Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 7, 1995 Budget & Financei_34 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE (COMMISSIONERS RUSS BEIRICH, BOB BUSTER, KAY CENICEROS, SYBIL JAFFY) WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 1995 12:0D NOON' RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. 4, ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. 5.. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS. 5A. Investment Policies. Overview This is a follow-up to a Commission action to develop a more definite Investment Policy Statements and Guidelines for RCTC. 5B. Mission and Goal Statements/Draft 95-96 Budget. Overview The proposed Mission and Goal Statement and Draft FY 1995-96 Budget is presented. A public hearing on the budget is scheduled at RCTC's June 14th meeting. 5C. Recurring Contracts. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the attached Schedule of Recurring Contracts/Contributions and authorize the Executive Director to execute contracts as needed subject to legal counsel review. *New Time Page 2 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda June 7, 1995 5D. Quarterly Financial and Cost anr1 Schedule Reports_ Overview Attached are Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (Unaudited) and the Highway and rail projects quarterly budget report for the Quarter Funding March 31, 1995, Also attached is the cost and schedule status of the Measure A contracts. The contracts are segregated by Measure A Plan category and includes highway, rail and other plans and programs. The cost information includes Commission authorized funds to date, contractual commitments to date, current monthly expenditures, and total expenditures to date. The cost and schedule reports ar through the month ending April 30, 1995, prepared by Bechtel Civil, Inc. This item is for receive and file. 6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. 6A. CVAG Request for Funding Advance for Highway 111 Project/Cathedral City. Overview This item is a request from CVAG for advancing funds for both phases of a Route 1 1 1 Highway Improvement Project/Cathedral City. 6B. Authorization to Use .Savings Anticipated on the Sunrise Way/East Palm Canyon Drive project in Palm Springs to Accelerate Two Other Route 111 Projects in Palm Springs and Indian Wells. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Approve the acceleration and funding of the design of the Route 111/Gene Autry Trail project and construction of the Route 111/Cook Street project as described above. The recommended FY 95-96 funding for these projects is $50,000 and $220,000 respectively and is shown in the proposed budget; and, 2) Direct Staff to move forward with Cooperative Agreements with the City of Palm Springs and with the City of Indian Wells for the projects described above. 7. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/PARK-N-RIDE/BICYCLE. 7A. Allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds. Overview All public transit operators were contacted to solicit a list of projects that could be funded with State Transit Assistanc-e funds. We received responses -from the City of Corona, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency totaling $1,493,000 in requested capital projects. Page 3 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda June 7, 1995 7B. FY 1996 ,Short Range Transit Plan. Overview The FY 1996 Short Range Transit Plans for the eight county operators are presented for the Commission's review and approval. Staff has reviewed the plans of the operators for compliance with the unmet transit needs responses, reasonableness of estimated cost and ridership increases, compliance with fare revenue to operating cost ratio requirements, and justification for capital projects. 7C. FY 1996 Allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit Funds. Overview Staff is requesting the Commission allocate a total of $189,055 in Western County Measure A Specialized Transit Funds in FY 1996 to fund transit projects provided by Care -A -Van Transit System, Retired, Senior Volunteer Program, and the Volunteer Center. 7D. Senior & Disabled Citizens Coalition --Additional Allocation of Western County Measure A Specialized Transit Funds for FY 1995. Overview The Senior & Disabled Citizens Coalition administers the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP). This service has been well received by the public, so much so that the funding for FY 1995 has been completely allocated. Staff recommends an additional allocation of $12,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in the Western County, preventing a lapse in mileage reimbursement funding to seniors and persons with disabilities in the Western Riverside County. 7E. Twenty-five Percent Discretionary Transportation Demand Management Funds Project Proposal. Overview Twenty-five percent of the state transportation demand management funds apportioned to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region must be allocated to projects beyond the defined "core" rideshare services. While equity distribution of these funds is not guaranteed, Riverside County's share is estimated at $199,500 t . Staff seeks Commission authorization to develop and submit a destination based rideshare demonstration project to support the October opening of the Riverside to Orange County Metrolink line. If a balance remains from Riverside County's equity share estimate, staff further recommends that the Commission support SCAG's proposal for the development of a traveler information system. Page 4 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda June 7, 1995 7F. FY 1995/.95 Measure A Commuter Buspool Subsidy Requests. