183 Conwnuter Rail Construction 43184 Park-N-Rlde 48185 R.O.W. Support Highway Commuter Ran Capital Total Project* Other Direct Cost 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond :Counsel (Debt Financing) 43104 Financial Advisory: Services 43158 Legisiadve Advocate 43166 Audit Services 43201 Professional Svcs.-Admin. 43701 Legal Sewicaa Total Other Direct Cost • 72852 Intergovernmental Distributions Total Commuter Rail �aS;1it kF� tit :a to .t iffmn 24172 23,671 O 0 O 0 O 0 3,175 3841% 0 0 0 0 O 0 ,0 O 0 .. 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O -- .0 : . . .. 0 O r..O. 0 O :':.n-- 0 O 0 0 rte% - - 0 (539,000) -100.0% 1,215,000- (1,21d�000) •f000.014 2,096,818 4vel000 3871,052 114.1% O 0 0 O 0 0 1,854000 45444 1,711,414 100.07E 5,700,818 4521,11.4 3,179.146 17.1}0 O .0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 O 0 . .. 0 o 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 5,732,812 5p Personnel Salary 6 Fringe: Deputy Executive &&rector Senior Staff Analyst Staff Analyst /I Staff Analyst l Commission Suppo t.StalfforBechtel 7otz! Personnel Srleiy.B Fringe Benefits Overhead Allocation 37138 Call. Box Maintenance 37137 Call Box Installation 37138 Col! Box Operation Freeway service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 Right-0f:Way 43173 Specllab!ed Transportation 43175 Commuter Assistance 43178 Commuter Ball 43178 Highway Englneedn9 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Rs" Engineering 43183 Commuter Rail Construction 43184 Park -N -Ride 48185 Right of Way Support -Highway Interchanges -Preliminary Engineering Mre,rehartges-Finef DesiDn Total Projects Other Direct Cost: 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Counsel (Debt Flnane7ng) 43176 Conanuter Ralf 43104 Financial Advisory Sonnies* 43158 Leo'isletim Ad..oc 43166 Audit Services ^•`, 43201 Professional Svcs.-Admin. 43701 Legal Services Total Other Direct Cost 72852 Intergovernmental Distributions Total Measure A Project Development Wt4 .13,151a4 23,587 0 101718 ". t 1 _ _ • 211,817 315,214 214277 63 o O O D O O 0 1,364000 1.204000 (150,000) -r11 224000 150,000 .(75,51)) -3? 5 0. O 0 160,000 tfort42.3S0 60,000 O 652,000 552,000 TOCL014 O 2,150.000 2,150,000 3;947,390 4032;000 . 984,510 0 D 0 - :5 O n a O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 4474,421 57 Personnel:Salary:d Fringe: To us/ Personnel Salary & Fringe Benelfts Overhead Allocation Projects: 37136 37137 37138 43021 43170 43171 43173 43175 43176 43178 43179 43181 43183 43184 48185 Call Box Maintenance Cali Box Instal/Edon Calt Box Operation Freeway Service Patrol Consultants/Management Highway Right-OAWay Specllalzed Transportation ConenuterAssistance Commuter Raft Highway Engineering Highway Construction Commuter Rail Engineering Commuter Raiff Construction Park-N.Ride R.O.W. Support Highway Interchanges.Consbvcdon ROW Englneartng Total Projects Other Direct Cost 43051 43101 43104 43158 43166 43201 43701 Professional Service -Oder Bond Counsel (Commuter Rall) Financial Advisory: Services Legislative Advocate Audit Services Professional Svcs.-Admin. Legal Servlc.s Total OtherDIrect Cost 72852 intergovernmentalDisbibudons Total Measure A Pro/ect $mple nentatfon 14;446. 97;191 00,548 483.974 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O - 0 .0 2,444000 3,385, 0 SIMKO O 0 0 0 0 0 :o O . . . 0 0 22904973: 13,00 000 :(4544973) O 0 :0 O 0 ..0 52300 ::54200 ' 100) - -0 14000 ::50:000 0 290,000 208000 37;312 0 . . : . . . . :.. FR.3 38.774 -41071 --:754430155 10.;600;200 (46344' 4durx 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 253,116 303;111 0 64030 0 0 184(700 710;000 0 2£,815,291 w, ILM.1 :.'i'.ii' a a 0 0 0 0 X418} (83,.116) 7'% 0 xs 56 Kf1) i3 K Y" Personnel Salary & Fringe: AaslstantDirector-Planning . . Senior. Staff Analyst . . . Senior Staff Analyst Staff Analyst 1 Total Pel ,nf3e1 Salary .£ Fringe Benefits Overhead Allocation Projects: 37136 Call Box Maintenance 37137 Call Box Installation 37138 Call Box Operation Freeway Service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 Right-Ot Way 43173 Specllahed Transportation 43175 CommuterAssistance 43176 Commuter Rall 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Rall Engineering 43183 Commuter Rail Construction 43184 Park -N -Ride 48185 R.O.W. SupporHiyhway Total Projects Other Direct Cost: 43051 Professional Service -omen 43101 Band Counsel (Commuter Ralf) 43104 Financial Advisory Services 43158 Legislative A._w_.c a 43166 Audit Service's 43201 Profasslona/:Svcs.,Aafnin.: 43701 Legal Services Total OtherDint:Most 72852 intergovernmental Distributions Total Measure A Project implementation r::r:"y4 0 0 0 2,560,327 010415 . '11513 0 57,02. (11,593) 40.7% O 0 O 0 4 0 0 O 0 tJ 0 O 0 2,M000 69 Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits Overhead Allocation Projects: 37136 Call Box Maintenance 37137 Cell. Box installation 37138 Cell .Box :Operation Freeway: Service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 Right-ONWay 43172 Regional Arterial 43173 Specialized Transportation 43175 Commuter Assistance 43176 Commuter Rall 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Rail Engineering 43183 Commuter Rail Constriction 43184 Park -N -Ride 48185 R.O.W. Support Higitway Tote/ Projects Other Direct Cost: 43051 Professional Service.ONtp 43101 Bond Counsel (Commuter Rail) 43104 Financial Advisory Services 43158 Legislative Advocate 43166 Audit Services 43201 Professional Svcs-Admin. 43701 Legal Services Total Ot erDirect.Cost 72852 Intergovernmental Distributions Total Measure A Project implement ::on O O ;yp O -0 19,214890 aa,49ls4o 0 o D a 0 0 a tf 0 O Q 0 O o -- .0 a 0 0 n 0 0 a a 0- O D 0 O • .0 0 0 a 8,24150 411% 0 0 - 19,214800 2T 40T,l40 .#,284150 43.1% o 0 .- 0 O . . 0 . .. : o o 0 0 o 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 18,819, 748. 38,034438 19,D11,#94 1,0,1,548 5.835 47,409,134 9,374598 24.as 0D Personnel Salary & Fringe: Assistant Director Senior Staff Analyst Senior Staff Analyst Senior Staff Analyst Staff Analyst 111 Staff Analystll Staff Analyst / Total Petaonnei Salary 8Frtnge Bone fibs Overhead Allocation Projects: 37136 Cad Box Maintenance 37137 Call Boxinstal/aton 37138 Call Box Operation Freeway Service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 f//ghway 43171 Right-OfWay 43173 Specialized Transportation 43175 CommuterAsaistenp 43176 Commuter Rail 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Rail Engineering 43183 Commuter Rail Construction 43184 Park -N -Ride 48185 R.O.W. Support Highway Total Projects Other Direct Cost: 43051 Professlorug Seneca -Other 43101 Bond Counsel {Debt Financing) 43104 Financial Advisory Services 43158 Leals►.,ei/y.,, a a 43166 Audit Services 43201 Professional Svm,Ad rtln. 43701 Legal Services Total Other Direct Cart 72852 lnterpovernmerrtal Dfstrfbutions Total Transportation Planning and Programing 314866 •R � i . ........ .......... ,. .310,790 1426,139 1'200'000 712;000 0 0 ,12 12;37 1243117 377;790 44000 0 0 0 0 10,000 316,0100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122!,139) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (226,139) (87,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0387) (89,387) 290) -Cr" -1f -.2'359,679 Q+x Nre r 1,912 1I Personnel :Sarney:1 Fringe: Asslatrnt Director Senior Snell Analyst Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits Overhead Allocation 37136 Call Box Maintenance 37137 All: Box Inehdlatlon 37138 Call Box Operation Freeway Service Patrol 43021 ConsultarstsAHanageme+rt 43170 Highway 43171 RlBht•Ol:.�. 43173 Spec#airea"Transportation 43175 Commuter Assistance 43176 Cosomuter/tall 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Consnvetlon 43180 ConrmrterRallOperations 43181 Commuter Rail Engineering 43183 Commuter Rall Construction 43184 Park-N,Ride 48184 Professional Services-Rai/•Sopport Feasibility Set/dies . Total Projects Other Direct Cost 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond CounsN. (Debt Financing) 43176 Commuter Rail 43104 Financial Advisory SeMcea 43158 Logisladve Advocate 43166 Audit Services 43201 Professional Svcs.-Admin. 43701 Legal Services Total Other Di C-rskt 72852 Intergovernmental Distributions Total Commuter Rall iiry?',rra a:I: /1,03IP (545) 4::.. 0:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0' :::;: o O 0 0 175000 175,000 0 O Q 0 O 0 0 1,869„300 3.205,100 1.315;900 O 0 0 O 0" 0 O 0 0 60,000. 54000 0 254000 0 ` 12 54000) •10x0% 2,344 200 .7,434100 1,00ds000 45.1% -44% 89, 7% 64 Q' .:: . . .. : : (84000) -100:0% O 0 , . . 0 O Q 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 .. ., . . . 0 59.878 75000 15,422 119.578 78,000 (44L578) 47.3% 0 0 ❑ 2,535,607 me�,�0S0j � mow &z SafAnalyst I Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits Overhead Allocation Projects: 37136 all Box Maintenance: 37137 all Box installation 37138 all Box Operation 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 Right -Of -Way 43173 Specilatred Transportation 43175 Commuter Assistance 43176 Commuter Ralf 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 CommuterRall Engineering 43183 Commuter Rail Construction 43184 Park -N -Ride 48185 R.O.W. Support Highway 50115 Freeway Service Farah Towing .0000( Freeway Service Petrol-CHP )OOOOC Feasibility Studies Total Projects Other Direct Cost 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Counsel (Debt Financing) 43104 Financial Advisory services 43158 Legislative Advocate 43166 Amin Se -...:c _ 43201 Professional Svcs.-4dmin, 43701 Legal Services Total Other Direct post 72852 Intergovernmental Distribudons Total Service Authority For Freeway Emergencies/FSP Personnel Salary & Fringe: Assistant Director 5 Sta 1AnelyuHl. 39,373 rug r. :tae'r;• 16,933 Q,.3;.Z.74 • 14721 : 28,300 211 297,800 343,971 48,171 10,6% 61,500 0 (61,500) -x000% 282,760 305,960 23,180 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 .0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 573,500 811,447 42.942 33 000 43,133 14133 O n 1,248,580 " 1 139,525 0 0 n 0 0 10,404 1414,929 1,489, 3.19 73,732 0 0 6 0 0 *500 (85: ) 0 0 0 0 0 8,095 (57.6S7) ' 576 0 1D5 eraonnel Salary & Fringe: Executive.&rector. Controller Property Technician Total Personnel salary .£ Fringe Senate Overhead Allocation 37136 Call BoxMairtenenee 37137 Call Box installation 37138 Call Box:Operation Freeway.Service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 Right-OI.Way 43173 Speellaized Transportation 43175 Commuter Assistance 43176 ConanuterRall 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 H/ghway:Construcdon 43181 Commuter Ran Engineering 43183 Commuter Rail Construction 43184 Park -N -Ride 48184 Professional Servicea.Rall:Support 48185 Professional Serviosa.ROW:Support:H/ghway Total Projects Other Direct Cost 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Counsel (Debt F/nancing): 43176 Commuter Rall 43104 Financial Advisory Services 43158 Legislative Advocate 43166 Audit Services 43201 Professional Sr-ca.-Admin. 43701 Legal Services Tots! Other Direct Cost 72852 Intergovernmental Dletribudons J Total Service Autlror ty For Freeway Emergendea/FSP Immo- 2171 6.314 O 0 :0 0 O 0 0 .0 :0 :_0 0 0 :0 0 0 O 0 0 0. 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 u O 0 0 O 0 130,0X0 100,000 430.000) O 30 OW 3.0, 0 0 0 -B.. 0 0 32087 0 0 0 74000 75,000 0 0 0 0 130,000 0 o 0 O 0 -0 0 . .. 0 0 37,14 43.1% i8.1% 3Z -f43 a?4liL O 0 tior • se SERVICES AND SUPPLIES 30003 Accvuntirlg S*Woe, 30028 Equipment Maintenance - 30291 Office Lease 32101 Communication 32702 Mall Delivery/Postage 34107 Household 35101 Insurance 42101 Office Expense 43111 Commissioners per:Dlem 43602 Data Processing 44101 Publication i Notices 45107 R.nal/Lwae Copier 48101 Special pep, Wiens. 48130 Information/Publicity 48501 Training and Development 50101 Transportstion/Tawsi Total Services and Supplies FIXED ASSESTS 82101 Computer Equipment 82101 Office Furniture d improvements 82101 Office Equipment 62101 Communications Equipment 82101 Accounting System Total Fixed Assets TOTAL ALLOCATED OVERHEAD PERSONNEL SALARY 6 FRINGE Salaries and Fringes Total Salaries and Fringes TOTAL AnSfiN?CTPA 17VE SUPPORT D 17 17,272 1170. 31,727 8;745 38.1 154293 128.210 (26,083) -'16.071 47,082 49,!537 1,675 3.5% .14,000 14490 490 3. 14227 14, 724 497 72,377 84645 12,268 30,310 29;171 4601 33,000 33,000 0 D_� :3;427. 24000 16;573 463.3% 7,539 .7,604 266 3.5% 34635 34,088 1,153 21,560 21;56p 0 72,025 151,490 79,465 110.3% '0 24000 (10.000) •23._.. 69,193 89,197 (1) 7% 832,750 741,930 700,1RR tf 44000 14000 44000 5000 40,000 36,500 4000 5,000 2,500 5,000 (-OM MOM (35,O) (2.500) (344000) 135,000 5000 :181;000) -63.0% 7/7.750 795,930 543,616 28,180 3, 52,732 52,732 1,311,306 . 7. Msc c A 84911 . 52% • (1) 95/96 Salaries: Measure A :450,342, TDA $ 104078, SAFE$ 30,927_ Remaining salaries end fringes charged as project costs to the three :ernes. !05 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DRAFT BUDGET BY LINE ITEM FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30,1996 3660 university Avenue, suite 100 • • Riverside, California 92501 (909) 787-7141 • FAX (909) 787-7920 3/1/95 RCM TELECOMMUTIlNG WORKCENTER PROPOSED FY 95/96 BUDGET 1. Equipment 2. Furniture 3. Marketing Material 4. Photocopier Supplies 5. Photocopy 6. Postage 7. Registration/Event Fees 8. Rent • existing 3,833 sq. R at an annual cost of S48,272 • expansion of 1,000 sq. !t at an additional annual cost of 512,627 9. Storage 10. Office Maintenance/Services 11. Tenant Improvements 12. Telephone 13. Consulting Expenses 14. Consulting Labor TOTAL * Mafia S 3,500 S 3,000 S 2,500 S 3,500 S 250 S 750 S 250 * S 61,000 S 150 S 3,350 S 5,000 5 5,000 S 750 S 43,700 S132,700 Rent line item dots not include revenue of 523,700 generated from wing space or projected additional revenue of 57,800 generated from expansion. 95BUDG5 Cam111lssiarl 'BZJDGET COMPARATIMBYL,NF:ITEw FISCAL YEAR 7995196 Line item SOURCES OF REVENUE: Operating Rev.arras: Sires T* Ray.rrues Sales Tax TDA Planning '& Administrative Sales Tax TDA Transit Allocation STA Transit Allocation SAFE Fees SB300 Reimbursements OtherReimbursenrents: TC/ Reimbursements Calbans Reimbursements Other Revenue Interest income Tote! Operating Revenues Commercial Paper Proceeds Total Sources of Funds EXPENDITURES: •'ersonnel Salary & Fringe. Services and Supplies Fixed Assets Other RCTC Direct Costs: Bond Counsel Financial advisory services Legislative advocate General legal counsel Audit services Measure A program management Other Professional Services Total Other Direct Costs Other Program Costs: Prof. Services-Eldedy:and- Disabled: Prof. Services -Commuter Assistance Callbox Maintenance a Operation Callbox Installation Freeway Service PatroProwing Freeway Service Patrol-CHP:Cha►ges Transit •tc N' Ride ier Total Other Program Casts Actual& 1994195 1995/96 Thrace Revised Draft Dollar Percentage ISMS thilkL61 filid2St Ching6fi 2111119115. kpalimitia* to to •L`fe���JY��i3� � tt, 52.524835 3.87$842 SAM -- 4.289,000 '1;247.500 (34000) 42.7% 2,578,000 4,500,000 1,924000 747% 1,924172 1,999,348 74178 4LO% 1,0E4000 4,004000 0 0.0% 3,383,070 0 (3,363,070) •100.0% 0 7,737,600 7,737,600 100.014 1.125.000 0 (1;125,0120) -10010% 983,000 0 1983.000) -400.0% 4553'X37 4522,418 14481 0.3% 311TQ.955 1458,410 21^ • 89,463, 717. 77,248;858 7.,785139 11.2% L IM 1:285139 1,439,744 832,750 135,000 110000 115,000 48,000 308,400 329, 720 1,350,000 311575 2. 770,845 1;350.327 910,015 91,50[1 57.7500 33.000 2,924139 52;100 454000. 9.954261 91:242.858 741,9180 54;000 .54 134004 463,'500 .325.000 1;204000 431120 2.045; 629 41.7!0 WEL 104180 177J% :181,000) 45014 (W, 000) -414.5% 14000 I3.e%% .0 &,071 (44 900) - -48% (4,720) --'^1:4% :(150,000) -tt.1% 119,_,_ _804 ae 0 016) : : 1,281,01©0 {98.324 -74% 1 88;301 / f% 0 184,300 -MSS 810,442 44133 2,704000 82,300. 510;,000 • X942 • 10.133 .. .. (226,139) .10,000 54000 IZI% Y. ER (07 ijha iiern feet • sts: Highway: Engineering HighwayCommie:dep Highway Right of Way Regional Arterial Prof. Services -Rail Commuter Rail Capital Contribution Feasibility Studies Commuter Rail :Operations Rall Engineering Rail Right of Way Rad Construction Total Project Costs Expenditures before distributions and operating transfers Operating Transfer Out intergovernmental Distributions Total Expenditures Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures Contingency Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures After Contingency Fund Balance, June 30 Ending Fund Balance lob ,v: ...e ransporta MI an • . BUDGET CQ6IPARA.TIVE-B.YLINE ITEM • FISCAL YEAR -f995196 `96 • .Actuals ;1996195 1995/96 Through Revised Draft �rarwsr a.. �_ e cY�e a�a[ f Dollar Pin, .� .3 ,772 :3,4882.000 1,222,228 01 .2Z304973 :: :. .-- .13,375000 (%581,973) Sfax. 2,444000 3,384000 9 �. 19,211;890 27M7.840 8.283,150 2025,000 175000 43.1 (1,85O,O0o) 41.1% 3,911,464 3,581181 •1',9 I206�fA0 1,315,100 00 0 Im9:00o) 400 t l &000 0 t1.215.000) -100. Matsu 54936463 88,117,853 24,355135 --^--•,.....;.mss.:.. -• (s45ftasq ii i u axr. 137518,004 114281,144 ii .10 EMS (2Z25Q,aso) 1 BUDGET BY FUND RIVERSIDE Downy TRARSPORTATION tQ ! s c a, GENERAL FUND BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1996196 General Fund Sales Tax Allocation -Non Measure A 747,000 Sales Tax Allocation -Non Measure A 500,000 Sales Tax Allocation -Non Measure A 4500,000 Sales Tax Allocation -Measure A 2,101,145 Sales Tax-Higways Sales Tax -Commuter Rail Sales Tax -Regional Merall Sales Tax- streets d Roads Sales Tax -Transit Sales Tax -Seniors & Persons Sales Tax -Commuter Assistance State Transit Assistance SAFE Fees SB300 Reimbursements Reimbursements Interest Income Other Revenue Commode's! Paper Proceeds TOTAL REVENUES Other Fringe Benefits Salaries Retirement Medicare Insurance Health Insurance Dental Insurance Optical Insurance Deferred Compensation TOTAL APPROP. CLASS CODE 1 General Legal Counsel Audit Services CaII Box Maintenance CaII Box Installation Call Box Operation Measure A Program Management Professional Services -Contracts 101,400 Highway -Other 50,000 Right of Way Acquisitions -Highway Regional Arterial Transit Commuter Assistance Commuter rail 175000 Commuter Rail Capital 1,061,484 Feasibility Studies Highway Engineering Highway Construction Rail Operations 3,205,100 Rail Engineering Right of Way Acquisitions -Rail Rail Construction Park N Ride Rail Support 100,000 Highway Support 30,000 ROW Engineering -Highway Interchanges -Preliminary Engineer Interchanges -Environmental interchanges -Final Design Interchanges -ROW Engineering Interchanges -ROW Acquisition interchanges -Construction Mgrnt. Interchanges -Construction —70310:1115 - Accounting Services 16,230 Equipment Maintenance 29,823 Office Lease 120,517 Communications 46565 Mail Delivery 13,621 Household Expenses 13,841 Insurance 79567 Office Expense 36.821 Commissioners Per Diem 31,020 Data Processing 18,800 Publications/Notices 7,336 Rent/Lease 32,043 Training & Developement 23,500 Special Departmental Expense 20,285 1,n-formation/Publicity 142,4011 Transportation and Travel 65,040 Bond Counsel 50,000 Financial Advisor 130,000 Legislative Advocate 43,240 255,500 271,208 7r CHP Charges Towing Service TOTAL APPROP CLASS CODE 2 Local streets & roads Equipment/Furniture TOTAL APPROP CLASS CODE 4 Operating DebtTransfers Out Operating Transfers Out Operating Transfers in Operating Dept Transfers In TOTAL APPROP CLASS CODE 6 Contingencies TOTAL EXPENDITURES REVENUES OVER(UNDER)EXPENDITURES 373,500 5D, TSD 50,760 2,7!5,04 71 RfvERSO CO(1TY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 141549 Total sales Tax Allocation -Non Measure A Sales Tax Allocation -Non Measure A Sales Tax Allocation -Non Measure A Sales Tax Allocation -Measure A Sales Tax-Higweys Sales Tax -Commuter Rail Sales Tax -Regional ArtetaII Sales Tax -Streets & Roads Sales Tax -Transit Sales Tax -Seniors & Persons Sales Tax -Commuter Assistance State Transit Assistance SAFE Fees SB300 Reimbursements Reimbursements Interest income Other Revenue Commericial Paper Proceeds TOTAL REVENUES Other Fringe Benefits Salaries Retirement Medicare Insurance Health Insurance Dental Insurance Optical Insurance Deferred Compensation TOTAL APPROP. CLASS CODE 1 Accounting Services Equipment Maintenance Office Lease Communications '' Delivery .hold Expenses .ranee Office Expense Commissioners Per Diem Data Processing PublieatiansJ N ot1 ces Rent/Lease Training & Developement Special Departmental Expense I nfonnation/Pu blicity Transportation and Travel Bond Counsel Financial Advisor Legislative Advocate General Legal Counsel Audit Services Call Box Maintenance Call Box Installation Cali Box Operation Measure A Program Management Professional Services -Contracts Highway -Other Right of Way Acquisitions -Highway Regional Arterial Transit Commuter Assistance Commuter rail Commuter Rail Capital Feasibility Studies Highway Engineenng Highway Construction Rail Operations Rail Engineering Right of Way Acquisitions -Rail Rail Construction Park N Ride Rail Support Highway Support ROW Engineering -Highway Interchanges -Preliminary Engineer •hanges- Envi ronrnenta l lunges -Final Design (,....,changes -ROW Engineering Interchanges -ROW Acquisition Interchanges -Construction Mgrnt. Interchanges -Construction Freeway Service Patrol SAFE Western County 1.000,000 9,000 90.000 568,370 -59T,37a 3,500 23,732 1,038 1,904 7,693 2,972 869 883 5,079 2,350 1,980 1,200 468 2.045 1,500 1,295 9,089 4,152 .2,780 19,500 3,792 343,971 305,960 89,600 13,980,873 5,849,738 14,422,262 901,391 901,391 2.760,000 310,500 183,700 Palo Coachella Verde VaNay 2,049,877 5,486,340 705,965 4.753,047 1,366,585 3td,aua,as0 -7051E5 185,000 50,000 1,100,000 100,000 1,261,�a000r�00.. WMAP 991,000 60,200 50,000 50,000 State Transit Special Assistance Revenue 1,996,348 1,365,750 100,000 2,888,482 17,ruu,udi 404,660 1,500,000 510,000 16,030,750 5,849,738 5,466,340 19,911,294 1.386,585 901,391 901,391 1,996,348 1.000.000 2,760,000 1,875250 mAIRMS 1,036 1,904 7.694 2.972 8610 883 5,079 2.350 1,980 1,200 468 2,045 1,500 1295 9,069 4,152 2,790 206.000 53.792 343,971 305.960 1,100,000 113,332 100,000 40+6.880 1,200,000 3.961,000 WAStaffird 991,000 80.200 50,000 50,000 74 SPECIAL RIVERSIDE FUNDs TRANSPORTATION �11iAAlSSION FISCAL YEAR 1996/911 CHP Charges T..,.. TOTAL APPROP CLASS CODE 2 Local sheets & roads Equipment/Furniture TOTAL APPROP CLASS CODE 4 Freeway Service Patrol SASE 734 618,442 — 907" Operating DeblTransfers Out Operating Transfers Out Operating Transfers In (147,095) Operating Debt Transfers In TOTAL APPROP CLASS CODE 6 (147,095) Contingencies TOTAL EXPENDITURES — Z. REVENUES OVER(UNDER)EXPENDITU — 1386" Western County aawnettaudaawfwg 14,422„261 3,240 3,240 14,422,262 18,603.344 (531,570) 147,095 147,095 18,071,774 107,639 2,060,803 8,767,305 165,305 Total Palo Caachetla Special Verde Valley ::. Furrenvf State Transit 4J,1J3 616,442 2,414,bbu 706,905 4,783.047 4,783,047 7,982,192 (43235) 7,930,957 19.911,294 3240 19206,549 26,565,538 (574.805) (147.095) 147.095 26,010.731 15,1�io,db4 �2w.ujhdgkeis 476341 / 3 30,727,713 1,795,401 43.478.861 33,511.130 2.691,749 , RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 Western Cty Total Coachella Western Cotrrnescial Capital Valley County Paper Projects Sales Tax Allocation -Non Measure A Sales Tax Allocation -Non Measure A Sales Tax Allocation -Non Measure A Sales Tax Allocation -Measure A Sales Tax-Higways Sales Tax -Commuter Rail Sales Tax -Regional Arterail Sales Tax -Streets & Roads Sales Tax -Transit Sales Tax -Seniors & Persons Sales Tax -Commuter Assistance State Transl Assistance SAFE Fees SB300 Reimbursements Reimbursements 4,977,500 - 4 977,500 Interest Income 1,046,584 649,121 100,000 1,795,705 Other Revenue 233 199 432,858 Commericial Paper Proceeds 14,000,000 14,000,000 TOTAL REVENUES -I --� 1,277, 2 s Code 1 -Salaries & Benefits Other Fringe Benefits Salaries Retirement Medicare Insurance Health Insurance Dental Insurance Optical Insurance Deferred Compensation TOTAL APPROP. CLASS ounting Services ,Jipment Maintenance Office Lease Communications Mail Delivery Household Expenses Insurance Office Expense Commissioners Per Diem Data Processing Publications/Notices Rent/Lease Training & Developement Special Departmental Expense I of orm ationlP ubl is ity Transportation and Travel Band Counsel Financial Advisor Legislative Advocate General Legal Counsel Audit Services Call Box Maintenance Cali Box Installation Cali Box Operation Measure A Program Management 100,000 100,000 Professional Services -Contracts Highway -Other Right of Way Acquisitions -Highway 3,385,000 3,385,000 Regional Arterial 27,093,180 27,093,180 Transit Commuter Assistance Commuter rail Commuter Rai! Capital Z500,000 2,500,000 Feasibility Studies Highway Engineenng 120,000 250,000 370,000 Highway Construction 2,640,000 425,000 10,000,000 13,065,000 Rail Operations Peril Engineering t of Way Acquisitions -Rail Constriction 4,977,500 4,977,500 nark N Ride Rail Support Highway Support '17 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS BUDGE FISCAL YEAR 1996195 ROW Engineering -Highway nterchangec-Preliminary Engineer nterchanges-E n+iironmental nterchangfs-Final Design nterchhaags n ROW Engineering nte rages -ROW Acquisition nterchanges-Construclion CIIP Charges Towing Sennce Western Cly Coachella Western Commercial t►_u_ '°unry Paper `.52,000 900,E 1,250,000 250,000 TOTAL APPROP CLASS ` s3,s38,i bu ss Code 3 -Other Expenditures Local streets 8 roads Equipment&Fumiture TOTAL APPROP CLASS ss Code 5 Operating DetitTransfers Out Operating Transfers Out Operating Transfer; in Operating Debt Transfers In TOTAL APPROP CLASS Contingencies lance ce i,1rb,0our 19,2ry,5uG awmilDA 0:40s1*_ TOTAL EXPENDITURES • - REVENUES OVER(UN 45,288,467 20,793,288 2915,48) Total Capital Projects 552,000 2,150,000 250,000 54,442,tiad rte' ;; 68,997,235 APPENDIX RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION Commuter Assistance ETC Transportation Forums: Actual costs plus 10% contingency: Lunches 10,000 Special recognition 2,000 Incentive Programs: $12,000 Based on performance, staff proposes to amend the FY 94195 consultant contract with Inland Transportation Services (ITS) to provide FY 9596 consultant staff services to manage and implement various commuter assistance programs as recommended by staff and approved by RCTC. ITS has agreed to provide services at FY 94/95 hourly rates: Project Manager - $68.50, Program Administrator - $47.50 and Administrative Coordinator - $25.00. In addition to RCTC programs, ITS may also be contracted with to provide similar services under contracts RCTC may amend or enter into with SANBAG, Caltrens, etc. The following three fine item program budgets are attached under Exhibit A. The budgets have been developed based on program experience, proposed marketing tasks, and projected program goals as detailed. Freeway Commuter Incentive Program: $208,790 Proposed budget based on program goal of 600 single occupant vehicle (SO V) drivers becoming ridesharers at least one day per week. Goal increased from FY 94,95's goal of 560 in anticipation of the Riverside to Orange County Metrolink line opening in October, 1995 it is estimated that at least 300 taps should be realized as a result of the new Metrolink pine. The estimated FY 95/96 budget is nearly $30,500 (17%) higher than FY 94195 due to an increase in the incentive line item which was under budgeted in relationship to the number of participants in the Program. Consultant labor costs are slightly less (4%) in the proposed budget over the current year. The Freeway Program has been struggling in FY 94195 to attain its goal with performance projected at 350 frips reduced The historical reality is that more effort is required to reach and remove Riverside based long distance single occupant vehicle (SOLO divers for several reasons: 1) the Program requires the cooperation of employers in Orange and Los Angeles Counties and as Riverside commuters represent a small percentage of those employers employee base, they tend to be less aggressive marketing the Program than employers in the Local Commuter incentive Program, 2) changes in Commuter Transportation Services, inc. (CTS) due to budget reductions have limited outreach efforts for joint marketing opportunities outside of the Inland Empire, and 3) OCTA and LA CMTA do not have as strong a presence among employers in their respective counties as does RCTC and SANBAG from which to leverage and maintain employer interest given the changes proposed to Rule 1501. Simply put its more costly to reach and remove long distance SOV drivers. Local Commuter Incentive Program: $195,005 Proposed budget based on program goal of 800 single occupant drivers becoming ridesharers at least one day per week This goal is higher than the FY 94195 goal of 615 but lower than the projected performance of 925 trips reduced. The estimated FY 95196 budget is nearly $45,000 (29%) higher than FY 94195 due to an increase in the incentive line item which was under budgeted in relationship to number of participants in the Program. Consultant labor costs are slightly less (5%) in the proposed budget over the current year. While experience from the Freeway Commuter Incentive Program inthcates that it becomes harder to reduce trips overtime, the Local Program has not yet experienced that trend The Local Program's history is more constant based on the fact that local employers have a high percentage of employers who live and work within western Riverside County. Added to that, is the fact that the programs RCTC deliveries directly em closely linked with CTS and its employer services through the monthly ETC Transportation Forums. So RCTC's recent employer survey regarding CTS services and the Forums highlights that the Forums have e sb'ong positive impact on ETC's and Their programs at employer work sites in Riverside County. RC TC's full range of commuter assistance programs, from education to incentives, is making a difference. They the ETC by increasing their skill level and offering support empowerh ETC's direct link to workplace services and financial incentives. Through the SOV drivers !tiny are able to .....to se of alternate modes of transportation. Another indicator that Riverside County is making ti differenceand support Individual cis the findings of the CTS 1994 Stale of the Commute Report For the first time, Riverside County was determined to have the highest rideshare rate of the Los Angeles five county region. Club Ride: Proposed budget based on programgoal of 3,250 members. FY 94!95 5174960 mbers with projected performance at 2,750 members. One of the lessons learned this eargoaleist that membershipat R me levels are hard to maintain given the economy and workforce mobility which was not factored into the FY 94/35 goal. Compounding the goal setting error was a computer software problem that did not identify and subtract non - renewing members from the data base in the past year. That error has been corrected Club Ride membership is dynamic, some existing members do not renew for various masons while new members are continuously being added. Through accurate documentation and improved membership outreach, some growth in membership is felt to be realistic. The estimated FY 95v35 budget Is $8,000 (4%) less than FY 94/95 due to smell changes in various line items. Consultant labor costs are slightly less (1%) in the proposed budget over the current year. The budget for Club Ride includes the production and cYsb Merchant of the enchant Discount Catalogue and at least three newsletters. Funcfng has been proposed for three special events in support of local activities such as Castle Park and the Storm baseball team. The number of discounts secured for the Merchant Discount Catalogue increased from 100 to 120 in FY 94/95 One of the new adc6tions is the Automobile Club of Southern California who is offering a free first aid kit with new membership. in adoGtion to the Catalogue discounts, other benefits have been secured for special promotons such as In -IV -Out Burgers who c 3,00,0 free c ou each. In the area ofmarketig, the PennySaverhas a cheeseburger pons valued c $1.50 public greed to run free ads for Club Ride and other incanfiire programs when space is available as a service. Efforts to seek low or no cost marketing and/or incentive partnership opportunities with the business community will continue. Club Ride's focus to provide on -going incentives through the business community as a form of thanks to commuters for their long term commitment to ridesharing has been embraced and replicated by others. One such example is Orange County Transportation Authority's "commuter coupons" for the El Torro Y 1-5 construction project. Another comes from the City of Petaluma who sought and received grant funds to implement a Club Ride type prgram for employers in their City. Special Projects/Contingency: Budget to provide staff/media support for commuter assistance efforts outside of the three in e0n�e programs, i.e. special promotions, transportation fairs, evaluation surveys, etc. NOTES: ■ The budgets for the Freeway and Local Commuter Incentive Pro estimated costs savings as a result of the Applied Management & Planni g Groms have up effecn tiveneto ss sued findings which recommended that incentive payments be changed lump sum payment to decrease from three monthly payments to a single implementation on employer ETC's. Program administrative costs and reduce the impact of program ▪ -monthly progress reports fully document the activities of consultant staff responsible of the above three incentive prams as well as the Commuter &chan possible for implementation Progress reports are on file at ROTC. 9e and Telecommuting WorkCerrter. ff It is anticipated that SANBAG will continue their contract with RCTC for FY 956 to administer the commuter assistance program in San Bernardino County. rr sister Commuter Exchange: $93,850 In FY 94,95 RCTC assumed full responsibility for staffing ($50,500) and operation and maintenance ($35,000) of the Commuter Exchange from Commuter Transporteiion Services, Inc after three years under their operation. As little documentation regardng its event schedule, equipment maintenance, operation of vehicle and on -board equipment, identification and acquisition of public information materials, etc. was not available, a good bit of time was spent on selecting service vendors, establishing schedules, creation of resource manuals and how-to documentation as well as attending various types of public and employer events. Staff proposes Mat the Commuter Exchange continue to be managed and operated by ITS. The proposed FY 95496 line item budget is attached under Exhibit and represents a 10% increase. ti was developed from actual experience and new program goals (set at a minimum of 54 events) including educational outreach to schools in an effort to market ridesharing to future generations. Toward that end, funds for materials geared to children and youth including inexpensive give away items have been budgeted. As a result the marketing meterialshncentives line item was increased from $5,000 to $13,500. While a number of line items were adjusted downward based on actual costs, the other major increase (19%) occurs in the consultant labor line Item. Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County: $132,700 Proposed budget based on actual experience under the management and operation of RCTC and consultant staff (ITS) during FY 94,95 ($111,109) with a significant portion of the funding provided by Petroleum Violation Escrow Account and Measure A ($12,000±) funds. Only Measure A monies will be available to fund the WorkCenter in FY 95/96. The proposed budget of 5132.700 reflects expenditures only. Revenue from lease of office space to telecommuting employers and other commuter assistance programs is estimated at $31,500, reducing the proposed expenditures to $101,200 Consultant labor costs are slightly less (5%) in the proposed budget over the current year. A number of steps have been taken to reduce overhead and increase utilization since assuming responsibility for the WorkCenter from Inland Empire Economic Partnership in November 1993. The WorkCenter location was moved and the office size significantly reduced. Consultant hours have been reduced to market and manage the facility as well as costs for marketing materials. By combining the WorkCenter with RCTC's Commuter Assistance office, lower operation costs have been realized by all programs. Two original employers (Pacific Bell and Edison), each leasing two offices, were down -sized to one each based on actual commuter use. The third original employer, TRW, has maintained two offices at the new location based on increased use. Price Waterhouse, L. LP. has been added as a new tenant and one office has been designated a shared office to allow for multiple employers in a single office. David Taussig & Associates is the first tenant under the new shared office option. Only one office of seven designated for telecommuting remains unleased at this time. Discussions are on -going with several employer prospects. in anticipation of full occupancy and given that the WorkCenter contains approximately 800 additional sq.ft. which the WorkCenter has an option to lease at any time, the proposed budget includes funds to allow the WorkCenter to expand its current size into the reserved space iF additional employers elect to participate. The 19% increase in the WorkCenter budget over the current year is due entirely to proposed expansion costs. Should expansion not occur, these funds would remain unexpended. Efforts are on -going with employers to increase their employee use of the WorkCenter as well. Bi-monthly reports are sent to the employer to document use. As a result, new telecommuters am continually being added by employers. In addition, as new leases are negotiated, specific use rates are agreed upon and included in the lease agreement. To further encourage employers to maintain a high use rate, a new approach to the monthly flat lease rate is being evaluated by staff The concept is simple and ties the monthly lease rate to an employers actual use rate. Currently, employers have no real incentive to ensure their designated employees am telecommuting on a regular basis. ff the existing flat rate of $100 per office space increased incrementally based on reduced use, then employers might be more motivated to ensure participation. Buspools: Assume 3 buspools at 47 seats at $25/nonth/seat. $43,300 Riverside Bicycle Commuter Coalition: 5145,000 Cormnuation fundng for implementation of Phase II of the Wheels to Work It is a bi-county project funded by SANBAG, AB2766 and RCTC. The budget represents approved xe estimated a} in ar 94,+ve amount required tn complete the prated wh►rth ►ibegL' :,,...r.._---_.- .- presents the carry-over budget approval processes. ""`"�"""'dam" 1e`@ the Trscal year as a result of multiple Special Project Development/Contingency: 5100,000 Proposed budget estabffshedto allow for new project de at this time include development shecj rrt and production of an ErrAjyee +g— Possible projects under consideration a tool for local employers including employers data and frip reduction Transportation m sCoordinator Resource Directory as or providers, etc. Another possible project is the development and implementation a tGuaranteed$Ride N Home Program am which any employer could access. Further, while efforts have progressed to restructure CTS under the aiiection of Southern California Association of Governments, continued fencing of CTS employer rideshare services by Ca/trans is on the level of reduced funding, the Commission may choose to fill the expected to be reduced. Based provide services directly within the County gap of any state funding limitation and►�vr HIGHWAY PROJECT PROGRAMS: Park -n -ride Lease Program: 550,200 Budget based on actual ex perience only. and established leaseagreements as listed below. Assumes maintenance effort Consultant Services 5,000 Lease Agreements: Riverside Plaza 6,000 Corona Community Church 10,800 Lake Elsinore 5,400 Indian Plaza 4,500 La Sierra University 13,500 Contingency 5,000 Exhibit A Revised 4/25/95 RCTC COMMUTER INCENTIVE PROGRAMS PROPOSED FY 95/96 BUDGET LINE ITEM CLUB FREEWAY LOCAL RIDE TOTAL 1. Computer $ 4,500 $ 4,500 $ 4,500 $ 13,500 Programming 2. Equipment $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 3,000 3. Marketing Material/ $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 25,000 $ 65,000 Incentives 4. Newsletter $ 0 $ 0 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 5. Photocopy $ 3,000 $ 1,500 $ 3,500 $ 8,000 6. Postage $ 5,000 $ 3,500 $ 18,000 $ 26,500 Program Incentive $ 75,000 $ 82,000 $ 0 $157,000 8- Promotional Events $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 9. Rent $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 7,950 10. Telephone $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 6,000 11. Workshops $ 1,500 $ 1,000 $ 0 $ 2,500 12 Consulting Labor $ 87,140 $ 71,855 $ 96,310 $255,305 13- Consulting Expenses $ 4,500 $ 2,500 $ 5,000 $ 12,000 TOTAL $208,790 5195,005 5174,960 $578,755 i. 3/1/95 RCTC COMMUTER EXCHANGE PROP E FY 95196 MIDGET LINE ITEM 1. Gasoline S 1,800 2. Marketing Materials/Incentives S 13,500 3. Photocopy S 750 4. Postage $ 750 5. Registration/Event Fees S 1,500 6. Rent S 2,800 7. Telephone S 1,500 8. Vehicle Enhancements S 3,500 9. Vehicle Maintenance/Repairs S 2,000 10. Vehicle Registration S 1,000 11. Consulting Expenses S 4,750 12. Consulting Labor S 60,000 TOTAL S 93,850 Elmoj RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MOTORIST ASSISTANCE Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Call Box Operations: $347,810 Funding requested for operations includes funds for the monthly cellular access charges, California Department of Highway Patrol operating costs for dispatchers, phone system, translation costs, and SAFE Coordinator, and the monthly access charge for the Indio dispatch center. Cellular Access Charge - The Commission's agreement with L A. Cellular provides cellular service for each call box at $9.50 per month for thirty-five minutes of air Time per box. Any excess air lime over the aggregate, or 35 minutes times the number of call boxes (39,025 minutes), is billed at a higher rate. Total requested for L A. Cellular equals $9.50 X 12 X 1,115 = 5127,110. CHP Operating Costs - The Commission is billed by CHP based upon a fonnula on the number of calls for the required full time equivalent (FTE) clspatchers necessary to answer Riverside County's call box calls. The projected costs are calculated at the current State salaries at step 3 and benefits. In addition, the pm rata share for the phone system and the CHP SAFE Coordinator is billed to each SAFE along with any translation costs incurred. Total costs are as follows: Dispatchers $182,950 Phone System $ 6,350 Translation Costs $ 25,200 SAFE Coordinator $ 3.800 Total $218,300 Cellular Telephone Charges - The monthly cellular telephone charges for the Indio CHP Dispatch Center is approximately $240 per month or $2,400 annually. Call Box Maintenance: $x'971 Included in the amount requested for maintenance is the monthly cost for corrective maintenance, the cost for bi-annual preventive maintenance inspections of each call box, and the costs for repairs resulting knockdowns, vandalism and other miscellaneous damage (i.e. wind) to the call boxes. Corrective Maintenance - The Commission's ten-year maintenance agreement with GTE Government Information Systems covers each call box at $7.61 per month (plus CPI inflation factor estimated at 4%), or 1,091 boxes X $7.61 X 1.04 X 12 months = $103,615. Preventive Maintenance - The cost for two (2) annual preventive maintenance visits to each call box is $34.00 per box (plus CPI inflation factor estimated at 4%) or 1,091 X $34 X 1.04 X 2 = $77,156. Knockdowns - Estimated at $1,500 per occurrence (average) X 6 call boxes per month = $108.000. Vandalism - Estimated at $500 per occurrence (average) X 8 call boxes per month = $48,000. Other Miscellaneous - Estimated at $100 per occurrence (average) X 6 call boxes per month = $7,200, Professional Services: Funding requested for continuation of contract with RMSL Traffic Systems ($50,000) to provide support services for statisfir_AI �►,.,.