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Consider the adoption of a policy establishing a minimum buspool ridership level that would need to be maintained in order for buspools to qualify for funding under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy; 2) Approve the requests for funding under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy ($25 per seat per month) totalling $1,175 per month per buspool for the period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996 for the Riverside to Anaheim, Riverside to Santa Ana, and Riverside to Fullerton buspools; 3) Approve the buspool subsidy to provide funding for the start-up of up to four new buspools under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy ($25 per seat per month) totalling $1,175 per month per buspool for the new Riverside to El Segundo buspools beginning on June 1, 1995, or thereafter, and the two Riverside to Long Beach bus pools beginning within 30 days of documentation of paid ridership from its representatives. Funding for these proposed buspools is included in the Proposed FY 95/96 Budget, to be approved under a separate agenda item; and, 4) Direct the Executive Director to require the representatives of each buspool to submit monthly ridership documentation to the Commission throughout the funded year and semi-annual written status reports regarding the operation of their individual buspool in order to continue funding support under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy ($25 per seat per month) totalling $1,175 per month per buspool. 7G. Telecomrnutinq WorkCenter of Riverside County. Overview A cost/benefit analysis of the Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County is provided to the Commission along with a discussion of the demonstration program's history, funding to date and future expectations. Based on multiple factors, staff recommends that the Commission consider termination of the WorkCenter as a continuing demonstration project. 7H. Use of Fri/Is Building for Commission's Commuter Assistance Program Office. Overview Various changes relating to the provision of regional employer rideshare services and Commission funded commuter assistance programs will require changes in two existing office rental arrangements. Given the vacant status of the Commission owned Friis building, staff recommends that the Commission consider renting a portion of the building to house its own Commuter Assistance Program Office and related functions. 71. San Bernardino Associated Governments FY 95/96 Commuter Assistance Program Contract Amendment. Overview Under contract to the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), the Commission has managed and implemented a commuter incentive program, Option Rideshare, for the past two years. SANBAG and RCTC staff have developed a FY 95/96 budget for continuation of the program. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. 94-021 is recommend by staff. Page 5 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda June 7, 1995 8. COMMUTER RAIL. 8A. FY 1995-96 Metrolink Preliminary Budget. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt the SCRRA FY 1995/96 Budget and authorize RCTC's participating contribution to SCRRA in the amount of $3,734,250. 8B. Authorization to Advertise for Construction the Expansion of the Riverside -Downtown Commuter Rail Station Parking Lot Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize staff to advertise for receipt of construction bids the temporary expansion of the Riverside -Downtown parking lot. The funds will come from State Transit Capital Improvement grants and the estimated construction cost is $433,500. 8C. RCTC Participation in Colton Railroad Grade Crossing Engineering. Overview Santa Fe is soliciting RCTC to financially participate in a engineering design contract for a grade separation at Colton. The total cost is $285,000 and the requested participation is 25% or $72,500. 5. ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL ITEMS. 5E. Refunding of 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. Overview This item relates to approval of a resolution authorizing the refunding of the 1991 Sales Tax Revenue (Limited Tax) Bonds. 9. ADJOURNMENT. MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 95-05 MINUTES BUDGET/FINANCE COMMITTEE May .3, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee was called to order by Chairman Russell Beirich at 12:11 p.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside, California. Members Present Members Absent Russell Beirich Sybil Jaffy Bob Buster Kay Ceniceros 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. M/S/C to approve the minutes of the April 5, 1995 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. There were no public comments. 4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. There were no agenda additions/revisions. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS. 5A. Responses to Ernst & Young Management Letter. Budget/Finance Committee made no recommendation and referred this item on to the full Commission. 5B. Mission and Goal Statements/Draft 95-96 Budget. Dean Martin, Controller informed the Commission the staff recommendation is for review and will go to the full Commission at its June meeting. 5C. Investment Policies. Budget/Finance Committee made no recommendation. 5D. Allocation of Potential Losses Relatec1 to Orange County Investments. Councilman Phil Bostley, stated that CVAG's Executive Committee position, in general, is that the funds were never turned over to CVAG for operation and never had a say in how the funds were to be invested, nor able to influence the process. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how CVAG could be held responsible for any potential losses in investments. Page 2 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 1995 The Budget/Finance Committee determined not to make any recommendation on this item and it should be forwarded.to the full Commission for discussion. 5E. Revision to the City of Murrieta Loan Commitment. M/S/C 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 to revise the project scope as outlined on the proposal. 5F. Renewal of Professional Services Contract with Vindar Batoosingh of CB Commercial for Brokerage Services. M/S/C that the Commission approve extending the contract with Vindar Batoosingh of CB Commercial to continue through June 1996. 