�;.,.. _.._._ _ _ _ 1_ _ 3ySteM f+c,+rrrmanGle monitonng end auditing, highway construc hon �. removals/replacements, and handicapped access issues. Also requested is funding for Intelligent Transportation System (IVHS) program support ($125,000) and for IVHS Strategic Deployment Development ($400,000 - 80% FHWA ITS funaGng; 5% ROTC,' 5% S �"enAAC; 70% Ca/trans). rans). Plan j. S575,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MOTORIST ASSISTANCE Operations: 5616,442 Funding requested for continuation of contract with Hamner Towing, Inc, to provide tow buck service for the Commission's Freeway Service Petrol (FSP) program on three segments of Route 91 and one segment of Route 6011215. The Commissions contract with Hamner provides for six (6) hours of service, Monday through Friday except holidays, during the moming and afternoon commute peak hours (5:00 am. to 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Communications: Included in the amount requested for communications is the monthly service charges for the cellular telephones used by the .two California Highway Patrol (CHP) Field Supervisors. 52,400 Professional Services: 543,133 Funding requested for any required overtime pay for the two CHP officers proviaing the field supervision of the FSP program. Supplies: 55,800 Funding requested for brochures and survey forms (52,800); patches, signs, hats, etc. ($2,000); and postage ($1,000) for the FSP program. Equipment: 515,532 Included in the amount requested for equipment is the lease cost of the radio communications equipment, the annual maintenance cost for a computer, and funding for purchase of computer software. Radio Communications Equipment - the Commission leased radio communications equipment for the ten tow trucks, two CHP units and a base station to provide direct communications capability between CHP dispatch field supervisors and the tow trucks. This allows CHP to not only know the location of the trucks at all times but also dispatch the tow trucks to accidents and other incidents as required. The amount requested is $13,332. Computer Software - a computer was purchased for the FSP program in FY 1993-94 to collect data and compile reports pertaining to the program. The $1,200 requested will provide for the purchase of any required software as well as software updates/enhancements. Computer Equipment Maintenance - estimated $1,000 annual maintenance costs for the computer. Contingency: $29,334 Contingency funds are being requested to provide any required additional budget authorization for 1) tow truck overtime costs; 2) CIP increase in CHP overtime rate; 3) possible increase in radio communications lease — two year lease agreement expires 6/30/95; and 4) purchase of additional brochures, forms and promotional articles. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OTHER MEASURE A PROGRAMS Special Transportation Programs Riverside Transit Agency $260,000 Fuming to provide required match to purchase 10 /i1 -equipped replacementbuses. The replacement buses will be alfematively fueled, replacing diesel equipment City of Riverside, Parks and Recreation $46,000 Funding to provide local match to purchase dive replacemerr4 alternatively fueled dial -a -ride vehicles. Riverside Transit Agency $137,800 Funding to provide match funds to purchase 22 replacement vans and minibuses. Most of the equipment is for the Hemet area and in other communities in central Western Riverside County, In addition, match funds are requested for 4 expansion vehicles to be used in the Hemet area. Senior & Disabled Citizens Coalition F!!.'�dlf:r. to allow the Senior _o allow the Senior and Disabled Citizens Coalition to continue to provide mileage reimbursement to people who provide rides to non -driving seniors and persons with disabilities. Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) will The Transportation8permile Western Riverside County. °� reimbursements at a rate of $.28 per mite in Riverside County Office of Education Funding to $3,480 provide bus tickets to ►nsfrucors and students with disabilities for mobility training as they transition from school to work. The bus tickets are allotted to those stucknts who transit system. When these students leave the school system they will be trained td extensivetraining use the RTA system to get to work. Riverside Transit Agency Funding to support $20,000 9 the provision of inter -city dial -a -ride services between Perris, Moreno Valley and Riverside. This service will be complementary to the fixed -route services and will meet the requirements of the ADA. City of Corona Funding to provide match funds to replace 2 dial -a -ride vehicles ($24,00Q). In addition, $22 $46,000 A funding is requested to continue offering a senior end disabled in measure passenger reduced fare. Meditrans Services Funding to $142,000 g provide both continued and expanded parafransit service in southwestern Riverside County. The expansion of service would occur on Medr ns` South Loop which provides service into Riverside, H► Loma Linda and Moreno Valley (¢28 hour,. +ek) Additionally, funds would provide continued funding for the InterLfN/f service, while providing an extra 12 hours weaklfor ex ghgrave, y paraded service during peak periods. AGENDA ITEM #5C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM VIISSION DATE: May 3, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller SUBJECT: Investment Policies For the April meeting staff was instructed to send out a written survey to all of the Commissioners to solicit their input on investment policy preferences. The results of the survey was to be used by the Budget and Finance Committee to develop investment policies for the Commission. Since only four commissioners had responded by the time of the Budget and Finance Committee, this item was deferred till May to allow more Commissioners the opportunity to respond. Staff has received the surveys from an additional eight commissioners/alternates/liaison members, for a total of twelve responses. (Note: Wherever the respondents do not total to twelve, the remaining difference represents non responses). The results of the survey and staff's analysis of the results follows: Question #1 asked the commissioners to rank four factors in order of importance -- preservation of principal, liquidity, yield, and preservation of principal along with reasonable yield. Six of eleven respondents selected preservation of principal as number one in importance. Five of eleven selected preservation of principal along with reasonable yield as number one. Eight of eleven respondents selected liquidity as number two. Four of eleven ranked preservation of principal along with reasonable yield as number three. Nine of eleven ranked yield as number four. Staff recommendation: Preservation of principal along with reasonable yield as number one followed by liquidity. Yield alone should be the last concern. Question #2 --Which of the following most describes your view on the use of derivatives? F:\USERS\PREPRINT\INVSUR.DM Page 2 Eight of twelve respondents fed+ +�.�+ .�,._:.._�:.. shouid that derivatives shouid only be used selectively based on criteria previously established by the Commission. Staff recommendation: Criteria should be established that defines for staff under what circumstances derivatives should be used, dollar limitations, and derivative types. Any new derivative products must be reviewed and approved by the Commission prior to being used. Question # 3 listed a number of investment alternatives and requested responses on which were acceptable to the Commission. The following investment alternatives were acceptable to the Commission (Note any alternative receiving an equal number of yes and no responses was counted by staff as a no): Riverside County Pool Direct obligations of the United States (Treasury bills, notes, bonds) Federal agency obligations (Le., Freddie macs, Ginnie Maes) U.S. guaranteed obligations of any state or political subdivision thereof Bank time or certificates of deposit Staff recommendation: Guaranteed investment contracts with AAA rated companies which post adequate collateral should also be considered. Our existing bond funds were placed in a GIC after Commission approval. Question #4 --Which of the following reflects the manner in which Commission investment decisions should be made? Six of eleven respondents felt that an investment oversight body should be established with the authority to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. Staff recommendation: Existing policy has designated the Budget and Finance Committee as the investment oversight body. The Committee should determine if sufficient guidelines are in place with existing policy to approve any investment decisions. Question #5 & #6 --Do you believe that a key component of any investment strategy is diversification, and does investing in the County of Riverside meet that requirement? F:\USERS\PREPRINT\INVSUR.DM Page 3 All respondents agreed that diversification is important to an investment strategy , although there was a split response as to whether investing in the County was sufficient diversification. Seven of ten respondents felt that investing in the County provided adequate diversification. Staff recommendation: Diversification is important to any prudent investment policy and strategy. The County of Riverside is a diversified pool controlled by a prudent and conservative money manager(1. e., Wayne Watts). Question #7 provided a choice of investing only in the County of Riverside, investing in pools structured, managed, and governed like the County of Riverside, or not participating in any investment pool. The response was unclear. Five respondents only wanted the County of Riverside, five respondents felt comfortable with pools structured like the County of Riverside, and two were opposed to any pools. Staff recommendation: Investment pools should be allowed if they are managed conservatively and prudently, consistent with Commission investment criteria and laws and regulations governing municipal investment strategies. Question #8 assessed to what extent Commissioners felt staff should use financial advisors. Four respondents felt that financial advisors should be used for any new or complex investments. Three felt that trained staff can make investment recommendations. Staff recommendation: Investment recommendations can be made by trained staff, but that any new or complex investments should always be analyzed by financial advisors. Staff practice has been that all investment decisions have involved financial advisors and have been approved by the full Commission. Question #9 asked for additional comments: Kav Ceniceros Criteria should be developed for "highly rated companies" such as history of ratings and management. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\INVSUR.DM Page 4 Sybil Jaffv Public officials are ultimately responsible for public tax dollars. The Budget and Finance Committee can recommend to the full Commission for approval. John Tavaligione Riverside County Investment Pool only though Wayne Watts monitored by County's Oversight Committee. Tom Mullen (1) Investment decisions should be made internally by experienced well qualified staff, reviewed daily by chief executive officers responsible for financial affairs (but not involved in investment decisions), audited monthly for compliance with policy, and investment reports made to the Board of Directors monthly. (2) Control and execution of investment decisions should never be given to an outside manager and/or financial advisor (they should recommend only). (3) Physical control and accountability for securities should be maintained with an independent, trust custodial bank so as to enable RTC to exercise control and maintain ownership of the assets in the event the custodial bank files for bankruptcy. Securities should never be held in a brokerage firm account. (4) To minimize default risks on other U.S. Treasury and Federal Agency securities, RTC should require high credit quality standards on securities purchased for the portfolio, should limit the dollar size of holdings with any one firm, and limit maturities on all purchases (other than U. S. Treasury and Federal Agency securities) to 2 years or less. (5) Forbid purchases in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO's), financial futures and option contracts, bond funds with daily market adjustments in value (NAVs), purchases in county pools, and purchases in unrated municipal bonds on which there is a disclaimer that the faith, credit, and taxing power of the governmental entity is not pledged as a means of repayment. (While the Riverside County pool is prudently and conservatively managed, nonetheless, prudence would dictate that if RTC is fully capable of its own investments, that it should do so under its own investment policy guidelines.) F:\USERS\PREPRINT\INVSUR.DM Page 5 Ameal Moore Our principal should always be protected. A lower yield is acceptable but the principal investment must be protected. Richard Kelly We should use the Commission's expertise and consider us e of appointed citizens who have expertise in finance to an oversight body. The most important objective should be safety of our investment and not yield. Alex Clifford Listed the following as factors to consider in devising an investment policy: Diversification Percentage limits on types of investments Rating considerations Reporting requirements Specify which funds are covered (i.e., bonds, taxes, etc.) Authorized personnel who will perform investments Safekeeping (third party) Internal controls In addition to the comments above, a number of suggestions were indicated in the margins for investment criteria such as dollar thresholds that would require full Commission approval, when to use financial advisors, use of LAIF, reporting requirements, and diversification criteria. All of the actual respondent surveys are included in this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission determine if existing investment policy is sufficient or if additional criteria is needed. :jw Attachments F:\USERS\PREPRINT\INVSUR.DM BAY CENICEROS Investment Opinion Survey 1. Rank the following in order of importance to you with the number 1 being the most important. Preservation of principal Y Liquidity Yield(i.e., return on investment) ,_ Preservation of principal alone with reasonable yield. 2. Which of the following most describes your view on the use of derivatives a. All derivatives are risky and should not be used under any circumstances. b. There should be no restrictions on derivatives as long as they are fully understood by staff and the Commission and are regularly reported to the Commission. ( ') Derivatives should only be used selectively based on criteria previously established by the Commission. 3 Is it acceptable for the Commission to invest in the following instruments(see the Glossary of attached definitions to assist you in your response): Yes No Riverside County Pool Other County Pools _ Direct obligations of the United States(Treasury bilis, notes, bonds) Federal agency obligations(i.e., Freddie Macs, Ginnie Maes, etc.) U.S. guaranteed obligations of public agencies or municipalities Obligations of ,any state or political subdivision thereof Bonds or notes of highly rated U.S. corporations Bank time or certificates of deposit Highly rated commercial paper _424, Highly rated variable debt secured by a bank guarantee Repurchase agreements with highly rated banks or bond dealers Money market funds investing in only the above _ Guaranteed investment contracts with highly rated companies Investment pools which invest in only the above Resolution Trust Corporation ob 'Rations Financial futures or options contracts with highly rated entities 4. Which of the following reflects the manner in which Co..,...:_____ decisions should be made ---� ' investment a. Staff should be free to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. (11: ) An investment oversight body should be established with the authori to investment decisions based on established guidelines.. �' make c. Each investment decision should be approved before hand by the entire Commission. 5. Do you believe that a key component of any investment strategy is diversification? '„%Yes No 6. If your answer to No. 6 is yes, do you believe that investing in a diversified pool(County or otherwise) meets that requirrement? 1e�-� t;.�.M C'-a�7.E e / es ��• P, 7. Indicate which is your preference by cirding the appropriate letter: a. The only investment pool that the Commission should use is the County of Riverside pool. CT) If the Commission invests in other than the County of Riverside pool, it only be in investment pools meeting p � should consistent with laws and regulations the Commission s investment criteria and gulations governing county and other municipal pools. c. The Commission should not participate in any investment pools. 8. Circle the letter of the item which best reflects your viewpoint ti cL• a. Investment decisions/recommendations should never be a ,x ,. GL '� ions : n financial advisors. == � ^'ita.Crui consulting '-,V4.1 Mt/Pe-03 b. Investment decisions/recommendations can be made by properly trained and experienced staff Investment decisions/recommendations should include financial advisors for new, complex, or unusual investments. Investment Opinion Survey. 1171( SYBIL JAFFY 1. Rank the following in order of importance to you with the number 1 being the most important. Preservation of principal ilia. Liquidity Yield(i.e., return on investment) Preservation of principal alone with reasonable yield. 2. Which of the following most describes your view on the use of derivatives All derivatives are risky and should not be used under any circumstances. b. There should be no restrictions on derivatives as long as they are fully understood by staff and the Commission and are regularly reported to the Commission. c. Derivatives should only be used selectively based on criteria previously established by the Commission. 3 Is it acceptable for the Commission to invest in the following instruments(see the Glossary of attached definitions to assist you in your response): Yes No Riverside County Pool 1. --- Other County Pools �� Direct obligations of the United States(Treasury bills, notes, bonds) ✓ Federal agency obligations(i.e., Freddie Macs, Ginnie Maes, etc.) L. - U. S. guaranteed obligations of public agencies or municipalities ✓ Obligations of any state or political subdivision thereof _ I/ Bonds or notes of highly rated U.S. corporations ��' Bank time or certificates of deposit `/ Highly rated commercial paper _' Highly rated variable debt secured by a bank guarantee %.. / Repurchase agreements with highly rated banks or bond dealers 1. ----- Money market funds investing in only the above 1.0' Guaranteed investment contracts with highly rated companies 1./ - Investment pools which invest in only the above 6/ Resolution Trust Corporation obligations �/ a. Staff should be free to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. An investment oversight body should be established with the authority to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. . Each investment decision should be approved before hand by the entire Commission. /Al?) 5. Do you believe that a key component of an inv Fo R �' , �ent s�gy is diversification? Yes r No �� e n.``,70 _. Financial futures or options contracts with highly rated entities 4. Which of the following reflects the manner in C____ . decisions should be made ------- --- which �.�.umrss�on investment b. 6. If your answer to No. 6 is yes, do you believe that investing in a diversified pool(County or otherwise) meets that requirement? _Yes No 7. Indicate which is your preference by circling the appropriate letter. The only investment pool that the Commission should use is the County of Riverside pool. b. If the Commission invests in other than the County of Riverside pool, it should only be in investment pools meeting the Commission's investment criteria and consistent with laws and regulations governing county and other municipal pools. c. The Commission should not participate in any investment pools. 8. Circle the letter of the item which best reflects your viewpoint. a. Investment decisions/recommendations should never be made without consulting uncial advisors. b. Investment decisions/recommendations can be made by properly trained and experienced staff c. Investment decisions/recommendations should include financial advisors - la D c�qufS• G ±fe- ,p� Jul Dl t -11'.7c7 ; ). u r1Y1 1 APR 04 '95 10:11AM ROTC C11T Ur TE CULA- 909 787 7920;# 3/ 5 P.3'9 1 Investment Opinion Survey RON ROBERTS 1. Bank the following is order of importance to you with the somber 1 being the most important. 3 Preservation of poacipai a Liquidity q— Yie1d(1.r., return its) Preservation of principal alone with reasonable yield. 2. Which of the following most describes year view on the use of darivedses a. All derivatives are risky and amid not be used under any circumstances. b. There should be no rest fictions on daivatives as long as they are Silly understood by staff and the Commission and are regularly reported to the Commission. Derivatives should only be used selectively based on criteria previously mtahlisheai by the Commission_ 3 Is it acceptable for the Commission to invest In the Mowing low mr,ents(See she Glossary of attached dentitions to mist you is your Tarpons): Riverside County Pool Other County Pool. Direct obligations of the United Statesgreaory bills, notes, bonds) - Federal agency abligaiians(La, Freddie Macs, Ginnie Maea, etc.) .L US- guaranteed utilizations of public agencies or nainicipalities _ Obligations of any state or political subdivision thereof Bonds of en= of highly rated U.S. corporations Bank time or certificates of dapoaii Highly rated cowl paper Highly rated variable delft secured by a bank guarantee Repurchase agreements with bighly rated banks or bond dealers Money market fonds investing in only the above Guaranteed investment contracts with highly rated corapaniea Investment pools which invest in only the above Rc ohi*icn Trust Corporation obligations 2 J T 7 JCA 1 61 4-11-95 ; 3:05PM ; APR 04 '95 10:11AM RCTC CITY OF TEMECULA-4 909 787 7920;# 4/ 5 P.4/9 d_ Financial firturo6 or options contracts with highly rated entities 'w6:..1...�.1._ a n..�__ �_ �.._ - -� : fc!! w g ream c EY6 �aYnQ in which Commission investment decisions abuold be made a Stairshould be tee to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. An investment oversight body abauld be cateblished with the authority to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. . c. E iwve9tneent decision ei should be approved b re band by the entire' Commission. S. Do you believe that a key component of any investment strawy is diversification? Yes _.4'o 6. 11 year answer to No. Cis yea,, do you berseve that investing in e diversified poal(Coonty er tkvere) testa that regtiiremettt? Yee No 7. IP Indicate which is your preference by circling the appropriate letter The anty investment pool that the Commission should use is the County of Ride pool. If the Commission invests in other than the County of Riverside ixiol. it should only be in investment pools meeting the Commission's investment criteria and consistent with laves and regulations governing county and other mmacipal pools_ a- The Commission should not participate in any investment pools. L Carle the letter of the item which best reliecd year viewpoint. - a. Investment decisions/recommendations should never be made wi ha t =salting financial advisors. b. Investment docisionalrecorinuindatians con be made by properly trained and experienced staff investment dorisiosslrecummendatione should include, financial advises k new, complex, or ' PR 24 'a 03:31PPi BOARD OF SUPERVISORS R Gil ii• YJ�lI-F'1 lei. BOO.RD ' 1 o` w�� er. y s Investment Opinion Survey 1. Rank the following in order of importance to you with the number 1 being the most important. Preservation ofprincipal Liquidity Yeld(i.e., return on inert) Preservation of principal alone with reasonable yield. 2. Which of the following most describes your view on the use of derivatives s. All derivatives are risky and should not be used under any rc n tvices. b. i There should be no restrictions on derivatives as long as they are fully understood by staff and the Commiution and are regularly reported to the Commission. Derivatives should only be used selectively based on criteria previously established by the Commission. 3 Is it acceptable for the Comminfun to invert in the following instrumentsOpee the Glossary of reached definitions to assist you in your response): Xfal Riverside County, Pool Other County Pools Direct obligations ofthe United States(Treesury bills, notes, bonds). Federal agency obligadonsa. e., Freddie Macs, Ginnie Maas, etc.) — U.S. guaranteed obligations of public agencies or municipalities Obligations of any state or political subdivision thereof Bonds or notes of highly rated U.S. corporations Bank time or certificates of deposit — 9 ghly rated gal paper linrbly rated variable debt secured by a bank guarantee Repurchase agreements with highly rated banks or bond dealers Money market Saida investing in any the above _ Guaranteed investment contracts with highly rated companies investment pools which invest in only the above Resolution Taut Corporation obligations RPR 24 '95 03: 30PM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS riMM cio -2o fait•rasorri PP4,35 Financial futures or options contracts with highly rated millet 4. Which of the following re Betts the manner in which Commission investment dVous should be made a. Staff should be free to make investment deci based on established guid.elines. An investment oversight body should be established with the authority to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. . c. Each investment decision should be approved before hand by the entire Commission. 5. Do you believe that a key component of any investment pftrmeor i ffive!sl tion2 ,>< Yes _No 6. If your answer to No. 6 ism, do you believe that investingin a diversified pool(Co my or otherwise) meets that requirement? Yes 7. Indicate which is your preference by circling the appropriate letter: The only investment pool that the Commission should u e is the County of Riverside pool. b. If the Commission invents in other than the County of Riverside pool, it should only be in investment pooh meeting the Commission's investment ataxia and consistent with laws and regulations governing county and other municipal pools. c. The Commission should not participate in any investment pools. S. Circle the letter of the item wbie b best :td>extt your viewpoint. Investment decisions/recommendations ahoa !weir In r�nwri0 without l tirig financed advisors. ...��.'�, ..� n b. Investment decisions/recommendations can be arcade by properly trained and experienced stalE Investment decidonsirecommodations should Include financial advisors fix new, comps or mutual inveaimeres. JACK VAN HAASTER Investment Opinion Survey 1. Rank the following in order of importance to you with the number 1 being the most important. 3- L) Preservation of principal Liquidity Yield(i.e., return on investment) Preservation of principal alone with reasonable yield. 2. Which of the following most describes your view on the use of derivatives a. All derivatives are risky and should not be used under any circumstances. b. There should be no restrictions on derivatives as long as they are fully understood by staff and the Commission and are regularly reported to the Commission. Derivatives should only be used selectively based on criteria previously established by the Commission. 3 Is it acceptable for the Commission to invest in the following instruments(see the Glossary of attached definitions to assist you in your response): Yes No Riverside County Pool Other County Pools Dil ect obligations of the United States(Treasury bills, notes, bonds) ✓ Federal agency obligations(i.e., Freddie Macs, Ginnie Maes, etc.) U.S. guaranteed obligations of public agencies or municipalities _ Obligations of any state or political subdivision thereof Bonds or notes of highly rated U.S. corporations Bank time or certificates of deposit 7 Highly rated commercial paper Highly rated variable debt secured by a bank guarantee Repurchase agreements with highly rated banks or bond dealers Money market funds investing in only the above r7 Guaranteed investment contracts with highly rated companies 1 Investment pools which invest in only the above Resolution Trust Corporation obligations 17 7 1/ Financial futures or options contracts with highly rated entities 4. Which of the following reflects the manner in wh:..6 C_ni_.__. ----- --- ....■.......v,,,W,sS10n investment decisions should be made a. Staff should be free to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. An investment oversight body should be established with the authori investment decisions based on established guidelines. ty to make , c. Each investment decision should be approved before hand by the entire Commission, 5. Do you believe that a key component of any investment strategy is diversification? IYes No 6. If your answer to No. 6 is yes, do you believe that investing in a diversified pool(County or otherwise) meets that requirement? /Yes No 7. Indicate which is your preference by circling the appropriate lettcro a. The only investment pool that the Commission should use is the County of Riverside pool. G.) If the Commission invests in other than the County of Riverside i only be in investment pools meeting pool, t should consistent with laws and regulations the Commission s investment criteria and egulations governing county and other municipal pools. c. The Commission should not participate in any investment pools. 8. Circle the letter of the item which best reflects your viewpoint. a. Investment decisions/recommendations should never be made without consulting financial advisors. Investment decisionslr ecommendations can be made by properly trained and experienced staff. c. Investment decisions/recommendations should include financial advisors for new, complex, or unusual investments. Ua: aAr1,$QetV OF SUPERVISORS JOHN TAVAGLIONE b. Investmeai Opinion gamey 1. Rank the fallowing in order of importance to yon with the number 1 being the most important. e2 Preservation ofptiacipal Li4 uidity Yield(i.e., return on ink) Preservation of priacipsl alone with reasonable yield.. 2. Which of the fofowiDag most describes your view on the use of derivatives All derivatives are risky and should not be used under any circumstances. There ahould be no restrictions on derivatives es long u they are fully understood by staff and the Commission and are regularly reported to the Commission. • Derivatives should only be used selectively based on criteria previouaIy eatabhshed by the Commission. 3 Is it acceptable for the Commission to invest in the following instruments(see the Glossary of attached definitions to assist you in your response): 1 Ri side County Pool i♦ Other County Pools Direct obligations ofthe United Statesgreuurybills, notes, bonds) — Federal agency obligatione(i.e., Freddie Macs, Ginnie Mace, etc.) U.S. guaranteed obligations of public agendas or municipalities Obligations of any rite or political subdivision thereof Hands or notes of highly rated U.S. corporation _ Hank time or certificates of deposit Hiighiy rated commercial paper Highly rated variable debt secured by s bank guarantee Repurchase agreements with highly rated banks or bond dealers May mares finds investing in only the above — Guaranteed ievestmetu contracts with highly rated companies Investment pools which invest in only the above Resolution Trust Corporation oblations APR 10.'9. 0Q ° 39"l .B.ui+kl OF SUPERVISORS b. Financial £3Wtea or options comracta with bey rated entities 4. Which of the fn91n...:�., �_y ... --- ,-- _ee•• we manner iu which Commission investment decisions should be made s. 5ta$'shouid be free to nub inver:oust decisions based on s guidelines.hed guidelines. Aa invesiment oversight body should be established with the authority to make investment decisions gi based an extabli delina. , c. Eachinvestment decision should be approved before hand by the entire Coraroissjc. S. Do you believe that a key component ofaay huvesi next strategy t' ljon? toes 6• If your answer to Na 6 is yes, do you believe that invesiing pool(County or otherwise) meets that that in a f vessitied v..d 7. Indicate which is your preference by circling the appropriate letter: The q dyeinvestmentpoo pool that the Conn rt d use ithe County of Riv b. If the be in invests in oar than the County ofRivers p� it d only rtein with lam=s pools meeting the Cameron's investment and loci regulations governing countyIndother municipalpools. c. The Coamnission should not participate in any invest pools. S. Circle the letter of the item which best reflects your viewpoint ' &arida advisors. Investment rscommendationa should sever be made without co nngtlog Invent/lent deoisionsirecommendations experienced staff can be made by properly trained and Ir» dacisionstecommandatIons mould include ampler, er um al investments, won caw, MAR. --?2' 95 (WED) 08:40 TEL:909 3836239 P. 002 :�yv�k:'I�i4 ��1+:rfa'� ii•� ITT STEELS Investment Opinion Survey 1. RanVthe following in order of importance to you with the number 1 being the most important. Preservation of principal Y Liquidity Yeld(i.e., return on investment) 1 Preservation of principal along with reasonable yield. 2. Which of the following most describes your view on the use of derivatives a_ All derivatives are risky and should pot be used under any circumstances. b. There should be no restrictions on derivatives as long as they are fully understood by staff and the Commission and are regularly reported to the Commission. c Derivatives should only be used selectively based on criteria previously established by the Commission. 3 Is it acceptable for the Commission to invest in the following instruments(:ee the Glossary reattached definitions to assist you in your response): Riverside County Pool Other County Pools Direct obligations of the United States(Treasury bills, notes, bonds) Federal agency oblimnne(.e., Freddie Macs, Ginnie Maes, etc.) U.S. guaranteed obligations of public agencies or municipalities Obligations of any state or political subdivision thereof Bonds or notes of highly rated U.S. corporations Bank time or certificates of deposit Highly rated commercial paper Highly rated variable debt secured by a bank guarantee Repurchase agreements with highly rated banks or bond dealers Money market finds investing in only the above GuatonteecI investment •contracts with highly rated companies Investment pools which invest in only the above Resolution Trust Corporation obligations MAR. -22' 95 (WED) 08:40 TEL: 909 3836239 P_003 -..... is i farares or options contracts with highly rated entities 4. Which of the following reflects the manner in which Commission investment decisions should be made - _ a. Staff should be free to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. b. An investment oversight body should be established with the authority to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. . c. Each investment decision should be approved before hand by the entire Commission_ 5. Do you believe that a key component of any investment strategy is diversification? Yes ,No 6. If your answer to No is yes, do you believe that investing in a diversified or othe e, mxL •+�� requirement? Les 7. Indicate which is your preference by circling the aPProRriate letter: a. The only investment pool that the Comniissian should useis the County of Riverside pool O If the Commission invests in other than only be in investment pools the County °f �'�e pool, it should meeting the Commisaon s investment criteria and consistent with laws and regulations governing county and other municipal pools. c- The Commission should not participate in any investment pools. 8. Cwcle the letter of the item which hest reflects your viewpoint a. Investment decisions/recommendations should never be made without consulting financial advisors_ b. Investment deci ions/recormrndations can be made by properly trained and experienced staff c. Investment decisions/recommendations should include financial advisors for new, complex, or unusual investments. DICK KELLY Yes N� Investment Opinion Survey 1. Rank the following in order of importtpce to you with the number 1 being the most important. r. SS,:;, II I Preservation of principal 3 Liquidity Yield(i.e., return on investment) Preservation of principal alone with reasonable yield. 2. Which of the following most cribes your view on the up of derivlitives lialti a. leriva`li ar 'si y and u n t o used under any �cs-rc r stances. s 1^ Gs lc c., rte- - -e_ , y4°"'''r" yoi t CifoLe 5i? 6 0 b. There should be no restrictions on derivatives as long as they are fully understood by staff and the Commission and are regularly reported to the Commission. c. Derivatives should only be used selectively based on criteria previously established by the Commission. 3 Ls it acceptable for the Commission to invest in the following instruments(see the Glossary of attached definitions to assist you in your response): S Riverside County Pool A Other County Pools Direct obligations of the United States(Treasury bills, notes, bonds) Federal agency obiigations(i.e., Freddie Macs, Ginnie Maes, etc.) _ U.S. guaranteed obligations of public agencies or municipalities _ X Obligations of any state or political subdivision thereof _ Bonds or notes of highly rated U.S. corporations _ X - Bank time or certificates of deposit 'Z Highly rated commercial paper Z it Highly rated variable debt secured by a bank guarantee �C Repurchase agreements with highly rated banks or bond dealers ? Z Money market funds investing in only the above 3.. x Guaranteed investment contracts with highly rated companies S X_ Investment pools which invest in only the above 2. Pt.. Resolution Trust Corporation obligations . 0-4A------ D-- 141--(A-Ai --cAA,f4 eo Financial futures or options contracts with highly rated entities 4. Which of the following reflects .. ____� the ,...�,,.,�� ,u which Commission Investment decisions should be made a. Staff should be free to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. An investment oversight body should be established with the authority to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. . c. Each investment decision should be approved before hand by the entire Commission. 5. Do you believe that a key component of any investment strategy is divgrs'ficatio€�? Yes 6 �,� ��� c cy .� �-r s rc No 6. If your answer to No. 6 is yes, do you believe that investing in a diversified pool(County or otherwise) meets that requirement? ,res 1 A ! F No 7. Indicate which is your preference by circling the appropriate letter: The only investment pool that the Commission should us Riverside pool. b. If the Commission invests in other than the County of Riverside pool, it should only be in investment pools meeting the Commission's investment criteria and consistent with laws and regulations governing county and other municipal pools. c. The Commission should not participate in any investment pools. is the County of Ga h'ev 8. Circle the letter of the item which best reflects your viewpoint. a. Investment decisions/recommendations should never be ,made without consulting financial advisors. Investment decisions/re o experienced stag' w endations can be mad b properly trained and c. Investment deci ions/recoinmend tions show include complex, or unusual investments_ financial advisors for new, APR 05 '95 02:28PM RCTC AMEAL MOORE P.3/9 Investment Opinion Survey 1. Rank the following in order of importance to you with the number 1 being the most important. Preservation of principal .3 Liquidity Yield(i.e., return on investment) Preservation of principal alone with reasonable yield. 2. Which of the following most describes your view on the use of derivatives a. All derivatives are risky and should not be used under any circumstances. b. There should be no restrictions on derivatives as long as they are fully understood by staff and the Commission and are regularly reported to the Commission. c. Derivatives should only be used selectively based on criteria previously established by the Commission. 3 Is it acceptable for the Commission to invest in the following instruments(see the Glossary of attached definitions to assist you in your response): Xra Riverside County Pool Other County Pools Direct obligations of the United States(Treasury bills, notes, bonds) J Federal agency obligations(i,e., Freddie Macs, Ginnie Maes, etc.) .� U.S. Guaranteed obligations of public agencies or municipalities Obligations of any state or political subdivision thereof -/ Bonds or notes of highly rated U.S. corporations Bank time or certificates of deposit Z. ✓. Highly rated commercial paper Highly rated variable debt secured by a bank guarantee Repurchase agreements with highly rated banks or bond dealers I/ Money market funds investing in only the above Z. Guaranteed investment contracts with highly rated companies Investment pools which invest in only the above Resolution Trust Corporation obligations No APR 05 '95 02:29PM RCTC P.4/9 MEAL MOORE Financial futures or options contracts with highly rated entities 4. Which of the following reflects the manner in which Commission investment decisions should be made Staff should be free to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. b. An investment oversight body should be established with the authority to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. . c. Each investment decision should be approved before hand by the entire Commission. 5. Do you believe that a key component of any investment strategy is diversification? �es No 6. If your answer to No. 6 is yes, do you believe that investing in a diversified pool(County or ot)rwise) meets that requirement? /Yes No 7. Indicate which is your preference by circling the appropriate letter: The only investment pool that the Conunission should use is the County of Riverside pool. b. If the Commission invests in other than the County of Riverside pool, it should only be in investment pools meeting the Commission's investment criteria and consistent with laws and regulations governing county and other municipal pools. c. The Commission should not participate in any investment pools. S. Circle the letter of the item which best reflects your viewpoint. a. Investment decisions/recommendations should never be made without consulting financial advisors. Investment decisions/recommendations can be made by properly trained and experienced staff. Investment decisions/recommendations should include financial advisors for new, complex, or unusual investments. H r R - L i - 7 r K l .L =A . 4 P - 8 2 Investment Opinion Survey ALEC CLIFFORD 1. Rank the following in order of importance to you with the number 1 being the most important. d Preservation of principal 4 Liquidity Yield(i.e., return on investment) Preservation of principal alone with reasonable yield. 2. Which of the following most describes your view on the use of derivatives a. All derivatives are risky and should not be used under anrcircumstances. b. There should be no restrictions on derivatives as long as they are fully understood by staff and the Commission and are regularly reported to the Commission. Derivatives should only be used selectively based on criteria previously established by the Commission. At AP", :)E..f "at (.3 3 Is it acceptable for the Commission to invest in the following instruments(see the Glossary of attached definitions to assist you in your response): Yu N4 Riverside County Pool Other County Pools Direct obligations of the United States(Treasury bills, notes, bonds) %_ Federal agency obligations(i.e,, Freddie Macs, Ginnie Maes, etc.) ' . -- U.S. guaranteed obligations of public agencies or municipalities 4 — Obligations of an. state or political subdivision thereof Bonds or notes of highly rated U.S. corporations K. Bank time or certificates of deposit Ifiighly rated commercial paper 'I — Highly rated variables bt secured by a bank guarantee ,,,i# X 01 - — Repurchase agreements with highly rated banks or bond dealers ..t.:50.4 _ Money market funds investing in only the above 4 - Guaranteed investment contracts with highly rated companies Investment pools which invest in only the above Resolution Trust Corporation obligations — I. 4 i C--04,4-tit 11444vol „,_T.11 Veie 7 .4-.)..-."- Fotvid t _ y J1r r K 1 1 2 4 4 . 03 A .T. tki Financial futures or options contracts with highly rated entities Which of the following reflects the manner in which Commission investment decisions should be made Staff should be free to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. ore fr. r�r ..�. e4iO4,, Al+ �� T., .At ", a% rr:..� ar o ma '1" +�ro.A • N, b. An investment oversight body should be established with the authority to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. . c. Each investment decision should be approved before hand by the entire Commission. 5. Do you believe that a key component of any investment strategy is diversification? Les 6. 1i your answer to No. 5 is a d pool��nu�aty or otherwisey ' do you believe that investing in a diverse meets that requirement? ir_Yes i �P Re Gil No "u. pes ap/. 7. Indicate which is your preference by circling the appropriate letter: a. The ordy investment pool that the Commission should use is the County of Riverside pool. If the Commission invests in other than the County o ol, it only be in investment pools meeting the Commission's investment criteria and should consistent with laws and regulations governing county and other municipal pools. c. The Commission should not participate in any investment pools. 8. Circe the letter of the item which best reflects your viewpoint. P t. a. Investment decisions,/reommerdations should never be made without consulting financial advisors. b. Investment decisions/recommendations can be made by properly trained experienced staff. and Investment decisions/recommendations should include complex, or unusual investments, a financial advisors for new, A 147 ► .. . v +� n r K y A a rc s, q -AA 7� Ave.., ada 1c*j� n cs AFR 04 '95 :21345PM RCTC P.3'9 Investment Opinion Survey TOM MULLEN 1. link the fngowhig in order of importance to you with the number 1 being the most important 1 Preservation of principal Liquidity YLdd(L e return on investment) Preservation cf principal alone with reasonable yield. 2. Which of the following mat des hes your new on the use of derivatives a. All derivatives are risky and should not be used under any c. b. There should be no restrictions an derivatives as long u they are fully understood by staff and the Commission and are regularly reported to the Commission. Derivatives should only be used selectively based on aiteria previously established by the Commission. 3 Is it acceptable for the Commission to invest in the following instrvmeats(see the G ossary. of attached defmirions to assist you in your response): la Riverside County Pool ✓ ' Other County Pools Direct obligations of the United States('xessuty bills, notes, bonds) Federal agency obiiga ons(i.e., Freddie Mace, Ginnie Maas etc.) •c . U.S. guaranteed obligations of public agenciesor municipalities Obligations of any state or political subdivision thereof on or notes of highly rimed U.S.. cozporstions t'r� �r ccs w Bank time or cerrifi ates'ofdeposit e/ 41,16 is �ret� �' 144-u vi�y rated Commercial paper '. urchasa rated variable debt secured by a bank guarantee 2 . marts with highly rated banks or band dealers Money market funds investing in only the above RepGuaranteed investment contracts with highly rated companies Investment pools which invest in only the above Resolution Truitt Corpo:arion obligations _ f E'd S8OSIAa3df1S JO addoe We22:80 S6 0T eldti APR 04 '95 01:46PM RCTC P.4'9 • Financial furur or options contracts witb highly rated entities MMIN aft Which of the following reflects the manner in which Commission Investmem' decisions should be made Buff should be free to make investnacnt decisions based on established ' delin' es. kik tiiiiske4 b. An investment oversight body should be established with the authority to Mike tgal4 investment decision! based on �blrshed gee . hriet c. sr" filnr Each ink decision should be apprpved before head by the cadre i Commis S. Do you behave tir a key component of any investment straeu is diversification? Yea �To If your answer to No. 6 is yes, do yon believe that investing in a diversified pool(County or otherwise) meets that requirement? Yee _�Yo 7. Indicate which ie your preference by circling the appropriate ro riate letter: L The only investment pool that the Commiuion should use is the County of Riverside pool b. Yf the Commission invests in other then the Ca only be in investment pools meeting the pool, it 0' co st with laws and Commission's atves�� criteria and rations god county and other municipal pools. The Commission should not participate in any investment pools. ' . 3. Circle the letter of the item which best reflects your viewpoint: • a. Investment decisiostslreeoa,�n r.::bould soft be nude without cI advisors. consulting investment dec ondrecamm ms can be snide by properly tined and experienoed stag o• Invest= deaiaions/recomramdaiions should include complex, or unusual investments. financial advisors for new, b•d S21OSIA83df1S JO aNUO8 WF :80 S6, 0T MAH APR 20 '95 A2:15PM RCTC GERALD PIMA Investw 1. Link the following in order of importance to you w important. Preservation of principal 1 Liquidity Yield(i.e., return on invesunent) Preservation of principal alone with reasonable yield. 2. Which of the following most describes your view on the use of derivatives All derivatives are risky and should not be used under any circumstances. b. There should be no restrictions on derivatives as long as they are fully understood by staff and the Commission and are regularly reported to the Commission. c:. Derivatives should only be used selectively based on criteria previously established by the Commission. 3 Is it acceptable for the Commission to invest in the following instruments(see the Glossary of attached definitions to assist you in your response): XII Riverside County Pool Other County Pools Direct obligations of the United States(Treasury bills, notes, bonds) Federal agency obligations(i.e., Freddie Macs, Ginnie Maes, etc.) U.S. guaranteed obligations of public agencies or municipalities Obligations of any state or political subdivision thereof Bonds or notes of highly rated U.S. corporations flank time or certificates of deposit Highly rated commercial paper Highly rated variable debt secured by a bank guarantee Repurchase agr raents with highly rated banks or bond dealers Money market funds investing in only the above Guaranteed investment contracts with highly razed companies Investment pools which invest in only the above Resolution Trust Corporation obligations ._ APR 20 '95 02:15PM RCTC .. , l L G S C. K 1 r-1 U 1 r'FlI..S P - 1dl Financial futures or options contracts with highly rated des 4. Which of the following reflects the miner in which Commission investment decisions should be made a. Staff should be free to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. b. An investmcra oversight body should be established with the authority to make investment decisions based on established guidelines. . Each investment decision should be approved before hand by the entire Commission. 5. Do you believe th t a key component of a investment. strategy is diversification? Yes No 6. If ,your answer to No. 6 is yes, do you believe chat investing in a diversified pool(County or otherwise) meets that requirement? _Yes 7. Indicate which is your preference by circling the appropriate letter: a. The only investment pool that the Commission should use is the County of Riverside pooL b, If the Commission invests in other than the County ofRiverside pool. it should only be in investment pools meeting the Commission's investment criteria and consistent with laws and regulations governing county and other municipal pools. The Commission should not participate in any investment pools. 8. Circle the letter of the item which best reflects your Viewpoint. Investment d eadvisis onsslrecar„r,�,e., moi s should urger be made without consulting fina rs. Investment decisimuireconunendations can be made by properly trained and experienced staff b. c. Investment decisions/recomasrtidat;n should include financial advisors for new, complex, or unusual 9. What else do you feel staff and/or budget and Finance should consider in devising an investment policy? (1) Investment decisions should be made internally by experienced well qualified staff, reviewed daily by chief executive officers responsible for financial affairs (but not involved in investment decisions), audited monthly for compliance with policy, and investment reports made to the Board of Directors monthly. Control and execution of investment decisions should never be given to an outside manager and/or fiaaneial advisor (they should recommend only). Physical control and accountability for securities should be maintained withan independent, t custodial bank so as to enable RTC to exercise control and maintain ownership of the assets in the event the custodial bank files I for bankruptcy. Securities should never be held in a brokerage fu okccount. (4) To minimize default risks on other than U. S. Treasury and Federal Agency securities, RTC should require high credit quality standards on securities purchased for the portfolio, should limit the dollar size of holdings with any one firm, and limit maturities on all purchases (other than U. S. Treasury and Federal Agency securities) to 2 years or less. (2) (3) It is very Important that you complete the survey so that your opinions are considered by the Budget and Finance Committee. (5) Forbid purchases in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO's), financial futures and option contracts, bond funds with daily market adjustments in value (NAVs), purchases in county pools, and purchases in =rated municipal bonds on which there is a disclaimer that the faith, credit, and taxing power of the governmental entity is not pledged as a means of repayment. (While the Riverside County pool is prudently and conservatively managed. nonetheless, prudence would dictate that if RTC is fully capable of making its own investments, that it should do so under its own investment policy guidelines.) S • d SZIOSIAZ13df1S JO QMoa 411 622:130 S6, 0t add A P -- 1- y r r< l 1 5 - 4 4 0 4 9. What else do you feel staff and/or Budget and Finance should consider in devising an investment policy? b .i sl»y (.e.' 1&. '4s (.%) eh% T?/Pe 3 e t d1/444S1-0. e.t t S c,'F), s kte-eikr or\ ge CA ...*7-49 (10 F-Cil 0") JA2pe t Co...eon:1S .s��� L ►�-� c Gti - zc „a!� aJ�� fev e''et/ ('J: 6.14 x e.s f . :) 4J -2e4 Pef',5dmAQf -6, v►![( ft)4 ueivne•ItE 1(e e al t: r4 AP ÷4 -Zrr4-11Thnaf e,vn-FrdlS It is very important that you complete the survey so that your opinions are considered by the Budget and Finance Committee. APR 05 '95 02:29PM RCTC P.5/9 9. What else do you feel staff and/or Budget and Finance should consider in devising an investment policy? he P 1' v€s,� 51 It is very important that you complete the survey so that your opinions are considered by the Budget and Finance Committee. 9. What else do you feel staff and/or Budget and Finance should consider in devising an investment policy? y 0-S 1+4.pDvt�w O J y' I v I r kvt c Did LuC Gj '�rrw► r Le -A- vc o C- '���, C(f ies jzs a sexca Sri- I C+ e. 0)/ 1)2 el'O rt CA/C (a 6) [9 011/C4/2 -?-1 Poi, 67 1 It is very important that you complete the survey so that your opinions are considered by the Budget and Finance Committee. -/v,A4 0-L ct cpur,A+J - L,/c aA.14 p. LkA? 44s,rz,c /747 PfiA ci MAR. -22' 95 MED) 08:41 TEL:909 3836239 P. 004 9. What else do you feel staff and/or Budget and Finance should consider in devising • an investment policy? It is very important that you complete the"survey so that your opinions are considered by the Budget and Finance Committee. rim 1e ' S� rmy: S4AM BOR ') OF SUPERVISORS P.4 P.5/9 9. What du do you feet staff and/or Budget and Fla:nce should consider in devising an investment polity? It la very important that you complete the survey so that your opinions are considered by the Budget and Finance Committee w 9. What else do you feel staff and/or Budget and Finance should consider in devising an investment policy? It is very important that you complete the survey so that your opinions are considered by the Budget and Finance Committee. ', PR Apirrc Go - 95 va Wi3G i VA PMrII BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 9. What else do you feel staff and/or Budget and Finance should consider in ding an investment policy'? It is very important that you complete the survey to that your opinions are consider}' by the Budget and Finance Committee. .3L1\1 01 • 4-11-b0 ; ;3. 0bt M ; APR 04 •96 10:11Am RCTC CITY OF TEMECIJLA 909 787 7920;# 5/ 5 P.S.9 9. What else do you' feel staff and/or Budget and raisinraisin& aho del consider in deviling an investment pow' It is very important flat you complete the survey so that your opinions are considered by the Badgct and Finance Committee. 9. What else do you feel staff and/or Budget and Finance should consider in devising an investment policy? Cele_c-4-eci) c•P4tetic arc, 61 e_, -7,4 &4d� - It is very important that you complete the survey so that your opinions are considered by the Budget and Finance Committee. 9. What else do you feel staff and/or Budget and Finance should consider in devising an investment policy? ///?Y M' cam' /1/ r� �.. 1 It is very important that you complete the survey so that your opinions are considered by the Budget and Finance Committee. AGENDA ITEM #5D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 3, 1995 TO: RCTC Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Allocation of Potential Losses Related to Orange County Investments At the time the Orange County investment pool bankruptcy filing, RCTC's unexpended bond proceeds were held by the California Arbitrage Management Program (CAMP) pool, a portion of which were also invested in Orange County bonds; of the total $70.1 million, $2.5 million were in such bonds. CVAG requested clarification from RCTC staff on the impact of Orange County bonds on funds controlled by RCTC in CVAG's behalf. RCTC staff responded that since $64.2 million of the bond funds were reserved for CVAG projects, potential loss to CVAG in the form of reduced investment yield could be as high as $2.3 million. CVAG has not agreed that it should be exposed to that level of loss, since the funds were under the control of RCTC. We have met with CVAG staff to help us understand their concerns. RCTC staff suggests that the following options may be appropriate for consideration: a. Allocate potential loss proportionate to the return to source formula - 70% Western County, 28% Coachella Valley, and 2% Palo Verde Valley. b. Allocate the potential loss proportionate to the original intended distribution of bond funds. c. Allocate the potential loss proportionate to the amount of bond funds reserved for distribution for projects at the time of fund segregation. d. Allocate the potential loss proportionate to total cash balances (i.e., both bond proceeds and Measure A funds held by Riverside County treasurer). The attached table exhibits the financial implications for the Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley for each of the above referenced options. RECOMMENDATION RCTC should retain Ernst & Young for an independent review and recommendation on the options. Riverside County Transportation Commission Allocation of CAMP Segregated Funds Western County Coachella Valley ' Palo Verde Valley Amount in CAMP Segregated Pool $2,518,758 Return to Source Percentage of Original Bond Proceeds 1,788,318 692,658 37,781 71.0% 27.5% 1.5% 1,119,448 1,399,310 N/A 44.4% 55.6% Percentage of Remaining Bond Proceeds Cash Balances(exclusive of Bond Proceeds) Total Cash Balances(includes Bond Proceeds) 214,346 8.5% 2,304,412 91.5% N/A 676,172 26.8% 1,833,577 72.8% 9,009- 0.4% 384,577 2,130, 860 203 15.3% 84.6% 0.0% AGENDA ITEM #5E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 3, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Revision to the City of Murietta Loan Commitment The City of Murietta has requested that the Commission revise its $17,000,000 loan commitment for the building of two interchanges at Murietta Hot Springs Road. Staff is recommending approval of their request to increase their draw limit prior to mall construction from $2,250,000 to $4,250,000. The funding available from the increased cap would be used to widen the north side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road to four lanes, and to widen the south side to provide four lanes and a left turn lane from 1-215 to Warm Springs Creek. The attached proposal from the City of Murrieta fully describes these improvements and the benefits to the County of Riverside and to the City. In June 1992, the Commission approved a $17,000,000 loan to the City of Murietta to fund the construction of two interchanges at Murietta Hot Springs Road. The loan was secured by Measure A local streets and roads funds, seventy five percent of gas tax revenues, bridge and thoroughfare assessment district fees, sales tax revenues pledged to the mall developer (secured by a subordination agreement signed by the developer), and the full faith and credit of the City of Murietta. The construction of the interchanges was a necessary part of a major mall development planned in the City of Murietta. The Commission's loan commitment was contingent upon the obtaining of bank financing for the mall and subsequent construction of the mall. Pending receipt of a commercial bank construction loan, the Commission placed a cap of $2,250,000 on the amount of funds which Murietta could borrow from the Commission. This allowed engineering for the project to proceed until the bank's requirements for a mall construction loan were met. Additionally, this dollar limitation was well within the City of Murietta's repayment abilities even if revenues expected from mall sales and area development never materialized. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\MURRIETA.DM Page 2 As of June 30, 1994, the Commission had actually loaned the City of Murietts t� Iwo nnn __�_ $ �,24�,,OOO, including accrued interest. The remaining outstanding commitment to the City is $15,752,000, of which approximately $3.1 million would be available if this revision is approved. Preliminary analysis (see table on next page) by staff indicates that the City of Murietta has the financial capacity to repay the increased amount. Staff calculates the debt coverage ratio to be approximately 1.4:1 (i.e., for every dollar in debt there is $1.40 in available revenues), exclusive of development revenues. With development revenues factored in the debt coverage ratio improves to 2.1:1. The coverage ratio is calculated based on historical (i.e., actual past results) performance and not forecasted results. Measure A sales tax revenues Gas tax (75%) Total Debt service payments on $4,500,000 Debt coverage ratio Total revenues (including development fees of $350,000) Fully loaded debt coverage ratio $350,000 300,000 $650,000 $472,000 1.4 $1,000,000 2..1 (Note: The loan interest rate in the year 2000 will increase to prime plus three. At today's prime the payments would increase to approximately $570,000 annually). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Approve an amendment to the loan with the City of Murrieta to increase the cap from $2,250,000 to $4,250,000, and revise the project scope as outlined on the attached proposal. 2) Authorize the Executive Director to execute the needed changes to the various loan documents subject to Legal Counsel review. :jw Attachment F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\MURRIETA.DM PROPOSAL Revise the Installment Sale Agreement between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the City of Murrieta to allow the widening of the north side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road to ultimate width of four lanes from I-15 to I-215 and the widening of the south side to provide four lanes and a left turn lane from I-215 to Warm Springs Creek. The four lanes on the north side between the two freeways would be used as two eastbound and two westbound lanes in the interim until the south side is improved in conjunction with development of the Murrieta Springs Mall. Since the County of Riverside is currently improving Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Warm Springs Creek to Winchester Road as part of Assessment District No. 161, widening on the south side between I-215 and Warm Springs Creek to provide four lanes and a left turn lane would result in a full four -lane facility for Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Jefferson Avenue to Winchester Road with the exception of the two freeway overpasses. The estimated cost of this project is $2,614,000. Including funds budgeted for the current project of approximately $1,500,000 and based on current contributions by the City of $1,131,000 annually from its transportation funds, the time to repay RCTC would be approximately 3 years with developer fees being used or 4.5 years without developer fees. 4 r r ¢/ \ / X41- 1 �- � `� / _ \. / 'x 5 r� &*"v for 1 # •, \ cc /r 1 Z^�' • _—� — Lam` os 4, 0 0 1 / /�\ 0 \ 0 tu �/ 11 \ HOt SP544 1 \ — — — A!Il BRlE. r.4L _'._— _. — _- - _ — _ _I — -- — — NOT SPRVN es,/ 1 1 � C�' c/• 1 �etrL ty;4•ie iSUI�l7EA ` I ;.,‘• w� ` w w ,,r kL5* I [a, 11 u►a i I i OE es cwnO �Y�`r t„L E=porno . —— % 4-144F 0 Y "y- iT� s_ y4 JJ 1., r ... _ ....'";3;-4e. . Lp ( �L L�� / z �p`"V1A r �uxA,GROLM 1 W 7 1 / / ik s7 I ar 1E +} "tirZw4,rx • \ 1 l' -6" e / _�— _ 1 A�,S AA. .. '"--.4 i —4Y / ` \\ --~lam„ a s� •' I / \\4\ 1 r/�/ `- �■ .. \ '4. \ / PROJE CT LIMITS `✓ \ rr • I \ .> \ r/ \\ 1 r<. \ r\ \ ,fy ! \ r • \\ f�' \\ `• r// \ • \ / / \ • fu-- / ' '.. . \ , 4, e / \ \ N, •\\ \ no 73 • / • G • • f • • • •• I • • / • • NICOLAi �r VICIN "Y MAP BACKGROUND On November 1, 1992, the City of Murrieta entered into an Installment Sale Agreement with the Riverside County Transportation Commission to fund improvements to the I-15 and I-215 interchanges at Murrieta Hot Springs Road as well as the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road between I-15 and I-215 in conjunction with the development of the Murrieta Springs Mall. Although the development of the Mall has been delayed, the City is proceeding to finalize design plans and acquire right-of-way for this project. The City of Murrieta feels it is important for several reasons to begin improving Murrieta Hot Springs Road before development of the Murrieta Springs Mall. 1. Murrieta Hot Springs Road is a narrow two-lane roadway at unfavorable grades between the two freeways. 2. Traffic studies prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates in 1992 show that Murrieta Hot Springs Road will be at Level of Service F in 1996 without the planned improvements. 3. This congestion will have significant adverse impacts on existing retail businesses in the area. 4. Improvements to this arterial highway will provide a significant incentive to the expansion of the Sharp Hospital and development of the Yoder property. 5. Expenditure of funds for highway construction work in southwest Riverside County by the Transportation Commission would be an incentive for economic development in this area. PROPOSED ACTION Amend the current Installment Sale Agreement as follows: 1. Revise the scope of the project as described above. 2. Increase the limit of RCTC funds the City is allowed to draw down prior to a construction loan for the Mall being recorded from $2,250,000 to $4,250,000. COST ESTIMATE TO IMPROVE MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD FROM I-15 TO WARM SPRINGS CREEK Ultimate improvements on north side between I-15 and I-215 including traffic signals at the I-15 interchange: $1,554,000 Right-of-way costs on north side between I-15 and I-215: 490,000 Improvements to south side between I-215 and Warm Springs Creek including widening Warm Springs Creek bridge: 5 70, 000 TOTAL $2,614,000 (Includes funding for design, contract administration, inspection, testing, surveying, etc.) // CITY OF MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL REPORT DATE: MARCH 21, 1995 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BEN MINAMIDE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEERfl/ SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF RCTC AGREEMENT - INIPROVENIEN S ON M1URRLETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD RECOMMEND ATION Authorize City staff to negotiate changes in the existing Installment Sale Agreement with the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allow the widening of the north side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road to ultimate width of four lar,ec from 1-15 to 1-215 and the _ g south side to provide four lanes and a left turn lane from 1-215 to Warm Springs Creek. of the BACKGROUND On November 1, 1992, the City entered into an Installment Sale Agreement with the Riverside County Transportation Commission to fund improvements to the I-15 and I-215 interchanges at Murrieta Hot Springs Road as well as the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road between 1-15 and I-215 in conjunction with the development of the Murrieta Springs Mall. Although the development of the Mall has been delayed, staff is proceeding at the City Council's direction to finalize design plans and acquire right-of-way for this project. Recently, there have been discussions with the Sharp Hospital and with potential developers of the Yoder ro regarding an expansion project property east of 1-215. Staff feels it is important for several reasons to begin improving Murrieta Hot Springs Road before development of the Murrieta Springs Mall. Those reasons are as follows: 1. Murrieta Hot Springs Road is a narrow two-lane roadway at unfavorable grades between the two freeways. 2. Improvements to this arterial highway will provide a significant incentive for the expansion of the Sharp Hospital and development of the Yoder property. 3. Traffic capacity and safety would be increased and travel delays decreased. City Council Report dated March 21, 1995 Subject: Modification of RCI'C Agreement - Improvements on Murrieta Hot Springs Road Page: 2 4. Expenditure of funds for highway construction work in southwest Riverside County by the Transportation Commission would be an incentive for economic development in this area and would put existing funding to work. Staff feels that a highway improvement project that would satisfy the City's and RCTC's goals would be widening of the north side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the ultimate width of four lanes between I-15 and I-215 and the widening of the south side to provide four lanes and a left turn lane from I-215 to Warm Springs Creek. The four lanes on the north side between the two freeways would be used as two eastbound and two westbound lanes in the interim until the south side is improved in conjunction with development of the Mall. Since the County of Riverside is currently improving Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Warm Springs Creek to Winchester Road as part of Assessment District No. 161, widening on the south side between I-215 and Warm Springs Creek to provide four lanes and a left turn lane would result in a full four lane facility for Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Jefferson Avenue to Winchester Road. The cost estimate for these improvements is $2,354,000. The current Installment Sale Agreement does not include improvements to Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of I-215 and the limit of RCTC funds the City is allowed to draw down prior to a construction loan for the Mall being recorded is $2,250,000. This includes monies now being expended for project design and right-of-way acquisition. Therefore, the City would need to negotiate amendments to the Agreement with RCTC in order to initiate the subject project. BUDGET IMPACT No funds are required for the recommended action. EXHIBITS Exhibit A - Project Cost Estimate Submitted by: aul E. Cook, Project Director da195CCMEMO\RCICMHSR.CC COST ESTIMATE TO IMPROVE MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD FROM 1-15 TO WARM SPRINGS CREEK Ultimate improvements on north side between I-15 and 1-215: Right-of-way costs on north side between I-15 and I-215: Improvements to south side between I-215 and Warm Springs Creek including widening Warm Springs bridge: TOTAL (Includes funding for design, contract administration, inspection, testing, surveying, etc.) dM195CCA¢MO\RCCCMHSA. CC S 1,294,000 490,000 570,000 $ 2,354,000 a(9o,voz EXHIBIT A RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROJECTED ANNUAL DISBURSEMENTS FY 1996-2000 1996 1997 1998 WE STE RN COUNTY AREA: BANNING BEAUMONT CALIM ESA CANYON LADS CORONA HEMET LAKE ELSINO RE M ORENO VALLEY M URRIETA NORCO PERRIS RIVERSIDE SAN JACINTO TEMECULA RIVERSIDE CO UNTY WESTERN COUNTY AREA TO TAL $316,163.94 $148,083.11 $136,391.44 $141,745 .00 81,469,908.92 8777,747.71 $360,977 .03 $1,721,823 .26 $392,137.99 $338,917. 74 8428,003.43 $3,736,592. 75 $282,588. 47 $719,548.57 $3,419,121.38 $ 14,389,760. 75 $327,229.68 $153,266.02 $141,165.14 $146,706.08 $1,521,355.73 8804,968 .88 $373,611.23 81,782,087 .07 $405,862 .82 $350,779 .86 $442,983 .55 $3,867,373 .50 $292,479.07 $744,732.77 $3,538,790. 63 $14,893,392.03 8338,682 .71 $158,630.33 $146,105.92 $151,840.79 81,574,603.18 $833,142.80 $386,687.62 81,844,460 .12 $420,068 .02 $363,057.16 8458,487 .97 $4,002,731.57 $302,715 .83 $770,798.41 $3,662,648.31 $15,414,660.76 1999 $350,536 .61 $164,182 .39 8151,219.62 8157,155.22 $1,629,714.29 $862,302 .79 8400,221.69 $1,909,016 .23 $434,770.40 $375,764 .16 $474,535 .05 84,142,827 .18 $313,310.89 8797,776.36 $3,790,841 .00 2000 T OTAL 1998-2009 $362,805 .39 8169,928 .77 8156,512.31 8162,655.65 $1,686,754.29 $892,483 .39 $414,229 .45 $1,975,831 .79 $449,987 .36 8388,915 .91 $491,143 .78 84,287,826 .13 $324,276.77 8825,698.53 $3,923,520.43 $16,954,173.87 $16,512,569.96 $1,695,418.33 8794,090 .61 $731,394.42 8760,102 .74 $7,882,336 .41 $4,170,645.58 $1,935,727.02 $9.233,218 .48 82,102,826.60 $1,817,434.83 $2,295,153.79 820,037,351.13 81,515,371 .02 $3,858,554 .64 $18,334,921 .75 $77,164,547 .36 PA LM SPRINGS *1,012,638. 68 *1,048,081.03 51,064,763 .87 ;1,122,730.61 ;1,162,026 .18 $5,430,240-37 PALM DESERT *901,223.46 *932,766.29 ;965,413 .11 ;999,202.56 81,034,174 .65 ;4,832,780 .06 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND R OADS PROJECTED ANNUAL DISBURSEMENTS FY 1996-2000 1988 1$9}' . 1998. 1899 2040 TOTAL 1998 2000: COACHELLA V ALLEY AREA: ATHEDRAL CITY *661,711 .79 *684,871.70 $708,842.21 ;733,651 .69 5759,329.50 C OACHELLA � 13,548,406 88 OACMELLA *0 .00 *0.00 *0 .00 90 .00 10 ,00 !NDIO *584,520.31 *604,978 .52 ;626,152.77 ;648,068.12 ;670,750 .50 53,134,47022 LA Q UINTA 10.00 *0.00 x •00 50.00 *0 .00 50 .00 DESERT HO T SPRINGS 50 .00 90•00 50 .00 *0.00 *0 .00 10.00 INDIAN WELLS ;110,902 .68 1114,784 .28 5118,801 .72 ;122,959 .79 ;127,263.38 ;594,711.84 RANCHO M IRAGE ;354,914.56 ;367,336.57 $380,193 .35 ;393,500.12 ;407,272 .62 ;1,903,217.22 RIVERSIDE COUNTY *607,830.70 *629,104. 78 5651,123 .44 *673,912.76 1697,499 .71 $3,259,471 40 CVAG 5586,063. 60 ;606,575. 83 *627,805.98 ;649,779.19 $672,521.46 $3,142,746 C5 CO ACHELLA VALLEY AREA TOTAL $4,819,805.79 $4,988,498.99 $8,163,096.45 $8,343,804.83 *5,530,838 .00 $25,848,044.06 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A`: .:L OCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROJECTED ANNUAL DISBURSEMENTS FY 1996-2000 TOTAL 1996 1997. : .. . . 1998 1999 2000 1996-2000 PALO VERDE VALLEY AR EA BLYTHE $516,861.82 $534,951 .99 $553,675 .31 $573,053 .94 $593,110.83 $2,771,653.89 RIVERSIDE COUNTY $165,377 .22 $171,165.43 $177,156 .22 $183,356.68 $189,774.17 $886,829.72 PALO VERDE AREA TOTAL ;682,239.05 $706,117 .41 $730,831.52 $756,410.83 ;782,885 .00 $3,658,483.60 CITY OF MURRIETA BANK OF AMERICA DEPOSITS DATE CITY OF TOTAL FY94/95 MEAS A MURRIETA RECEIPTS JULY 0.00 64, 784.98 64, 784.98 AUGUST 26,006.97 186,736.69 212,743.66 SEPTEMBER 30,787.83 36,397.07 :67,184:90 OCTOBER 30,895.70 36,126.78 67,022.48 NOVEMBER 25,104.15 339,167.01 364,271.16 DECEMBER 33,472.20 33,472.20 JANUARY 84, 763.05 84, 763.05 FEBRUARY 39,534.06 39,534.06 MARCH 37,663.61 100,600.60 138,264.21 TOTAL 223, 464.52 848, 576.18 1, 072, 040.70 THE "MEAS A" ALLOCATIONS FOR THE MONTHS OF JANUARY AND MARCH 'ARE NOT RECORDED. JANUARY REVENUE $28,247.32 MARCH REVENUE $40,272.06 APR 24 '95 03:03PM CITY OF MURRIETA CITY OF MURRIFT.A 26442 Beekman Court. Murrieta, CA. 92562 Telephone: 909-698-1040 Paz 909-698-4509 w DATE: TO: ATTN: FAX #: FROM: FAX AL 4 1_7-24 19.5 s�9 r 767- 79a -v CITY OF MURR ETA NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover page): zp MESSAGE: j 4r2 t5 _ 0_49 V y o: Colo � -�.►1.r r4 + -r s-�- �� 114 +s. + ®...S ]rh Q t. Pc C -ea r i filial 1. 2 1124_ rvi 67t, iau-01 1�J C`AT ' lat.rtioarzart-rm trvfr .� 't_�F7�-S & �..� Mkr' Please contact (909) 698-1044 if all pages are not received 14430 co o w APR 24 '95 03:04PM CITY OF MURRIETA v CITY OF MURRIETA 26442 Beckman Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 Telephone: 909-698-1040 Fax 909-698-4509 EXCERPT OF MINUTE'S MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL 26442 Beckman Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 TO: Whom It May Concern FROM: A. Kay Vinson, City Clerk DATE: April 20, 1995 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO AGREEMENT WITH RIVERSIDE COUN'T'Y TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 11. MODIFICATION TO AGREEMENT WITH RIVERSLDE COrry TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - IMPROVEMENTS ON MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD Council Member Walsh abstained from discussion because of a potential conflict of interest due to property ownership in the area. Ben Minamide introduced consultant Paul Cook who gave the staff report. Action: Council Member Allen moved and Geisse seconded to authorize City staff to negotiate changes in the existing Installment Sale Agreement with the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allow the widening of the north side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road to ultimate width of four lanes from I-15 to I-215 and the widening of the south side to provide four lanes and a left turn lane from 1- 215 to Warm Springs Creek. On roll call the vote was: AYES: Allen, Geisse, Smith, and van Haaster NOES: None ABSTAIN: Walsh due to potential conflict noted above. I, A. Kay Vinson, City Clerk of the City of Murrieta, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is a tnie and correct excerpt of minutes of a regular meeting of the Murrieta City Council which was held on the 21st day of March, 1995. AGENDA ITEM #5F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 3, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Claudia Chase, Property Technician Dean Martin, Controller THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Renewal of Professional Services Contract with Vindar Batoosingh of CB Commercial for Brokerage Services On September 14, 1994, the Riverside County Transportation Commission(RCTC) approved a contract with Vindar Batoosingh of CB Commercial to provide brokerage services for the Friis & Company Building at 1746 Spruce Street. This parcel was purchased as an advanced right-of-way acquisition with respect to the eventual widening of Highway 60, Interstate 215 and Highway 91. The Listing Agreement is now up for review and extension. The subject property is improved with 5,880 square foot, one-story, reinforced concrete office building of very good quality construction and finish, and is in excellent condition. Site improvements include a new detached two -car garage, excellent landscaping and an asphaltic concrete paved parking lot with 22 striped stalls. The land is level and at grade with Spruce Street. It has been determined that the existing use as professional offices represents the highest and best use of the property. Mr. Batoosingh has provided RCTC with updates of the agencies and firms which he has either discussed or shown the property, however, he has not found a tenant for the building. Given the current number of available office buildings in the City of Riverside this will require more time than the original six month contract provided. At this time, staff recommends extending the exclusive lease with Vindar Batoosingh of CB Commercial to continue to find a tenant to lease this commercial property for a period not to exceed five years. CB Commercial will charge a 6% (first 2 years), 5% (third year), and 4% (fourth & fifth year) brokerage commission for the five year term of the lease. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\VINDACON.CC/DM Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve extending the contract with Vindar Batoosingh of CB Commercial to continue through June 1996. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\VINDACON.CC/DM AGENDA ITEM #5G May 3, 1995 DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Budget and Finance Committee W. Dean Martin, Controller Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager Jack Reagan, Executive Director Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending March 31, 1995. Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and cooperative agreements is available from Bechtel staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. :jw Attachments F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\MONTHR.LM RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/RAIL PR OJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSI ON C ONTRACTURAL % C OMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR PROJECT AUTHORIZED C OMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH . MONTH ENDED DESCRIPTION ALLOCATI ON TO DATE ALLOCATION March 31 ,1995 ROUTE 60 PR OJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ (R09218,9232,9303,9304,9305,9306) SUBTOTA L ROUTE 60 RO UTE 74 PROJECTS Cooperative Agreement Preliminary Engrg/Environ/Final Engrg (R 0 9012, 9106, 9115 , 9117, 9122) Construction & ROW (R09225,9226,9206,9207) (9012 Constr./ROW Only)R09329,9330,9331) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 RO UTE 79 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. /ROW (R09111,9112,9116,9118,9301,9302,9337,9306) Lambs Canyon Project (R09423,9429,9518) Sanderson Project (R09011) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 ROUTE 86 PROJECTS Final Design (R08907) Construction & M itigation (R09213,9227,9342,9343,9106) SUBTO TAL ROUTE 96 ROUTE 111 PROJECTS Corridor Study (R09016,9219,9234,9523,9227) SUBTOTAL RO UTE 111 $3,839,295 $3,839,296 $3,411,944 33,411,944 (4) $3,358,713 $3,358,713 $8,183,914 $8,183,914 511,642,627 511,642,627 $8,961,366 $8,455,649 $21,073,703 519,937,168 $23,115,000 $13,022,522 $53,150,069 541,415,339 $1,219,000 51,219,000 $20,115,0781 516,148,369 (4) (4) 521,334,078 517,387,389 51,854,115 $1,604,215 $1,864,114 $1,604,21$ Page 1 of 4 88 .9% 88.9% 100 .0 % 100 .0% 100.0% 94.4% 94.6% 56.3% 77.9% 100 .0% 80.3% 81. 4° 86.5% 88.59E $2,133 $2,133 50 $107,127 52,884,406 52,991,533 50 $24,359 524,369 % EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST TO DATE C OMMITMNTS TO DATE 52,839 .778 52,839,778 $2,937,277 $7,482,777 S10,420,064 $8,168,265 $8,116,375 $11,584,919 527,863,559 $1,210,000 $15,927,436 $17,137,436 $1,328,116 31.328,116 83.2 % 83.2% 87 .5% 91 .4 % 90.3°% 96.6% 40.7% 89.0 % .3% 99 .3% 98.6 % 98 .796 82.8% 82 .8% RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUD GET REPORT BY ROUTE C OMMISSION C ONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED PR OJECT AUTHORIZED CO MMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH . DESCRIPTION ALL OCATION TO DATE ALL OCATI ON ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Magnolia to OCL (HOV) R 08801,8901,13902,9001 $30,982,198 9002, 9133,9214,) $27,055,658 City of Corona (Smith, Maple, Lincoln IC) (3) M agnolia to Mary (R09101,9102,9103,9105,9212,9415, 9308) SR71 to 1-15 (R09123,9128,9129,9130) I1-15 to 1-215 (R09131) McKinley Undercrossing (R09326) jVan Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp -SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) (5) Right -of -Way (RO9003, 9004,9009,9336, 9222 0007PR1 /2& 0007PR314, 0007HS3-5,9411) SUBTOTAL 1-215 INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM Prelim. Engrg (PSR'S) (9107,9124-9127 ) RT91 Interchange (Maple & Lincoln) (3) Eastridge Overcrossing (R09132) Galena Interchange (R09014) Yuma IC Final Design (PS&E) R0 9428 Yuma IC (City of Norco R09237) SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE BECHTEL PROJECT M GMT SERV. (R 08900,9000,9100,9200,9300,9400, 9500) SUBTO TAL BECHTEL, (1) $8,104,137 $7,015,976 $10,812,508 $10,530,460 $3,393,807 $3,261,015 $108,792 $108,792 $1,614,951 $1,614,951 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 $55,018,393 $49,506,852 $6,726,504 $5,450,721 $32,760,000 $39,498,504 $3,666,628 $1,288,248 $1,500,000 $73,980 $1,200,000 $650,000 $8,378,848 $10,098,912 $10,098,912 $32,760,000 539,210,721 87.3% 86 .6 % 97 .4% 96.1 % 100.0% 100 .0 % 90 .1% 81 .0% 100 .0% 96.8% $3,666,628 100.0% $1,288,240 100.0% $900,000 60.0% $73,980 100. 0% $1,099,975 91.7% $650,000 100.0% $7,878,823 91.6%I $9,850,912 $9,960,912 Page 2 of 4 97.5% EXPENDIT URE F OR MONTH ENDED March 31, 1995 558,693 $58,566 $58,588 $95,183 $95,183 % EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES TO -DATE: AGAINST TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE $26,878,754 $7,015,976 $7,279,436 $2,642,335 $108,792 $1,370,299 $4025 01 $5,289,340 $30.695,838 $36,986,176 $1,807.046 $1,288,240 $73,980 $303,655 $280,000 $3,752,921 $8,839,476 $6,839,476 99.3% 100.0% 69 .1% 81.0% 100.0% 84 .9% 88.6% 97 .0% 93 .7% 94 .2% 49 .3% 100.0 % 100.0% 27 .6% 43.1 % 45.9% 89 .7% 89.7% RCTC MEASURE A HI GHWAY PR OJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE PROJE CT DESCRIPTI ON PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES Program Studies ( R09006,9010,9013,9108,9119,9227 9307,0007P C2/3/4-SACO G/DTI M) Corridor Studies (R09017,9110,9120) Mapping Control/QA (R09007) SUBTOTAL PROGRAM PLAN & SVCS. PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (R0 9113,9114,9121,9134,9202,9203,9412,9413 9204,9205,9211,9210,0007CA2/3,Impr,9410 9236,9311,9328,9332,9344,9401,9402,9403,9418 9501-9506,9514-9517,9519) SUBTOTAL PARK -N -RIDE COMMUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering (R09021,9105,9220,9309,9319,9321,9310) 9325,9235,9323,9327,0007RS3-BB&K only, 9320. 