5G. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports, M/S/C to receive and file. 6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. 6A. Sufficiency of the Coachella Valley Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee to Match Measure A Funds for Regional Arterials. Information only. 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. 6B. Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Pro/ect Priorities. Information only. 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. 6C. Delayed Expenditure of 1993 Series Bonds Reserved for Coachella Valley Regional Arterials. Jack Reagan, Executive Director pointed out that the May 3rd memorandum included in the agenda packet identifies some problems that may result from expenditures for CVAG's regional arterials going beyond February 1996. He said that currently under the agreements that went along with the arbitrage regulations, at least 85% of the total funds borrowed, $136.9 million must be spent by February 1996. Dean Martin, Controller, informed the Commission that no more than. l /8 of a per cent over bond yield can be made. Jack Reagan said if funds remain unexpended after February 1996, it is possible that the tax exemption for the entire $136.9 million bond issue may be in jeopardy. The first option would be to divert on proceeds to other eligible Measure A projects. The next would be to rely solely on CVAG to accelerate the program. The last option is to request the voluntary cooperation of local governments to tradeout their unexpended Page 3 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 1995 Measure A local streets and roads program funds. Jack also said there is a matter of certainty expending funds by February of 1996. Through telephone conference, Travis Gibbs, RCTC Bond Counsel, informed the Committee that Jack Reagan's conclusion that there is a possibility of these bonds being declared taxable is a fair and accurate statement because of the following: When the bonds were issued, the Commission certified that it was their reasonable expectation that essentially all of the bond proceeds, 85%, of that money will be spent in three years. If the money is not expended near or about that time, there is a good possibility that the service could come in and suggest that the expectations to which the Commission certified to at issue were not reasonable and if they were to so successfully contend that the bonds could be declared taxable. Before the service's audit program was announced about six months ago, I could suggsest to you that the get caught factor was much smaller than it is now. I'm not saying - I'm not making any comment at all about the facts that existed when the bonds, I think we all believed, it was my belief that the money was going to be spent on schedule and therefore the Commission was eligible to earn arbitrage, that is what this is all about. If those expectations which I've spoken to were not reasonable three years ago then the Commission did not qualify to ever invest any of this money as above the cost of the yield on the bond and I cannot comment on the three options that Jack has mentioned because I'm really not familiar with them enough. Although I think any option that would spend the money quicker would be a good thing, of course, in order to avoid this risk. Commissioner Beirich asked about the factual situation if we end up spending 84% of the bond proceeds good faith efforts get you nowhere. Travis Gibbs responded no, it gets you everywhere frankly. Let me just restate so no one misunderstands. The rule is that reasonable expectation of the Commission at the time of closing, when the bonds are issued, has to be reasonable. The fact that the expectations are not born out, in and of itself is not - is of no consequence. The fact that you do not in fact spend 85% in three years really doesn't have an adverse effect. The question is, and in my experience that if it is 84%, I don't think this question would ever be raised but if you only spent half of the 85% for example I think a reasonable inquiry may then be as to well why did you think you were going to spend 85%, what has changed. And that is what I think is at issue here. Commissioner Beirich said what is in the staff report is the fact that some of the contributing factors are problems with meeting environmental laws and some problems with design approvals which can sometimes be through local governments. Does that kind of fit in to good faith efforts, doing the best you can. Travis Gibbs said it could in the abstract I can't say that it does, it depends on whether or not the environmental obstacles and other approvals were reasonably expected to not to cause any problems when we closed the bonds. Commissioner Jaffy said you talked about earned arbitrage on $140 million approximately $135, $140 million bond issue. What is the differential between the normal expected earned figure on that amount for the Commission and the earned arbitrage figure because of the current investment pattern we are involved in. Travis Gibbs responded I'm not sure I understand the question, are you asking me what are they currently earning. Page 4 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 1995 Commissioner Jaffy then said no, I'm asking you how much more we are making on that hnnd issue because we have entered into this kind of an arbitrage program. Travis Gibbs responded I don't know, Dean would be more informed to answer that question. 