9322,9324,9333,9345,9414,9227,9420) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs (R08905,9201,9209,9009,9221,9223,0007RF3-5, 9224 , 9417, 0007RA2-4, 9416,9424,9510, IMPR. 0007RS3 BB&K,9335,9341,9340,0004IP3,9521) SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL TOTALS COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COM MITTED EXPENDITURE F OR % EXPENDITURES AUTH ORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION March 31, 1995 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE $5,275,161 $689,450 $2,683,729 $8,640,340 $4,605,759 $4,606,799 $3,972,273 $89,358,740 $93,331,013 5301,448,668 $5,275,161 $640,467 $2,683,729 $8,688,397 $4,605,759 $4,805,769 $3,972,273 $89,358,740 $93,331,013 $283,792,987 100.0% 92.9% 100.0% 99.4% 100.0% 109,0% 100.0% 100 .0 % 100.0% 92. 3% $0 $104,831 $104,831 $93,861 $673,831 $767,692 $4,402,990 NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. (2) M ay be reduced by passage of SB 300 funds. (3) RCTC pro ject actual share after portion allocated to RT 91, IC Improvement Program (loan) & Local Streets & Roads Program. (4) RCTC portion only of Caftans Contract (5) SANBAG responsible for 25% Report does not include Legal and Financial services or salary and fringe benefits All values are for total Proje ct/Contract and not related to fiscal ye ar budgets. $3,201,593 $628,900 $2,619,141 $6,449,634 $3,909,895 $3,909,896 $3,959,974 $82,321,257 $86,281,231 $248,738.666 60.7% 98.2 % 97.6% 75;11% 84.9 % 84.9% 99 .7% 92.1 % 92.4% 87.6% Status M o. Ending 03/31/95 Page 3 of 4 RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/L OCAL STREETS & ROADS PR OJECTS BUD GET REPORT BY PR OJECT PR OJECT DESCRIPTION CITY OF MURRIETA Loan Agreement 1-15/1-215 Interchange improvements (R09334) SUBTOTAL MURRIETA LOAN CITY OF CANYON LAKE Final Design and Construction of Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements (R09422) SUBTOTAL. CANYON LAKE LOAN CITY OF CO RONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL APPR OVED M ONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES C OMMITMENT March 31, 1995 TO DATE $17,000,000 $17,000,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $0 $0 So TOTALS $23,012.623 $0 NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. (2) May be reduced by passage of SB 300 funds. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Page 4of4 $2,379,711 $2,379,711 S1,600,000 31;600,000 $5,212,623 $0,212,623 $!,192;334 % EXPENDITURES LOAN OUTSTANDIN G TO -DATE: AGAINST BALANCE CO MMITMENT APPROVED C OM MIT $1,140,487 $1 ,140,487 $1,600,000 31',600,000 $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $7,963.11 .0 $15,659,513 $15,869,613 $0 $o $0 So $16,869,513 14.0 % 14.0% 100.0% 100 .0% 100.0 % 38 .6% Status Mo Ending 03 /31,95 J 1992 A IS co -1N ID F1M 1993 AIMIJIJ»A15 N D J 1994 FIMIAIMIJ J RT15 AT YUMA DR - CONSTRUCT INTERCHANGE A 5101N D F M T945 AIM LJIJIAI5 0 N 0 FIN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL 1996 AIMIJ RT74 I15 TO 7TH 5T - WIDEN TO 4 LANES A 510 LN D J IF IM IA M 1997 J1J IA15I0 INID FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHT OF WAY J1F CONSTRUCTION M A IM 1998 JIJIAI5 11 N 0 J IF 1994 M iA MIJ RT74 G ST TO I215 - WIDEN TO 4 LANES PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL (CONSTRUCTION NOT PROGRAMMED A5 YET) RT79 GILMAN SPR TO 1ST ST - WIDEN TO 4 LANES —1 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION RT7q KELLER ST TO NEWPORT ST - WIDEN TO 4 LANES PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHT OF WAY (CONSTRUCTION NOT PROGRAMMED A5 YET) PT 79 NEWPORT TO NEWPORT GAP RT91 MAIN ST TO MAGNOLIA AVE - MEDIAN HOV CONSTRUCTION 1 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL JOB COMPLETE RT91 ORANGE COUNTY LINE TO MAIN ST - MEDIAN HOV CONSTRUCTION JOB COMPLETE RT91 MAGNOLIA AVE TO MARY ST - MEDIAN HOV FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION ONLY CONSTRUCTION RT91 SR71 TO I15 - OUTSIDE WIDENING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL PT111 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS ( 6 LOCATIONS 1 PROJECT STUDY REPORT (PSR) ONLY RT215 E60/215 JCT TO SBCL - WIDEN TO 8 LANES PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL Plot Date 26APR95 Data Date 21APR95 Project Start 2JANB9 Project Finish 19JUN9B t Sume r, 60 -/Early Dates t— ! Cr It iral Dmignatar 0 JP M,leatta+Flag Activity DOI swt RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN RCTC LEAD AGENCY SUMMARY SCHEDULE - BY RCTC I of 2 BECHTEL CORP Date Revision hecked Approved (ci Primavepa Systems, Inc F•1115fIMARi1.11,AS11MC1q? c 1 RT215 60/91/215 CONN & 60/91/215 TO E60/215 JCT COMMUTER RAIL DOWNTOWN INTERIM STATION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION COMMUTER RAIL PEDLEY STATION L i PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY immEmmilmmi CONSTRUCTION COMMUTER RAIL WEST CORONA STATION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL 1999 1fEIMFAIMrJ L PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL r COMMUTER RAIL LA SIERRA STATION FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E L J CONSTRUCTICN roir COMMUTER RAIL CITY OF PERRIS STATION STUDY COMMUTER RAIL - HIGHGROVE LAYOVER & CONN TRACK COMMUTER RAIL - SAN JACINTO RAIL LINE STUDY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E 1 CONSTRUCTION Pio t Date 26APR95 Da ta Date 21APR9S Project Start 2JAN94 Project 19JIJN99 ic1 Pr. a System s, Inc 1=11=2° @=!Early oaten 1 Pr ISIu1 Ceaiyn e la r 0 /t+ 1 Zir"u t:tiflN I-tl.lte w� PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING E ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E CONSTRUCTION 7 STUDY RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN } 2p1 RCTC 1 r r, AGENCY SUMMARY SCI LE — BY RCTC Date BECHTEL CORP Revisi on Checkedi " -o.ed F45ER'41410filE AC2 S32 1 1992 J A1510 N IQ J F IM IA - 1493 J J A S 0 N jD J 1994 FlMiPIMIJ RT60 VALLEY WAY TO UNIVERSITY -WIDEN TO 6 LANES 510 1995 NID iJ IFIMLAJNIJ 5 0 N ID J F M 1996 Alma' JIAIS 0 N 0 J FIMTA_ PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL M 1997 J IJ A 1 1 FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RT60 I215 TO REDLANDS BLVD - WIDEN TO 6 LANES RIGHT OF WAY 0 [N Ii FJM A IM 1998 J TS . r I PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL R160 VALLEY WAY TO JCT I15 - WIDEN TO 8 LANES 1 RT86 DILLON RD TO AVE 58 -WIDEN RIGHT OF WAY RT86 AVE 66 TO AVE 58 - WIDEN RIGHT OF WAY 1 FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E ASS 0 D 1999 JjE I M CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION M CONSTRUCTION FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY JOB COMPLETE JOB COMPLETE RT86 AVE 82 TO AVE 66 - WIDEN - FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY Plot Date 27APR95 Data Date 21APR95 Pr oject Start 2JAN89 Project Finish 19JUN98 Ici Primaver a Systems, Inc Gltiwl enignetanratea .J Or1 111lag Activity ual RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN l a+ CALTRANS LEAD AGENCY SUMMARY SCHEDULE — BY CALTRANS bate BECHTEL CORP Revision Checker- Appro ved F: W 91l+5k1pRDJ 111,4 1RYlnu$ 3 Qy1 1492 JjAI5IOfN D 1993 JIFIMIAlM JrJ ASOND RI 60 GALENA INTERCHANGE 1944 JFMAMJJASOND 1945 JFMAMJJASOND X996 JFMt7 JJASOND PT74 7TH ST TO G STUN PERRIS) - WIDEN TO 4 LANE CONSTRJCTION RT7q SANDER5ON BRIDGE REPLACMNT(S JACINTO RIVER) PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING !i ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E RIGHT OF WAY 1997 JFMAMJJASOND COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 7448 JFMAMJJASOND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Er ENVIRONMENTAL JOB COMPLETE — CITY OF PERRIS 1499 I+ IMJAIM IJ RT91 SMITH/MAPLE/LINCOLN OVERCROSS-WIDEN TO 4 LN CONSTRUCTION JOB COMPLETE — COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION RT91 VAN BUREN BLVD/FRY HOOK RAMP JOB COMPLETE — CITY OF CORONA PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING . ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL DESIGN AND PSF;E RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION N Plot Date 27APRIS Data Date 21APR9S Protect Start 2JAN99 project Finish 14JUN98 (cl Pr. a Systems, Inc. Sueer y Ur/Emir Dates t' C it ice D.eignea O'r ni"esio wr]r,n arIvIty 061 CITY OF RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN OTHER AGEN" 5 AS LEADS SUMMARY SCHE - BY OTHERS Date BECHTEL CORP Pevts l on Checkedf ^ - need r.ws[ns...WWIel[tiaWrD1,Z WE AGENDA ITEM #6A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 3, 1995 TO: RCTC Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Sufficiency of the Coachella Valley Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee to Match Measure A Funds for Regional Arterials The voter approved Measure A expenditure plan requires that sales tax funds dedicated to identified regional arterial projects be matched by TUMF. After five -years of experience it is apparent that TUMF funds fall far short, with an approximate 40% shortfall. Options available to resolve the problem are as follows: a. Limit the amount of Measure A funds available to regional arterials to the amount of matching TUMF. RCTC staff does not recommend this option because such a unilateral decision would raise havoc with CVAG's financial plans and do great damage to our working relationships. b. RCTC might target Coachella Valley local streets and roads funds to fill the TUMF funding gap. Neither RCTC nor CVAG staff recommend this option because it would be of questionable legality and would harm relationships with Coachella Valley local agencies, which should have the discretion of making such decisions. c. Amend the expenditure plan to eliminate or reduce the TUMF match requirement. RCTC staff questions if this option is reasonable because such match was a major selling point to Coachella Valley voters and a past attempt to amend the plan could not make it through the required process of Board of Supervisors and local agencies' approvals; it would open the door to other possible amendment proposals and challenge potential for consensus. d. CVAG and Coachella Valley local government could change the TUMF ordinance to include other sources of local funding. RCTC staff and legal counsel consider this option to be a reasonable means of dealing with the problem of expenditure plan compliance. The study being conducted by Ernst and Young for CVAG includes the issue of sufficiency of the TUMF. In the context of reviewing that study, the CVAG Executive Committee is expected to consider how to address the TUMF sufficiency issue within the next month or two. Page 2 This is provided for information only at this time. RUC staff recommends that _ _ consideration is needed until after CVAG has the o ive and no opportunity -to -receive receive and respond to the work being performed by Ernst and Young. AGENDA ITEM #6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 3, 1995 TO: RCTC Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Project Priorities The voter approved Measure A expenditure plan named four regional arterial projects - Mid -Valley Parkway, Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail, Fred Waring Drive, and Jefferson Street. The assumed projects were the result of the Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study (CVATS) and a project scope and cost study performed by Bechtel for RCTC prior to Measure A. Since Measure A enactment, CVAG has worked with local governments to prepare its financial plans and priorities and additional project and have been added, based upon the assumption of TUMF sufficiency and other revenues from State/Local Partnership Program reimbursements and additional local funds. Some of the added projects have been considered as higher priority by CVAG and have been scheduled for earlier implementation. RCTC needs assurance that the identified projects will be completed by the end of Measure A. Addressing this issue is part of the independent review of CVAG's financial plan by Ernst and Young, which RCTC helped fund. This is provided for information only. RCTC staff recommends that no consideration is needed until after CVAG has the opportunity to receive and respond to the work being performed by Ernst and Young. AGENDA ITEM #6C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 3, 1995 TO: RCTC Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Delayed Expenditure of 1993 Series Bonds Reserved for Coachella Valley Regional Arterials At CVAG's request, RCTC included $60.7 million of the $136.9 million bond sale for Coachella Valley regional arterial projects. At the time, CVAG expected the funds to be expended by February 1996. However, problems with environmental and design approvals and structuring local financial participation has caused some delays. Arbitrage regulations require that at least 85% of the funds be expended by February 1996, three years after the date of issuance. Failure to do so will at least require investment of remaining proceeds in restricted yield accounts, with possible exposure of tax exempt eligibility for the entire bond issue. Although CVAG is attempting to expedite project development and delivery, it is possible that remaining minimum expenditure required by February 1996 ($35.8 million) may not be accomplished. As the agency responsible for the bonds, the Commission may wish to consider options to protect its interests. Options for the Commission may include the following: a. Divert bond proceeds to other eligible Measure A projects. RCTC staff does not recommend this option because: (1) The projects which might be shelf ready are on state highways (i.e., Route 86, phase 3, Route 60/1-215 between Valley Way and University Avenue) and given the tenuous status of state highway funding payback of advanced funds may be questionable. (2) Transferring funds to projects in the Western County, if any, would cause an imbalance in the return to source allocations; equity has been a basic tenet of RCTC's Measure A program and is necessary to maintain good working relationships with CVAG. b. Rely solely on CVAG to accelerate the program. RCTC staff does not recommend this option because the possible consequences of failure are unacceptable to the Commission. Page 2 c. Request the voluntary cooperation of both Western roe 'nty and Coachella Valley local governments to tradeout their unexpended Measure AIocal streets and roads program funds for unexpended bond funds for project expenditures between now and February 1996. RCTC staff recommends this option because: (1) FY 1993-94 audits reveal a total of $35.9 million of unexpended Measure A local streets and roads funds not expended by local governments as of June 30, 1994 and an additional $18.6 million was estimated to be allocated during the current FY 1994-95. As an indication of potential, the City of Riverside staff estimate that it might be able to tradeout $8.5 million. (2) Such an approach would allow CVAG the flexibility to resolve its own project delivery problems while ensuring RCTC's requirements to expend bond proceeds. It might also allow CVAG to exercise greater influence over the subsequent investment of funds subsequently reserved for regional arterial projects through Measure A tradeout. RCTC staff will request that bond counsel be available for the Budget and Finance Committee to respond to any questions. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the Executive Director to seek the voluntary cooperation of Riverside County and cities to tradeout Measure A local streets and roads funds for Coachella Valley reserved bond funds for project expenditures which will occur between now and February 1996. 2. Authorize RCTC's General Counsel to determine the form of agreements, if any, which may be necessary to accomplish such tradeouts. AGENDA ITEM #6D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 3, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Tom Horkan, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Memorandum of Understanding between RCTC and Cathedral City for Funding and Joint Development of State Highway 111 Improvements Previously, RCTC approved a Route 111 Expenditure Plan for completion of projects between Fiscal years 94-95 through 97-98. The Plan also included several projects expected to be completed over the course of the Measure, but with undefined years for programming. The Plan included projects in several jurisdictions along Route 111 between Ramon Road in the City of Palm Springs to Indio Boulevard in the City of Indio. One of the highest priority projects on Route 111 has been the intersection at Date Palm Drive in Cathedral City. Funds for work on Date Palm Drive were included in the expenditure plan in Fiscal years 94-95, 95-96, and 96-97 to complete the project. Two other projects in Cathedral City are shown to be "future" projects. The intersection improvement at Cathedral Canyon, and roadway improvements between the Cathedral Canyon and Date Palm Drive intersection are projects in those "future" years. Cathedral City desires to prepare design drawings for the three projects as one integrated project. This approach more clearly defines the overall project right-of-way issues, ensures all project construction issues are determined before one phase is constructed, and will be the most cost efficient method to complete the design for the overall project. Staff concurs with Cathedral City that the best design will be achieved in one effort for all three projects. The attached MOU has been prepared by RCTC and Cathedral City staff for review by RCTC. The design effort would accelerate two projects that RCTC has not committed to fund until beyond 1998. Staff proposes that the funding commitment RCTC has made to the Date Palm Drive intersection project be used as a source of funds to complete the overall design. This would not commit RCTC to any greater funds then F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.951CATHCITY.TH Page 2 already committed. Cathedral City is currently workina on the estimated overall design cost and staff will present the estimated cost at the Budget, andFinanceCommittee. Funds were included in the FY 94-95 budget in the amount of $442,0❑ in project development (design), and $1,481,000 for right-of-way acquisition for the Date Palm Drive intersection. Those funds are proposed to be rolled over to the FY 95-96 budget for use on the design of the overall project. The design cost, if greater than $442.000, would be used from the right-of-way budget amount. Cathedral City will be funding 22% of the overall design cost. The 22% is the estimated ultimate City share of the overall project using RCTC adopted criteria for cost sharing on Route 111 projects. Staff will report at the Budget and Finance Committee on the estimated design cost. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding with Cathedral City for Funding and Joint Development for State Highway 1 1 1 projects in Cathedral City. The funds will come from budgeted funds in FY 94.95 that will be rolled over to the FY 95-96 year. Staff will report on the estimated cost of the design effort at the Budget and Finance Committee. :jw Attachment F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\CATHCITY.TH MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement ("Agreement") is executed and entered into , 1995, by and between RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY ("City"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "Tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates $20,000,000 for the construction of improvements along Route 111 from Ramon to Indio Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 gt seq., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City is planning certain improvements for the widening and other improvements of portions of State Highway 111 located within the City, collectively referred to as the "Project" which is more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The Project is generally described as the widening and improvement of the intersection of Highway 111 with Date Palm Drive, the intersection of Highway 111 with Cathedral Canyon Drive and the widening and improvement of Highway 111 (including intersection areas of commonality between Highway 111 and any other cross streets) between those intersections. 2.6 RCTC has determined that Project referenced in Section 2.5 above qualifies for the use Highway 111 Funds to partially fund the Project costs. In addition, RCTC has considered the preliminary environmental review documentation prepared and approved by the City and based thereon has approved the allocation of funds and joint development described herein. Final Poa16.rt 3947-11749 040695 hmw 1 environmental review will be completed once the design has been completed and prior to implementation of construction. 2.7 RCTC intends 4-1,;.. �-_____-� by this Agreement to allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the design and construction of the Project, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Agreement is intended to allocate Highway 111 Funds (a) to provide the funding of the design services for the Project and (b) to provide partial funding for construction and other services for the Project. The total amount of Highway 111 funding committed to this Project is $9,336,000 to be used as such funds are available to RCTC. Of that amount, $4,596,000 is now available to RCTC and the balance is to be available as collected in future from the Tax anticipated to be received in fiscal years after 1997 and 1998. Because of the timing of the need for funds, arrangements may have to be made to obtain funds in anticipation of the future Tax collections. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and app rovai of RCTC which a shall not be unreasonably withheld. pproval 3.2 Funding of the Design. Funding of the Project with Highway 111 Funds will proceed in phases. The first phase (the "Design Phase") will commence upon the execution of this Agreement and will consist of the preparation of the design for the Project to the extent necessary to prepare a bid package for the Project [including the form of the construction contract(s)]. The City will act as the manager and coordinator for the Design Phase and RCTC shall provide the funds for the costs of the Design Phase. As manager and coordinator, the City will, in its own name, obtain services of architects, engineers and other consultants ("Consultants") engaged by City for that purpose, and enter into contracts with such Consultants that are necessary or convenient to obtain the design plans and the bid package for the Project. With RCTC advice and cooperation, the City shall coordinate the activities associated with the Design Phase. In obtaining such services and contracts, the City will use the applicable procedures, rules, regulations and laws that it uses in its own construction programs. Before executing the Design Phase contracts as City may deem appropriate, City shall submit those contracts to RCTC for its review and comment (if any) and the approval of RCTC as to the amount of fees for such contracts. After the amount of such contracts have been approved by RCTC, City shall execute the contracts and RCTC shall fund the contract amounts as required by the contracts and as requested by the City. City shall be required Fd16.tst 3947-11749 040195.rent 2 to share a portion of the costs for the Design Phase contracts. The funding requested of RCTC for the Design Phase shall include only those amounts paid to the consultants engaged by City pursuant to the contracts approved by RCTC, and shall not include any general overhead or administrative costs or expenses of the City or its employees. Environmental review completion and project coordination expenses specific to the design effort shall be reimbursable costs. Design costs shall be shared 78% by RCTC and 22% by City. city shall receive credit toward its share of design costs for any sums expended by City for property acquisition for Highway .111(East Palm Canyon) right-of-way for the project. 3.3 Funding of Construction and other services. The second phase (the "Implementation Phase") shall implement the construction of the improvements specified by the approved design. In the Implementation Phase, the City and RCTC will amend this Agreement ("Amendment") to agree on and adopt a budget for the Project, a coordinated schedule for acquisition of the needed property, undertaking construction of the improvements, a sharing arrangement for the Project Costs and fund disbursements from RCTC for its share. During the Design Phase, City and RCTC shall meet, confer and negotiate the necessary Amendment. The Amendment will define the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties in completing the Project along the concepts and components contained in Exhibit B attached hereto. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City or the RCTC are subject to the approval of RCTC or the City, as the case may be, and approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 ECTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement, including the management of consultant activities that may be executed in furtherance of this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. 3.5 The City's Representative. The City hereby designates the Agency's Downtown Executive Director or his designee as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.6 Standard of Care: Licenses. The City and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all Pea16.iet 3947-11749 040895 Ymw 3 services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.7 Review of Services. The .. itRepresentative and City's Representative a respe tiYel shall r flow ROTC■r designated agents, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.8 _ _____t 'oar . 3.8.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice Notice") to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof which shall not be less than 30 days. The First Notice shall state with reasonable specificity the grounds upon which the termination is based and shall state that if the cause of the termination is not cured by the effective date, the termination shall be effective. If the cause of the termination cannot reasonably be cured within 30 days but can be cured over a longer period of time, and the party undertaking the cure diligently commences and pursues the cure, the effective date shall be extended for an additional period of time not to exceed 60 ,gays, during which gtJci, cure shall , , L b _ ha 11 e diligently pursued. If the roun of the termination remain uncured beyond the effective date, upon receipt of a second written notice ("Second Notice") stating that the termination has become effective, the RCTC or the City, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway 111 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.8.2 Ilfgst_ILILMEnaLimtim. temination by RCTC or the City, RCTC shall allocate Highway 1110Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily constructed through the date of termination. The Design Phase costs shall be funds entirely by Highway 111 Funds. The Implementation Phase costs shall be determined by the formula in the Amendment. The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC•s Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the City of the written notice of termination. 3.8.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.9 eva' 'n Wa es. The City and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et gg., which (as they presently provide) would require the payment of Fr16.ret 3947-11749 040895 kinv 4 prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof are determined to be a public work, as defined therein. To the extent required by applicable law in effect at the time of such hiring, the City or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 gt sea. RCTC shall defined, indemnify, and hold harmless the City its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 gt Egg. 3.10 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its records copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.11 Indemnification. 3.11.1 City Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due t❑ negligent acts, errors ❑r omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its subconsultants. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.11.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC or its subconsultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by City, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC. 3.11.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City and RCTC shall each be responsible to the other for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. ❑ne party's review, acceptance or funding of Fida16.ret 3947-11749 040895 haw 5 provisions. any services performed by the other party or any other person or entity under this Agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action ar i fi i ng out such _ ersoils or entities' performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to ROTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. In addition, RCTC shall be and remain liable to the City, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to the City caused by RCTC's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any service provided to complete the project. 3.12 Insurance. The City and RCTC shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their subconsultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and City. Such insurance shall be maintain throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.12.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3./2.1.1 Name RCTC and City, their ❑fficials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insureds with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insureds; 3.12.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC or City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.12.1.3 Contain standard separation of insureds 3.12.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000,00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.12.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00. Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. Fina16.ret 3917-11749 040895 hem 6 3.12.4 Workers' Compensation_ Insuranc. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 3.13 Progress Reports. Either party may request the other party to inform it of delays in the Project and provide it with any requested progress reports. 3.14 Reimbursement for Expenses. Except as provided for in this Agreement, the City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. Such authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld. 3.15 Change Orders. Any individual change order to the contracts in the Design Phase in excess of $5,000, or the aggregate amount of such change orders in excess of $20,000, must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and City. Change order limitations for the Implementation Phase shall be defined in the Amendment. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise make reasonable corrective efforts. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City for the Project or for the construction of the Project. 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may reasonably require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following FmJ6.rt 3947-11749 040893 tmw 7 termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The City and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origins, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneyst Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.23 Headings- Article and Section Headings, captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement aareraph for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.24 Notification. All notice hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or change thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of Cathedral City RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave., Ste. 100 Attn: Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the ethod of service. Foil6eet 9947-11749 040895 Ymei 8 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement or any Amendment, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity ❑f Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Downtown Executive Director REVIEWED AND RECOMMEND APPROVED AS TO FORM: FOR APPROVAL By: By: Jack Reagan Special Counsel Executive Director REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: By: Dean Martin, Controller Community Development Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: F .16.tet 3947-11749 040895 bmw 9 By: Best, Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission F:d6•rt 3947-11749 NM9Simm 10 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Pd16.rct 3947-11749 040895 !mw 1 EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES 1. As stated in the Agreement, the City, with funds provided by RCTC, will contract for the completion of the Project design. 2. The City, on behalf of itself and the Redevelopment Agency, and RCTC will prepare the amendment of this agreement which will define their respective roles in completing the Project along the following lines: 2.1 The City and RCTC will agree on a budget for the Project, a coordinated schedule for acquisition, construction, fund disbursement, mutually agreeable arrangements to assure that the cash flow requirements of the construction schedule will coincide with the availability of RCTC funds, and a sharing of the Project Costs. 2.2 "Project Costs" will consist of all the relevant direct costs in implementing the Project which are incurred or paid to third parties, and shall include: 2.2.1 "Acquisition Costs" shall be determined for each property whose acquisition is undertaken, including (i) the funds necessary for to inspect, evaluate, study, negotiate and acquire any ❑f the right ❑f way or any other property for the Project by negotiation and/or eminent domain, including but not limited to: compensation for the taking or threatened taking of property interests (including, but not limited to, land, buildings, leasehold rights, if any, goodwill, fixtures, equipment and improvements) ; eminent domain awards; payment of any awards for damages or compensation based on claims ❑f inverse condemnation or other pre -acquisition claims; costs and damages awarded as a result ❑f the abandonment of any condemnation proceeding, deposits necessary t❑ obtain court orders for immediate possession and satisfaction of judgment; court costs and other awards and judgments arising out of any acquisition proceedings; attorney's fees; filing fees; expert and other witness fees; appraisal fees; engineers•, economists and other consultant fees; title services; escrow fees; prorated taxes, rents and other similar expenses; (ii) costs of contracts with acquisition consultants; (iii) all relocations costs and expenses including contracts with relocation consultants and costs and expenses paid to displaced persons pursuant to the applicable relocation laws; and (iv) other reasonable and necessary related costs and expenses. Fei16.ret 3947-11749 040895 Law 1 2.2.2 "Construction Costs" for the Project, including design costs, plan preparation, grading and site preparation, consultants, remediation costs, financing costs, building fees and permits (except those required by City), architect and engineering fees, construction contracts, costs for labor and materials, change orders and other related costs caused by the construction or incorporated into the Project or arising out of disputes, litigation, arbitration or contract enforcement and other reasonable and necessary related costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees). Construction and Construction Costs relating to cross streets made necessary by the widening or other improvements to the traffic carrying capacity of Highway 111, including normal hardscaping and landscaping typical of such a highway project in the Coachella Valley shall be determined in the future. 2.2.3 Costs of preparing reports, studies and documentation to comply with the requirements of CEQA. 2.2.4 Costs related to the bidding, advertisement and award of construction contracts. 2.2.5 Project Costs shall include direct on -site costs of management of the construction portion of the Project, but not including the costs to either party of coordinating with the other or fulfilling their respective obligations under this Agreement. The direct cost of the services of an employee of City who is managing or supervising the design or construction of the Project (time charges, fringe benefits, etc.) shall be a Project Cost, but Project Costs shall not otherwise include any general overhead or administrative costs or expenses of the City or RCTC for the services of their own employees or the use of their own facilities, including: 2.2.5.1 Management and supervision of Project coordination and construction (provided, the cost of management and supervision paid to a construction management or project management company shall be included as Project Costs). 2.2.5.2 City or RCTC staff costs for Project coordination. 2.2.5.3 City or RCTC costs for preparation of invoices, billings, payments or other disbursements. 2.2.5.4 Any City or RCTC fees for Project processing. 2.2.5.5 The costs and expenses (e.g., attorney's Fmd6.rct 3947-11749 040895 hmw 2 fees) to either party for the drafting of this Agreement or any amendment to this Agreement. 2_,F Attorney's fees and costs relating to the Project not otherwise included in the foregoing costs, except for attorney■s fees for drafting of this Agreement as provided in subparagraph 2.2.5.5. 2.3 The Project Costs in addition to the costs for the Design Phase will be shared as provided in Article 3 below. 2.4 Independent of any final agreement between the City and RCTC, the Agency has already acquired properties for its redevelopment purposes and may acquire additional property, and one or more ❑f these properties may be parcels that will be partially or entirely within the highway right ❑f way for the Project. In the event that City- or Agency -owned property is needed for the Project, the Acquisition Costs for that property shall be included as Acquisition Costs for the Project, and the City shall receive reimbursement or credit for its Acquisition Costs related to that property. 2.5 In some instances, as part of the acquisition program for the Project, an entire parcel of property may be acquired by the City (or already owned by the city or the Redevelopment Agency) , but only a portion of the parcel will actually be incorporated into the highway right of way, leaving a remnant not needed for the highway widening purposes. RCTC and the City will consult and cooperate in .identifying specific acquisitions where remnants of the parcel to be acquired will not to be used in the highway right ❑f way, but is to be acquired by the City or the Agency for redevelopment purposes. City and RCTC shall agree in the future on a cost sharing formula for such acquisitions. 3. The sharing of the Project Costs between RCTC and the City for the following segments of the Project will be agreed to in the Amendment: 3.1 Project Costs for the Date Palm intersection (and southern extension) portion of the Project. 3.2 Project Costs for the Cathedral Canyon intersection. 3.3 Project Costs for the widening of Highway 111 between intersections. 3.4 The final determinati❑n of the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage cost sharing formula to be incorporated into the Amendment will be made by the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator. The determination ❑f the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made after the Design Phase review Fd16.ret 3947-11749 040895 bawl 3 process has terminated, but prior to the award of the Project for public contracting purposes. 3.5 Any SB 300 (Streets & Highways Code Section 2600) reimbursements received from the State for the Project shall be split proportionally according to the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, and credited towards each party's funding of the Project Cost. 4. Allocation of Responsibilities of the Implementation Phase of the Project. 4.1 The City will be responsible for the following activities: 4.1.1 The City will be the Lead Agency to complete all environmental studies necessary to comply with CEQA requirements. The City will review the existing EIR and other related environmental documents to determine whether an existing EIR is adequate, or whether a new EIR, a supplemental EIR, a negative declaration or other determination needs to be certified and approved. The preparation costs for the CEQA compliance, such as the cost of consultants, specialists, engineers and the like shall be part of the Project Costs and shall be reimbursed or credited to the City. 4.1.2 The City will plan and implement the acquisition for the rights of way and other property interests as required by the final design and construction requirements, will prepare and implement the relocation programs, schedule the acquisition and relocation efforts to coordinate with the project construction schedule, and assume the sole responsibility for any eminent domain condemnation procedures. 4.1.3 Act as the construction supervisor and manager to administer, monitor and inspect the completion of the construction and disbursement of funds in accordance with the plans and construction contracts, and provide completion certifications. 4.1.4 The City will consult with RCTC as requested for review of approve the construction plans and contracts, enter into the construction contracts and review and approve any change orders. Prior to the award of any construction contracts, the parties shall arrive at appropriate funding allocations for the overall Project. 4.1.5 The City shall pay for its share of the Implementation Phase costs in accordance with the Amendment. 4.2 The RCTC shall make itself available for consultation, Fed6.tet 3947-11749 040895 Ymw 4 negotiation and review of the necessary documentation, shall process and pay for all Design Phase costs as they are incurred and invoiced, and shall pay for its portion of the Implementation Phase costs in accordance with the Amendment. F i 6.iet 39{7-11749 040895 5 AGENDA ITEM #6E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 3, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Mike Davis, Environmental Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Consultant Contract with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. to Prepare Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for the Northmoor Noise Wall Project on SR -91 Since the completion of the construction of the new High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and associated noise walls on State Route 91 (SR -91), the Riverside County Transportation Commission has received several complaints relating to a "Boom Effect" that impacts the Northmoor neighborhood adjacent to SR -91 at Serfas Club Drive. In May 1993, at the request of RCTC, LSA Associates completed a Technical Noise Study which documented that there was a significant noise problem (Boom Effect) at the Northmoor neighborhood that could be corrected by extending the existing noise wall an additional 820 feet along the northbound Serfas Club Drive off -ramp with SR - 91. In response to the neighborhood's concern, RCTC staff has requested that Mark Thomas & Company prepare Plans, Specifications and Estimates for the design and construction of a noise wall along the northbound SR -91 edge of shoulder and the Serfas Club Drive northbound off ramp edge of shoulder. The purpose of the noise wall is to mitigate concerns at the Northmoor neighborhood which have been documented in the SR-91/Northmoor Drive Technical Noise Study prepared by LSA Associates in 1993. The proposed noise wall will connect to an existing noise wall near the Serfas Club Drive northbound off ramp and continue northerly along the outside edge of shoulder approximately 820 feet. Mark Thomas & Company has prepared a Scope -of -Work, Schedule and Cost Proposal dated January 18, 1995, for this project in accordance with RCTC guidelines (attached). The total amount estimated by Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. to complete the PS&E is $68,242.00. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\MRKTHMSA.MD Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize the Executive Director to enter into a Consultant Service Agreement with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. for PS&E Engineering Design Services for the Northmoor/SR-91 Noise wall Project with a budget amount of $68,242.00 for the base contract amount. and $10,000 for extra work, subject to final legal counsel review. :jw Attachment F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\MRKTHMSA.MD AGENDA ITEM #6F DATE: TO: FROM: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 3, 1995 Budget and Finance Committee Dean Martin, Controller Jerry Rivera, Staff Analyst III THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to City of Corona's Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive disbursements for local streets and roads. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are also required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) accompanied by documentation supporting the calculation. The Commission had accepted the City of Corona's Plan at its meeting on July 13, 1994. The City is requesting a modification to the Plan to add one $ 100,000 project which was approved by the City Council but had been omitted from the City's Measure "A" Plan submitted to the Commission. There are sufficient Measure "A" funds to finance the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission amend the FY 1994-95 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Corona as submitted. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\MEASA5YR.DM/RI OFFICE OF: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (909) 736-2483 (909) 279-3627 (FAX) April 10, 1995 PWA-093-95 9.05 815 WEST SIXTH STREET, P.O. BOX 940, CORONA, CALIFORNIA 91718-0940 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue #100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attention: Jerry Rivera, Staff Analyst III SUBJECT: CITY OF CORONA 5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM MEASURE 'A' FUNDED PROJECTS Enclosed for your use and information is a copy of the proposed 5 Year Capital Improvement Program showing Measure 'A' funded projects. Please note that Project R-18 Root Pruning, M & 0 Program is shown as a carry-over project with an appropriation of $ 100,000. As we discussed, this project was included in the City 5 Year CIP budget that was adopted by the City Council for Fiscal Year 1994/95. Please take the appropriate action necessary to have this project included in the 5 Year Plan for RCTC. Should you have any questions on this please call me at (909) 736-2483. Sincerely, JOHN N. LICATA Associate Engineer JNL/Irt cc: Larry Stickney, Public Works Manager Don Williams, Principal Engineer Kavous Emami, Sr. Associate Engineer Chet Wior, Transportation/Environmental Planner wp/a:\temp\Itrhead 1995-96 CIP SUM MARY OF MEASURE "k <ELIM INARY BUDGET, CITY OF CORONA I IL # JL PR OJECT NAME L FUND '43 4. , 4. GIS Base Map Update r _5;' GIS Street System ❑/ ;34' Olive Street Drainage Misc Highway Drainage System MEAS A MEAS A .141 MEAS Ai'• M EAS A, Hazard Elimination Projects (HES) Traffic Signal Installation Traffic Signal Modification Traffic Signal Interconnect Traffic Signal Upgrade Emergency Flashing Beaco n @ FS #3 Traffic Signal Installation MEAS i;• MEAS* �• MEA$i4 ''r M.EAS: AD 79-2 McKinley Interchange MEAS A"• I , Curb, Gutter & Side walk Replacement M S ,r R Street Slurry Seal Pro 6 Smith Avenue Widening Striping Rehab Pavement Rehab Phs I, II & III MEAS A Railroad St. Improvements nr Buena Vista MEAS A' Compton & Onta rio Realignment M 6. Ho spital Street Rehab - Ho s EAA p IMEASAf;:. Root Pruning, M & 0 Pro gram ME/A A'. . 'MEAS'A MEAS A'"'• MEASA MEAS A Palisades Flood Damage Mitigation Pavement Rehab for Loca l Streets M isc Resurfacing & Pavement Maint Magnolia Avenue Pavement Rehab Freeway Bridges 25 Circle City Off -Ramp Modification Yurna Av enue Interchange MEAS: MEAS MEAS MEAS A L 1995-96 fA ppro p. 1 $5,000 $30,000 359,521 $38,224 $25,024 $59,625 $199,844 375,000 321,525 $26,305 $255,693 $100,000 R;'' $4,965) $70,880 $50,503 $1,281,081 $198,708 320,460 3100,000 $2,612,428. 00 15,000 $30;000 $2,007,500.00 $50,0' p0;op0 1996-97 315,000 $25,000 $50,000 $400,000 $75,000 $60;00: $100;D00 $75 00p $30M0Q $5$5,00D 31,611,865.00 L1997-98 :$85,00 e, • $200,000 . $200,000, $75,000 5. - ' $75:000'' $ 1 ",01"s r 04.s $565,000 -' 3565,000 $500,000 • . . • '$250;000 L1998-99 $5,000 1999-2000 $25,000 ' „: $ $200,000 $565,000 $250,000 $2,327,500 .00 $1,572,500.00 $5p;apt' -$400,000r $200;000 $75,400: $565;000 $250;000 Future Total 35.000 $2,375.000 $500,000 $1,572,500 .00 $2,882,500.00 WOW $512 r. $5o $14,586,793 .00 MEASA.WK4 04/10/95 AGENDA ITEM #7A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 3, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Specialized Transit RFP Evaluation Recommendations As directed by the Commission, staff issued a request for projects for funding available under the TranSystems Specialized Transit Program to support transit services for seniors, persons with disabilities, and/or the truly needy. Twenty-five proposals were received from twenty agencies requesting a total of $1.76 million in Measure A Specialized Transit funds. At the March meeting, the Commission approved programming $1.2 million in Specialized Transit funds during this funding cycle. $360,000 was made available for capital projects, with $840,000 available for operating and/or capital projects. An evaluation committee was established to review and rank the submitted proposals. Committee members included: ■ Jim Collins, Vice -Chair, RCTC Citizens' Advisory Committee ■ Dennis Guinaw, SunLine Transit Agency o Fortunato Penilla, Transportation Coordinator, Inland Regional Center • Roger Radley, Assistant Director, Office on Aging • Carol Smith/Jo Sanford, Caltrans District 08 IN Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Staff Evaluation of the applications considered the following selection criteria: Agency Overview (10%), Proposed Project (40%), Staffing/Management of proposed project (20%), and Project Budget (30%). Within each category, a set of questions and a point scale were developed to provide guidance during the rating process. All Committee members were provided with copies of the applications prior to the meeting date. At the meeting, each application was discussed by the members prior to completing the individual project rating sheets. Attachment I displays the projects in rank order based on composite scores of the raters. The Committee is recommending that projects 1 through 12 be approved for funding at this time, totaling $1,043,953. The Committee wanted to clarify that the approval F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\MEASAFUND.CB Page 2 of funds for Riverside Transit A..........'.. request for Agency's r s request for match to purchase 4 expansion vans is contingent upon the Commission's approval of the dial -a -ride service expansion which will be included in RTA's Short Range Transit Ran and considered by the Commission at a later date. A summary of the recommended projects is included in Attachment II. We are recommending that the balance of funds available, $156,047, be set aside and awarded at the June Commission meeting. This is recommended since there were three applications reviewed that the Committee felt were worthwhile projects, and possibly deserving of funding, however the project scopes needed to be scaled down. These applications were submitted by Care -A -Van Transit Service, the Volunteer Center of Greater Riverside and the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. The Committee is recommending that the Commission direct staff to work with the three agencies to modify their program projections and, in the case of Care -A -Van and the Volunteer Center, to reduce projected costs to a more modest level. The Committee would then evaluate the modified applications and rank them against the remaining project applications. A recommendation for allocation of the balance of available funds will be brought forward at the June meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Approve allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit funds as recommended by the Evaluation Committee; 2) Direct the Executive Director to execute funding agreements, pending legal counsel review, with agencies as needed; 3) Direct staff to work with the Care -A -Van Transit System, Volunteer Center of Greater Riverside, and Retired Senior Volunteer Program to modify their proposals for re-evaluation by the Evaluation Committee; and, 4) Direct staff to return in June to allocate the balance of the available Measure A Specialized Transit funding for FY 1995-96. :jw Attachment F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\MEASAFUND.CB 2 3 4 5 FY 95/96 ,RSIDE C OUNT Y TR ANSP ORTATION COMMISSI ON MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT F UNDI NG REQUESTS AGEN CY RIV TRAN SIT AGENC Y PROJECT TYPE CITY OF RIV PARKS&REC RIV TRANSIT AGENCY SEN & DIS CIT COALITION RN CO O FF OF EDUCATIO N 6 7 8 9 10, 11 12 RIV TRAN SIT AGENCY CITY OF CORONA MEDITR AN S SERV FAMILY SERV ASSOC FRIENDS OF MoV al Stu Ctr RIV G EN HOSPITAL WHLC HR LFTS F OR 10 REPLACEME NT B USES F UNDS REQUESTED 5260 , MATCH FUNDS TO REPLACE 5 VANS 546, W HLCHR LFTS F OR 22 RPLC & 4 E XPN VANS &MINIBUS TR ANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENT & INFO PROJ BUS TICKETS FOR TRAVEL TRAINI NG OPER ASST FOR ADA INTE R -CITY SERVICE 5137,8 5171,0 53,4 MATCH FUNDS TO REPLACE 2 V ANS & FARE SUBSIDY O PERATING ASSISTA NCE 520, 546, 5142, OPERA TING ASSISTANCE OPERATING ASSISTANCE OPERATING ASSISTANCE 5100, 526, INLAND A IDS 13 RIV TRANSIT AGEN CY 14 RIV TRANSIT AGENCY 15 16 17 18 BLINDNESS SU PPORT SRV OPERATING ASSISTANCE COMPUTERIZED PARATRANSTT DISP ATCH EQUIPMNf DEVELOPMENT OF A TRAV EL TRAINING P ROGRAM 550,1 541,43 5130, 540, BRAILLE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES RJV CO CO MM ACTION AUTO REPAIR & GAS ASSISTANCE SUN CITY RHF HOUSING PHOEN IX PROGRAMS 19 VALLEY RESTART SH ELTER 20 TH E CONCERNED FMLY 21 O PERATION SAFEHOUSE 22 FAMILY SER V ASSOC VOLUNTEER CEN TER CARE -A -VAN TRANSIT SY S PU RC HASE OF ACCESSIBLE VAN 515,14 514,47 556, FARE VOUCHERS 519,72 FA RE V OU CHERS OP ASST, PUR CHASE 2 VANS, COMPUTER , COPIER TAX I SUBSIDY 52,5 5146,14 CAPITAL MATCH FO R EXPANSION VAN TRANSPORTATION ACCESS PRO GRA M 512, 317, OPERATING ASSISTAN CE RETIRED & SNR VOL PRGM TRA INING SEN IOR V OLUNTEERS IN TRANSIT U SE 5127,75 5131,48 55, OTAL FUNDS REQUESTED 51,761,66' TOTA L FUND S AV AILABLE FUNDS FOR OPERATING AND /OR CAPITAL FUNDS FOR CAPITAL ON LY 51,200, ATTACHMENT TOTAL CUMULATIVE F UNDING OPER ATI NG FUNDS REQU CAPITAL FUNDS REQU PROJE CT SCARE. _ 0 5260,000 5260,000 98 .17 0 5306,000 546,000 96.50 0 5443,800 5137,800 96 .33 0 5614,850 5171,050 96 .08 0 5618,330 53,480 _ 94 .17 0 5638.330 520,000 93 .83 0 5684,330 522,000 524,000 92.33 0 5826,330 5142,000 91 .50 0 5926,330 5100,000 90.83 0 5952,330 526,000 90.10 0 51,002,520 550,190 90 .00 3 51,043,953 141,433 _ 89.13 0 51,173,953 5130,000 81 .00 0 51,213,953 540,000 77.50 1 51,229,094 510,136 55,005 70 .00 0 51,243,564 514,470 67.50 0 51,299,564 556,000 43 .67 0 51,319,214 519,720 43 .17 0 51,321,784 52,500 40.33 3 51,467,927 5120,015 526,128 36.50 0 51,479,927 512,000 35 .33 0 SI,497,427 517,500 2 .83 0 51,625,177 5127,750 5 51,756,662 5128,285 53,200 51,761,662 55,000 51,056,029 1705,6331 5840,000 5360,000 SUMMARY OF MEASURE A PROJECTS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING 1) RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY $260,000 Funding to provide required match to purchase 10 lift -equipped replacementbuses. The replacement buses will be alternatively fueled, replacing diesel equipment. 2) CITY OF RIVERSIDE, PARKS AND RECREATION $46,000 Funding to provide local match to purchase five replacement, alternatively fueled dial -a -ride vehicles. 3) RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY $137,800 Funding to provide match funds to purchase 22 replacement vans and minibuses. Most of the equipment is for the Hemet area and in other communities in central Western Riverside County. In addition, match funds are requested for 4 expansion vehicles to be used in the Hemet area. 4) SENIOR & DISABLED CITIZENS COALITION $171,050 Funding to allow the Senior and Disabled Citizens Coalition to continue to provide mileage reimbursement to people who provide rides to non -driving seniors and persons with disabilities. The Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) will provide reimbursements at a rate of $.28 per mile in Western Riverside County. 5) RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION $3,480 Funding to provide bus tickets to instructors and students with disabilities for mobility training as they transition from school to work. The bus tickets are allotted to those students who need extensive training using the public transit system. When these students leave the school system they will be trained to use the RTA system to get to work. 6) RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY $20,000 Funding to support the provision of inter -city dial -a -ride services between Perris, Moreno Valley and Riverside. This service will be complementary to the fixed -route services and will meet the requirements of the ADA. 7) CITY OF CORONA $46,000 Funding to provide match funds to replace 2 dial -a -ride vehicles ($24,000). In addition, $22,000 in Measure A funding is requested to continue offering a senior and disabled passenger reduced fare. 8) MEDITRANS SERVICES $142,000 Funding to provide both continued and expanded paratransit service in southwestern Riverside County. The expansion of service would occur on Meditrans' South Loop which provides service into Riverside, Highgrove, Loma Linda and Moreno Valley (+28 hours/week). Additionally, funds would provide continued funding for the InterLINI{ service, while providing an extra 12 hours weekly for expanded service during peak periods. 9) FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE $100,000 Funding to provide continued support of the Jurupa Transportation Project which provides inter -city transportation for seniors and persons with disabilities in the Jurupa/Rubidoux areas. 10) FRIENDS OF MORENO VALLEY SENIOR CENTER $26,000 Funding to provide continued support of the "MoVan11 which provides door-to-door transportation service to seniors and persons with disabilities in the City of Moreno Valley and within a 35 mile radius. 11) RIVERSIDE GENERAL HOSPITAL $50,190 Funding to provide continued support of the Hospital's specialized transit services to its transit dependent patients living in the Southwestern area of Riverside County. Those currently served by the transit service are seniors, persons with disabilities and low income individuals who are unable to access other means of transportation to receive medical treatment. 12) INLAND AIDS PROJECT $41,433 Funding to provide continued support for the operation of a van service for persons with HIV/AIDS residing in Western Riverside County. The Inland AIDS Project will transport clients to medical, dental, psychological and other support services. In addition, funding is requested to support the Project's extensive volunteer driver program which was previously provided through the Transportation Access Program. AGENDA ITEM #7B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 3, 1995 TO: Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request from Family Services Association of Western Riverside County for Additional Allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit Funds for FY 1994-95 We have received a request from Family Services Association of Western Riverside County requesting that the Commission consider increasing their FY 94-95 Measure A Specialized Transit allocation by $13,750, from $86,250 to $100,000. In May 1994 the Commission approved an $86,250 allocation to Family Services for the FY 94-95 year. The Scope of Work included in the funding agreement between Family Services and the Commission stated that the funds would be used to support 22 vehicle service hours per weekday with 1 0 hours of service on Sunday, totaling 1 20 hours of service per week. It appears Family Services has been operating an average of 155 hours per week since September, and are now facing difficulty in continuing this increased level of service without additional funding. The Scope of Work defines the level of service Measure A funds will support. Should an agency wish to provide a level of service in excess of this amount, the agency is responsible for costs incurred. While staff understands that Family Services expanded their service level in response to requests from riders, and acknowledges that the productivity of the operation has increased from 2.7 to 3.4 passengers per hour, staff is reticent to recommend an allocation of additional funds. Our concerns are: If staff were to recommend and the Commission approve additional funding, RCTC would be setting a precedent that Measure A funds could be used to "bail out" an agency that did not secure an adequate, stable source of funds to support a decision to expand service. If staff were to recommend and the Commission approve denial of the request, the Commission could be accused of "creating" a reduction in service in an area where service needs are growing. Page 2 While Family Services has been very successful in securing additional revenue through the provision of subscription service, their year-to-date receipts for client contributions, fund raising, and foundation revenues is only $556.45 instead of the projected $20,750. This is just another indicator which is reflective of the general economy, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission consider the request from Family Services Association of Western Riverside County for an additional allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit funds for FY 1994-95. Family Service Association of Western Riverside $100,000 Funding to provide continued support of the Jurupa Transportation Project which provides inter -city transportation for seniors and persons with disabilities in the Jurupa/Rubidaux areas. Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center $26,000 Funding to provide continued support of the "MoVan" which provides door-to-door transportation service to seniors and persons wish disabilities in the City of Moreno Valley and within a 35 mile radius. Riverside General Hospital $50,190 Funding to provide continued support of the Hospital's specialized transit services to its transitdependent patients living in the Southwestern area of Riverside County. Those currently served by the transit service are seniors, persons with disabilities and low income individuals who am unable to access other means of transportation to receive medical treatment Inland Aids Project $41,433 Funding to provide continued support for the operation of a van service for persons with HIVIAIDS residing in Western Riverside County. The Inland AIDS Project will fransport clients to medical, dental, psychological and other support services. In addition, funding is requested to support the Project's extensive volunteer driver program which was previously provided through the Transportation Access Program. Contingency $300,000 AGENDA ITEM #8A May 3, 1995 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Discussions with SCRRA and OCTA Regarding Mutually Acceptable Agreements Regarding Service Enhancements RCTC Budget and Finance Committee On April 21st, Susan Cornelison and I met with staff from the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to discuss prospective desires of our agencies for service enhancements. Based upon that discussion, the following is presented as a package for consideration by our respective Commissions: 1. Authorize Metrolink to utilize two unused AMTRAK one-way movements to add a fourth round trip train between Oceanside and Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal. SCRRA and OCTA are proposing two additional Metrolink train movements from Orange County to Los Angeles. Our inter -agency agreements with Santa Fe provide for six one-way movements (three round trips) for Orange County trains with "Low Case" capital improvements, which are now in service. SCRRA and OCTA want the number of round trip trains increased to four. The November 20, 1992 Inter -Agency Agreement between RCTC and OCTA provides that "Upon mutual agreement of OCTA and RCTC, they will allocate among themselves any train movements allocated to Amtrak per Exhibit E-2 of the SBS Shared Use Agreement which are mutually determined by SCRRA and Amtrak not to be needed for intercity passenger service." Of the 20 one-way AMTRAK train movements allocated for service on the LOSSAN corridor, 18 are now in service and no increases are anticipated. Two additional Metrolink train movements could be allowed without taking service away from any affected agency. 2. Allow an RCTC and farebox sponsored reverse train to Riverside and San Bernardino as an alternative to layover at Irvine. The current plan for service from San Bernardino/Riverside to Irvine provides for the following: Page 2 a. The first train from San Bernardino (5:20 a.m.) would arrive in Irvine (6:48 a.rn.) and would subsequently be routed from Irvine (7:10 a.m.) to Los Angeles (8:15 a.m.) b. The second train from Gan Bernardi.., (6:05 would �� a.m.) �+iuuro arrive in Irvine (7:33 a.m.) where it would layover until its scheduled return (4:50 p.m.). This layover would result in costs for crews including an office, 50% layover pay, and hotel rooms; San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange County would share the layover costs proportionate to route miles. Instead of having the second train layover at Irvine it would be possible to provide for a return trip from Irvine (7:57 a.m) to San Bernardino (9:24 a.m.) and then back to Irvine (2:26 p.m. to 3:54 p.m.) in time for the scheduled return (4:50 p.m.)_ This return trip would also involve some costs for crews (full pay for the additional time in train service but no provision for one-half pay during layover, since San Bernardino is the home base for the crew) and fuel. No additional line charges are anticipated. Since the return train, would arrive at its destination generally outside the peak hours, incremental costs would be assigned as non-peak/non-base trains. It is suggested that allocation of costs for the return train alternative to layover would be as follows: a. SCRRA would estimate the annual costs for layover at Irvine, which would be credited to the cost of the return trip as previously described. Savings, if any, would be credited to agencies proportionately. b. Additional costs, if any, would be absorbed as follows: (1) From an SCRRA estimated share of farebox revenue attributable to the additional two train movements. (2) From additional operating subsidy contributions from RCTC and SANBAG •determined by mutual agreement. SCRRA will prepare estimated cost differentials which would identify the most extreme additional cost to RCTC and SANBAG, assume no additional ridership, by our May 10, 1995 meeting to assist RCTC and OCTA in evaluating this part of the package. 3. RCTC and OCTA should work cooperatively to implement a destination based rideshare demonstration program to reduce demand for transit integration at rail stations in Orange County. Orange County is unique as an employment destination for commuter rail service, because the employment centers are so dispersed. Most metropolitan areas where public transit successfully integrates with commuter rail services have more central city destinations. The challenge of dealing with employment dispersion is exacerbated by more limited availability of transportation funds in Orange County. Page 3 Orange County rail stations would appear to be very appropriate for a demonstration of the potential of destination based ridesharing. Special outreach to major employers and prospective train riders could lead to carpool formation at the stations for the relatively short trips to dispersed employment sites. Our agencies might provide incentives for those willing to share rides to leave a vehicle at the stations to be used for ridesharing. We might work with social service agencies to implement train station shuttle programs in morning and late afternoon hours which may be outside the peak hours for their clients. Other innovative approaches might be possible. A portion of the FY 1995-96 rideshare funding targeted for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as it assumes responsibility for the regional rideshare program is to be dedicated to innovative programs. It is suggested that RCTC and OCTA jointly seek some portion of those funds along with matching Measures A and M funds to cooperatively implement a destination based rideshare demonstration program. After some mutually agreed upon period, the performance of the program would be evaluated as an alternative to public transit/commuter rail service integration. RECOMMENDATION Assuming SCRRA analysis of item 2 above indicates a cost differential acceptable to RCTC, staff recommends approval of this package in concept. AGENDA ITEM #8B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 3, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Susan Cornelison, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1995-96 Metrolink Preliminary Budget The proposed FY 1995-96 budget for Metrolink is presented to the Committee for review and action. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\MAY.95\METROBUDG.SC METROLINK FY 1995/96 PRELIMINARY BUDGET 1 4YRCO MP .XLS-C over 4120/03 11:06 AM METROLINK BUDGET PREPARATION AND REVIEW • January 20 - Operations Committee - Review Service Assumptions • February 17 - Finance Committee - Current year MOW Forecast - Planned MOW effort FY 95/96 - 8B1402 Capital Program Estimates -at -Completion - Fare revenue & ridership (current year) • March 17 - Finance Committee - Review draft Operations Budget - Review draft SB1402 Capital Budget - Fare revenue & ridership (current year) • TAC - Weekly meetings - Review all aspects of budget 2 4YRCI MAP .Xl8-Rrde ws Y05 11:08 AM FY 95196 PROPOSED BUDGET COMPARED WITH FY 94/95 BUDGET ($ MILLIONS) $200 $175 - $150 - $125 -- $100 - $75 - $50 $25 - $0 ,R1A6 1:60 AM TOTAL $190.5 1402 CAPITAL $124.8 OTHER $2.6 MOW $14. 3 OPERATIONS $48.8 TOTAL $125.7 1402 CAPITAL $51.5 MOW $15 .8 OPERATIONS $50.2 OTHER $8.2 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 3 OPERATIONS BUDGET - 4 YEAR COMPARISON FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 Budget FY 96 Proposed Budget Increase FY 93 - FY 94 Increase FY 94 - FY 95 Budget Increase FY 93 - FY 96 Proposed REVENUES MOW OPERATIONS $ 1,716,700 $ 2,538,000 $ 3,802,100 $10,930,200 $ 7,717,900 $16,801,000 $ 4,863,900 $20,317,000 121% 331 % 103% 54% 183% 701% TRAIN MILES 203,750 708,000 1,044,400 1,161,300 EXPENSES $18,896,600 $47,431,200 $63,129,900 $65,514,200 4 SUBSIDY $14,641,900 $32,698,900 $38,811,000 $40,333,300 123% 18 % 175% 4YRCOMP .XL$ opiComp1 4/21/95 8:14 AM ESTIMATED METROLINK SUBSIDIES BY LINE METR OLINK LINE San Bernardino Line Ventura County Line Antelope Valley Line Riverside Line Orange County Line San Bernardino - Irvine Burbank Turns SYSTEM Less: Non -Operating MOW Self -Insurance Reserve Net County Requirement SUBSIDY $ 9,422,200 $ 6,415,700 $ 10, 875,100 $ 6,325,600 $ 5,093,500 $ 2,201,200 $ 40,333,300 $ (81,900) $ (1.200,000) $ 39,051,400 ANNUAL RIDERS 1,393,200 736,000 774,000 825,600 774,000 306,200 61,000 4,870,000 5 SUBSIDY/ TRIP $ 6.76 $ 8.72 $ 14.05 $ 7.66 $ 6.58 $ 7.19 $ 8 .28 SUBSIDY/ PASSENGER MILE $ 0.21 $ 0.311 $ 0.44 $ 0.19 $ 0.16 $ 0.21 $ 0 .24 4YRCOMP.XLS-Sublldy 4/20/95 2:12 PM TOTAL - ALL COUNTIES COUNTY TRAIN MILES SUBSIDY FY 93 203,750 $ 14, 641, 900 FY 94 707,400 $ 32,698,800 FY 95 Budget 1,044,400 $ 38,611,000 FY 96 Proposed Budget 1,161, 300 $ 39,051,400 Increase FY 93 - FY 94 0 247 /0 123% Increase FY 94 - FY 95 Budget 48% o 18/0 Increase FY 95 - FY 96 Proposed 11 % 11% Increase FY 93 - FY 96 Proposed 470% 16i/o �o 6 ,t 1P .XLS-Total '0/95 2:61 PM LOS ANGELES COUNTY FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 Budget FY 96 Proposed Budget Increase FY 93 - FY 94 Increase FY 94 - FY 95 Budget Increase FY 95 - FY 96 Proposed Increase FY 93 - FY 96 Proposed COUNTY TRAIN MILES 175,900 528,150 703,100 745,600 200% 33 % 6% 324% (1) Lancaster service not charged its full cost its first year. 7 SUBSIDY $12,879,100 $23,440,000 $25,299,100 (1) $23,798,000 4YRCOMP .XLS-LACMTA 4/20/95 2:51 pm ORANGE COUNTY COUNTY TRAIN MILES SUBSIDY FY 93 - FY 94 26,900 $ 2,188,100 FY 95 Budget 135,600 $ 4,806,400 FY 96 Proposed Budget 135,750 $ 5,280,000 Increase FY 94 - FY 95 Budget 404% o 120% Increase FY 95 - FY 96 Proposed 0% o 10% Increase FY 93 - FY 96 Proposed 405% o 141 /o 8 4Y` P.XLS•OCTA 10105 2:51 PM METROLINK RIVERSIDE COUNTY COUNTY TRAIN MILES FY 93 1,500 FY 94 27,600 FY 95 Budget 42,300 FY 96 Proposed Budget 66,150 SUBSIDY $ 86,800 $ 1,140,900 $ 1,684, 500 $ 2,397,300 Increase FY 93 - FY 94 1740% 1214% Increase FY 94 - FY 95 Budget 53% 48% Increase FY 95 - FY 96 Proposed 56 % 42% Increase FY 93 - FY 96 Proposed 4310% 2662% 9 4YRCOMP.XLS-RCTC 4/20/95 2:51 PM METR OLINK SAN BERNARDINOCOUNTY COUNTY TRAIN MILES FY 93 4,450 FY 94 82,000 FY 95 Budget 112,100 FY 96 Proposed Budget 150,600 SUBSIDY $ 337,300 $ 3,932,200 $ 4,701,900 $ 5,004,600 Increase FY 93 - FY 94 1743% 1066% Increase FY 94 - FY 95 Budget 37 % 20 % Increase FY 95 - FY 96 Proposed 34% o 6 /o Increase FY 93 - FY 96 Proposed 3284% 1384 % 10 4YRC LS-SANBA4 ..10/95 2:51 PM VENTURA COUNTY WI OXNARD SERVICE FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 Budget FY 96 Proposed Budget COUNTY TRAIN MILES SUBSIDY 21,900 $ 1,338,700 42,750 $ 1,997,600 51,300 $ 2,119,100 (1) 63,200 $ 2,571,500 Increase FY 93 - FY 94 95% 49 % Increase FY 94 - FY 95 Budget 20% 6% (1) Increase FY 95 - FY 96 Proposed 23 % 21% Increase FY 93 - FY 96 Proposed 189% 92% (1) Oxnard extension not charged its full cost its first year. 11 4YRCOMP .XLS-VCTC 4120/05 2:51 PM COMMITTEE FEEDBACK o Ambassador Staffing Levels o New Positions o Insurance 12 COMMI EED .XLS-Sheet1 1/95 e:17 AM METROLINK INSURANCE PREMIUMS TRAIN INSURANCE MILES PASSENGERS PRE MIUM FY 93 205,600 5,400 2,344,000 FY 94 708,000 12,900 2,616,700 FY 95 Forecast 989,100 15,800 3,145,000 FY 96 Proposed Budget 1,161,300 19,100 3,335,000 PERCENT INCREASE 465% 254% 42% 13 4YRCOMP.XL SImun) 4,20/95 2:57 PM PENDING CHANGES o Fare Revenue - SB-Irvine Service o New Contract Information - Security Officers - Insurance o Common Cost Allocation o Saturday Service 14 PENDCHNO .XLS-Sheetl /0/95 3:30 PM ME TR OL1NK FY 96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET OPERATING BUDGET COSTS "DIRECT" ALLOCATED ON TRAIN MILES 41% MAINT-OF-WAY ALLOCATED TO COUNTY OWNING RIGHT-OF-WAY 23% 411W95 7:49 PM "COMMON" ALLOCATED ON POINT -IN -TIME FORMULA 30% 6% OTHER 15 CURRENT YEAR FORMULA COMPONENTS FOR ALLOCATION OF COMMON C OSTS 1/6 UNDUPLICATED STATIONS 1/6 UNDUPLICATED ROUTE MILES 1/6 PROJECTED A.M . BOARDINGS/ ALIGHTINGS 1/2 BASE TRAIN MILES CHARTS .XIS MET ROLINK :•w OTHER ISSUES o Oxnard Service, VCTC Funding o Separation 16 OTHERISS.XLS•Sheell '11/95 e:2O AM NIL TROLINK FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET 88 14132 ESTI MATES AT CO MPLETION (EAC) ($=000) DESCRIPTION LA - SAN BERNARDINO LA -VENTURA LA - SANTA CLARITA LA - RIVERSIDE SHARED FACILITIES LA - FULLERTON FULLERTON - OCEANSIDE FULL - RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO BUDGET ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET $188,525 $89,685 $40,333 $67,870 $52,700 $79,088 $121,262 $105,769 ACTUAL THROUGH JUN 94 $167,370 $89,625 $38,374 $65,005 $51,157 $50,572 $50,562 $52,015 EXPENDITURES FY 94/95 06 MO ACT 06 MO FIC $25,880 $3,812 $1,378 $1,901 $o $18,557 $34,808 $26,272 FY 95/98 PROPOSED BUDGET $63 so so $o $o $9,958 $20,113 $21,373 FY 98/97 EXPENDITURE FORECAST $o $o $o so $o $o $15,779 $5,078 ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION EA C $193,293 $93,437 $39,752 $66,906 $51,157 $79,088 $121,262 $104,737 VARIANCE (OVER)/ UNDER ($4,768) ($3,752) $581 $984 $1,543 (soy ($o) $1,032 PERCENT VARIANCE (OVER)/UNDER -2 .596 -4.296 1.4% 1 .4% 2.9% -0.096 -0.096 1.0% TOTAL $745,232 $564,680 $112,689 $51,507 $20,857 $749,833 ($4,401) -0.6 % 17 OUD9s9ea 20 -Apr -95 METROL/ NK 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET BUDGET CATEGORY TOTAL FY 1995/96 LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC SPECIAL PROJECTS (Locomotive Emissions Reduction) CAPITAL M AINTENANCE NEW CAPITAL TOTAL PROPOSED EXPENDITURES FUNDING SOURCE CARRYOVER FROM FY 1994/95 (MECHANICAL) OTHER LOCAL FUNDS TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $505 $204 $6,015 $2,444 $1,646 $1,296 $133 $2,539 $151 $67 $308 $44 $80 $549 $101 $21 $175 $54 $8,166 $3,943 $800 $173 $7,192 $8,166 $514 $64 $3,365 $3,943 $2,823 $94 $42 $2,687 $2,823 $420 $104 $21 $295 $420 $731 $46 $25 $880 $731 $249 $44 $21 $185 $249 18 C:IBUDGg UMALL4 20 -Apr -95 Southern California Regional Rail Authority FiscalYear 1995/96 Preliminary Budget Proposed April 14, 1995 iMETROLINK Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission SOUTHERN Hrj CALL ORN 4 RE TON A T RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PRELIMINARY BUDGET PROPOSED APRIL 14, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION 2: OPERATIONS SECTION 3: CAPITAL Southern California Regional Rail Authority Section 1 Executive Summary I IMETROLINK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHopr FY 1995/96 PRELIMINARY BUDGET - _-......ry SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1-1 BUDGET OVERVIEW 1-1 OPERATIONS 1-2 SEPARATION 1-3 CAPITAL 1-3 LIST OF TABLES PROPOSED FY 1995/96 BUDGET 1-5 ESTIMATED FY 1995/96 OPERATING STATISTICS BY LINE 1-6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Joint Exercise of Power Agreement establishing the SCRRA requires that body to approve a preliminary fiscal year budget and submit it to the member agencies by May 1 of each year for their approval. After member agency review and approval, the fmal budget (as revised) is to be adopted by June 30. Accordingly, staff began the budget development process internally and with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in November. This Preliminary Budget reflects detailed internal review and revision in consultation with the TAC, and direction from Finance Committee members. Metrolink service levels for next fiscal year were reviewed with the Operations Committee at its January 20 meeting. The Finance Committee reviewed current year forecasted costs for maintenance -of -way (MOW) and proposed activities for FY 95/96, and current estimates -at - completion for the SB1402 Capital Program at its February 17 meeting. A draft of the FY 95/96 Preliminary Budget (excluding new capital and captial maintenance sections) was reviewed at the Finance Committee's March 17 meeting. At that meeting, Finance Committee members set April 21 as the date for a budget workshop, open to all Board members. This workshop will provide an opportunity for detailed discussion of budget issues prior to Member Agency adoption or SCRRA fmal adoption in June. This section offers an overview of the budget and its highlights. Section 2 details the Operating Budget, and Section 3 covers the Capital Budget. BUDGET OVERVIEW For the first time in SCRRA's history, proposed SB 1402 capital expenditures are less than operating expenses, reflecting the planned completion of much of the SB 1402 construction program during FY 95/96. The total proposed budget (all activities), at $124.7 million, is a third less than the current year total of over $190 million. Over 6% of the budget is for non - 1402 capital projects, primarily capital maintenance, while over 52% is for Metrolink operating costs and maintenance -of -way. Staff (excluding Ambassadors) and overhead combined are less than 6% of the total. 1-1 Proposed funding for the budget is divided roughly equally between member agency local funds and other sources, primarily state grants and farebox revenues. Table t fo!lnw.n.. this narrative, summarizes the entire proposed - .., r.,,1F this budget. OPERATIONS Service Levels The new San Bernardino -to -Irvine service is planned to open October 2, 1995. Trains are added on all existing lines except the Antelope Valley line. Six new stations are planned. The line extensions added in response to the Northridge earthquake remain in the system, with continuing service to the Antelope Valley and Oxnard. "Demonstration" Saturday service on the San Bernardino Line is proposed as a separate budget item in Section 2. If funding is approved, this service would be scheduled to begin on Labor Day weekend, with three round -trips. Revenues Next year's net fare revenues are expected to be 20% higher than the current year budget (21 % higher than fnr•o.-.nn� 1 although ti than for t), a►though Muni► -related revenues will be less, due to track abandonments by SF and SP, and no FEMA funding. Combined operating revenues are budgeted 6.9% higher than the current budget. Expenses Total u-ain miles are over 11% more than the current year budget, but total operating costs rise by half of that - 5.7%. The net operating subsidy required from the member agencies increases by only 1%. In response to Finance Committee and TAC concerns, staff has included funding for continuation of the station Ambassador program at its current level. Costs for station coverage are allocated directly to each member agency, rather than split on a formula. A budget for Holiday trains, at the same level as the current year, and an aggressive public safety program are also included. Common costs in the operating budget continue to be allocated on this year's formula, adjusted for next year's service levels. The member agencies' executive directors are scheduled to meet in late April, and a revised formula recommendation may result. Operating Goals The projected revenue recovery or "farebox" ratio for next year is projected to be 41%. This meets the 40% goal established by the SCRRA for the third full year of operations, with an average system age of only 2.6 years at the end of FY 95/96. Subsidy per passenger -mile is expected to average under $.25. Those statistics are provided in Table 2 of this section. 1-2 Staffmg Three new positions are requested, two of which have no budget impact. One is the conversion of the current contract secretary position in the marketing group to a regular position. The second is a regular position at the level of an Ambassador line supervisor to administer the Ambassador program (over twenty-five "as needed" employees). This position will work with community -based groups who could provide volunteer Ambassadors, a potential cost savings. As the distribution office Ambassador contract position is eliminated, this also has no net budget impact. A third Transportation Coordinator position, based at the CCF, is also requested, to allow these positions to rotate into the field, riding trains and monitoring service quality. We currently have two staff providing 16-hour/day, 5-days/week, coverage at CCF. The third position will also ensure that this critical communications link to passengers and transit operators is never "down" due to illness or vacation schedules of the existing two positions. SEPARATION No new positions are requested at this time to accommodate separation. Existing LACMTA support staff costs, currently charged to the SCRRA, are included in the budget, as is overhead of $1.4 million, the amount LACMTA expects to charge us this year. Overhead is less than 35 % of gross salaries. Once an agreement on separation is reached, it is assumed that this amount would be sufficient to fund any new requirements (office space lease, print shop/reproduction, mail distribution, human resources, risk management, etc.). As staff researches the most efficient method of procuring these services, and develops a transition plan, a "zero -based" cost estimate will be developed and presented to the SCRRA. Staff does not expect a negative budget impact from separation. CAPITAL The SB 1402 Captal program is wrapping up, with each project expected to be completed with less than a 5% variance from the project budget. Two lines, LA -San Bernardino and LA - Ventura are projected to exceed current funding levels and additional local funds are required in the current year. This is discussed in detail in Section 3. As discussed at the February Finance Committee meeting and the March 10 Board meeting, we are unable to complete the track reconfiguration and signal consolidation behind Los Angeles Union Station within the available funding in the LAUS-Fullerton project, and have had to downscope this activity, leaving Terminal Tower upgrades undone. Staff is actively seeking $14 million in state and federal funding for this critical project, but it is excluded from this budget. 1-3 The capital budget also includes a number of new capital and capital maintenance projects to improve operations, and ensure our right-of-way, plant and equipment are maintains d in good unidiuon. These have been reviewed in detail with the TAC, and are described in Section 3 of the budget. 1-4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGI ONAL RAIL AUTHORITY PROPOSED FY 1995/96 BUDGET BUDGET CATEGORY OPERATING EXPENDITURES (EXCLUDING MOW) ORDINARY M AINTENANCE SB1402 CAPITAL SPECIAL PROJECTS (Lo comotive Emissions Reduction) CAPITAL MAINTENANCE NEW CAPITAL Table 1 SUMALL3 .WK4 06 -Apr -95 JSC TOTAL FY 1995/96 %OF TOTAL $50,258 $15,770 851,508 $505 86,015 81,646 TOTAL PROPO SED EXPENDITURES 8125,702 EUNDING SOURCE FAREBOX REVENUES (NET OF TRANSFERS) DISPATCHING/OTHER REVENUES SIR RESERVE MOW REVENUES CARRYOVER FROM FY 1994/95 (M ECHANICAL) PROP 116 PROP 108 TCIITP&D OTHER LOCAL FUNDS TO TAL FUNDING SOURCES 40 .0% 12 .5% 41 .0% 0.4% 4 .8 % 1.3% 100.0% LACMTA OCTA 829,900 $9,577 $9,997 $204 $2,444 $1,296 $7,081 83,742 826,399 $133 82,539 8151 RCTC SANBAG VCTC $3,599 8158 $12,321 887 8308 $44 $6,410 $1,978 82,791 $80 $549 8101 $3,268 $315 $0 $21 8175 $54 $53,417 840,044 818,897 $1,420 81,200 $5,460 8800 $37,446 $743 $567 $173 858,996 15 .0 % 1 .1% 1 .0 % 4 3% 0 .6 % 29 .8% 0 .6% 0 .5% 0.1% 46.9% $11,031 $650 $637 83,361 8514 86,759 $0 $0 864 830,401 $3,244 $691 $218 81,390 $94 819,109 80 80 $42 $15,258 NOTE: NUMBERS M AY NOT ADD TO TO TALS DUE TO ROUNDING. $125,702 100.0% $53,417 $40,044 $16,498 $11,910 83,833 81,245 $16 $99 80 8104 810,052 8743 8567 821 $3,652 82,503 823 $150 $709 $46 81,526 i0 80 825 $8,929 $874 $42 896 $0 $44 $0 $0 $0 $21 82,756 816,498 _ $11,910 $3,833 SOUTHERN CALIFORNI A REGI ONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMA TED FY 1995/96 OPERATING STATISTICS BY LINE Operating Statistics : Passenger Boardings Passenger M iles Train Miles Avg Trip Length (miles) Financial ($KI: Operating Cost Operating Cost (w/o MOW) Subsidy Revenues Cost Effectiveness: Op Cost / Passenger Op Cost / Passenger Mile Subsidy / Passenger Subsidy / Passenger Mile Service Efficiency: Op Cost / Train Mile Op Cost / Train Mlle (w/o MOW) Subsidy / Train Mile Revenue Recovery Table 2 San Vent[rr etrfardirid:....:, ' Ctaurety L€rid. ':" Line Ahtialsve Va!k v Ir1jrb 1 Lino Turns 1,393,200 736,000 774,000 61,000 825,600 774,000 306,200 4,870,000 45,153,612 20,733,120 24,582,240 316,761 184,693 486,170 33,940,416 32,655,060 10,717,000 168,267,818 32 28 249,849 13,898 199,815 151,003 45,235 1,161,254 32 8 41 42 35 35 $15,821.6 $11,899. 9 $9,422. 2 $6,399. 4 $11. 36 $0. 35 $6.76 $0. 21 $49.95 $37. 57 $29. 75 $9,236 .1 $8,282.2 $6,415 .7 $2,820 .4 $12. 55 $0. 45 $8. 72 $0.31 $50.01 $44.84 $34.74 $15,902.5 $10,116.2 $10,875.1 $5,027 .4 $20 .55 $0 .65 $14.05 $0.44 $63. 65 $40.49 $43.53 $9,886.5 $9,420 .6 $6,325.6 $3,560.9 $11.97, $0 .29 $7 .66 $0.19 $11,181 .9 $7,590.6 $5,093.5 $6,088.4 $14 .45 $0 .34 $6.58 $0.16 $3,485.6 $2,948.9 $2,201 .2 $1,284.4 $11 .38 $0 .33 $7.19 $0.21 $65,514.2 $50,258.4 $40,333 .3 $25,180 .9 $13.45 $0 .39 $8 .28 $0 .24 $49 .48 $74 .05 $77 .06 $47.15 $50.27 $58 .42 385 .19 $43 .28 $31.68 $33.73 $48.66 $34.73 42. 6% 33.0% o 33.3 /o 38.5 % 58 .3 % 41 .0% 41 .0 % Notes: Revenues include farebox, dispatching fee s, and MOW revenues from freight and Amtrak; due to Individual member agencies. Costs include all operating expenses for Metrolink and MOW on operating lines, un less otherwise noted. Revenue recovery exdudes insurance premiums and claims. Southern California Regional Rail Authority Section 2 Operations eMETROLINK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ' 1995/96 PRELIMINARY BUDGET SECTION 2 OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE OPERATING BUDGET APPENDIX 1 METROLINK TRAIN OPERATIONS DETAIL APPENDIX 2 MAINTENANCE OF WAY LIST OF TABLES 2-1 A-1-1 A-2-1 OPERATING BUDGET COMPARATIVE SUMMARY 2-3 OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY 2-5 ESTIMATED FY 1995/96 OPERATING STATISTICS BY LINE 2-7 OPERATING BUDGET SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS FY 1995/96 2-9, 2-10 SAN BERNARDINO LINE DEMONSTRATION SATURDAY SERVICE 2-11 COMPARATIVE DETAIL OF NON -MOW OPERATING EXPENSES A-1-2 CALCULATION OF 1995/96 POINT -IN -TIME FORMULA A-1-8 SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS - BASE TRAINS A-1-9, A-1-10 MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY BUDGET SUMMARY A-2-6 MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY EXPENDITURES/REVENUE SUMMARY A-2-7 MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY SYSTEM SUMMARY BY LINE SEGMENT A-2-8, A-2-9 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 SECTION 2 OPERATING BUDGET This section - The Operating Budget - includes Metrolink operations and maintenance -of -way revenues and expenses at a sununary level, and shows how the net subsidy required is allocated among the member agencies. The Operating Budget format is new this year, redesigned in conjunction with the TAC to be easier to understand and more consistent with industry practice. In previous budgets, we calculated the net cost of MOW in a separate MOW budget, and moved only that net figure into the operating budget. This tended to obscure the revenue and total expense detail, and may have made the budget harder to understand. Metrolink operations and MOW operating revenues and expenses are now shown together in Table 1. Table 2 shows the allocation of required total operating subsidy among the member agencies. MOW revenues are shown as funding sources in operations. The member agencies receive these revenues by virtue of their ownership of the ROW. They have each asked SCRRA staff to manage and collect these revenues on their behalf, and they contribute them to offset the need for other local funding of ROW maintenance costs. These revenues do not actually belong to SCRRA unless contributed by the member agencies. Accordingly, these member agency revenues are now shown in the SCRRA Operating Budget, and are included in calculations of the system's "revenue recovery" or farebox ratios (see Table 3). Likewise, all MOW expenses on operating lines are included in operating expenses for these calculations. The service assumptions underlying the operating budget are shown in Table 4. Table 5 is a separate preliminary budget for "demonstration" Saturday service on the San Bernardino Line. For further detail on the components of the operating budget, we include two appendices: Appendix 1 includes line item detail and descriptions for Metrolink train operations, excluding maintenance -of -way. Appendix 2 details maintenance -of -way (MOW) revenues and costs by line segment, and describes factors affecting these costs. MOW on both operating and non -operating lines is included. 2-1 TABLE 1 Table 1 shows the total proposed FY 95/96 Operating Budget. This table also compares the proposed budget to the current year budget. Next year's fare revenues and ridership are expected to be over 20% higher than this year. There is a projected 28% decline in MOW revenues, caused by the inclusion of $1 million in FEMA revenues in this item in the current year budget, and zero in FY 95/96, SP's abandonment of the Baldwin Park Branch and State Street Branch and lower Amtrak revenues than anticipated earlier. Total revenues increase by 6.9%. Planned daily train trips increase by 16%, from 77 in the current year, to 89 by the end of next year. Train miles increase over 11% compared to the current budget, and 15.7% compared to this year's forecast. Each member agency receives more train miles than in the current year: RCTC has the largest increase (56%), followed by SANBAG (34%), and VCTC (23 %). Sixty-four percent of all train miles operated will be in LA County. In comparison, the proposed expenditure budget for operations is 5.7% higher than the current year approved budget. Subsidy for operations increases by 5%, but net subsidy required from member agencies increases by only 1%, due to drawdown on the self- insurance reserve, and application of excess MOW revenues received on non -operating lines to operations. Subsidy per passenger -mile is expected to be $.24. The distribution of expenses changes somewhat, with train operations and passenger services categories showing a decrease (due to decrease in equipment lease costs after the return of GO Transit equipment and decreases in customer telephone information and marketing costs). G & A shows an increase, due to increases in Ambassador program costs to cover new stations and retain current levels at existing sites, a shift in staffing costs from capital, and increased professional services for legal, lobbying, a performance audit. etc. Insurance also increases, due primarily to anticipated claims payouts. More detail is provided in Appendix 1. Increases to MOW costs are detailed in Appendix 2. With an average system age of only 2.6 years at the end of FY 95196, Metrolink plans to meet its adopted three-year goal of a 40% recovery ratio. The projected "revenue recovery" or "farebox" ratio for next year is projected to be 41%. Our current year forecast shows a savings compared with budget for the current year. Staff wil] continue to update this forecast for recent events (such as the recent damage to TVMs at San Bernardino and Riverside line stations). It is provided for information only, and is subject to revision. 2-2 Coo - P `11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET OPERATING BUDGET COMPARATIVE SUMMARY ($K) N w 566I `0I Iudy pasinaj Mb, .0 t t tigrilirraMOOsidy Metrolink Revenues MOW Revenues ,1'pt ( , : sous Metrolink Expenses Amtrak Train Ops 21,379.8 Train Operations 16,769.1 Passenger Services 2,631.8 G & A 4,429.2 Insurance & Claims 3,150.0 Contingent 495. 1 4800 13121,,7, 21,379 .8 13,014.0 2,518.1 4,586 .8 3,580.8 495.1 :4g 0.0% (22.4 %) (4.3%) 3.6% 13.7% 0.0 % 24,387.1 37.2% 13,286 .3 20.3% 2,243.0 3 .4 % 5,442.7 8 .3 % 4,375.0 6.7 % 524.3 0.8% ,i Other MOW Revenues Other MOW Expenses N ENon-Operating MOW 965.6 1,153.0 187. 4 965.6 0.0% 763.9 (33.7%) (2011) ` (2b7.6%) 595.8 513 .9 (81.9) (38.3 %) (55 .4 %) (143.7 %) f 11518,FINAIISU MMARYJIlSC omp 4/10/5 1:52 AM TABLE 2 Table 2 shows the allocation of local funding actually required for operations. "Line - allocated subsidy" represents the allocation of the net cost of train -mile -allocated (direct) costs and revenues from each line. Common costs are those costs which do not directly vary with the level of trains operated. They make up less than one-third of all operating costs, and include functions such as the public safety program, marketing, administration, and core security. Agreement on a formula is needed to finalize allocations of costs among member agencies, the allocation of costs to Metrolink lines, and may be a critical step at arriving on an agreement on separation from MTA. In the absence of a mutually agreeable new formula, Table 2 allocates costs to lines and member agencies on the same basis used for the FY 94/95 budget, updating the formula's elements for the new service assumptions. A schedule showing the detailed calculation of the formula included in Appendix 1. "Costs funded by SIR" represents the drawdown of the self-insurance reserve funded earlier by the member agencies, to pay for repairs to equipment and claims. The reserve must be replenished, during the next budget year "MOW - net subsidy" is the difference between MOW revenues and expenses, including both operating and .ion -operating lines. Tlie "total county allocation" is less than the operations subsidy figure shown on Table 1, due to two factors. The first is the use of $1.2 million from the self-insurance reserve fund. The second is that excess MOW revenues on non -operating lines of $81,900 are assumed to be applied towara operating costs. 2-4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY TOTAL FY 95/96 LAC MTA SHARE OCTA SHARE LINE ALLOCATED SUBSIDY SAN BERNARDINO LINE VENTURA COUNTY LINE ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE RIVERSIDE LINE (UP) ORANGE COUNTY LINE SAN BERN/RIVERSIDE - IRVINE AMBASSADORS SUBTOTAL LINE ALLOCATED SUBSIDY COMM ON COSTS (POINT -IN -TIM E) * 2,627 .8 2,207 .6 3,017.9 2,809 .6 (697 .3) 96.8 480.3 10,542 .8 19,398 .5 1,705.9 1,452 .3 3,017.9 1,704 .0 (186 .5) 234.7 7,928.3 10,290.7 (510.8) 46 .5 83.2 (381.0) 3,527.1 RCTC SHARE 646 .2 40.9 50.7 737.8 1,600.9 SANBAG SH ARE 921 .9 459 .5 9 .4 71 .4 1,462.2 2,422.7 VCTC SHARE TOTAL OPERATIONS SUBSIDY COSTS FUNDED BY SIR COUNTY ALLOCATION - METROLINK M OW - NET SUBSIDY TO TAL COUNTY ALLOCATION 29,941.3 (1,200.0) 28,741.3 18,219.0 (636 .6) 17,582 .4 3,146 .1 (218 .2) 2,927.9 2,338 .7 (99 .0) 2,239.7 3,884.9 (149.9) 3,735 .0 755.3 40.3 795.6 1,557 .0 2,352.6 (96 .3) 2,256.3 10,310.1 39,051.4 6,215.6 23,798 .0 2,352.1 5,280.0 i57.6 2,397 .3 1,269.6 5,004 .6 315 .2 2,571.5 FY 94/95 BUDGET ALLOCATION INCREASE/(DECREASE) PERCENT INCREASE 38,611. 0 440. 4 1% 25,299.1 (1,501.1) (6% ) 4,806.4 473.6 10% 1,684.5 712 .8 42% 4,701 .9 302 .7 6% 2,119.1 452 .4 21% Current year formula & definition of common costs, updated fo r 95/96 service assumptions (including 10/2 start of SB - Irvine service) FY95961BUDGETIBUDGET.XLS-Allocate 4/5/95 5:08 PM TABLE 3 Table 3 shows the resulting estimated operating statistics by line for FY 95/96 and the calculation of various performance ratios. The allocation of costs to lines is based on the current year formula, updated for added service. Metrolink will only have operated an average of 2.6 years (pro -rated based on when each route opened) at the end of FY 95/96, but expects to achieve a 41% revenue recovery ratio. Subsidy per passenger -mile is expected to be under $.25 - very competitive with other operators' performance in the region. 2-6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMATED FY 1995/96 OPERATING STATISTICS BY LINE ❑oeratir g Statistics; Passenger Boardings Passenger Miles Train Miles Avg Trip Length (miles) Financial t$K): Operating Cost Operating Cost (w/o MOW) Subsidy Revenues Cost Effectiveness: Op Cost / Passenger Op Cost / Passenger Mile Subsidy / Passenger Subsidy / Passenger Mile Service Efficiency: Op Cost / Train Mile Op Cost / Train Mile (w/o M OW) Subsidy / Train Mile Revenue Recovery S an Ventura> Antelope > Orange Bernardino County Valley Burbank E¢t;ursode r County Line Line; Line Turns : .: ..;� 1e . .. W.. Lirtd 1,393,200 736,000 774,000 61,000 825,600 774,000 45,153,612 20,733,120 24,582,240 486,170 33,940,416 32,655,060 316,761 184,693 249,849 13,898 199,815 151,003 32 28 32 8 41 42 $15,821 .6 $9,236 .1 $15,902 .5 $9,886.5 $11,181.9 $11,899.9 $8,282 .2 $10,116 .2 $9,420.6 $7,590.6 $9,422.2 $6,415.7 $10,875.1 $6,325 .6 $5,093.5 $6,399. 4 $2,820.4 $5,027 .4 $3,560.9 $6,088.4 $11.36 $0. 35 $6.76 $0.21 $49.95 $37.57 $29. 75 $12.55 $0.45 $8. 72 $0. 31 $50.01 $44. 84 $34.74 $20.55 $0 .65 $14.05 $0.44 $63.65 $40. 49 $43. 53 $11.97 $0.29 $7.66 $0 .19 $49.48 $47.15 $31.66 $14.45 $0 .34 $6.58 $0.16 $74.05 $50 .27 $33.73 306,200 4,870,000 10,717,000 168,267,818 45,235 1,161,254 35 35 $3,485 .6 $2,948 .9 $2,201.2 $1,284 .4 $11.38 $0 .33 $7.19 $0.21 $77 .06 $65.19 $48.66 $65,514.2 $50,258.4 $40,333.3 $25,180 .9 $13.45 $0 .39 $8.28 $0.24 $56 .42 $43 .28 $34 .73 42. 6% 33. 0% 33. 3% 38.5% 58 .3 % 41.0% 41.0"15 Notes: Revenues include fa rebo x, dispatching fees, and MOW revenues from freight and Amtrak due to individual member agencies . Costs include all operating expenses for Metrolink and MOW on operating lines, unless otherwise noted. Revenue recovery excludes insurance premiums and claims. Fvw.HeVINALVIUM MAR Y.XLSSIs b TABLES 4 & 5 Table 4 details the service assumptions used in preparing the budget. The San Bernardino - to -Irvine service opens on October 2, and trains are added on existing lines. New stations are planned to open in Anaheim Canyon, Norwalk, La Sierra, West Corona, Montebello, and Pomona. The line extensions instituted in response to the Northridge earthquake are planned to remain in the system, with continuing service to the Antelope Valley and Oxnard. "Demonstration" Saturday service on the San Bernardino Line is scheduled to begin at the end of October, with three round -trips, but is not included in the budget. Incremental costs for this service are shown in Table 5, and are offered for consideration and approval by the member agencies. If approved, they will be added to the budget. Changes to these service assumptions could affect the budget in two ways: I) Increasing or decreasing costs and 2) Changing the formula elements used to allocate common costs. 2-8 Table 4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL NAIL AUTHORITY FY 1rvesvu PROPOSED PR.EI_2u IARY BUDGET SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS San Bernardino Line Existing Service New Service 1 -Way 1 -Way Total Date Trips Date Trips Trips Peak Trains San Bemardino - LAUS 7101195 9 9 Rancho Cucamonga - LAUS 7101195 4 4 Montclair - LAUS 7101195 2 2 Off -Peak Trains San Bemardino - LAUS 7/01/95 6 6 Sweeper Trains San Bemardino - LAUS 7/01/95 3 3 Total San Bernardino Line 24 0 24 Ventura County Line Existing Service New Service 1 -Way 1 -Way Total Date Trips Date Trips Trips Peak Trains Oxnard - LAUS 7/01/95 4 4 Moorpark - LAUS 7/01/95 4 4 Simi Valley - LAUS 10/0195 4 4 Off -Peak Trains Moorpark - LAUS 7/01/95 2 10/30/95 2 4 Extend Chatsworth Chatsworth - LAUS 7/01195 2 10/30/95 -2 0 trains to Merspark Total Ventura County Line 12 4 16 Santa Clarita Line Existing Service New Service 1 -Way 1 -Way Total Date Trips Date Trips Trips Peak Trains Lancaster - LAUS 7/01/95 7 Princessa - LAUS 7/01/95 5 Santa Clarks - LAUS 7/01/95 2 Off -Peak Trains Prinoessa - LAUS 7/01195 2 Sweeper Trains Lancaster - LAUS 7/01/95 1 Princessa - LAUS 1 Total Santa Clarita Line 18 2-9 No forecasted new service 7 5 2 2 1 1 0 18 Revised April 10, 1995 Table 4A SOUTIIERM CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAs. AUTHORITY FY 1sl31P6 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY RY BUDGET SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS Riverside Une Existing Service New Service 1 -Way 1 -Way Total Peak Trains Dale Trips Date Trips Trips Riverside - LAUS 7/01195 10 10 Off -Peak Trains Riverside - LAUS 7101/95 2 10/30195 2 4 Total Riverside Line 12 2 14 Orange County Line Existing Service New Service 1 -Way E 1 -Way Total Peak Trains Date Trips Date e Trips Trips O"sansidc = EMUS 1f01►95 6 Irvine - LAUS (connected with SBIRv - Irvine sexvice) 10/02/95 6 2 2 Total Orange County Une 6 2 a San Bernardino - Irvine Peak Trains San Bernardino - Irvine Existing Service New Service 1 -Way 1 -Way Total Dale Try Dote Its Trips 10/02/95 4 4 Total San Bernardino - Irvine 0 4 4 Burbank Turns Burbank - LAUS Total Burbank Turns TOTAL TRAINS Service • New Service 1 -Way 1 -Way Total Date Trips Date Trips Trips 7/01195 5 5 77 Peak Trains: Before a:30AM, 3:30PM-7 3OPM Off -Peak Trains: 8:3QAM-3:30PM Sweeper Trains: Afhir 7:30PM 2-10 5 0 5 12 89 Revised April 10, 1995 APPENDIX 1 METROLINK TRAIN OPERATIONS DETAIL This appendix provides line item level detail of the proposed budget for Metrolink operations exclusive of maintenance -of -way. A narrative description of each line item follows the summary schedule. Format: The proposed budget is presented in a comparative format. We show the current -year budget (FY 94/95) and our mid -year forecast (for information only - subject to revision), as well as the proposed budget for FY 95/96. The current -year budget and forecast include the approved emergency extensions as well as baseline services. The far right columns show the increase/(decrease) for the proposed budget in comparison to the current -year budget, and current -year forecast. Maintenance -of -way "operating share" is taken out (from all years, for consistency). As agreed to by TAC, MOW is presented as its own section, along with its related revenues from Amtrak and freight carriers (contributed to SCRRA by the counties), so it is less confusing and easier to track, then combined with Metrolink operations in the summary schedules in Section 2. Following the line item descriptions are schedules showing the calculation of the current point -in -time formula used for allocating common costs, updated for FY 95/96 service assumptions. A listing showing which trains are included in base train miles is also attached. A-1-1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PREUMINARY BUDGET COMPARATIVE DETAIL OF NON -MOW OPERATING EXPENSES (1 = Thousands) Total Train Miles (thousands) FY 94/95 Budget 1,044.4 Total FY 94/95 Forecast Proposed FY 95/96 5c rev.ve l FY 95/96 Compered to FY 94/95 Budget Budget Forecast 1,003.7 1,161.3 11.2% 15.7% REVENUES EXPENSES SUBSIDY TOTAL REVENUES FAREBOX REVENUE (NET OF TRANSFERS) Farebox Revenue Transfers to Other Transit Operators MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 16,801.0 16,271.9 20,317.0 48.955.0 45.574.6 50,258.4 32.054.0 `a:...,7B.302:7 =AMA 20.9% 24.9% 2.9% 10.3% 4.1194 2.2% 16,801.0 16.271.9- _ . 20.317.0 ; , , 20.9% 24.9% 16,176.7 15,646.6 16,861.8 16,681.9 (686.1) (1,035.3) 625.3 625.3 T T T P E P P D M M P PDS D P P P P D P P P P P S P EXPENSES w/o MoW TRAIN OPERATIONS & SERVICES AMTRAK Trdn Operations AMTRAK Contingency (Amtrak) Train Operations Fuel Security - Sheriff Security - Guards Utilities/Leases Revenue Collection Rail Agreements LAUS Rail Yard Ops & Maint LAUS Station Routine Maintenance (Catellus) Maintenance of SCRRA Station Fixtures Other Train Service Expenses Special Trains Passenger Services Public Safety Program Marketing, Printing. Advertising, Research Customer Information Service GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE Staff Personnel & Overhead Ambassadors Direct Costs Services Professional Services MIS CONTINGENCY (Non -Amtrak) INSURANCE Liability/Property/Auto (excl. from farebox recovery) Claims Claims Administration 48.855.0 40,780.7 21.379.8 20,879.5 500.3 18,789.1 3,705.2 1,860.4 1,708.6 1,593.6 1,082.9 1,216.3 995.0 312.0 115.1 4,182.0 2,631.8 561.8 1,295.0 775.0 4.429.2 4,109.2 3,501.8 347.0 260.4 320.0 270.0 50.0 495.1 3,150.0 3,000.0 0.0 150.0 A-1-2 45.574.6 38,911.9 21.375.8 21,129.8 250.0 13.014.0 2.100.0 1,520.0 1,419.7 1,550.0 1,192.6 1,161.8 995.0 321.8 13.0 2,550.0 190.1 2,518.1 517.1 1,198.0 803.0 4,586.8 3.636.8 2,913.6 423.2 300.0 950.0 900.0 50.0 495.1 3,580.8 3,145.0 202.5 233.3 18,936.6 17.1% 21.0% 20,201.1 19.8% 21.1% (1,264.5) 84.3% 22.1% 1,380.4 120.8% 120.8% 50,258.4 39,916.4 24,387.1 23,816.4 570.7 13,289.3 2,480.0 1,897.7 1,158.9 1,676.7 1,531.2 1,408.1 456.0 339.5 75.0 2,113.2 150.0 2,243.0 593.0 950.0 700.0 6,442.7 4,624.4 3,674.1 480.3 470.0 818.3 733.3 85.0 524.3 4,375.0 3,335.0 700.0 340.0 2.911 -2.1% 14.1% 14.1% 14.1% -20.8% -33.1% 2.0% -32.1% 5.2% 41.4% 15.8% -54.2% 8.8% -34.8% -49.5% 0.0% -14.8% 5.6% -26.6% -9.7% 22.9% 12.5% 4.9% 38.4% 80.5% 155.7% 171.6% 70.0% 5.9% 38.9% 11.2% 0.0% 126.7% 10.3% 8.1% 14.1% 12.7% 128.3% 2.1% 18.1% 24.8% -18.4% 8.2% 28.4% 21.2% -54.2% 5.5% 476.9% -17.1% -21.1 % -10.9% 14.7% -20.7% -12.8% 18.7% 27.2% 26.1% 13.5% 56.7% -13.9% -18.5% 70.0% 5.9% 22.2% 6.0% 245.7% 45.7% FY95961BUDGETBUDGETJCLS.Summery 4/6/95 e:06 AM Line Item Descriptions: Revenues: Ridership is forecast to grow by 8% over the current year's overly ambitious, budgeted level, and by over 20% compared with our forecast. Fare revenue is expected to increase by 20% compared to budget. Interoperator transfers increase, due to increased MTA fares and the growth in feeder services available to riders. We expect to pay out about 6% of revenues collected to connecting operators. Miscellaneous revenues include fees for dispatching SF, SP and Amtrak trains. The increase is due to reclassification of Amtrak revenues from MOW. Amtrak: Proposed Amtrak costs are 14.1 % higher. Amtrak costs for special trains are shown separately, in the special train line item. Amtrak contingency is proposed at 2.4%, an identical percentage to this year. Fuel: Fuel is based on a price per gallon of $.745, and an estimate of increased train -miles. Our actual fuel purchase prices during this year varied from $.6176 to $.74506, with a median of $.67951. We expect a slight rise in prices next year, but we've adjusted the usage to reflect this year's experience, resulting in a proposed 35 % decrease from the current year budget. Security - Sheriff: Since this contract is being rebid, we do not have a contract price to use for this item. The proposed budget is based on current LASD contract prices for our current staffing of 9 direct -charge service units, plus 2 for the SB-Irvine Line. This results in an increase of 2%. Security - Guards: Proposed costs for guards decrease by 32% compared with this year's budget. The decrease is due to discontinuance of the Santa Clarita layover facility in the second quarter of FY 94/95 and not replacing Amtrak police with U.S. Guards at LAUS as originally planned in the FY 94/95 budget. Guards are budgeted at current contract rates (contract is being rebid, but we believe the rates are competitive), at layovers at SB, Riverside, Moorpark, Lancaster, Oxnard, and Oceanside (paid to NCTD). Utilities: Utility and lease costs are estimated at current monthly average charges plus amounts for new stations on the SB-Irvine line. It is only slightly above this year's budget. Revenue Collection: This item includes TVM and MTTV maintenance, revenue servicing, ticket stock, replacement of destination and ticket type strips in the TVMS, fare/zone change progranuning, and merchant fees for credit and debit card usage. The increase is due in part to an increase in the amount of equipment (9 TVMs and 15 validators put into service for a partial year in FY 94/95, and 13 additional TVMS and validators to be installed in FY 95/96). A-1-3 Both maintenance and servicing contracts are up for rebid during FY 95/96 - neither had any escalation during the last three years, and so an escalation factor was applied to current rates. Total costs for revenue collection are under 10% of revenues. We assume that the mail pass program continues to be handled within existing resources at the Amtrak ticket window. Should the program capture a relatively high (over 5-10%), due to special promotions which g percentage of riders additional resources may be needed. require mail -in purchases, for example, Rail Agreements: The 16% proposed increase is primarily due to increased Riverside Line train -miles. LAUS Rail Yard and Operations: Decrease is due to the inclusion of a portion of these costs in the Amtrak contract. LAUS Station Maintenance: Minor increase, based on projected costs from Catellus and split with MTA. Maintenance of Station Fixtures: No increase. Forecasted savings this year are because we have not accepted the PA/CMS system yet and so have not incurred maintenance costs. Other Train Service Expenses: FY 94/95 budgeted costs included leasing GO Transit equipment, which is not projected for next year, resulting in a 50% decrease. Two-thirds of the proposed budget is for mechanical department activities, including non-scheduled rolling stock repairs, endpoint servicing, carpet change -out; cleaning, maintenance, and hazardous materials compliance at Taylor Yard; and warranty administration. The remainder is for Amtrak wages while training, crew publications and uniforms, and emergency bus services. Special Trains: We estimated a total cost of $150,000 for Amtrak, Ambassador, and marketing costs for Holiday trains, based on our current year experience. Public Safety Program: A 5.6% increase is proposed. Included are eight trooper trains, continuation of the "Don't Pick a Fight with a Heavyweight" campaign (including a community outreach event in each county), public information and school education campaigns, and safety and incident response training for staff and contractors. Marketing: A decrease of 27% is proposed compared to the current year budget (which included FEMA funding), as train capacity is limited. About half of the proposed budget is for marketing activities including advertising, market research, a value-added program, and marketing consultant support. The balance includes promotional and community events, station and corridor special events, corporate outreach, of passenger and marketing materials, a resident direct mail program, and media/public relations activities. Customer Information Service: A 9.7% decrease is proposed, reflecting savings from lower contracted rates. Telephone information will be available twenty-four hours a day on A-1-4 an automated voice response system, with live operators full-time during weekdays, and half days on Saturday and Sundays. Actual hours may be adjusted to respond to demand. In addition to Metrolink and connecting transit information and customer service by phone, services will include a special number for Employee Transportation Coordinators, and faxed information on request (schedules, station maps, etc.). Personnel and Overhead: Staff costs were forecasted based on salary rate for the position, with 30% for fringe benefits (SCRRA's actual experience with SCRRA employees), on the assumption separation occurs. Expected savings in FY 94/95 are due to unfilled vacancies and reduced MTA overhead charges compared to budget. Overhead is forecast at the current year amount charged us by MTA ($1.4 million total, $800,000 in operations). In FY 95/96, with separation, this amount would be available for services currently received from MTA (including space -lease costs, print shop/reproduction, human resources, etc.). These services could be procured directly or provided under MOUs with MTA or other agencies. As staff researches the most efficient method of procuring these services, a "zero -based" cost estimate will be developed. Three new positions are requested in operations, two of which are conversions or replacements of existing contract positions and so have no budget impact. The proportion of existing staff time charged to operations versus capital increases. New positions requested are: Secretary II (External Affairs and Marketing) Conversion of current as needed position. The marketing department requires on- going administrative and clerical support for its six staff members, which is currently handled by an "as needed" employee. There is no budget impact from this request. Transportation Coordinator (Operations) A third transportation coordinator is requested to allow these positions to rotate out in the field, riding trains and monitoring service quality, and to provide staffmg for Saturday service. The existing two positions provide 16-hour/day coverage at CCF, operating the PA/CMS system, communicating with Ambassadors, connecting transit, etc. on train operations, and setting up emergency transportation. Passenger Service Representative (Ambassador Line Supervisor level) (Facilities and Passenger Services) This position would be responsible for administering the Ambassador program, and working with community -based groups and station cities to develop a volunteer program on a demonstration basis. With over 25 part and full-time as needed Ambassadors, recruiting, hiring, scheduling, training, counseling, and administration A-1-5 of time sheets and phone equipment (including monitoring phone usage) requires concentrated effort. Assuming that the program would wind down, we have absorbed this effort with the existing two passenger services staff (who also handle all passenger issues and correspondence, manage the telephone information contractor, process refund requests, etc.), and occasional Ambassador hours. There is no budget impact from this request, as a full- time as needed distribution Ambassador postion is being eliminated. Public Safety Program staffing We plan to move this program in house, transferring support activities from MTA staff to as -needed SCRRA staff. There is no budget impact and no permanent positions are requested. Ambassadors: After extensive discussion with the Finance Committee and TAC, staff recommends maintaining existing Ambassador staffing at L'WS and other stations, and adding Ambassador coverage at new stations. Many of our existing Ambassadors are, or will become, eligible for PERS benefits during the budget year, so fringe costs have been included. A contract for mailing/fulfullment services (in professional services) replaces one full-time equivalent. Direct Costs: These include computer expenses for upgrading the DPM model, leases for field vehicles, Ambassador uniforms, LINK program materials and set-up, estimated costs for staff training, mileage/parking reimbursement, etc. Increase reflects a larger share of these costs hitting operating versus capital, increased staffing (primarily from filling authorized positions that were vacant during FY 94/95), and specialized DPM software/hardware. Professional Services: These include contracted services for legal and lobby representatives ($273,000), mailing/distribution services ($48,000). conducting a performance audit of our operator ($50,000), feeder bus coordination ($46,800), the annual financial audit ($35,000), and staff support in utilities, claims, inventory, and contract processing ($273,000). The latter charges were absorbed by the capital budget in preceding years and account for much of the current year forecast overrun. MIS: This includes software support and maintenance costs for 818 building, CCF, and CMF computers. Contingency: A contingency of 2. 5% on non -Amtrak expenses is provided to cover unanticipated demands. Insurance: Premiums have remained relatively steady for the last three years. The budgeted increase of 11% is in line with projected ridership. Claims costs are budgeted at the payout estimate. These costs will be funded by the SIR in FY 95/96, and the budget A-1-6 schedule showing each county's subsidy share reflects this. However, the costs for claims should be budgeted regardless of how they are funded, as they are reported on our audited financial statements as expenses. Claims administration is expected to increase as pending claims build up. Costs were very low in the first two years because clairns activity lags operations. A-1-7 (4) CALCULATION OF 1995-96 POINT -IN -TIME FORMULA #1 (Existing) 1/6 Route miles + 1/6 Stations + 1/6 Riders (exd LAUS) + 1/2 Base Train Miles SB/Riverside-Irvine service starting 10/2/9.5, no Tustin station, using new ridershi LA Orange Riverside Unduplicated Route miles San Bemardino Line Ventura Line Santa Clarita Line Riverside Line Orange County Line San B/Riv-Inne Ventura Line Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) TOTAL Unduplicated Stations (3) San Bemardino Line Ventura Line Santa Clarita Line Riverside Line Orange County Line San B/Riv-Irvine Ventura Line Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) TOTAL 'Projected A.M Boardings/Alightings (4) San Bernardino Line Ventura Line Santa Clarita Line Riverside Line Orange County Line San B/Riv-Irvine Ventura Line Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) TOTAL IBase Train Miles San Bernardino Line Ventura Line Santa Clarita Line Riverside Line Orange County Line San B/Riv-Irvine Ventura Line Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) TOTAL fFY 1995-96 Point -in -Time San Bernardino Line Ventura Line Santa Clarita Line Riverside Line Orange County Line San B/Riv-Oceanside Ventura Line Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) FY 1995-96 Point -in -Time IFY 1994-95 Point -in -Time Current All Share Original All Share 33.60 26.10 27.80 33.92 20.20 41.80 183.42 53.2% 42.49 16.61 59.10 17.1% 13.74 18.68 32.41 9.4% 05 -Apr -95 05:11 PM miles c:lsrara196shaab San B. 22.70 9.35 4.28 36.32 10.5% Ventura 1 TOTAL 56.30 14.20 40.30 27.80 57.00 62.69 39.56 19.30 19.30 41.80 33.50 344.75 9.7•/. 100.0% 6.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.96 3.00 20.96 48.4% 5.88 1.46 7.33 16.9% 1.63 1.88 3.50 8.1% 6.00 1.13 0.38 7.50 17.3% 2.00 2.00 4.00 9.ZYo 12.00 6.00 3.00 5.75 7.83 3.71 2.00 3.00 43.29 100.0% 1558 977 1180 616 39! 1812 741 38 875 5284 2553 43.5%1 21.0% 1552 682 363 719 1400 53 1967 11.5% 16.2% 856 94 950 7.8% 3110 1833 1180 1661 1851 1512 132 875 12156 100.0% 68,544 66,504 96,875 72,624 32,283 101,133 21,734 57,222 394,052 57.7% 122,867 27,540 19,123 46,663 18.0% i 6.8% 46,308 19,584 4,378 70,270 10.3% 28,968 19,686 48,654 7.1% 114,852 95,472 96,875 119,748 133,416 45,235 19,686 57,222 682,506 100.0% 11.0922% 9.0136% 11.2142% 8.9599% 4.1495% 0.0521% 8.5676% 53.0491 % 55.927% 40.298% 40% 14.2092% 3.9733% 4.2421 % 4.0108% 18.1825% 8.2529% 18.405% 4.617% 26.248% 13.356% 25% 12% NOTE: Station and patronage amounts exclude LAUS. (1) Assumes service beyond Moorpark is in SCRRA Budget for 12 months of fiscal year. (2) Assumes service beyond Santa Clante is in SCRRA Budget for 12 months. No Palmdale (3) Stations serving more than one line are split equally between each line. New stations included in proportion to months of service provided. Projected by Booz.Alien 4/94 and split among counties per ambassador counts for 2/94 adjusted for new station openings. Split for Orange County Line based on adjusted 1402. Incorporates ridership projections developed by RS and TAC on 3/14/95. SB/Riv-Irvine service ridership uses Schienneyer estimates. A-1-8 8.9281% 2.8171% 0.7437% 12.4890% 14.100% 15.927% 18% 4.7525% 3.2741 % 8.0266% 6.951% 4.172% 5% 20.0203% 13.7661% 11.2142% 16.0191% 18.3588% 8.7278% 3.3262% 8.5676% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100% station. SOUTHE RN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SERVICE ASSU MPTIONS - BASE TRAINS OPERATING LINE START DATE 1 -WAY TRIPS PEAK ❑FF-PEAK 1 -WAY TRIPS BASE TRAINS SAN BERNARDIN❑ LINE EXISTING SERVICE SAN BERNARDINO - LAUS MONTCLAIR - LAUS TOTAL SAN BERNARDINO TRAINS VENTURA COUNTY LINE EXISTING SERVICE OXNARD - LAUS MOORPARK - LAUS CHATSWORTH - LAUS NEW SERVICE CHATSWORTH EXT TO MOORPARK SIMI VALLEY - LAUS TOTAL VENTURA COUNTY LINE SANTA CLARITA/ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE EXISTING SERVICE LANCASTER - LAUS PRINCESSA - LAUS SANTA CLARITA - LAUS NO NEW SERVICE TOTAL SANTA CLARITA/ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE 07/01/95 07/01/95 07/01/95 07/01/95 07/01/95 10/30/95 10/30/95 07/01/95 07/01/95 07/01/95 8 5 13 4 4 0 0 4 12 6 6 2 14 6 3 9 0 2 2 0 0 4 0 5 0 5 8 0 8 4 4 0 0 0 8 6 3 1 10 CO MMENTS REVERSE PEAK NOT COUNTED REVERSE PEAK NOT COUNTED FY9596\PREP\FY9596.XLS-BM• 4/5/95 6:03 PM SOUTHERN CALIF ORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SERVICE ASSU MPTIONS - BASE TRAINS OPERATING LINE RIVERSIDE LINE EXISTING SERVICE RIVERSIDE - LAUS NEW SERVICE RIVERSIDE - LAUS TOTAL RIVERSIDE LINE START DATE 1 -WAY TRIPS PEAK OFF-PEAK ORANGE COUNTY LINE EXISTING SERVICE OCEANSIDE - LAUS NEW SERVICE IRVINE - LAUS c TOTAL ORANGE COUNTY LINE SAN BERN/RIVERSIDE - ORANGE COUNTY NEW SERVICE SAN BERNARDINO/RIVERSIDE - IRVINE TOTAL SAN BERN/RIV - ORANGE COUNTY LINE 07/01/95 10/30/95 07/01/95 10/02/95 10/02/95 10 0 10 6 2 8 4 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 -WAY TRIPS ' BASE TRAINS 8 0 8 6 0 6 4 4 COMMENTS REVERSE PEAK NOT COUNTED FY9696\PREI 6.XLS-6Ms .66 6:09 PM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 APPENDIX 2 MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY INTRODUCTION The Maintenance -of -Way (MOW) component of the Operating Budget represents ordinary maintenance that includes routine inspection of track, signals, structures, and repairs as needed. The FY 95/96 MOW section was compiled by reviewing the bid prices received for maintenance contracts (awarded to signal contractors, withdrawn from track contractors) and adding to those amount items from agency costs, procurement contracts, and miscellaneous services. These amounts were compared to the FY 94/95 budget and to current actuals to confirm that they were reasonable. This resulted in a proposed budget of $46,902 per track mile that represents an increase of 3.03 % over the previous year. This budget was prepared without knowing the actual amount to be bid under the as -yet unselected track and structures maintenance contract. Pages 1 through 5 of Appendix 2 contain a review of conditions which affect costs. The condition of each line is discussed, and a forecast of possible MOW budget trends is provided. Ordinary maintenance is summarized in four tables: Table 1 - Maintenance -of - Way Budget Summary by Agency; Table 2 - Expenditure/Revenue Summary by Line Segment; Table 3 - Expense Category Detail (cost per track mile, by Line Segment); and Table 4 - Ordinary Maintenance Detail (cost per track mile, by maintenance category). Unlike the FY 94/95 Budget, there is no separate budget for earthquake emergency services in the FY 95/96 Budget. Member agency contributions for ordinary maintenance are partially offset by revenues they receive from the freight railroads and Amtrak. These revenues are negotiated to offset maintenance due to freight and intercity traffic. All costs are not offset by these revenues, due to the requirement of maintaining a higher standard of quality commuter rail service. Revenues from other railroads are expected to be significantly less in FY 1995/96 than in FY 94/95. In 1994 Santa Fe ceased operations and abandoned a portion of the Claremont to Los Angeles line. Freight revenues were correspondingly reduced from $858,971 in FY 1994/95 to $584,435 in FY 1995/96. This reduction has been met with a reduction of budgeted expenditures for this segment from $817,366 to $463,564. Southern Pacific also abandoned 14 miles of the State Street Branch on the LA -San Bernardino Line reducing revenues for this line. Amtrak revenues have been redistributed since FY 1994/95 and in FY 1995/96, and a larger share is attributed to Dispatching rather than to MOW. Finally, in FY 94/95, A-2-1 FEMA reimbursement of over $1 million was included as a revenue. No FEMA funding for MOW is assumed in FY 1995/96. Over long periods, the expenses under capital and ordinary maintenance ets are somewhat interchangeable. Because the most economical methods ofreplacement gf railroad elements (rail, ties, crossings, etc.) are through large specialized operations, railroad owners usually arrange for periodic replacement of elements using capital budgets. Under one extreme maintenance philosophy, a railroad owner may elect to continually replace worn elements using ordinary maintenance forces. in this scenario the property is kept in excellent condition and there is no need for a partial maintenance program. However, total expenses are very high. The other extreme is iro limit ordinary maintenance to little more than legally required inspections and to repair what breaks, counting on future capital maintenance to refresh the condition of the property. This scenario results in reduction of speed and quality of operations as the maintenance level declines, however, ordinary maintenance expenditures are mzatimized. The recommended MOW philosophy of SCRRA is to perform ordinary maintenance sufficient to prevent any loss of service quality and to budget for capital maintenance at sufficient intervals to prevent needed repairs/replacements from overwhelming the ordinary MOW budget. This philosophy is practiced by all of the successful freight railroads on their main routes when they can afford to do so. REVIEW OF CONDITIONS AFFECTING MOW BUDGET The features which make some lines higher or lower in cost than the SCRRA averages are summarized in the following list. The figures (+) and (-) show factors that drive the maintenance budget higher or lower. LOS ANGELES - SAN BERNARDINO The rehabilitation of this line will be completed by mid -1995. The remaining maintenance problems will be related to older ties on the El Monte -Los Angeles portion, curves at a few locations, and to a higher frequency of trains. + Very high density of train traffic + High density of grade crossings + History of difficult signal maintenance Light freight traffic LOS ANGELES - VENTURA This line is maintained by Southern Pacific, except for the layover yards, and the second track between Burbank and Raymer. This discussion concerns only the Burbank-to-Raymer sector. Conditions are good, consisting of newly constructed track. Maintenance requires mostly routine inspections and some surfacing of settlement on the new fill. A-2-2 + Frequent trains - New construction ▪ Good history of signal performance LOS ANGELES - LANCASTER This line consists of approximately 50% new or completely rehabilitated line, and 50% improved line through the installation of ties, welding of joints, and surfacing of track. It contains Tunnel 25, a 6,696 -foot concrete -lined tunnel with a history of water infiltration and subgrade settlement. The maintenance condition has been improved by both the SB 1402 and FEMA work. Because of the heavy freight traffic and curves, very careful attention must be given to track surface, track gauge, and rail wear. + Heavy curve and grade territory + Frequent trains (below Via Princessa) + Moderately heavy freight traffic + Portion of signal system is obsolete + Old interlocking at Burbank and Allen + Exposed to flood damage, requires extra inspections Generally good rail and tie condition FULLERTON - SAN DIEGO COUNTY LINE This line is generally in good to excellent condition. About 15 miles of new second track was added in 1994 and 1995. Tie replacement is planned for Fullerton - Orange under the capital budget. + Frequent trains + Exposed to flood and ocean wave damage - Very little significant curvature Good basic track structure OLIVE SUBDIVISION This line was partially rehabilitated in 1994 and 1995 using the existing rail and turnouts, and by adding replacement ties and improved road crossings. + Old timber bridge at Santa Ana River + Old signal system - Low train frequency - No significant curvature RIVER CORRIDOR This segment includes portions of all routes except Irvine -San Bernardino. It includes all of the track on both the east and west banks of the Los Angeles river, all tracks leading to, and within Los Angeles Union Station, the track from the commuter rail interlocker (just north of Taylor Yard), and the Central Maintenance Facility at Taylor Yard. A-2-3 The old interlocking plant at Terminal Tower and at the throat of Union Station is the most severe maintenance challenge faced by SCRRA.. It was built in 1938, and still consists of almost all the original track and signal appliances. In addition to simply being worn out, :. is obsolete and it is very difficult to find replacement materials, Tliis area is serving twice as many trains as originally operated in the peak years of passenger service. Failures at this location affect service quality on all SCRRA lines. SCRRA is seeking federal and state funding for upgrade of Terminal Tower. However, in the absence of funding for this $14 million project, ordinary maintenance costs will continue at a high level. + Terminal Tower, as above + Very heavy freight tonnage + Very frequent trains + Old interlockings at Mission Tower + Many turnouts and crossings + Requires high level of signal labor assignment + Some locations of severe curvature SIERRA MADRE - CLAREMONT (Former Pasadena Line) SCRRA assumed maintenance of this line from Santa Fe in 1994. This line is used to provide freight service to Santa Fe's customers. The rail is fully jointed and the tie condition is fair. + Some poor road crossings Low traffic levels, no passenger Light curvature and grade BALDWIN PARK BRANCH (Rialto to Bench, 1.9 miles) This line is used by Southern Pacific to serve one lumber yard. SCRRA performs only the maintenance required to continue this access (this consists mostly of legally required inspections). The non -operated portion from Montclair to Rialto is maintained for real estate compliancy by San. Bernardino County. This effort does not affect SCRRA's budget. Because freight revenues are lower than expenses, and there is no passenger service, every attempt is made to reduce expenses. + Some poor road crossings Very few trains TRENDS AFFECTING MOW BUDGET During FY 95/96, almost all of the SB 1402 rehabilitations and improvements are planned to be completed. This and earlier MOW programs have been developed as needed to maintain the tracks in their original condition. The maintenance budget may be reduced now that this work is complete. However, this budget does not reflect such a reduction, because of the factors listed below, using the same (+) and (-) convention for the line segments: A-2-4 (?) Bid prices for new track and structures contract are unknowns - Labor rates reduced from construction level to maintenance level - Completion of construction should reduce need for maintenance support Improvements to track condition accomplished + Higher standards for maintenance * Signal problem response time * Right -of -Way and crossing response to community * No tolerance for speed reductions * No interference with train movements + More frequent trains, less time to work on track + Unforeseen expenses related to signals and storm damage + Some capital work was not completed * Terminal Tower * Interlockings at Burbank, Allen, Mission Tower * Old rail on Lancaster Line * Tunnel 25 subgrade + Right of Way security issues * Graffiti * Trash dumping * Vandalism to track and signals Actions that may eventually reduce the MOW expenses include: - Completion of items listed above Improvements to Right of Way security * fencing * law enforcement (SCRRA and community) * signage Acquisition of maintenance -of -way vehicles and equipment to reduce rental fees paid to contractors. - Acquisition of Maintenance site(s) to avoid rents and reduce travel time. A-2-5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET MA INTENANCE -OF -WAY BUDGET SUMMARY LINE SEG MENT/TERRITORY FY 95/96 FORECAST ES TIMATED REVEN.IVES OPERATING LINES LA - SAN BERNARDINO 1. 