1 understood Jack and Dean's comments earlier in this discussion that they are currently earning a rate on the investment of that money that exceeds the bond yield and technically you are not allowed to do that if your expectations at closing were other than you were going to spend essentially all of the money in three years. I don't know whether they are in the positive earning spread to date from closing or not. Dean Martin said the Commission is allowed to recapture whatever we have lost in terms of interest earnings without having to worry about rebate. And then when we hit the point where we are earning more than what we are allowed to earn as long as we do what are called yield reduction payments then we are fine and we will not jeopardize the tax exempt status of the bonds. Travis Gibbs said that is all correct though I would qualify what you said slightly Dean to say that the yield reduction payment process is not appropriate for you if you never qualified for the ability to earn arbitrage in the first place. That is a very technical distinction; that is if the three year expectation to spend notion was not properly met in closing. Dean then said but for the moment we are operating under the assumption. Travis Gibbs responded the only difference again, I apologize for this sort of a technicality of these rules but that's what they give us. But the distinction I would like to make is that you can't make yield reduction payments; rather you have to absolutely not earn more than an eighth of a point above the bond yield. Commissioner Jaffy said a spread can't be more than an eighth of a point, is that a fare statement. Travis said I think that is correct. Dean said we have entered into a GIC which we discussed prior to entering into it, in fact we discussed this issue and at least my understanding in discussing it is that as long as: 1) we were recapturing negative arbitrage or making up for money that we had lost and we made the yield reduction payments that we would not have a problem now I understand your technical point that we have to have qualified in the first place but at this point and time we do not believe that we did not qualify. Travis Gibbs responded that is correct and as long as ... the question of whether you have earned too much is a cumulative/aggregate look, as opposed to a point and time look. So if your positive earnings which may be more than one eighth of point currently taken together with any negative earnings, earnings less than the cost of this money in the past is any aggregate not more than the bond yield then you haven't crossed any lines. Phil Bostley informed the Committee that the assumption is that there will be a problem as of February 1996 and that he had spoken with Travis Gibbs by phone a week earlier. At that time, it was his understanding that it was not the cumulative aggregate that we were looking at, it was the bond yield on the date that either we assumed that Page 5 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Miriutes May 3, 1995 we have a reasonable expectation of not expending the funds or when the three year time limit expired. In other words we could not be in a positive arbitrage position from a yield standpoint at that time. But what you have just said as an adricate standpoint and I'm confused is that the case, which one of those two is the case. Travis Gibbs said the rules allow you to blend together for these purposes, investments which are subject to the same limitations. If you have investments that did not qualify for the ability to earn an arbritrage which is all driven by whether you have the requisite expectations regarding the expenditure of the money. All investments subject to this rule earn in arbitrage are blended together for these purposes on an aggregate basis. Now to put it in the context of your deal if we properly qualified for the ability to earn arbritrage for three years - again all driven by whether or not you have expectations closing during the three year period you are looking to see whether you have earned positive arbitrage over that three period and at the end of the three year period your ability to earn arbritrage expires in all and from that day forward you cannot earn positive arbritrage exept you can make yield reduction payments by earnign the arbritrage and paying the the interest on it to the federal government. Phil Bostley said if there is no positive arbitrage as of February 1996, the three year time limit is not a critical one, as you indicated the other day there really are some four and five year rules but the February 1996 is not a magic date so long as we have not got a positive arbritrage situation, is that correct. Travis Gibbs responded I think that's correct, yes. And that is because whether or not you cqualified for the ability to earn arbitrage up to the thire year or not, you didn't earn it and so the fact that you did qualify to earn it is of no consequence. Commissioner Beirich said if that is so, then once we past the three year date with zero or negative arbrirage does another time limit kick in after that point, like at the end of the fourth year or the end of to fifth year or do we just h ave to get through the three years. Travis Gibbs said there is a five year test that applies to all bonds which is an absolute test; it also is written in a manner where it is based on your expectations at the time the bonds are issued. Specifically if you did not reasonably expect to spend all of the money in three years, at least 85% of it by five years and there are certain minimum expenditure thresholds that you must expect to meet by the first and second and third year with 85% by the fifth year. If those expectations are not reasonble then the bonds are taxable. Commissioner Beirich said so if it is all spent by the end of five years or 85% or more is spent by the end of five years and there is a negative arbritrage at the end of three then this probablem all goes away. Travis Gibbs responded that apears to be essentially correct. Phil Bostley commented that is assuming we entered this in good faith. We will not be found to have entered this without the expectation. Once you assume that that is correct then what you just said is correct. Travis Gibbs said that's right. Page 6 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 1995 Commissioner Jaffy said would that not then make it rather prematre to be considering options based an a three year data when in acutaily what we have here is a five year window in order to either expend those funds or obligate those funds or obligate those funds with some partial expenditure. Travis Gibbs replied the question is directed at Dean. 1 think that is correct though. It is not a choice between spending the money and encumbering it, you do have to pay it to a third party bur otherwise I think you comment is correct. What you have to consider here is that after the third year in all events, it appears to me you have been losing in the aggregate up to now. After the third year, you have got to yield restrict or otherwise pay excess earnings over the cost of these funds to the federal government and very likely what happens in the circumstance is that you cannot when you have to yield restrict circumstances won't be that you can earn exactly up to the month rather very likely you can earn less. If you were to spend this money and do some sort of SWAP and delay the expenditure some other way and spend this moneyfaster, the Commission could perhaps could be ecomically better off because the other money which you have delayed from will not be subject to any sort of investment limitatoins. You can get rid of all these arbritrage rules all together. As a general rule in the practice, I think when you have two pots of money - one bond proceeds subject to all these arbrirage rules and other money - then the general rule of thumb from perspective is the bond proceeds first. Budget/Finance Committee made no recommendation and recommended revision to the original staff memorandum to document the advice of bond counsel. 6D. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between RCTC and Cathedral City for Funding and Joint Development of State Highway 111 Improvement_ M/S/C 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. 6E. Amendment to City of Corona's 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 Corona as submitted. 7. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/PARK-N-RIDE/BICYCLE. 7A. Measure A Specialized Transit RFP Evaluation Recommendations. MIS/C 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. Page 7 Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 1995 7B. Request from Family Services Association of Western Riverside County for Additional Allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit Funds for FY 1994-95. M/S/C not to approve 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. M/S/C assuming SCRRA analysis of item 2 above indicates a cost differential acceptable to RCTC, staff recommends approval of this package in concept. 8B. FY 1995-96 Metrolink Preliminary Budget. M/S/C to receive and file. 8C. Amendment No. 3 to Contract RO-9324 with Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall Inc. M/S/C to approve 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 $31,202. 9. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Budget/Finance Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. R pectfully submitted, v lh� Nat Kdp€nhaver Clerk of the Board :jw AGENDA ITEM #5A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller SUBJECT: Investment Policies At the last Commission meeting it was decided to have a more definitive investment policy and the Commission invited all the Commissioners, Phil Bostley, and the County Treasurer to participate in the next scheduled meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee for purposes of devising a written policy statement and policy guidelines. To assist the commissioners in accomplishing this task, staff has included both a suggested outline for any policy development as well as a drafted policy statement based on that outline. The commissioners may choose to use this as a guide to direct their efforts in drafting an investment policy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission draft policy statement and guidelines for use by staff and the Budget and Finance Committee in making investment decisions. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\INVSTMNT.DM 06/02/85. 11:22. $415 433 2185 CAB SECURITIES Qb002/006 Riverside County Transportation Commission Investment Policy 1. Introduction On 1995, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("the Commission") approved the Riverside County Transportation Commission Investment Policy. In addition to approving the Investment Policy, the Commission pursuant to the relevant sections of the State of California Government Code, specifically approved the following: • 1. The investment in repurchase. agreements under the authority of California Government Code, Section 53601; 2. A seven year investment program pursuant to California Government Code, Section 53601 and 3. The delegation of the Commission's investment authority to the Executive Director of the Commission pursuant to California Government Code, Section 53607. 1.1 Scope It is the intent of the Commission in establishing this investment policy to provide a formal set of parameters to assist the Commission and those responsible for ,Commission investment in the systematic and prudent investment of its funds. The further purpose of the Policy is to provide adequate control over the Commission's financial assets, investment strategies, operations and relationships. The Commission, a public agency is required to conduct its activities within parameters set forth by the State of California Government Code (Sections 53600, g ). The Policy provides direction to the Executive Director of the Commission and his/her delegates in performing the Commission's investment activities. Excluded from these guidelines are investments related to deferred compensation plans, retirement plan(s) and 401(K) plans. Trustee funds related to debt -financing programs are also excluded from ,this Policy. Investment activities related to such funds wi 1 be governed by terms of the respective indenture. However, no investment will be permitted under such an indenture, which would otherwise not have been permitted by the investment policy. 1 06/02/95 11:23 $415 433 2185 CAB SECURITIES Qb003/006 1.1.1. Objective The inve ent policies and practices of the Commission are based on state law and prudent money management. The primary objectives of the investment program are 1) preservation of investment capital, 2) liquidity sufficient to meet daily cash flow needs and 3) to maximize investment returns in a manner consistent with 1) and 2). 