4 - VENTURA (BURBANK JCT TO MOORPARK) LA - LA NCASTER FULLERTON - SAN DIEGO COUNTY LINE OLIVE SUBDIVISION RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY RIVER CORRIDOR EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE (Derailmen ts, shim damage) NO N -OPERATING SIERRA MADRE - CLAREMONT (PASA. SUB ) BALDWIN PARK BRANCH (SAN BERNARDINO CO.) TOTAL ESTIM ATED REVENUES (6) PROPOSED PRELIMINARY IERMET OPERATING LINES LA - SA N BERNARDINO (1) LA - VENTURA (BURBANK JCT TO M OORPARK) (2) LA -LANCASTER FULLERTON - SAN DIEGO COUNTY LINE OLIV E SUBDIVISION RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY (3) RIV ER CORRIDOR (4) EXTRA -ORDINARY M AINTENANCE (Deralments, storm damage) (5) NON-OPERATINO LINES __ SIERRA M ADRE - CLAREM ONT (PASA SUB ) BALDWIN PARK BRANCH (SAN BERNARDINO CO. ) TOTAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES 84,663,871 5939,188 *0 $1,695,297 $1,295,899 894,011 $0 $839,476 *o ss95,8i6 8584,435 511,400 $5,459,706 LAC MT A SANBAG 82,776,509 5241,736 50 61,695,297 SO SO SO *839,476 $O $584,435 $584,435 SO $3,360,944 815,255,846 83,397,088 8506,048 55,267,901 83,110,255 $307,957 848,192 *2,120,405 *500,000 $483,564 850,377 $15,769,787 56 S6 s $ $70 MWssseo3 Os -A,, -as OCTA RCTC VCTC 97,452 81,369,810 :0 ; "'' RI )7,452 s0 80 80 30 $o so so *0 80 *0 80 SO 81,295,899 80 $0 SO 894,011 *0 80 80 $0 so $0 SO 80 so 80 $o Bo *o $o 11,400 so - -'i0 so '7' so !T;...,?, •,i;- .?'.-j0 so 1,400 SO *0 $0 ,852 $1,389,910 80 80 $9,112,972 $1,899,025 $1,698,063 8333,790 80 55,267,901 80 80 $0 $0 $0 *28,015 87,552 $1,518,998 8159,975 8285,245 862,445 8463,564 $0 80 $50,377 81,928,036 $9,576,536 $1,978,413 23,712,02! $0 *0 SO $3,110,255 $307,957 80 5232,905 390,913 SO $0 83,742,029 • $0 80 so 80 $0 $10,624 3105,714 $41,265 T10 SO SO $157,602 ^�.1iia,3bl s0 $172,259 $0 $0 80 $0 *102,615 840,133 80 80 8315,207 NET FUNDING REQUIREMENT $10,310,081 $6,215,592 Fj $1,269,561 $2,352,119 'i-"C�'1 157,82 (1) SPLIT OF M OW NET SUBSIDY IS BY TRACK MILES (59.29% LACMTA AND 40 71% SANBAG). M OW REVENUE IS BASED ON COUNTY SPECIFIC AGREEM ENTS. (2) SPLIT IS BY TRACK M ILES (65.96% LACMTA AND 34 04% VCTC). (3) SPLIT IS BY ROUTE MILES (6065% LACMTA, 23 00% RCTC, AND 16. 35% SANBAG) (4) SPLIT IS ASSUMED ALL SHARE (53.049% LACMTA, 18 18% OCTA, 12 489% SANBAG, 6. 0266% VCTC, A ND 8 2529% RCTC) OF COST IN EXCESS OF REVENUES. (5) SPLIT IS ASSUMED ALL SHARE. (6) REVENUES ARE BUDGETED BY SCRRA AS INFORMATION. THEY BELONG TO MEMBER AGENCIES WHO ARE PARTIES TO AGREEMENTS WITH THE RAILROADS M EM BER AGENCIES ALLOCATE THESE REVENUES TO SCRRA AS A PORTION OF THEIR FUNDING FOR MOW. SHOULD REV ENUES BE MORE OR LESS THAN ESTIM ATED, M EMBER A GENCIES' NET FUNDING REQUIREMENT M AY CHANGE. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET Table 2 MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY EXPENDITURE/REVENUE SUMMARY C2 054pr-05 JSC LINE SEGMENT/TERRITORY FY 95/96 EXPENDITURE FORECAST FY 95/96 REVENUE FORECAST (1) FY 95/96 M of W NET SUBSIDY OPERATING LINES - ,. ' X515 � s++.463�BT1 f' — _ -.- - s - - . . 0,391,975 LA - SAN BERNARDINO 13,397,088 5939,188 52,457,900 LA - VENTURA (BURBANK JCT TO MOORPARK) (2) $506,048 60 $506.048 LA - LANCASTER 55,267,901 51,695,297 53,572,604 FULLERTON - SAN DIEGO COUNTY LINE 53,110,255 51,295,899 51,814,356 OLIVE SUBDIVISION 5307,957 594,011 5213,946 RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY 546,192 50 546,192 RIVER CORRIDOR 52,1204405 5839,476 51,280,929 EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE 5500,000 50 5500,000 (DERAILMENTS, STORM DAMAGE) NON -OPERATING LINES - - $513,941 , - f,' ` 595,83517-7—.— . .` ($81,894) SIERRA MADRE - CLAREMONT (PASA. SUB) $463,564 5584,435 (5120,871) BALDWIN PARK BRANCH (SAN BERNARDINO CO.) 550.377 511,400 538,977 TOTAL $15,769,787 $5,459,706 $10,310,081 (1) REVENUE RECEIVED BY THE SCRRA ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBER AGENCIES. (2) ASSUMES SOUTHERN PACIFIC CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN BETWEEN BURBANK JUNCTION AND MOORPARK EXCEPT FOR 9.5 MILES OF SECOND TRACK BETWEEN RAYMER AND BURBANK JUNCTION AND THE MOORPARK LAYOVER FACILITY. A-2-7 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET Table 3 MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY EXPENSE CATEGORY DETAIL SYSTEM summeRv RY LINE SEGMENT OS. Jsc LINE SEGMENT/TERRITORY OPERATING LINES LA - SAN BERNARDINO ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AGENCY COSTS LA a VENTURA (BURBANK JCT TO MOORPARK) ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AGENCY COSTS LA - LANCASTER ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AGENCY COSTS FULLERTON - SAN DIEGO COUNTY LINE ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AGENCY COSTS OLIVE SUBDIVISION ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AGENCY COSTS RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AGENCY COSTS RIVER CORRIDOR ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AGENCY COSTS EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE (STORM DAMAGE, DERAILMENTS) TRACK MILES 262.5 65.1 11.0 71.0 5.5 1.5 25.5 FY 95/96 EXPENDITURE FORECAST $3,397,088 52,955,105 5441,983 $506,048 5431.323 574,725 $5,267,901 54.705,044 5562,857 $3,110,255 52,628,303 5481,952 $307,957 S270,690 537,267 $46,192 535,958 510,234 $2,120,405 51,947,203 5173,202 $500,000 COST PER TRACK MILE PER YEAR (1) 545,393 539,211 556,756 537.018 549,216 323,972 576,361 NON -OPERATING LINES SIERRA MADRE - CLAREMONT (PASA. SUB.) ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AGENCY COSTS BALDWIN PARK BRANCH (SAN BERNARDINO CO.) ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AGENCY COSTS 21.9 20.0 1.9 $513,9411 $463,564 5327,822 5135,742 $50,377 537,439 512,938 516,391 519,705 TOTAL ORDINARY MAINTENANCE ORDINARY MAINTENANCE EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AGENCY COSTS 284.4 $15,769,787 513,338,887 5500,000 51,930,900 (1) DOES NOT INCLUDE EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE NOR AGENCY COSTS, PER STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE. 546,902 A-2-8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 199554 PROPOSED PREUYINARY BUDGET Table 4 ORDINARY MAINTENANCE DETAIL (1) SYSTEM SUMMARY BY LINE SEGMENT W�Q MAINS UNE SEGMENT/TERRITORY OPERATING LINES LA - SAN BERNARDINO TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER LA - VENTURA (BURBANK JCT TO MOORPARK) TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER LA - LANCASTER TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER FULLERTON - SAN DIEGO COUNTY LINE TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER OLIVE SUBDIVISION TRACK SIGNAL 1 COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER RIVER CORRIDOR TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER FY 96196 COST PER TRACK EXPENDITURE TRACK MILE MILES FORECAST PER YEAR (1) ' 12 36"" 14`* -149,423 145493 515,751] 118.394 44.659 5.009 5.722 139,211 514.795 117,654 10 62.997 13.754 119,711 625.547 118,185 16.265 62, 996 5.762 137,016 510,939 514,097 66.225 12.995 43.762 449,216 123.725 15.256 113.491 52,990 17,755 $23,972 55,776 111.403 10 5.011 13.761 176,361 126.220 440.470 62,910 12.897 13,764 56.1 11.0 S2.9 71:0 6.6 1.1 26.6 1166,101 11.025.571 11,191,960 9290.100 1195,806 4244.923 '4431 .223 516.750 5194,192 6D 132.972 641.409 .14,706,044 12.117,140 51,507,541 6519.400 5246,356 5311,005 9`_�f,3'303 1776,660 11,000.912 571.000 1212.659 1267.072 6270,1!0 1130.467 =S KS 974,200 116.444 520.651 $35,966 56,667 117,104 4G 14,516 15,671 11,647,203 5686,611 11,031,869 174,200 176,124 195.979 NON -OPERATING LINES SIERRA MADRE - CLAREMONT (PASA. SUB.) TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER BALDWIN PARK BRANCH (SAN BERNARDINO CO.) TRACM SIGNAL 8 COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER TOTAL ORDINARY MAINTENANCE TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER 21.9 20.0 1.9 2844 $365,261 5327,122 533,705 110,600 1141,400 159,896 175,221 137,439 515,406 19,154 10 15.706 17.169 513,338,887 14,940,002 64,992,000 11,484.000 4652.885 11.070.000 $16,679 116,391 51.665 5530 57.420 12095 10.761 619,705 68,109 14,616 60 5,004 13.773 $45,902 117,370 117.553 65.218 12.999 13.762 (1) DOES NOT INCLUDE EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE NOR AGENCY COSTS. PER STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE. A-2-9 1 able 5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SAN BERNARDINO LINE DEMONSTRATION SATURDAY SERVICE COST ESTIMATE ($K) ASSUMES 9/2/95 START DATE (44 WEEKS) ESTIMATED REVENUES 110.0 EXPENSES 390.2 NET SUBSIDY 280.2 EXPENSE DETAIL Operations Amtrak Fuel Ambassadors LAUS Stations Sheriffs Marketing SCRRA Oversight 1/4 114.9 38.9 7.9 26.4 109.5 75.0 17.5 TOTAL SATURDAY SERVICE EXPENSES (1) 390.2 FUNDING SPLIT (ROUTE MILES) LACMTA SANBAG TOTAL NET SUBSIDY 167.2 113.0 280.2 J (1) Expenses do not include special costs associated with serving the L.A. County Fair, such as added ambassadors, special trains, special ticket printing and distribution, or shuttle service. 2-11 FY95961BUDGETIBUDGET.XLS-Saturday 4/5/95 5:49 PM Southern California Regional Rail Authority ar Section 3 Capital lMETROLINK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PRELIMINARY BUDGET SECTION 3 CAPITAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.0 INTRODUCTION 3.1 SB 1402 CAPITAL 3.2 SPECIAL PROJECTS: LOCOMOTIVE EMMISIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 3-26 3.3 NEW CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 3-28 3.4 CAPITAL MAINTENANCE 3-30 PAGE 3-1 3-1 LIST OF TABLES SB 1402 CAPITAL SYSTEM SUMMARY 3-3 SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) 3-4 SB 1402 CAPITAL - INDIVIDUAL PROJECT SECTIONS LOS ANGELES - SAN BERNARDINO LINE 3-5 LOS ANGELES - VENTURA LINE 3-8 LOS ANGELES - SANTA CLARITA LINE 3-11 LOS ANGELES - RIVERSIDE LINE 3-14 LOS ANGELES - FULLERTON LINE 3-17 FULLERTON - OCEANSIDE LINE 3-20 FULLERTON - RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO 3-23 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 199519§ PROP SEn ArmDr+.tG+T a1 stV ' 1 SECTION 3 CAPITAL LIST OF TABLES (continued) PAGE SPECIAL PROJECTS: LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAM 3-27 NEW CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 3-2Q NEW CAPITAL SUMMARY 3-29 CAPITAL MAINTENANCE SUMMARY 3-35 PROPOSED CAPITAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES 3-26 CAPITAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES (DETAIL) 3-27 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 SECTION 3 CAPITAL BUDGET 3.0 INTRODUCTION This section presents the four capital programs in the SCRRA Budget. These are the SB 1402 Capital Projects; Special Projects; New Capital; and Capital Maintenance. Each program is described in detail below. 3.1 $B 1402 CAPITAL FY 94/95 will see the completion of SB 1402 construction and rolling stock acquisition on four capital line segments: Los Angeles - San Bernardino, Los Angeles - Ventura, Los Angeles - Santa Clarita, and Los Angeles - Riverside. Construction and rolling stock payments (release of retention as locomotives and passenger cars are finally accepted) continue into FY 95/96 on three capital line segments: Los Angeles - Fullerton, Fullerton - Oceanside, and Fullerton - Riverside/San Bernardino. FEMA/FHWA earthquake construction on the Ventura Line between Moorpark and Oxnard and the Santa Clarita Line between Sylmar and Lancaster were also completed. New station construction continued on several lines during FY 94/95 and will continue into FY 96/97. These station costs (with the exception of system components such as TVMs, validators, and signage) are "recollectable projects" and are not part of the SCRRA's Capital Budget. The SB 1402 projects for FY 95/96 by Line Segment are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Table 3 provides the SB 1402 expenditures -to -date, FY 95/96 expenditures and estimates - to -complete. The following pages provide a summary for each Line Segment of the accomplishments of FY 94/95, planned construction in FY 95/96 and FY 96/97, and proposed amendments to the SB 1402 Capital Budget. 3-1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL ($1000s) SYSTEM SUMMARY CAPITAL LINE SEGMENT/PROJECT LA - SAN BERNARDINO LA - VENTURA LA - SANTA CLARITA LA - RIVERSIDE SHARED FACILITIES LA - FULLERTON FULLERTON - OCEANSIDE FULLERTON - RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO TOTAL TOTAL FY 95/96 PLAN $63 50 30 $0 30 59,959 320,113 321,373 01,598 LACMTA OCTA RCTC 338 30 30 30 30 39,959 30 30 30 30 SO 50 30 30 320,113 36,288 30 30 50 30 30 30 30 312,321 SANBAG BUDFY95 04405195 BFF 325 30 30 so so 30 s0 32,766 FUNDING SOURCE PROP 116 PROP 108 TCl/TPBD SECTION 130 LOCAL MATCH/OVERM ATCH OTHER • $51,508 337,446 $743 3567 30 312,752 30 $91997 $26,399 $12,321 $2,791 j VCTC 30 30 30 30 30 $0 30 30 SOU I HERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROP OSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL ($1000s) SYSTEM SUMMARY SB1402 DESCRIPTION LA + SAN BERNARDINO 'T RIGHT.OF-WAY IM PROVEMENTS ROLLING STO CK LA.VENTURA RIGHT-OF-WAY IM PROVEM ENTS ROLLING STOCK LA ;SANTA CLARITA ""°'t' RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ROLLING STOCK Ul= RIVERSIDE 7-7 RIGHT-OF-WAY IM PROVEMENTS OTHER IM PROVEM ENTS ROLLING STOCK SHARED FACILITIES RIGHT-OF-WAY IM PROVEMENTS OTHER IM PROVEM ENTS LA-FIiU.ERTON "'T"" ' RIGHT-O F-WAY IPROVEM ENTS ROLLING STOCK EULLERtoN•=vD iSJ " --„;,,,, .,ri RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ROLLING STOCK PULLtRitfs: RIVERSibMIAN DERNANINNO'Fr.,,7,,. RIGHT-O F-WAY IMPROVEM ENTS ROLLING STOCK SYST,EMTOTALS - `-R'Pw. tiI" RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEM EN TS OTH ER IIIAPROVEMENTS HOLLOJo STOCk LOCOMOTIVES (31) PASSENGER CARS (94) SPECSITESTING FUNDING SOURCE PROP 116 PROP 108 TCVTP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL M ATCH/OVERM ATCH OTHER -71 TOTAL FY 95/96 PLAN 383 363 30 30 S0 SO *0 s0 t0 30 50 10 3o 30 so -�33,0s9 56,081 13 are `7`'#311,113 514,622 15. 491 rr7#21,212 $14,534 $8,839 77. 7F $*f so 1335,300 so 510,U08 53,003 211,376 51,929, LAC MTA $3e 338 io 10 $0 30 30 10 30 s0 s0 so 7 $0 30 so 19,081 53,878 • m 30 So 10 *0,9*? 59,119 10 > 1,s 5960 52,290 3909 OCTA $0 So so 7777- 40 10 80 50 • -.7.r'rr t0 SO 80 30 30 SO 717715 10 10 A‘r,i'f i 114,822 55,491 $3,883 12,803 $41# $18,305 $0 6,094 $988 $6,280 646 RCTC SANBAO so 10 • . ._ .,. #o so so #0 80 so 11) s0 10 ."-� 0 50 so so so 50 50 so so -. iZj7i6 $8,085 $2,786 54,238 i0 TIMM' 58,065 113 51,338 $1,035 32,826 5375 325 sa 50 sa 80 so SO 10 10 30 10 •'441.7 f27.1 12,791 SP s0 10 so so VCTC 10 so _1 777 -so 50 so $0 30 so $0 30 s0 so iF rrrrurrid 10 so 30 �.`!'''1('td' so so 10 30 50 so 10 10 so s0, *51,506 137,4 18 1743 $567 30 112,752 30 39,997 $6,759 $0 $0 $0 53,238 *25,399 $19,109 80 50 10 57,290 $0 *12,321 510,052 5743 5567 50 5959 80 / 82,'791 $1,528 10 10 30 21.265 20 30 50 10 50 SO 20 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PR OPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT CO MPLETI ON (EAC) ($=000) SYSTEM SUM MARY OUDOSNIA 05 -Apr -95 SIT DESCRIPTION LA'= SAN SERNARNIO LINE ., , , - .: ,.. __. ,, s_ ..- RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ROLLING STOCK LA =VENTURA LINE "."'?a- • :,. .- RIGHt-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ROLLING STOCK LLTSANTA-CLARITA LINE •� :' _ , „-,'' - , RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ROLLING STOCK LA :RIVERSIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER IMPRO VEMENTS ROLLING STOCK SNARED FACILRmES `_ 71"x• • , 77--"""I' "'" .._ RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS 'OTHER IMPROVEM ENTS LA = FULLERTONLINE'-irt-r 7 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ROLLING STOCK PULLERTONT OCEA iSIDE-ME-7177.77 -7"''""'-'7"---. ,T RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ROLLING STOCK FULI ENTONT Vl RSIDEINANgERNANDINDLINEA'1"7?`"" M" RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ROLLING STOCK TOTAL BUDGET ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET -4166,625 8134.127 854,396 SAM 857,399 832,286 $40,335 517,775 822,556 $67,070 $42,635 81 ,600 $23,435 $5x;700 139,900 812,600 �; ., • $/If;III111 860,366 $18,700 ACTUAL THROUGH JUN 94 '17 $157,370 $112,972 854,396 '$00,025 857,339 532,266 -",,*30,274 $15.616 $22,556 �, • .t: -$0!$,006 840,957 81,697 822,351 ;61;187 $42,326 $8,629 x Se0;672 836,237 814,335 $12 al !'I771Wli;N 857.026 827,666 $34,2 822,696 •.7$ ,TU -111177$5Z511 177.264 834.723 826,465 $17,292 EXPENDITURES FY 91195 FY 95196 06 MO ACT PROPOSED 06 MO FIC BUDGET 825,660 80 P!'177$1il01 8553 8337 81,011 80 80 •r-ryr ._.11 . $63 $0 SO $0 t7.-7-77.1 15 $0 80 80 10 80 10 1$0 FY 98197 EXPENDITURE FORECAST ESTIMATE AT CO MPLETI ON VARIANCE (OVERy E AC UNDER -71".: . i130:14r 7/113= $0 8136,696 M 854,396 SO 881.151 80 $32,296 Tr77/Firglif7r7-I ngeThr 50 $17 .194 $0 822 .558 S0 $41,510 SO $2,034 80 823,362 177177,17/87.1 rOrri 'Mgr 80 $42.321 10 88,629 Irrn + rIPIM 80 $60,056 1332 817,736 86,080 $819 $3.878 SO 819,0321 ($332) 834,353 $14,622 $15 .779 892.620 (;5,59,1) 8456 $5,491 80 $28,842 85,694 17777.71$17,110 ($4,755) 50 (13.752) $0 $561 $o $1,125 ($234) 873 (82 ,426 $3,971 826,154 814,53$ 85,07! 860,466 (13,2041 $116 86,839 SO 824,249 84,E $746,232 $564,000 $1'#2,689 $51,607 $20,887 X749,033 ($4af Los Angeles - San Bernardino Line All SB 1402 construction on this line is scheduled for completion in FY 94/95. This work included a main track rehabilitation between Montclair and San Bernardino, extension of the signal CTC system from Montclair to San Bernardino, completion of the Rancho and San Bernardino sidings, and completion of the flyover in San Bernardino. Only $63,000 is budgeted on this line in FY 95/96 to accommodate final contract close-outs. All rolling stock acquisitions and payments were complete by the end of FY 93/94. Nine locomotives and 26 passenger cars were funded by this line. In FY 93/94, LACMTA and SANBAG authorized an additional $14,200,000 to the line for construction of the flyover in San Bernardino and track/signal improvements between Montclair and San Bernardino. The Adjusted SB 1402 Budget for the line is $188,525,000. The line is projected to be $4,768,000 or 2.53% over the Adjusted SB 1402 Budget. This overrun (except for the $63,000 budgeted for FY 95/96) will occur in FY 94/95 and be incorporated into the FY 94/95 reconciliation of actual expenditures to Member Agency receipts. This requires the LACMTA and SANBAG to approve additional local funds for the line. 3-5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPIT AL (510003) r LA - SAN BERNARDINO LINE DESCRIPTION RIGHT -0 F VVAY IMPROi/EIYiEiITf " `" UPGRADE CTC M ISSION TO WER TO EL MONTE UPGRADE TRACK MISSION TOWER TO EL MONTE TRACK/SIGNAL - EL MONTE TO BASSETT (FLYOVER) UPGRADE TRACK BASSETTTO CLAREMONT CONNECTION UPGRADE SIGNAL BASSETT TO CLAREM ONT CONNECTION UPGRADE TRACK CLAREMONT CONNECTION TO SAN BERNARDINO UPGRADE SIGNAL CLAREM ONT CONNECTION TO SAN BERNARDINO PASADENA(CLAREMO NT)CONNECTION SAN BERNARDINO LAYOVER FACILITY/FLYOVER SEISMIC RETROFIT RIO HONDO BRIDGE TVM S, VALIDATORS, SIGNAG E COMMUNICATIONS OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AGENCY COSTS PRO FESSIONAL SERVICES 'ROWUN(i Stair"' LOCOMOTIV ES (9) PASSENGER CARS (28) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL - LA -SAN BERNARDINO FUNDING SOURCE`t,,.,74 r7;' -r. Talc k. . PROP 118 PROP 108 TCVTP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL M ATCH/OVERMATCH OTHER 7,777 7 TOTAL FY 95/98 PLAN X63 50 $0 10 10 SO 50 SO SO 10 SO 10 SO 30 S80 $3 13 SO 7''$D SO 10 10 LAC MTA t3o $0 SD 10 SO s0 so s0 s0 so s0 so s0 s0 138 $2 $2 SO 80 10 s0 r OCTA ROTC a ' 7774"rid s0 SO i0 80 10 SO 10 SO 10 30 10 SO 3O 10 30 S0 SO SO 10 SO SO SO 30 10 10 IC! . 10 s0 SO s0 1O SO SO w rf:' s0 s0 so SANBAG fit SO s0 10 s0 10 s0 10 so s0 SO s0 SO 124 11 So VCTC 30 SO 30 s0 s0 s0 s0 30 30 10 50 SO X80 s30 so so 10 SO SO SO So so so so 30 $63 $83 1D 80 SO SO 883 30 $38 , 3367 s0 so so s0 138 30 so SO So 30 80 SO $0 $0 s0 so so SO $0 30 $26 so $0 so 10 $25 10 $0 S S S X S 8 SOUTHt ... ..4 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELI MINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) (9=000) LA - SAN BERNARDINO LINE DESCRIPTION BUDGET ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET ACTUAL THROUGH JUN 94 EXPENDITU FY 94/95 08 MO ACT PR 06 MO F/C a RIGHT -OP -WAY IMPRovemeNTs • 7 UPGRADE CTC MISSION TOWER TO EL MONTE UPGRADE TRACK MISSION TOWER TO EL MONTE TRACK/SIGNAL - EL MONTE TO BASSETT (FLYOVER) UPGRADE TRACK BASSETT TO CLAREMONT CONNECTION UPGRADE SIGNAL BASSETT TO CLAREMONT CONNECTION UPGRADE TRA CK CLAREMONT CONNECTION TO SAN BERNARDINO UPGRADE SIGNAL CLAREMONT CONNECTION TO SAN BERNARDINO PASADENA (CLAREM ONT) CONNECTIO N SAN BERNARDINO LAYOVER FACILITY (PHASE I,II,FLYOVER) RIO HONDO BRIDGE - SEISMIC RETROFIT TVM'S, VALIDATORS, SIGNAGE COMMUNICATIONS O CIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT ROLLING STOCK 7.7:777,-,r,, 7,-, LOCOM OTIVES (9) PASSENGER CARS (26) RO LLING STOCK PROCUREM ENT & TESTING TO TAL $134,i2t 9219 $818 924,704 922,517 99,859 921,670 *9,500 92.142 810,455 *2,716 80 98.605 $4,802 912,197 $5,723 ;64,396 819,882 933,964 $552 ;185,525 $ 8188 9567 925.533 923,111 $10,076 $7,611 $6,617 91,951 *1,347 $2.470 $456 94,058 84.404 819.702 $4,881 119 .682 333,964 $552 $25,8110 80 $0 90 $57 $0 $11,599 95.857 9132 94.012 80 $551 9469 81.236 $1,255 $692 i0 10 80 NOTES: > CURRENT SCHEDULES INDICATE ALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF FY 94/95. > ABOUT 95,000,000 OF TRACK AND SIGNAL EXPENDITURES BETWEEN M ONTCLAIR AND SAN BERNARDINO WILL BE CASH OUTLAYS IN FY 95/96 AND ACCRUED TO FY 94/95. > FORECASTED OVERRUN OF $4,768.000 WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE FY 94/95 RECONCILIATION OF ACTUALS TO MEMBER AGENCY RECEIPTS. FY 95/96 EXPENDITURES OF 963.000 ARE TO ACCOMODATE CONTRACT CLOSE-OUTS ON THE LINE. $167,370 $26,860 MMDnNA 05 -Apr -95 OFF RES ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION Y 95/96 OPOSED UDGET FY 96/97 EXPENDITURE FORECAST EAC VARIANCE (OVER$ r. - SIT � r"7"?'-8is4011 UNDER 17 90 90 $188 $31 80 80 8567 $251 80 90 825.533 ($6291 i0 80 $23,168 (96511 $0 $0 810,076 ($2171 $0 80 819,210 $2,860 i0 $0 812,474 ($2,9741 $0 80 82.083 859 80 $0 $5,359 $5,098 i0 $0 82.470 8246 f0 $0 81,007 (91,0071 80 $0 $4,527 $2,076 80 80 $5,640 ($838) $60 30 $21,017 (96,8201 *3 $0 $5,576 $147 "r°171-$11 "r71'7171311. 777r. SO_MirrnirtriPPRIN1 ;0 90 119,882 80 $0 30 833,964 80 $0 $0 8552 $0 *63 D $193,213 [ ,763) Los Angeles - Ventura Line All SB 1402 construction on this line will be completed in FY 94/95. Work in FY 94/95 included construction of the Hasson siding, upgrade and extension of the Chatsworth siding, completion of the signal CTC system between Raymer and Simi, and completion of the rail relay between Fletcher Boulevard (just north of Taylor Yard) and Burbank Junction. No funds are budgeted for FY 95/96. All rolling stock acquisitions and payments were completed by the end of FY 93/94. Five locomotives and 16 passenger cars were funded by this line. The original SB 1402 Budget for this line (not counting the Moorpark to Goleta Caltrans Intercity project) was $87,185,000. This original amount was amended as part of last year's budget approval by $2,500,000 of Caltrans Intercity funds for safety and reliability improvements between Burbank Junction and Raymer. This resulted in an Adjusted SB 1402 Budget of $89,685,000. The line is projected to be $3,752,000 or 4.18% over the Adjusted SB 1402 Budget. This overrun requires the LACMTA and VCTC to approve additional local funds for the line. 3-8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995196 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL (81000s) LA - VENTURA LINE DESCRIPTION NiGH T-bF-WAY tMPaaVEMEUFS •T CTC DAYTON TOWER TO BURBANK JCT TRACK IM PROVEMENTS LAUPT TO BURBANK JCT SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS LAUPT TO BURBANK JCT (GLENDALE XO) REVISE CONTROL M ACHINE - ROSEVILLE 2nd TRK/XOVERS - BUR JCT-RAYMER CTC BURBANK JCT TO RAYM ER CTC RAYMER TO EAST SIMI (STRATHERN) UPGRADE CHATSWORTH SIDING UPGRADE SIDING AT MOORPARK - TRACK UPGRADE SIDING AT MOORPARK - SIGNAL (CTC TO STRATHERN) CONSTRUCT NEW SIDING AT HASSEN LAYOVER FACILITY AT M OORPARK LIVE TRACK TIE-INS TVM S,VALIDATORS,SIGNAGE COMMUNICATIONS OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LO COMOTIVES (5) PASSENGER CARS (18) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL - LAVENTURA TOTAL FY 95/98 PL AN to $0 30 $0 30 30 $0 $0 SO 30 30 $0 $0 $0 30 50 3O 30 30 30 $0 so 30 30 so LACMTA so so s0 s0 30 30 30 s0 so so 50 so so so 30 so s0 so s0 3o 11`4777735- 30 30 $0 so OCTA s0 30 30 3O 30 $0 30 30 s0 =0 50 so so so so Aso so so so 3O 30 SO so FUNDING SOURCE . •. ; PROP 118 PROP 10! TCVTP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL M ATCH/OVERMATCH so 30 10 30 S0 30 ,DSO SO SO SO SO SO SO s0 s0 s0 so 30 30 RCTC SANBAG s0 s0 30 10 s0 SO 30 3O 50 30 30 so 30 s0 4 30 so so so so rirfrillnir s0 so so so 30 i0 30 s0 So 10 s0 30 s0 s0 s0 s0 so so so s0 so OTIMINION ,so s0 so VCT C so s1) s11 S11 80 s0 30 30 s0 30 so so so so so so sc s0 so so s0 s0 so so $0 so so so s0 so so 30 $0 $0 30 SO SO so so s0 so 3o so SOUTH.... CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELI MINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) (s=000) LA - VENTURA LINE DESCRIPTION 91 .100111611 05 -Apr -95 OFT RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS- - CTC DAYTON TOWER TO BURBANK JCT TRACK IMPROVEMENTS LAUPT TO BURBANK JCT SIGNAL IM PROVEMENTS LAUPT TO BURBANK JCT (GLENDALE XOVERS) REVISE CONTROL MACHINE - ROSEVILLE 2nd TRK/XOVERS - BUR JCT-RAYMER CTC BURBANK JCT TO RAYMER CTC RAYMER TO EAST SIMI (STRATHERN) UPGRADE CHATSWORTH SIDING UPGRADE SIDING AT MOORPARK - TRACK UPG RADE SIDING AT M OORPARK - SIGNAL (CTC TO STRATHERN) CONSTRUCT NEW SIDING AT HASSEN LA YOVER FACILITY AT MOO RPARK LIVE TRACK TIE-INS TVM'S, VALIDATORS, SIGNAGE COMMUNICATIONS OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT TloiLli� 9l( LOCOMOTIVES (5) PASSENGER CARS (18) ROLLING STOCK PROCUREMENT & TESTING TOTAL BUDGET ADJUSTED 1 SB 1402 BUDGET _ $0,399 84,824 813,290 81,014 $87 811,095 83,715 $5,413 81,278 8257 81,891 *1,325 8868 82,724 80 81,109 81,549 84,034 83,510 UM** 811,045 $20,901 8340 $$9,696 ACTUAL THROUGH JUN 94 $51',339 $4,448 813,508 $1,197 *1 *11,882 $3,613 $2,318 8998 $275 81,748 $1,478 1704 $1,026 $189 $1,031 $1,132 87,898 $3,919 811,045 *20.901 $340 $89,825 EXPENDITURES FY 94195 08 MO ACT 06 MO F/C SOU $o 8786 80 $0 $0 80 $0 81,837 80 80 $179 $o 80 $84 $151 $534 $171 $110 so 80 80 83,812 FY 95/98 PROP OSED BUDGET s a s s a s s z s o a s s a s s a o a SO NOTES: > CURRENT SCHEDULES INDICATE ALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF FY 94/95. > FORECASTED OVERRUN OF 83,752,000 WILL BE INCO RPORATED INTO THE FY 94/95 RECONCILIATION OF ACTUALS TO MEMBER AGENCY RECEIPTS . s0 80 10 FY 96197 EXPENDITURE FORECAST $o so $0 so 80 $0 $0 80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 80 80 80 80 $0 so $0 s0 80 ESTI MATE AT COMPLETION EAC 1 7r7r1 19 61 84,446 814.272 $1,197 $1 811,862 83,613 $2.318 82,833 $275 $1,748 $1,857 8704 81,028 $253 81,162 $1,686 88,069 $4,029 811,045 820,901 8340 193,437 VARI ANCE (OVERy UNDER "°;r-.' (SIM 1176 ($9621 (1183 $86 (1761) $102 $3,095 ($1,5871 ($16) (p4 (8332) ($114 81,698 ($253) (8731 ($1171 ($4,035) (1519) so $0 80 ($3,712) Los Angeles - Santa Clarita Line All SB 1402 construction on this line will be completed in FY 94/95. Construction in FY 94/95 included the completion of the signal CTC system between Burbank Junction and Saugus, rehabilitation of the Newhall Bridge, and the upgrading of eight crossings between Burbank Junction and Sylmar. No funds are budgeted for FY 95/96. All rolling stock acquisitions and payments were complete by the end of FY 93/94. Three locomotives and 12 passenger cars were funded by this line. The line is projected to be within the Adjusted SB 1402 Budget of 540,333,000. 3-11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL R AIL AUTH ORITY FY 1995(96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUD GET SB 1402 CAPITAL ($1000s) LA - SANTA CLARITA LINE DESCRIPTION RiGHY =b WAY IMPROVEMENTS .' `"` SIDING/2nd MAIN NORTH FROM BURBANK JCT POWER SWITCH TO M AIN UNE AT SA UGUS CTC-BURBANK JCT TO SAUGUS UPGRADE & EXTEND SIDING AT SYLM AR UPGRADE SIDING AT SAUGUS LAYOVER FACILITY AT SAUGUS TRACK/SIGNAL UPGRADE BURBANK JCT TO SAN FERNANDO TUNNEL 25 CORRECTIONS CROSSING/NEWHALL BRIDGE REHAB TVMS,VALIDATORS,SIGNAGE COMMUNICATIONS OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN d CM CONSTRUCTION AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES rgaciottotic- LOCOMOTIVES (3) PASSENGER CARS (12) SPECS/TESTING FUNDING SOURCE TOTAL - SANTA CLARITA TOTAL FY 95/98 PLAN 50 50 50 50 $0 10 $0 50 50 50 50 50 50 30 80 *0 30 50 50 lACMT'A 10 50 $0 50 50 SO 10 80 S0 So s0 50 SO So SO s0 '[- Si) 80 SO 80 OCT.4 Ili 10 50 s0 so so so s0 s0 s0 50 10 so s0 so s0 so So SO So RCTC 1;" 1p' 30 SO SO 50 SO So $0 50 SO 10 10 SO 50 to S0 $0 SANBAG SO SO 10 10 80 50 SO SO 30 SO 50 50 50 50 BU0FY9s 04/OMs BFF VCTC 50 50 $0 30 s0 50 80 50 50 30 50 80 50 SO So FP Tr Ifirrrr7151"117:49/5 SO SO SO SO SO 50 80 50 50 SO SO $ so SO so PROP 118 PROP 108 TCVTP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL MATCH/OVERMATCH OTHER $0 $0 50 50 10 SO 30 SO $0 50 50 SO 10 50 30 s0 so so so s0 so 80 so so so SO S0 10 50 50 so S0 so 50 30 SO 50 S0 $0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELI MINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTI MATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) (s=000) LA - SANTA CLARITA LINE DESCRIPTION RIGHT-O F-WAY IMPROVEMENTS m'' SIDING/2nd M AIN NORTH FROM BURBANK JCT POWER SWITCH TO MAIN LINE AT SAUGUS CTC-BURBANK JCT TO SAUG US UPGRADE & EXTEND SIDING AT SYLMAR UPGRADE SIDING AT SAUGUS LAYOVER FACILITY AT SAUGUS TRACK/SIGNAL UPGRADE BURBANK JCT TO SAN FERNANDO TUNNEL 25 CORRECTIONS CROSSINGS/NEWHALL BRIDGE REHAB TVM'S, VALIDATORS, SIGNAGE COMMUNICATIONS OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CO NSTRUCTION SUPPORT ROLLING LOCOMOTIVES (3) PASSENGER CARS (12) ROLLING STOCK PROCUREMENT & TESTING TOTAL imam 05 -Apr -95 OFF BUDGET EXPENDITURES ESTIMATE AT C OMPLETION ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET ACTUAL THROUGH JUN 94 FY 94/95 06 MO ACT 06 MO F/C FY 95/96 PROPOSED BUDGET FY 96/97 EXPENDITURE F ORECAST EAC VARIANCE (OVERy UNDER :17;776 31,714 $15,010 31,997 $1,37$ *0 " e. vie 80 -.s 0.-.. . rr. $O *0 r7 ' si i1u 31,997 """•f`�?+!' r"� M, (*283) 3739 *643 *0 *0 $0 *643 896 $2,770 80 s0 11,343 $0 s0 *253 *0 s0 30 s0 *0 *0 s0 *0 *1,596 s0 s0 *1,174 s0 s0 $1,261 81,590 $0 *0 $0 *1,590 (3329) $5,810 80 *5,727 *0 so 80 s0 s0 so *0 85,727 *0 *63 s0 $1,277 $512 *608 $0 $0 81,120 *157 *0 $367 *12 80 $0 $379 (*379) *888 *498 *235 10 *0 8733 (*85) 8400 *446 *194 s0 *0 *640 (*240) 81,498 $1,918 $74 80 $0 *1,992 (*496) *1,840 $775 $2 *0 *0 8777 $883 . 522A8 ''''7'"':�.l�MAal •i X00000 • .? i :-•v ry 1 't1+?�Ta .!� . .; : � .. � - .. •• r .! '- -1- $11 . ..j r...^�fQR� � '��s� '.,�' iZZ10iQlf' m•:at" ii"SP�i1I 86,627 *8,627 $0 *0 $8,627 80 815,878 *15,678 *0 *0 $0 *15,678 80 8255 3255 s0 s0 s0 *255 i0 $40,333 $38,374 51.378 50 50 139,762 =6a1 NOTES: > CURRENT SCHEDULES INDICATE ALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF FY 94/95. > FORECASTED UNDERRUN OF *581,000 WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE FY 94/95 RECONCILIATION OF ACTUALS TO ME MBER AGENCY RECEIPTS . Los Angeles - Riverside Lin All SB 1402 construction on this line will be completed in FY 94/95. This construction was a minor amount of track and signal work at 9th Street on the East Bank of the Los Angeles River. No funds are budgeted for FY 95/96. Rolling stock acquisition is complete and all payments are assumed to be complete by the end of FY 94/95. Two locomotives and 14 passenger cars were funded by this line. The line is projected to be within the Adjusted Budget of $67,870,000. 3-14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTH ORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL mows) LA - RIVERSIDE LINE ewFVsS 04!05415 IIFF DESCRIPTION TOTAL FY 95/98 PLAN LACMTA OCTA RIGHt-OF-WAY T" " ' UP FORCE ACCOUNT - TRACK/SIGNAL/BRID GES RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY M ISSION TOWER TO SOTO ST - TRACK/SIGNAL/BRIDGE OCIP INSURA NCE DESIGN & CM CO NSTRUCTION SUPPORT AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OTHER IMPROVEMENTS EQUIPMENT ACTIVATION Rb1 iNG STtiCi{ •` LOCOMOTIV ES (2) PASSENGER CARS (14) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL - LA -RIVERSIDE FUNDING SOURCE `= #', PROP 118 PROP 108 TCUTP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL MATCH/OVERMATCH OTHER $0 10 10 *0 $0 80 80 10 30 $0 s0 80 *0 so 10 s0 • so s0 s0 80 s0 s0 s0 RCTC s0 10 So s0 80 10 10 SANBAG Ti -.71735 10 80 80 SO $0 •_ SO 8O 80 IU 1�F '{iA'J'T1+0 s0 80 s0 s0 + 10 10 80 s0 80 80 VCTC 1p 17T 10 10 10 $0 10 TT - $0 80 SO $0 1) ATITIN 'Pr! VP so 81) s1) $0 10 80 80 $0 80 80 $0 so s0 $0 $ay x0 $0 80 10 38 50 30 ;,-9$0.7-_ $0 80 80 $0 $0 10 . ..= 4.�, 80 • SO $0 10 t0 80 - - ..Sil 80 80 80 80 $0 ;�;, +�1 10 10 80 SO SC, SO 59 WW1 . .44 CALIFORNIA REGI ONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT CO MPLETION (EAC) (1=o00) LA - RIVERSIDE LINE DESCRIPTION RIGHT-OF-WAY IM PROVEMENTS UP FORCE ACCOUNT - TRACK/SIGNAUBRIDGES RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY M ISSION TOWER TO SOTO ST - TRACK/SIGNAL/BRIDGE OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT OTHER IMPROVEMENTS-. EQUIPM ENT ACTIVATION ROWNI STOCH LOCOMOTIVES (2) PASSENGER CARS (14) ROLLING STOCK PROCUREMENT & TESTING TOTAL BUDGET ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET ACTUAL THROUGH JUN 94 EXPEN FY 94195 06 MO ACT 06 MO F/C DITURES FY 95196 PROPOSED BUD GET $42,030 134,215 12,000 83,240 $376 11,440 $1,364 £1,$W 81,200 1600 423;496 $4,600 818,290 1545 467,370 $40,967 $35,661 1604 11,448 1116 $1,570 11,358 41,1101 $1.531 $166 '422,391 $4,502 117,277 $572 465,005 41,901 4551 $0 $o 8154 $262 $75 162 $0 10 80 10 10 SO 10 „. rte - -to NOTES: CURRENT SCHEDULES INDICA TE ALI, CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF FY 94/95 . ASSUMES NO ADDITIONAL TRACKWO RK IN MISSION INTERLOCKING PLANT ON EAST BANK FORECASTED UNDERRUN OF 1964,000 WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE FY 94/95 RECONCILIATION OF ACTUALS TO MEMBER AGENCY RECEIPTS . 10 i0 80 $0 so 40 FY 98197 EXPENDITURE FORECAST eu0.1IIIA 05 -Apr -95 OFF ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION V ARIANCE ( OVERy r -r 1• iv/ cm 10 10 80 80 80 1iI�T 10 80 So 80 10 EAC T''' ' !$41;1:10 135,661 8604 81,602 1378 81,645 11,420 $1,868 8166 iSU2' 14.502 118,266 1572 UNDER irr- _ i-r: _ i (11 .646) 81,398 $1,638 (82) ($205) (1561 fy . (8666) 1434 196 $2 (1271 4o 466,906 4964 Los Angeles - Fullerton Line SB 1402 construction on this line is scheduled for completion November 1995. The construction on this line includes the work behind LAUS (Terminal Tower and Mission's Interlocking Plant) and Santa Fe track/crossover work between Hobart and Fullerton. In FY 94/95, Santa Fe completed the crossovers at Basta and the new third track from Basta to Fullerton. Track reconfigurations and consolidation of the signal system inside Mission's Interlocking Plant continued in FY 94/95. In FY 95/96, track and signal construction will continue inside Mission's Plant on the West bank. Track and signal construction associated with the Terminal Tower area and Mission's Plant on the East Bank will not be done due to funding constraints The line is budgeted for $9,959,000 in FY 95/96. Rolling stock acquisition is complete. Payments (release of retention) for rolling stock will continue into FY 95/96 on this line. Locomotive spare parts and 12 passenger cars are funded by this line. The current Adjusted SB 1402 Budget on this line is $78,400,000. In FY 94/95, the City of Fullerton contributed $688,000 to this line for the third track at Fullerton. This contribution increases the Adjusted SB 1402 Budget to $79,088,000. There is no budgetary impact on the Member Agencies. Given the deletion of the Terminal Tower and East Bank work, this line is projected to be at or within the Adjusted SB 1402 Budget. SCRRA will continue to seek federal and state funding to upgrade Terminal Tower and complete the East Bank work - two projects that are essential to ensuring continued access in and out of Union Station. 3-17 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995196 PROP OSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL (moos) LA - FULLERTON LINE DESCRIPTION RI�Fi1 WA? 111 1fg ;ry ;'� TRACK - TERMINAU MISSION CONSOLIDATED SIGNAL SYSTEM LAUPT STATION AND TRACK IMPROVEMENTS TVMs, VALIDATORS & SIGNAGE CROSSOVERS AT SANTA FE SPRINGS CROSSOVERS AT LA MIRADA/BUENA PARK CROSSOVER AT BASTA 3rd TRACK AT FULLERTON REHAB TRACK-REDONDO TO HOBART CROSSOVER AT HOBART OCIP INSURANCE _ DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES I uLLIrAf STOCK" -77 ,. LOCOMOTIVES (SPARE PARTS ONLY) PASSENGER CARS (12) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL - LA-FULLERTON FUNDING SOURCE, - A)" PROP 118 PROP 108 TCl/TP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL MATCH/OVERMATCH OTHER ,�,. -, . • TOTAL FY 95/98 PIAN 81.055 33,500 $0 30 *0 80 TO 8350 TO 10 1253 8832 8291 3275 318 . ift s980 32.290 8608 *9,959 $9,959 18, 759 80 80 s0 83,200 $01 LACMTA $ .O91 *1,055 *3,500 30 SO $0 80 s0 *350 80 s0 5253 $832 $291 5275 $18 OCTA 80 80 80 $o $o 80 SO $O 80 $0 80 80 30 $0 $0 RCTC i0 s0 s0 s0 50 s0 s0 80 so s0 30 . ., i0 • so s0 A 10 SANBAG 77.x,, 80 50 $0 $0 80 $O 30 $0 10 10 80 10 1r� 10 80 VCTC 80 80 30 50 80 80 80 10 30 80 s0 $0 10 $0 5980 $2,290 s0 80 $808 $0 $9,959 8O 30 so $0 30 $0 so $0 }p— $0,089 I . $O' 88,159 80 $0 50 80 50 80 10 $0 $0 80 *0 33,200 10 $0 $0 30 so s0 s0 so *0 s0 80 s0 $0 +s0 so so s0 $0 80 so 10 so SOUTh. _,f CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTH ORITY FY 1994!95 PROPOSED PRELI MINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) (1=000) LA - FULLERTON LINE DESCRIPTION RIGHT-OF-WAY. IMPROVEMENTS TRACK - TERM INAL/MISSION CONSOLIDATED SIGNAL SYSTEM LAUPT STATION AND TRACK IMPROVEMENTS TVM'S, VALIDATORS & SIGNAGE CROSSOVERS AT SANTA FE SPRINGS • CROSSOVERS AT LA M IRADA/BUENA PARK • CROSSOVER AT BASTA • 3rd TRACK AT FULLERTON • REHABILITATE TRACK REDONDO JCT-HOBART CROSSOVER AT HOBART TOWER OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN 6 CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT ROLLING STOCK LOCOM OTIVES (SPARE PARTS ONLY) PASSENGER CARS (12) ROLLING STOCK PROCUREMENT & TESTING TOTA L BUDGET ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET 7 $80,388 $9,292 $8,396 $17,168 $420 $1,133 1843 $623 85,289 $3,640 *930 $884 87,700 $4,071 $18.700 81,200 $17,174 $326 $79,068 ACTUAL THROUGH JUN 94 $38,237 $3,889 83,389 $16,041 $542 *1,044 $779 $531 *3,860 80 *0 $246 $4,094 91 .620 $14,338 10 $13,711 $524 EXPENDITURES FY 94/95 06 MO ACT 06 MO F/C $17,738 88,167 *3,115 $96 $0 *679 $644 *469 *3,931 $o $0 *702 81,263 $472 $220 $479 $120 FY 95/96 PROP OSED BUDGET $1,080 $1,055 *3,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 *350 $0 $0 $253 $632 $291 $ $980 $2,290 $606 FY 96/97 EXPENDITURE FORECAST _4 ggggggggggggoo $0 80 80 ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION EAC r7" -T" $86,088- 811,111 810,004 *16,137 *542 $1,923 $1,423 $1,000 $8,141 $0 80 $1,203 15,969 $2,564 ., #1F' *1,200 810,460 $1,352 V ARIANCE (OVERy UNDER 1133 (($1.919 ($1,608, 81,031 ($122; ($790] (1580; (5377; ($2.653] $3,840 $930 (1319] $1,712 81,467 $0 $694 (81.026', $50,672 $18,557 $9,958 NOTES: > LINE SEGMENT EXPENDITURES ARE CONSTRAINED BY CURRENT AUTHORIZED FUNDING LEVEL OF 179,088,000. > CURRENT FUNDING LEVEL ALLOWS FOR THE COMPLETION OF TRACK AND SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS INSIDE MISSION INTERLOCKING ON THE WEST BANK ONLY > ASSUMES NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO UNDERTAKE IMPROVEMENTS INSIDE TERMINAL PLANT NOR MISSION INTERLOCKING ON THE EAST BANK. > ADJUSTED BASE PLUS LO W ITEMS (•) ARE AT THE AMOUNTS NEGOTIATED WITH ATSF. so $79,088 ( Fullerton - Oceanside Line SB 1402 construction between Galivan (just north of San Juan Capistrano) and Fullerton is scheduled for completion during the third quarter of FY 95/96. In FY 94/95, new second track and the accommodating signal work was completed from Galivan to Santa Ana and Anaheim to Fullerton. Bridge work included the construction of three new double track bridges between Anaheim and Orange. In FY 95/96, new second track will be constructed on most of the right- of-way between Anaheim and Santa Ana. The line is budgeted for $20,113,000 in FY 95/96. All rolling stock acquisitions for this line were completed in FY 93/94. Payments for rolling stock (retention releases) will continue into FY 95/96. Seven locomotives and seven passenger cars are funded by this line. The Adjusted SB 1402 budget on this line is $121,262,000. This line is projected to be at or within the Adjusted SB 1402 Budget. 