1.1.2. Delegation of Authority The Executive Director's authority for making investment decisions was delegated by the Commission on 1995, in keeping with California Government Code Section 53607. Statutory authority for the Executive Director's investment and safekeeping functions are found in Sections 53601 and 53635 el. La- of the State of California Government Code. Express authority for the Executive ]director's investment in reverse -repurchase agreements was granted as well. The Commission also delegated to the Executive Director of the Commission's staff, the authority to hire outside money managers and or investment advisors consistent with Commission policy. 1.1.3. Authorized Staff The Executive Director of the Commission's staff is authorized by the Commission to can -y out the day to day investment activities on behalf of the Commission and may from time to time delegate authority to the Controller of the Commission. 1.1.4. Authorized Broker Dealers , a• Banks and broker dealers who transact business must agree to a re to the Commission's Investment Policy. Additionally such institutions should be of good reputation, have adequate capital and should generally carry ratings at least equivalent to those of the Commission_ The Commission may establish a list of such broker dealers and banks from time to time which meet the qualifications set forth in the Investment Policy. 1.1.5. Diversification All Commission funds which are not required for immediate cash expenditures or reserve limits shall be invested in interest bearing accounts. In order to facilitate the Commission's primary objective of capital preservation, the Commission will diversify its investments in terms of investment instruments, maturities and the institutions where those investments are made. Investments will be made only in those investments authorized by the State of California Government Code. 2 06/02/95 11:23 $415 433 2185 CAB SECURITIES a004/008 The maturities of individual investments shall be diversified to meet the following two objectives: ■ No investment instrument will be purchased which matures more than five years from the date of purchase, unless the instrument is specifically or as part of an investment program approved by the Commission at least 3 months prior to the investment Noted exceptions are refunding issues and other legally excludable instruments ▪ The average weighted maturity of all externally managed Commission investments shall not exceed three years (1095 days), unless authorized by the Commission. To minimize the risk to the Commission's overall investment portfolio from the default by a single institution in which Commission funds are on deposit or invested, the following policies shall be observed: ■ Commission funds shall only be deposited in a financial institution meeting the Commission's requirements for.safety and reliability and whose performance, as evaluated by a reputable independent rating service, is satisfactory ("A" or better). Exceptions are deposits of $100,000 or less that are federally insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Any uninsured deposits in excess of $100,000 in any one institution shall be collateralized. These same standards apply to institutions in which securities owned by the Commission. are held in safekeeping. Exceptions to these principles may be made on an individual basis with the approval of the Budget and Finance Committee. All exceptions shall be reported to the Commission at the next meeting following the Budget and Finance Committee's action. 1.1.6. Daily Accountability and Control Except for emergencies, Commission investment decisions are to be made by the Executive Director of the Commission staff at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Each investment must be documented and filed with the Controller. 1.1.7. Competitive Pricing Whenever possible or practical, Commission investments are to be purchased on a competitive basis from at least two bidders. All investments are to be purchased at current market value. 3 06/02/95 11:24 '$415 433 2185 CAB SECURITIES e005/006 1.1.8. Restrictions on Purchase or Securities 1) Authority to enter into derivative type transactions has not been delegated to the Executive Director, and must be approved by the Budget and Finance Committee on a case by case basis. 2) investments in mutual funds whose net asset values can fluctuate art: prohibited. 3) Investments purchased at a discount must yield par value by maturity on a daily basis. ss. 4) Investment leverage, i.e., through reverse repurchase ag_r'e 'i ntts is prohibited. 5) The amount or percentage maximum is set forth for various investments in Appendix A. 1.1.9. Maturity Limitations No investment instrument will be purchased which matures more than five years from the date of purchase, unless said instrument is specifically part of an investment program approveiRiy the Commission at least 3 months prior to the investment. Exceptions are pre - refunded issues and other legally excludable instruments. A. Maturity limitations for some instruments less than five years are detailed in Appendix 1.2.0. Trading of Securities Investment securities may be sold prior to maturity either at a profit or less when economic circumstances, trend in short-term interest rates, or a deterioration in the credit- worthiness or the issuer warrants a sale of the securities to either enhance overall portfolio yield or to minimize further erosion and loss of investment principal. In measuring a profit or loss, the sale proceeds shall be compared to the original book value of the security plus cumulative interest earned from the date of purchase to the date of sale. However, the sale of securities at a loss can only be made after fizz securing the approval of the Executive Director of the Commission and the concurrence of the Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee. 1.2.1. Records and Reports The Executive Director is responsible for ensuring compliance with all local, state and federal laws governing the reporting of investments made with public funds. At a minimum, a monthly report must be made to the Commission (pursuant to California Code Section 53607) which includes statements of current investments and a report on how closely the investment policy is being followed. 1.2.2. Indemnification of Treasury Employees The Executive Director and other Commission staff exercising his/her authority with due diligence and prudence, and in accordance with the COMMiSSiOD'S Investment Policy, shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk Or market price fluctuations, provided that deviations from expected performance are reported to the Commission in a timely manner and appropriate actions are undertaken to control adverse developments. 4 APPEK X A Riverside County Tr ansp ortatio n Commission, J une 1995 AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS DIVERSIFICATION PUR CHASE RESTRICTIONS MATURITY CREDIT QUALITY (S&P/MOODY'S) U.S. Treasury notes, bill, bonds, or other certificates of 4 ebtedness 85% or $850mm max Max 3 years - r NA Notes, participations, or obligations issued by the agencies of the Federal Govemmea t fI 15% or $I50mm max Max 3 years NA Bo nds, no tes, warrants or certificates of indebtedness issued by the State 2-% max or $200mrn Max 5 years La A+ or Al or better Bankers Acceptances amoun t ICO largest banks by size of deposits 33% max Max $30mm in any o ne iss uer 180 days S/T ratings A+ or Al or better Comme rcial paper of U.S. Corp with total asse ts exceeding $500mm 15% plus additional 10% Max $20mm in any one issuer Max 90 days if weighted average less than 32 days SIT ratings A-1 or P-1 LIT ratings A+ or Al or b etter State of Califomia Lo cal Agency Investment Fund - 0% max Max 3 years NA . Negotiable CD 'a issued by Natio nal or State charte red banks or a licensed branch of a foreign ban k 0% max LIT ratings - A11+ or Al or better Fully collateralized time deposits 2% max See Schedule 4 Max 1 year Repurchase agreemen ts with collateral re stricted to U. S. Treas., Agencies, Agen cy Mortgages, BA 's 10% max Repu rchase agreements to be on file. Max 7 days Reverse R epu rchase Agreements on U.S. Treasury & Fed Agen cy Securities in portfolio NA Not Permitted NA , i, Corporate no tes on U.S. t.orp Max $10mm m any one issuer Max 2 years LIT AA or Aa2 or better 10% or $100mm max -A sset Backed securities on U.S. Corp 0% max Not authorized -_, -- Money Market mutual funds that in vest in eligible secu rities meeting requ irements of Calif. Government Code and A ssets u nder management of $500mm 5% or $50mm max Funds 5 yra old or more No NAV adjustmen ts No front/e nd loads Immediate liquidity LT ratings Aa or Aa2 or better SOW CCP STS$ saIZI2Ia s SVD 4„___05/30/95 16:18 0415 433 2185 CAB SECURITIES R1003/006 Jntroduct INVESTMENT POLICY OUTLINE Includes, date filed and or approved by Commission, or date of investment policy - adherence to California Investment Codes 53600 zar. and other introductory comments. Scare Delineates what the investment policy is intended to cover, and what is excluded. Example: This policy establishes a formal set of guidelines to assist the Commission and staff in the systematic investment of funds and other related investment activities. Etlusions could include: 1) Any Commission deferred compensation programs, 401K plans or other retirement plans 2) Trustee Funds related to debt -financing programs 3) Other Purpose or Obl ective State purpose of investment policy, i.e., preservation of capital, liquidity, diversification, return etc., and state in order of importance to the Commission. Express intent to adhere to applicable slate laws and local ordinances. Delegation of Authority The desig-natW staff/person(s) authority for making investment decisions was delegated by the Commission on , in keeping with California Government Code Section 53607. Statutory authority for the designated staff/person(s) investment and safekeeping functions are found in Sections 53601 and 53635 et. mil& of the Government Code. Express authority for the desigmated staff/persons investments in reverse -repurchase agreements was granted date . Delegation by the Commission to staff or designated persons the ability to hire outside investment or money managers consistent with Commission policy. Authorized Staff Delineates Authorized staff, Designated persons(s) who have authority to make daily investment decisions on behalf of the Commission and sets parameters for what decisions such person(s) can make and which decisions would have to go back to the Commission for approval. 1 05/30/85 16:18 13'415 433 2185 CAB SECURITIES 1004/006 v Authorized Broketpealers 1) Create list of authorized brokers/dealers and banks as an appendix to the investment policy or; 2) Spell out qualifications (including ratings where appropriate) necessary to transact investment related business with the Commission. Diversification 1) This section may spell out limits on investment with one investment firm/investment manager, bank or investment type as amount or as percentage of all monies invested by the Commission. 