3-20 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995196 PR OPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL ($1000s) FULLERTON-OCE-ANSIDE LINE DESCRIPTION RIGi#=OF- 4PR01' -qIIIttiferr';"^.r.r,r ;;•:*- 7-xs-TY- f1-; AREA A: FULLERTON TO ORANGE SECOND TRACK & BRIDGES AREA B: ORANGE TO SANTA ANA TRACK UPGRADE & BRIDGE AREA C: SANTIAGO CREEK BRIDGE AREA D: SANTA ANA TO GALIVAN DOUBLE TRACK & BRID GE AREA E: SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO DOUBLE TRACK & BRIDGE STUART MESA/LEMON GROVE M AINTENANCE FACILITY M AINTENANCE -OF -WAY FACILITY TVMs/SIGNAGE START-UP OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LOCOMOTIVES (7) PASSENGER CARS (7) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL - FULLERTO N-OCEANSIDE FUNDING S . RCE PROP 116 PROP 108 TCl/TP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL M ATCH/OVERMATCH OTHER TOTAL FY 95/98 PLAN 19,817 5991 10 80 So $719 140 3970 30 $881 1883 8741 3700 141 7:T.7 coif $331 14,543 1110 $20,113 813,023 80 80 *0 57,090 30 LACMTA SO 30 SO $0 $0 $0 80 $0 SO 10 10 $0 80 80 OCTA $9,817 $991 ID 80 SO 1719 $40 1970 10 $881 $883 $741 3700 841 SO 80 $O so, SO 10 30 80 80 10 1Ir $338 $4,543 $010 $20,113 • 113,023 10 80 30 87,090 10 RCTC 80 10 $0 30 10 $0 10 80 80 30 80 10 so 50 $0 $0 SANBAG P 10 s0 s0 s0 80 s0 80 s0 10 s0 so 80 SO VCTC $0 s0 10 SO t10 80 80 80 80 80 110 10 80 10 pia 10 80 10 $D 10 $CI $0 11] 1a $0 80 80 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELI MINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) (8=000) FULLERTON = OCEANSIDE LINE DESCRIPTION O 05 -Apr -95 OFF RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS AREA A: FULLERTON TO ORANGE SECOND TRACK& BRIDGES AREA B: ORANG E TO SANTA ANA TRACK UPGRADE & BRIDGE AREA C: SANTIAGO CREEK BRIDGE AREA D: SANTA ANA TO GALIVAN DOUBLE TRACK & BRIDGE AREA E: SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO DOUBLE TRACK & BRIDGE STUART M ESA MAINTENANCE FACILITY MAINTENANCE of WAY FACILITY TVM'S, VALIDATORS & SIGNAGE START-UP OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT ROLLING STOOK "77.77 -,.:., LO COMOTIVES (7) PASSENG ER CARS (7) ROLLING STOCK PROCUREM ENT & TESTING TOTAL NOTES: > SAN JUAN DOUBLE TRACK AND BRIDGE IS BUDGET ESTIMATE ONLY. BUDGET ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET ACTUAL THROUGH JUN 94 EXPENDITURES FY 94/95 06 MO ACT 06 MO F/C FY 95/96 PROPOSED BUDGET FY 96/97 EXPENDITURE FORECAST ESTIMATE AT C OMPLETION EAC VARIANCE (OVERy UNDER 887,028 816,287 111,065 81,463 827,197 813,457 82,000 82,340 *2,310 8270 82,209 84,022 84,406 $34,236 116,634 817,057 8545 $121,262 827,888 82,363 8947 $0 813,722 80 8921 861 8986 8357 8650 85,802 82,037 822,866 816,119 85,954 8624 -834,383 816,347 8861 $0 810,455 80 8360 881 8354 *0 81,879 82,491 81,506 $488 :9 D 6 . 814,812 89,617 8991 SO *0 80 *719 841 *970 *0 8681 8663 8741 $8,451 8338 84,543 8610 • 815,7!0 10 80 80 80 812,680 80 82,137 80 80 $0 10 8762 so 10 so P 17".'.r$ft 20 828.527 82,619 80 124,177 812,860 $2,000 $2,340 $2,310 1357 83.209 88,956 85,046 116,793 810,497 81,352 (812,240) 88.247 11,483 13,020 1577 10 11 80 (861) (11,000) (84,934) (8640) (8159) 86,560 (8807) $50,562 834,808 - $20,113 $15,778 $121,262- ($0) Fullerton - Riverside/San Bernardino_Line The majority of SB 1402 construction on this line is Santa Fe's "adjusted base plus low case" work on their San Bernardino Subdivision between Riverside and Fullerton. The work consists of constructing about 40 miles of new second track and 14 new crossovers between Riverside and Fullerton. The work began in November 1992 and Santa Fe is scheduled to complete all work in October 1996. In FY 94/95, Santa Fe completed about 15 miles of new second track between Prado Dam and West Riverside. Work also began on new second track through Santa Ana Canyon. SCRRA contract work on this line includes the rehabilitation of the Olive Subdivision and track extensions at the existing Riverside station/layover facility. The track and signal rehabilitation of the Olive Subdivision was completed in FY 94/95. In FY 95/96, Santa Fe will continue track, signal and bridge work in Santa Ana Canyon and between West Riverside and Highgrove. SCRRA contract work will include the track extensions at Riverside Station. This line is budgeted for $21,373,000 in FY 95/96. Rolling stock acquisitions for this line were completed in FY 93/94. Payments for rolling stock will continue into FY 95/96. Five locomotives and seven passenger cars are funded by this line. The current Adjusted SB 1402 Budget for this line is $96,640,000. In FY 94/95, the Member Agencies (except VCTC) negotiated with Santa Fe a final not -to exceed amount for "adjusted base plus low case" construction of $78,987,000. The negotiations also resulted in the following final not -to -exceed amounts: $400,000 for environmental mitigation in Santa Ana Canyon, $350,000 for property purchases at La Mirada, and $1,850,000 for third track embankment/bridge work in Santa Ana Canyon. The total negotiated amount with Santa Fe is $81,587,000. Given the prior work authorization and funding level with Santa Fe of $62,800,000, the negotiations resulted in an additional Santa Fe work authorization of $18,787,000. This increase to Santa Fe was approved at the January 13, 1995 SCRRA Board meeting. The additional amount is split as follows: LACMTA $3,990,000, OCTA $5,621,000, RCTC $7,432,000, and SANBAG $1,736,000. The LACMTA's share is funded in the LA - Fullerton Line. The remaining $14,797,000 is funded in the Fullerton - Riverside/San Bernardino Line -- $5,668,000 of existing funds, already included in the Budget as contingencies, and $9,129,000 of additional funds. The additional funds ($9,129,000) need to be amended into the current Adjusted SB 1402 Budget of $96,640,000 for a total of $105,769,000. This line is projected to remain at or within the amended Adjusted SB 1402 Budget of $105,769,000. 3-23 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL ($1000:) FULLERTON-RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO LINE DESCRIPTION RIGHT F -WAY PROVE 'i' CRO SSOVERS AT PLACENTIA 2nd TRACK LAM BERT TO ESPERANZA 2nd TRACK PRADO TO CASA BLANCA CROSSOVER AT RIVERSIDE JUNCTION CROSSOVER AT ATWOOD 2nd TRACK YORBA LINDA TO PRADO CROSSOVERS AT MONROE 2nd TRA CK MADISON TO WEST RIVERSIDE 3rd TRACK WEST RIVERSIDE TO EAST RIVERSIDE 2nd TRACK EAST RIVERSIDE TO HIGHGROVE 3rd TRACK EMBANKM ENT/BRIDGE WORK SANTA ANA CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION SANTA ANA CANYON STATION TRACK AT RIVERSIDE OLIVE SUBDMSION - TRACK/SIGNAL TVMS,V ALIDATORS,SIGNAGE OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM UCTlON AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ROLLING STO CK'µ "" - . , . �-„� ---,�, .. ..„„nx,,.T LOCOM OTIV ES (5) PASSENGER CARS (7) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL - FULLERTO N-RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO FUNDING SOURCE '11!”. , PROP 116 PROP 108 TCVTP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL MATCH/OVERMATCH 0r TOTAL FY 95/96 PLAN LAC MTA OCTA RCTC T7* 5 0,054 $431 32,335 82,208 80 138 81,412 $34 82,066 81,118 30 11,240 8400 $1,413 80 $567 8116 $391 $787 $724 $43 .7. Skill 81,585 $4,543 $611 80 50 50 *0 $0 $0 10 80 50 80 80 80 80 30 80 $0 10 80 80 30 1777:77 $11 $0 80 s0 tiAS 8144 $782 8739 812 $473 $11 8691 8374 *0 $0 8200 *0 $0 80 *0 80 $37 $242 814 'IM P !rims $650 $1,717 5236 8224 11,211 11,145 80 119 $732 818 *1,072 8610 80 $0 $200 11,413 $0 1567 $116 *391 616 3376 $22 7 "1' $4,05 *1,035 $2,620 8375 SANBAG 7 .1 _°a • $63 80 $342 80 $324 $CI *0 so $5 $0 $207 $0 35 80 1303 10 *154 80 30 i0 51,240 $0 10 $D 80 80 10 $0 $0 $0 10 50 ,.s dry- i0 r ; $0 ,. fir; : lit •+ . to 8108 $0 $0 10 s0 $o 10 $0 10 $0 $21,373 SO $6,286 $12,321 • $21,373 817,684 $743 1567 80 ;��:r.•.• IS0 s0 s0 $0 s0 $0 30 $8,2W 1e,088 so 80 80 8200 $0, 1 *2,766 *0 riff $1241211ViriVairtrAria. $10,052 $743 $567 $0 $959 10 $1,528 s0 $o s0 51,240 $0 80 80 $0 10 10 30 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROP OSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTI MATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) (s=000) FULLERTON - RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO LINE DESCRIPTION RIGHT-O F-WAY CRO SSOVERS AT PLACENTIA • 2nd TRACK LAMBERT TO ESPERANZA • 2nd TRACK PRADO TO CASA BLANCO • CROSSOVER AT RIVERSIDE JUNCTION • CROSSOVER AT ATWOOD • 2nd TRACK YORBA LINDA TO PRADO • CROSSO VERS AT MONROE • 2nd TRACK MADISON TO WEST RIVERSIDE • 3rd TRACK WEST RIVERSIDE TO EAST RIVERSIDE • 2nd TRACK EAST RIVERSIDE TO HIGHGROVE • 3rd TRACK EMBANKMENT/BRIDGE WORK SANTA ANA CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATIO N SANTA CANYON STATION TRACK AT RIV ERSIDE OLIVE SUBDIVISIO N - TRACK/SIGNAL TVM'S, VALIDATORS $ SIGNAGE OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT ROLLINi# atocK LOCOMOTIVES (5) PASSENGER CARS (7) ROLLING STOCK PROCUREMENT & TESTING TOTA L suossesA 05 -Apr -95 OFF BUDGET ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET $77,284 81,947 810.546 125,206 8466 1983 810,111 $1,097 87,572 84.058 $4,861 11,850 8400 11,570 82,000 1759 879 1181 $3,596 -$2s;4u 19,440 116,500 1545 3108,769 ACTU AL THROUGH JUN 94 $34,723 1681 $4.143 112,748 $351 1549 $4,687 1631 $2,633 11,395 83,743 so so s0 1101 80 823 81,098 81,940 39x,2412 810,715 15,954 $623 $82,018 EXPENDITURES FY 94/95 06 MO ACT 06 MO F/C $28,154 8622 $2.918 89,162 8117 8398 $3,316 8432 81,858 1994 11,607 so so $157 12,399 8626 196 1782 1672 7-711 so 10 8110 $28,272 FY 95/99 PROPOSED BUDGET $14,034 1431 12.335 12,206 80 136 11.412 834 $2,066 11,118 10 11.240 8400 $1,413 10 $567 1116 $391 1766 $1,6es 14.543 it 1611 $21,373 NO TES: ADJUSTED BASE PLUS LO W ITEM S (• ) ARE AT THE AMOUNTS NEGOTIATED WITH ATSF. 3rd TRACK/BRIDGE WO RK AND ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION THROUGH SANTA ANA CANYON ARE ADDED LINE ITEMS PER THE ATSF NEGOTIATIONS . > POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES ABOVE THE 8400,000 NEGOTIATED AM OUNT WITH ATSF ARE NOT INCLUDED . FY 96/97 EXPENDITURE FORECAST •r $1;078' $213 8856 81,088 $0 $0 8696 s0 81,017 $551 10 8611 $0 10 $0 80 80 :0 1245 s0 so 36,071 ESTIMATE AT COMPLETI ON EAC setroug 11,947 $10,054 125,206 1466 8983 810,111 11,097 17,572 $4,058 15,350 11,850 8400 $1,570 $2,500 $1,193 1235 12,271 $3,623 112,400 110,497 11,352 3104,737 VARIANCE (OVERy UNDER - 717,074264) 10 $492 10 so so s0 s0 ($0 s0 (8469) 80 10 $0 ($500) ($434), (1155) (12,090) (821 ($2,960' 88,003 (1607) $1,032 1 3.2 SPECIAL PROJECT; In FY 94/95, SCRRA contributed to the ongoing low emission natural gas locomotive research and development program. The proposed diesel fuel aftercooling project was reduced in scope and totally funded by South Coast Air Quality Management District. SCRRA's budgeted local contribution of $200,000 will not be used on this project. However, budgeted federal funds for the low emission natural gas locomotive research and development program were not received, and the local funds budgeted for the aftercooling project will be needed to backfill the federal funds. In FY 95/96, work will continue on the low emission natural gas locomotive research and development program. A total of $505,000 is proposed for FY 95/96. It is projected that $158,750 in PVEA funding will be available in FY 95.96 and the balance of $346,250 is proposed as local funds to be split among the counties using the all -share formula. The local shares due from the member agencies for FY 95/96 are: Los Angeles $139,530 Orange $ 90,880 Riverside $ 46,250 San Bernardino $ 55,150 Ventura $ 14.450 (1) TOTAL $346,250 (1) VCTC expects that it's share will be paid by the Ventura County Air Pollution District. 3-26 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORI ;• FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SPECIAL PROJECTS: LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAM moos) os s PROGRAM/DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PROPOSED EXPENDITURE (1) 5505.0 FUNDING SOURCE PVEA (2) VCAPD (3) LOCAL FUNDS TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $158.8 $14.4 $331.8 5505.0 LACMTA dr 5203.5 $64.0 $139.5 OCTA SANBAG RCTC VCTC $132.6 541.7 $90.9 5203.5 $132.6 $80.4 525.3 555.1 580.4 $67.4 $21.2 $46.21 $67.4 (1) COSTS ALLOCATED USING THE ALLSHARE FORMULA (40.298% MTA; 26.248% OCTA; 13.356% RCTC; 15.927% SANBAG; AND 4.172% VCTC) (2) PVEA REVENUES AWARDED TO SCRRA AND ATTRIBUTED TO COUNTIES USING THE ALLSHARE FORMULA. (3) VCTC EXPECTS THAT ITS LOCAL SHARE WILL BE PAID DIRECTLY TO THE SCRRA BY THE VENTURA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION DISTRICT. 3-27 $21.1 56.6 514.4 50.0 521.1 3.3 NEW CAPITAL EXPENDITURES For the FY 1995/96 Budget, New Capital Expenditures are proposed in three categories: ROW/Signal, Communications, and Mechanical. The proposed projects are discussed below: ROW/SIGNAL The MTA/SCRRA Safety Enhancement Study of the Santa Clarita Line identified safety enhancements. A phased plan has been developed in cooperation with cities along the corridor. For FY 95/96, $756,000 in safety enhancements is proposed at MTA's request. COMMUNICATIONS Two road radio base stations have been proposed at Oat Mountain and Sierra Peak for a total cost of $110,000. The existing radios at these sites were designed for much lighter duty sites. They will continue to fail with greater frequency unless replaced. These two sites are the primary train communication paths chosen by dispatchers for the Coast, Valley and Orange Subdivisions. The recommended replacements will be of a design style that is most appropriate to the heavy use of radios at these sites. In addition, these sites are not necessarily accessible year-round, and SCRRA's needs would be best served by more dependable radios. The Oat Mountain site at a cost of $50,000 would benefit both the Coast and Valley Subdivisions with the benefit 2/3 to the Ventura County Line and 1/3 to the Antelope Valley Line. The Sierra Peak site at a cost of $60,000 would benefit the Orange County Line. MECHANICAL Fuel Oil Truck To improve operating efficiency at Taylor Yard and shorten equipment turnaround time as well as support increasing levels of service, staff recommends the purchase of a fueling truck at $100,000. This would result in a reduction in servicing time at Taylor Yard by reducing the number of equipment moves required on the Service and Inspection (S&I) tracks. The fueling plant is located on the north end of the S&I tracks. With the fuel truck and pavement of the storage yard, trains would enter the yard, be fueled on the south end of the yard and placed in the storage yard for servicing. This will eliminate three equipment moves per train set (reducing crew time and associated costs). The fuel truck would also be used to fuel, on an occasional basis, at outlying points. This is especially important with the new San Bernardino/Riverside-Irvine service since these equipment sets will not be maintained in Los Angeles on a daily basis. California Car Engineering The development of the California Car has been a long and difficult process. Proposed costs of $680,000 represent the impact of a full-blown engineering effort on our part including inspection of appliances and systems before installation on the equipment. Based on the progress of the California Car program to date, staff believes the engineering oversight is essential to ensure that the equipment we receive meets our specifications. 3-28 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1015190 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET NEW CAPITAL EXPENDITURES moos) -r PROGRA DESCRIPTION nw wn SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS (SANTA CLARITA UNE) TOTAL ROW/SIGNAL UNE SEGMENT AMOUNT LACMTA LA -Lane 5756.0 5756.0 *750.0 OCTA SANBAG RCTC VCTC $710.0 *0.0 *0.0 *0.0 *0.0 COMMUNICATIONS ROAD RADIO AT OAT MOUNTAIN (1) ROAD RADIO AT SIERRA PEAK TOTAL COMMUNICATIONS 2/31.4.-V.n,1/3LA.Lan Fu rlon•SDCoL $50.0 560.0 538.7 $60.0 $11.3 *110.0 *39.7 *00.0 *0.0 *0.0 MECHANICAL 121 FUEL TRUCK CAL CAR ENGINEERING TOTAL MECHANICAL 5100.0 5680.0 $642 $436.6 511.7 *79.5 *13.0 588.2 $5.7 538.7 $5.4 537.0 5780.0 3500.8 $91.2 5101.1 544.4 $42.4 TOTAL NEW CAPITAL $1.646.0 51,295.5 5151.2 L $101.1 $44.41 (1) SPLIT IS BY TRACK MILES (05.06% LACMTA AND 34.04% VCTC). (2) ALL SPLITS ARE THE FY 05196 TRAIN MILE ALLOCATION (84.207% LACMTA, 11.690% OCTA. 12.966% SANBAG, 5.696% RCTC, AND 5.441% VCTC). NEW CAPITAL SUMMARY ($000x) CATEGORY PROPOSED BUDGET ROW/SIGNAL COMMUNICATIONS MECHANICAL (2) TOTAL NEW CAPITAL 5756.0 $110.0 5780.0 LACMTA 5756. $38. 5500. 51,646.0 $1,295. 3-29 OCTA _ SANBAG RCTC VCTC *0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $60.0 $0.0 S0.0 $11.3 591.2 5101.1 544.4 $42.4 5151.2 5101.1 $44,4 $53.8 3.4 CAPITAL MAINTENANCE This section describes the items proposed for capital maintenance in two categories: ROW/Signal and Mechanical. The proposed projects total $6.81 million and are summarized in Table 1 with further detail on ROW/Signal provided in Tables 2 and 3. It should be noted that $800,000 in carryover funds from FY 1994/95 will be applied to the Capital Maintenance program. Where possible, in the descriptions that follow, an estimate of the potential savings in operating expenses is provided. These are estimates because it is impossible to predict exactly when an asset will fail. SCRRA staff is responsible for the safety and performance of the railroad system and all that travels upon it. Our maintenance and capital recommendations are based upon tolerating only the most minimal and manageable risk of failure. In matters of storm damage or structural failure, it is impossible to compute the savings associated with deferring the work. Costs included are those needed to do some of the work as an emergency repair if failure occurs. No cost has been associated with the loss of service or the risk of a train accident. The Capital Maintenance Expenditures have been selected from a larger field that SCRRA staff believes can be deferred until future years, but will have to be addressed eventually. ROW/SIGNAL CAPITAL MAINTENANCE A total of $4.50 million is proposed for ROW/Signal capital maintenance. Tables 2 and 3 provide detail of the proposed projects by maintenance program, and each project is discussed below: Tie Program Replace Failed Wood Ties Fullerton - Santa Ana The 1988 LOSSAN tie program replaced all of the ties conventional railroad standards it was a light program, track. Now, seven years later, an additional set of ties perform another tie replacement cycle. which had failed at that time. By and many marginal ties were left in the have deteriorated and it is time to OTM (Turnouts) Program Replace Two No. 20 Turnouts at Burbank Jet These turnouts were installed m 1966 and have reached the end of their service life. They carry about 65 trains daily. We have had to install some repair rail and components using small machines and hand labor. If they are not replaced, we will experience continuing failures with resultant speed restrictions for trains and costly (frequently overtime) repairs at East Bank Jet, This is a set of turnouts and crossing that was installed in the 1938-40 construction of the 3-30 Mission Tower area. They are badly worn and we have had to place emergency orders for broken rails. They are beyond the expected service life and require weekly application of welding and grinding to chase cracks. Presuming that they do not fail in a manner to cause a train accident, they may last another 1 to 3 years. The annual savings achieved by replacing them is $75,000 of welding gang time, plus about $12,000 for replacement parts annually Replace Worn Components of Pasadena Jct Double Slip Switches These two switches were built in the 1960s. In 1994 the gage plates and switch ties failed, causing signal system failure, citations from Federal agencies, and severe delays to train operations. Those components were replaced on emergency overtime basis. We now need to replace the rest of the timber and to purchase selected replacement parts before the rest of the switches cause serious interniption to service. This is especially important to accomplish before weekend service begins on either the Riverside or San Bernardino lines. The savings associated with doing this work is about $60,000 annually and represents overtime for track and signal forces to chase trouble and perform spot repairs. Bridge Program Replace Failed Open Deck at,Pacoima Creek with Ballast Deck and Improve Seismic Desk The timber ties on this bridge on the Lancaster Line are nearing failure. This is on 79 mph track. If the ties are not replaced within the next two years trains will have to be slowed, perhaps to 25 mph. The bridge is an old design, with high rocker bearings to accommodate expansion. Our plan is to lower the bridge by placing it on bearing pads, thus reducing risk of separation from the abutments during an earthquake. By lowering the bridge we will have room to install a steel deck to support conventional ballast and tie track. Savings to be realized by doing this project are the piecemeal replacement of the failing bridge ties, estimated to be about $80,000 spread over the next three years. There is no way to predict the savings achieved if modifying the bearings results in saving the bridge from destruction. Install CivIP Linerjn_Failinr Concrete Arch 186 7 This is a concrete arch culvert under our 90 mph main track near Irvine that is connected on both ends to Orange County pipes. The concrete is failing and cracked, letting moving water erode fill material. It is impossible to state at what point it will cause the embankment to collapse. When it does collapse the tracks will become impassable and water will back up, causing flooding of neighborhoods to the north of the tracks. If we fail to act it may result in the Orange County Flood Control District acting on an emergency basis to restore public safety, probably billing us for their work and disrupting train traffic. The savings to be realized by doing this as a planned project instead of an emergency repair are about $30,000. This represents the premium for overtime that an emergency repair will 3-31 probably require. Crossing Program Road Crossing.Rehabilitation: Bonita and San Dimas This crossing is on the freight -only portion of the Pasadena Subdivision. It is used by two Santa Fe freight trains per day. It is a source of continuing complaints from the city of San Dimas due to the badly broken pavement and deteriorated concrete headers. We are subject to claims for damage to automobiles that are impacted by the crossing and are potentially liable for accidental damages if a motorist claims to have lost control due to .the poor condition of the crossing. Erosion Protection Install Rock Berm ] post303.8 - 207.1 (San Clemente) The track immediately adjacent to the ocean is affected by wave erosion. The Santa Fe Railway periodically dumped heavy rock along the shore and it became eroded and displaced by wave action. This project is to continue replacing rock, consolidating two or more years' work into a contract large enough to yield economy of scale. Failure to continually replace rock will eventually lead to the destruction of the track and embankment by wave action, closing the rail line until emergency repairs can be accomplished. The savings are computed as the premium cost of performing these repairs on an overtime basis, although on a smaller scale. Additionally, when the embankment is known to be weak, extra inspections by track maintenance personnel are required, frequently on overtime. This should represent about $20,000 to $50,000 annually: Signal Program Replace DC Track Circuits on Olive Subdivision The high maintenance underground DC cable signal circuits on the Olive Subdivision need to be replaced with electrocode track circuits. The budgeted amount of $250,000 will complete the first phase of a signal and grade crossing upgrades program. Pasadena Jct. to Ninth,St/East Bank This section of track falls within the River Subdivision and serves our San Bernardino and Riverside customers. The signal circuit plans indicate this system was installed during the 19401s. Field Survey data reveals vital relays manufactured in 1939 are still in service. A meeting will be held with Southern Pacific Railroad to request their participation in these projects. A brief discussion of each project in this segment follows: Replace Relay Coded Track with Electronic Coded Tracts (ElectrocQde) The Relay Style DC Coded Track system utilizes a series of mechanical coding relays and code following relays to check the condition of the track and to transmit signal aspect control codes through the rails. This system is slower than the new electronic coded track equipment 3-32 and limits the amount of traffic that can be dispatched in this area. While the speed of the Relay Style Coded Track system is a problem, its unreliability and potential for failure are more serious problems_ . The relays in this system are .. longer _ ,_r_ _ relays ��...� ...�,. �,:..u,.�ti..� s�^llu.n�wiau and are virtually impossible to replace. We have no spare relays on hand, so if one of them fails, the lead time to re -manufacture could range from three to nine months. During that interval the signal aspects would display a stop indication and all trains would be required to flag at restricted speed. The replacement of the relay coded track with electronic coded track is budgeted at $575,000. The current supervisory control system is a Style 506A time code system over a code line. This physical code line allows the controls and indications to be sent and received between the CCF and the field. This physical code line is in the form of an old underground copper cable. When the control of these locations was transferred to our CCF from the Union Pacific; the existing underground cable was utilized. If data radios are not installed, maintenance forces will have to replace this code line in kind in order to maintain system reliability. The time code system is slower than the data radio system. Installation of the ATCS data radios at a cost of $214,600 would allow the retirement of the old 506 type code line, increasing the dispatcher's productivity and allowing increased traffic through this area. Replace all Relay Interlocking with Microprocessor Interlocking The current system is composed of numerous relays which require continual maintenance and testing. The relays are subject to more frequent failure and require greater maintenance than the solid state interlockings we currently install. Replacement of all relay interlocking with microprocessor interlocking is budgeted at $750,000. Remove Pasadena .Ice to CP Fulton from the Safetran Workstation to Digicon and Simplify Field Circuits With the exception of this location, Metrolink has standardized on the Digicon office system. The Safetran's system has been subject to frequent service disruption. This system does not allow us to recall functions, make any modifications or trouble shoot this system. In addition, unlike the DIGICON system, all work must be done by Safetran. Elimination of the Safetran Workstation is budgeted at $50,000 and will eliminate the need to maintain both systems at the CCF. Terminal Interlocking: Replace Air Switches with Electric Upgrade of Terminal Tower is not included in the Budget as it is currently unfunded. However, staff is actively pursuing funding for this $14 mullion project due to its importance to ongoing operations in and out of Union Station. Most of the track and signal devices used at Terminal are original equipment installed in 1938. Our entire commuter service, plus 30 Amtrak trains, depend on the reliable operation of this 57 -year old equipment. The signal devices are worn out and obsolete. In order to maintain the current service levels and stay within the FRA requirements, expenditures for labor and replacement materials will need to be increased under ordinary maintenance. 3-33 MECHANICAL CAPITAL MAINTENANCE As summarized in Table 1, a total of $2.31 million is proposed for Mechanical Capital Maintenance. The proposed projects are described below: Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Un ts_QJVAC3 Overhaul The HVAC system is the most important customer comfort appliance on the equipment (rolling stock) and operates under heavy demand in our service for much of the year. This system requires periodic overhaul about every four years to ensure steady, reliable performance. The budgeted cost is $500,000. Truck Overhaul The truck assembly serves as the suspension system for cars, along with supporting wheels and braking systems. The trucks should operate approximately 400,000 to 500,000 miles if no extra -ordinary wear occurs. At this point, bushings, bearing and wear plates will be in need of renewal. While this mileage represents an eight -year service cycle, in order to space the overhauls and to ensure equipment availability, we must begin the overhaul program before the maintenance cycle time. This practice also distributes the costs over a number of years. The budgeted cost for FY 95/96 is $480,000. Traction Motors Each locomotive has four traction motors. These are located underneath the unit and provide driving effort to the wheels. The motors should run about 400,000 miles without needing major work. This mileage represents eight service years in Metrolink operation, thus requiring four locomotive changeouts a year to ensure reliable locomotive performance over the long term (31 locomotives to be changed out over 8 years represents 3.75 per year). As described for the Truck Overhaul program above, this program is started in advance of the maintenance cycle time. For Fy 1995/96, the budgeted cost is $320,000. Door Operators Proper operation of doors on the cars is critical to providing a safe, efficient commuter rail service. The doors are in constant use and suffer a fair amount of abuse from passengers. These two factors drive the need for scheduled maintenance and overhaul of the door operating mechanism. The schedule calls for a four-year cycle for teardown and rebuild of these units. The budgeted cost for FY 95/96 is $150,000. Paving The storage yard at Taylor Yard is now surfaced with track ballast (stone). This surface is not conducive to easy movement of tools or material used by workers to perform maintenance work. Paving of the yard at a cost of $60,000 will allow this area to be used as a maintenance area. 3-34 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1996/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET CAPITAL MAINTENANCE SUMMARY moos) CATEGORY PROPOSED EXPENDITURE LACMTA OCTA ROW/SIGNAL MECHANICAL TOTAL EXPENDITURES 54,504.6 51,510.0 56,014.6 51,474.5 5969.5 52,444.0 - $2,36 517 FUNDING SOURCE 52, SANBAG RCTC VCTC 2.4 6.5 5353.3 $195.8 5222.0 586.0 592.5 582.2 B.9 5549.1 5308.0 5174.6 FY 94/95 LOCAL CARRYOVER (MECH) LOCAL TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 5800.0 55,214.6 5513.7 $1,930.4 593.5 52,445.4 5103.7 5445.3 545.6 5262.4 543.5 5131.1 56,014.6 52,444.0 3-35 52,538.9 5549.1 5308.0 $17 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1996!96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET PROPOSED CAPITAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES ($000s) IIMOStilA2 LINE SEGMENT/PROJECT PROPOSED EXPENDITURE LACMTA OCTA SANBAG RCTC VCTC ROW/SIGNAL OPERATING LINES $4,224.6 $1,194.5 $2,362.4 $353.3 $222.0 $92.5 LA - SAN BERNARDINO (1) $50.0 $29.6 $0.0 $20.4 $0.0 $0.0 LA - LANCASTER $425.0 $425.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 FULLERTON - SAN DIEGO COUNTY LINE $1,650.0 $0.0 $1,650.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 OLIVE SUBDIVISION $250.0 _ $250.0 RIVER CORRIDOR (2) $1,849.6 $739.8 $462.4 $332.9 $222.0 $92.5 NON - OPERATING LINES $280.0 $280.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 SIERRA MADRE - CLAREMONT $280.0 $280.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 TOTAL ROW/SIGNAL $4,504.6 $1,474.5 $2,362.4 $353.3 $222.0 $92.5 MEQUANicALin HVAC TRUCK OVERHAUL TRACT MOTORS DOOR OPERATOR PAVING IN STORAGE AREA $500.0 $480.0 $320.0 $150.0 $60.0 $321.0 $308.2 $205.5 $96.3 $38.5 $58.5 $56.1 $37.4 $17.5 $7.0 $64.8 $62.2 $41.5 $19.4 $7.8 $28.5 $27.3 $18.2 $8.5 $3.4 $27.2 $26.1 $17.4 $8.2 s3.3 TOTAL MECHANICAL $1,510.0 F $969.5 $176.5 $195.8 $86.0 $82.2 TOTAL CAPITAL MAINTENANCE $6,014.6 $2,444.0 $2,538.9 $549.11 $308.0 $174.6 (1) SPLIT IS BY TRACK MILE (59.29% LACMTA AND 40.71% SANBAG). (2) SPLIT IS ORIGINAL ALL SHARE (40% LACMTA, 25% OCTA, 18% SANBAG, 12% RCTC, AND 5% VCTC). (3) SPLITS ARE THE FY 95/96 TRAIN MILE ALLOCATION (64.207% LACMTA, 11.690% OCTA, 12.966% SANBAG, 5.896% RCTC, AND 5.441% VCTC). 3-36 SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995196 PROPOSED PREUMHINARY BUDGET CAPITAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES (5000.) 11/40,4 J PROGRAM/DESCRIPTION ROW/SIGNAL n. • ,+ - -, REPLACE FAILED WOOD TIES FULLERTONSANTA ANA Fullerlor►SDCoL UNE SEGMENT 0781 (TURNOUTS) PROGRAM� '" REPLACE 2 NO. 20 TURNOUTS AT BURBANK JCT AND PARTS OF 2 OTHERS REPLACE 2 WORN TURNOUTS AND 1 CROSSING AT EAST BANK JCT (1) REPLACE WORN COMPONENTS OF PASADENA JCT DOUBLE SUP SWITCHES (1) 9RJDGE PROGRAWI REPLACE FAILED OPEN DECK AT PACOIMA CREEK WITH�M BALLAST DECK AND IMPROVE SEISMIC DESIGN INSTALL CMP LINER IN FAILING CONCRETE ARCH MP 186.7 IN IRVINE. CROSSING PROGRAM ROAD CROSSING REHAB - BONITA AND SAN DIMAS EROSION PROTECTION - i' - ` . '. -•- INSTALL 4 FT HIGH z 8 FT WIDE ROCK BERM BETWEEN MP 203.8 AND MP 207.1. SIGNAL PROGRAM REPLACE DC TRACK CIRCUITS WITH ELECTRO CODE TRACK CIRCUITS ON THE OLIVE SUBDMSION INSTALL ELECTRO-CODE ELECTRONIC CODED TRACK ON BOTH MAIN TRACKS FROM PASADENA JCT TO NINTH ST. TO REPLACE RELAY STYLE CODED TRACK (1) REPLACE CODE LINE BETWEEN PASADENA JCT AND NINTH ST. WITH ATCS DATA RADIO (1) REPLACE ALL -RELAY INTERLOCKING AT NINTH ST. WITH MICROPROCESSOR INTERLOCKING (1) MOVE PASADENA JCT TO CP FULTON FROM SAFETRAN WORK STATIONS TO DIGICON WORK STATION (2) TOTAL ROW/SIGNAL LA-Lar:met River Corridor River Corridor LA-Lerreeeler Fullerton-SDCo4 5125.0 Puss Sub- LA Co Futon-SDCoL Oliva Sub River Corridor River Corridor River Corridor LA-Sen Bar LACMTA OCTA RCTC VCTC 51,350.0 £300.0 5210.0 5100.0 5100.0 5300.0 584.0 540.0 5125.0 5280.0 $280,0 5200.0 ;1,831:6' 584!53 5250.0 5575.0 5214.6 5750.0 550.0 5230.0 585.8 5300.0 529.6 51,350.0 552.5 525.0 OD 5100.0 3 $200.0 537.8 518.0 5250.0 5143.8 553.7 5187.5 525.2 512.0 510.E 55.0 IMO 5103.5 569.0 528.8 $38.6 525.8 510.7 5135.0 590.0 $37.5 520.4 $4,504.6 (1) SPLIT IS ORIGINAL AU. SHARE (40% LACMTA. 25% OCTA, 18% SANBAG, 12% RCTC, AND 5% VCTC). (2) SPLIT IS BY TRACK MILE (5929% LACMTA AND 40.71% SANBAG). 3-37 $1.474.5 52,362.4 $353.3 $222.01 592.8 b..UTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995196 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY (Excludes Anaheim Canyon) . ��. �..:>:..: h ..>, d -:; F .�.;;;• TOTAL v� 519G------ , ," . LA MTA' � � ;,>DCTA. " ,SCI RE-:=>�:>>: ,.> , .. .T, ►� �. RCT.Cx:F» > .S <. MARE;'`;;!; 5 N A 9AC# ��SHARE-:=- •A C .VCT SHARE:�>>< LINE ALLOCATED SUBSIDY SAN BERNARDINO LINE 2,627.5 1,705.7 921.8 VENTURA COUNTY LINE 2,207.3 1,452.1 755.2 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE 3,017.6 3,017.6 RIVERSIDE LINE (UP) 2,809 .4 1,703.8 646.1 459.5 ORANGE COUNTY LINE (697.5) (186.5) (510.9) SAN BERN/RIVERSIDE - IRVINE 408 .1 196.1 172.5 39 .5 AMBASSADORS 480.3 234.7' 83.2 50.7 71.4 40.3 SUBTOTAL LINE ALLOCATED SUBSIDY 10,852.8 7,927.4 (231.6) 869 .4 1,492.2 795 .5 COMMON COSTS (POINT -IN -TIME) " 19,398.5 10,370.6 3,466.5 1,543 .4 2,446.7 1,571.4 TOTAL OPERATIONS SUBSIDY 30,251.3 18,298.0 3,234.8 2,412.8 3,938.8 2,366.9 MOW - NET SUBSIDY 10,310.1 6,222.9 2,346.6 152 .3 1,271.8 316.5 TOTAL COUNTY ALLOCATION 40,561.4 24,520.9 5,581.4 2,565.1 5,210.6 2,683.4 COSTS FUNDED BY SIR (1,200.0) (641 .5) (214.4) x(95.5) (151.4) (97.2) COUNTY ALLOCATION - METROLINK 39,361. 4 23,879.4 5,367.0 2,489.6 5,059.3 2,586.2 FY 94/95 BUDGET ALLOCATION 38,611.0 25,299.1 4,806 .4 1,684.5 4,701.9 2,119.1 INCREASE/(DECREASE) 750.4 (1,419.7) 560 .6 785.1 357.4 467.1 PERCENT INCREASE 2% (6% ) 12% 47 % 8% 22% Current year formula & definition of common costs, updated for 95/98 service assumptions (including 10/2 start of SB - Irvine service) . FYOS9EIBUDGET\BUDG ET 1.XLS-Allocals 4119195 5:28 PM CALCULATION OF 1995-96 POINT-IN-T1ME FORMULA #1 (Existing) 18 -Apr -95 1/6 Route miles + 1/6 Stations + 1/6 Riders (exd LAUS) + 12 Base Train Miles c sc ra196shaab2 03:42 PM SS/Riverside-Irvine service starting 102195, no Tustin or Anaheim Canyon station SB/Riv-Irvine ridership of 4/18195 LA Orange Riverside San B. Ventura Unduplicated Route miles San Bemardino Line Ventura Line Santa Clarita Line Riverside Line Orange County Line San B/Riv-Irvine Ventura Line Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) TOTAL Unduplicated Stations (3) San Bemardino Line Ventura Line Santa Clarita Line Riverside Line Orange County Line San B/Riv-Irvine Ventura Line Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) TOTAL Projected AM Boardings/Alightings (4) San Bemardino Line Ventura Line Santa Clarita Line Riverside Line Orange County Line San B/Riv-Irvine Ventura Line Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) TOTAL .ti Base Train Miles San Bemardino Line Ventura Line Santa Clarita Line Riverside Line Orange County Line San B/Riv-Irvine Ventura Line Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) TOTAL FY 1995-96 Point -in -Time San Bemardino Line Ventura Line Santa Clarita Line Riverside Line Orange County Line San B/Riv-Oceanside Ventura Line Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) FY 1995-96 Point -In -Time FY 1994-95 Point -in -Time Current All Share Original All Share 33.60 26.10 27.80 33.92 20.20 41.80 183.42 53.2% 6.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.96 3.00 20.96 48.4% 42.49 16.61 59.10 17.1% 5.88 1.46 7.33 16.9% 13.74 18.68 32.41 9.4% 1.63 1.88 3.50 8.1% 22.70 9.35 4.28 36.32 10.5% 6.00 1.13 0.38 7.50 17.3% 14.20 19.30 33.50 9.7% 2.00 2.00 4.00 9.2% 1558 977 1180 616 39 38 875 5284 45.9% 1812 388 2200 19.1% 682 439 1120 9.7% 1552 363 32 1947 16.9% 856 94 950 8.3% TOTAL 56.30 40.30 27.80 57.00 62.69 39.56 19.30 41.80 344.75 100.0% 12.00 6.00 3.00 5.75 7.83 3.71 2.00 3.00 43.29 100.0% 3110 1833 1180 1661 1851 859 132 875 11502 100.0% 68,544 66,504 96,875 72,624 32,283 57,222 394,052 57.7% 11.2136% 9.0898% 11.3061% 9.0079% 4.1526% 0.0551% 8.6358% 53.4608% 55.927% 40.298% 40% 101,133 21,734 122,867 18.0% 14.3504% 3.5193% 27,540 19,123 46,663 6.8% 4.2952% 3.6611% 17.8697% 7.9563% 18.405% 4.617% 26.248% 13.356% 25% 12% 46,308 19,584 4,378 70,270 10.3% 9.0491% 2.8454% 0.7182% 12.6126% 14.100% 15.927% 18% 28,968 19,686 48,654 7.1% 4.8192% 3.2814% 8.1006% 6.951% 4.172% 5% NOTE: Station and patronage amounts exclude LAUS. (1) Assumes service beyond Moorpark is in SCRRA Budget for 12 months of fiscal year. (2) Assumes service beyond Santa Clarita is in SCRRA Budget for 12 months. No Palmdale station. (3) Stations serving more than one line are split equally between each line. New stations included in proportion to months of service provided. (4) Projected by Booz.Allen 4/94 and split among counties per ambassador counts for 2/94 adjusted for new station openings. Split for Orange County Line based an adjusted 1402. Incorporates ridership projections developed by RS and TAC on 3/14195 and 4/18/95. SB/Riv-Irvine service ridership uses Schierrneyer estimates. 114,852 95,472 96,875 119,748 133,416 45,235 19,686 57,222 682,506 100.0% 20.2626% 13.9089% 11.3061% 16.1485% 18.5030% 7.8985% 3.3365% 8.6358% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100% AGENDA ITEM #8C DATE: TO: FROM: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 3, 1995 Budget and Finance Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Deputy Project Manager Tom Horkan, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment #3 to Contract RO-9324 with Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Inc. RCTC entered into Agreement RO-9324 with DMJM on December 15, 1992, for engineering and environmental services for a Riverside Metrolink Station. Amendment #1 to this contract was approved by the Commission on January 11, 1995, to change the location of the Station to property owned by RCC near La Sierra Avenue and provide for preliminary engineering and environmental studies. Amendment #2 to this contract was approved by the Commission on February 8, 1995, to provide for final design and construction drawings for the La Sierra site location. The reason for two separate Amendments was to ease the processing of reimbursement request for the Congestion ManagementlAir Quality (CMAQ) funds. Staff has directed DMJM to prepare the proposed Amendment #3 to the Agreement to provide for: Item Cost 1 Changes to the design necessary to be compatible with RCC's future development needs. $19,200.00 2 Additional information to the City of Riverside to comply with CUP/DRB requirements. $7,200.00 3 Added construction support services to assist in bid evaluation and address construction related questions. $4,800.00 Total $31,200.00 F:\US ERSIPREPR I NTWIAY.951DMJM. W H Page 2 Funds were included in the Measure A Fiscal Year 1994-1995 budget for project development services for the Mid -Point Riverside Metrolink Station. Costs for this Amendment will be reimbursed from Congestion Management Air Quality funds for the project. A copy of the terms and conditions of Amendment #3, along with the scope, schedule and cost of this amendment will be provided for the Commision agenda. The total value of this Amendment will be $ 31,200 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the attached Amendment #3 to contract RO-9324 for the performance of design changes, to assist the Commission in complying with the City of Riverside CUP/DRB requirements; and, add construction support services including bid evaluation for an amount of $31 ,200. :jw FAU SE R SIPR EPR I NTIMAY.950MJM. W H