2) Limits as to investments through pooled funds including the County of Riverside pool. Daily Accountability and Control Describes location where investment decisions are to be made, the process of daily documentaton and recording of such transactions. Competitive Pricing - May delineate circumstances where competitive pricing is required. - Investment transactions must be made at current market value. Res rictions on Purchase of Securities 1) List investments which may not be purchased i.e., - certain derivative products ▪ mutual fund products whose values fluctuate daily 2) Limit certain investments to a dollar amount or percentage of portfolio Maturity Lirnitatious States maximum maturity of investments including exceptions or varying maximum rnaturities for different types of investments. See Appendix/I as an example. trading .0 Securities States circumstances where securities may be sold prior to maturity at a profit or loss i.e., due to trend in short term interest rates - — _ ~ deterioration in credit w Pss of issuer - enhance portfolio yield ▪ prevent further erosion or loss of principal 2 OS/30/95 16:18 $415 433 2185 CAB SECURITIES W1005/006 Profit or Loss Describes how profits and losses are to be booked - i.e., book value of securities or market value of securities. Records and Reports Describes who is responsible for ensuring compliance with all local, state and federal laws governing the reporting of .investments made with public funds - at minimum, a monthly report must be made to the Commission (pursuant to California Code Section 53607) which includes statutes of. current investments and a report on how closely the investment policy is being followed. Indemnification of Staff Designated staff or person(s) exercising his/her authority with due diligence and prudence and in accordance with the investment policy, may be indemnified by the Commission and relieved of personnel responsibility as delineated in this section. w 3 APPEF-1X A 0 0 0 0 lP SECURITIES '$ `415 433 2185 co e a OIn o. AMON Et PAT U. S. 'treasury mates. Sills. tend: or other certificates of indebted ness Notel, particlpatioas,' or. obligations issued by the agencies of the Federal Goverment Ran ds, notes, warrants or certificates or indabted nese iss ued by the stare or local agencies or C ounty or Riverside sanksra Acceptances among 1CO largest banks by s ize of depo sits commercial p aper of U.S. Corp with tots: as sets excee ding $500 nun 1 State of California [.o ral Agency Inv estment lfssid Hegotiable,i CD 's issued by natio nal cc state c!artesed banks or a licen sed branch of a fo reign bank Fu lly collateralized time depos Lts R epurchase agreements with collateral restr ic ted to U. 9. Tr ea s., Agencies, Agen cy Mortgages, a1' s n ovae's Poputch aaa Agreements on v. S. Tr easury a Fed. Age ncy securities' in portfolio corporate mo tes en U. s. C orp Asset Backed s ecuritie s on U.S. carp. M oney M arke t mu tu al rands that inve st in eligible se curities meeting, requirements of Ca lif. Government Cede and Ass ets enter management of $500 mm DIVCASIF;Ch1rOl1 OS% or . $$501mt max 151 or S150ms Ma E 201 sax or 5200 331 toms 151 plu s additional 101 01 max 01 max 21 nets 101 man twe e schedu le J 10 4 or $100e rs max O% max SI. ar 450MM maN 1 ?WORSE RESlUC1IOIS e xception authorized fo r County' s Teeter mot es ma x 930tmuin • a ny one iss uer Max 520 ors in R ay one is suer Se e schedul e 4 Repu rcha se egreeniento to be on filo . For temporary cash flow needs only. M ax 5loimn in any _one Issuer N ot authorized Fttnd 5 yr s old or mer e Ho HM V adjus tmen ts No front/en d ,loads I1MUW1 Ha s. 3 yea rs Nax 3 ye ars Nan 7 y ears 100 d ay s Ham 99 taye if weightec ave. L eas than 32 days CRE7rrQUA-111'•ISiivion r`5] Nq Nfl 1✓T better S/T ratings L/T ratinge better S/T ratings L/T rati ng s better A+ nr AL or A-1 L'-1 Af ox AL or A-1 or P-1 A+ or AL or 1 Max 9 y ears Nam 1 year Man 7 d ays Ma x 120 days ma x 2 y ear s 1 stmedi a t e liquidity NA 1,/ T rati ngs better Ad or AL or L/T N1 or/tat or bett er 1✓T r ati ngs or bett er 11A or P.a2 1 11 AGENDA ITEM #5B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed 1995/96 Budget Staff is pleased to present to the Budget and Finance Committee the Proposed 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. A public hearing is scheduled for June 14, 1995. By law the Commission's budget should be adopted by June 15, 1995. A condensed summary of the major budget items can be found on pages one through six of the Proposed 1995/96 Budget. The significant changes to the Draft Budget reviewed by the Committee on May 3, 1995 is an increase in the regional arterial budget from $27,497,840 to $37,345,649, the addition of $3,000,000 for soundwall mitigation along Route 91, and $100,000 to fund a study of the air quality effects of peak HOV lanes versus full time HOV lanes. Commercial paper proceeds have been increased from $14,000,000 to $17,000,000 to fund the Route 91 soundwalls. Interest expense has also been adjusted for the additional commercial paper STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the Proposed 1995/96 Budget. :jw Attachment F:\USERS\PREPRINT\APR.95\AUDIT.DM STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES -General, Measure A, SAFE, and FSP BUDGET VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS March 31, 1995 Sales Tax Revenues: Included in sales tax revenues is the annual TDA allocation for planning and administration, and for commuter rail. Actual Measure A sales tax receipts to date have increased 6.8'. DMV User Fees DMV user fees have only been received through the month of January. The State has historically been two months behind in remitting DMV user fees. Interest Income Interest income from the County is posted quarterly in arrears. Second quarter interest earnings will not be totally posted by the County until May. The Commission's interest earnings on its guaranteed investment contract as well as higher than expected earnings on the County pool has resulted in much higher interest earnings than originally estimated by staff. Reimbursements SB300 reimbursements of $3.4 million will occur in late spring as we near completion on current construction projects. CVAG had not yet been billed for the TUMF half of the debt service for approximately $2.9 million. EX$END1 [ RES Office Lease This category shows slightly over budget because the Commission had paid its lease through April 1995. Local Distributions WRCOG has received the entire allotment for Western County LTF planning funds. CVAG has not yet submitted their claim for Coachella Valley LTF planning funds. Call Box O➢errtions Significantly uder budget through March due to late billings from SANBAG and California Highway Patrol. Staff expects that by year end we will be fairly close to budget. Elat w g Right of Way Acquisition) Timing on a number ❑r projects including right of way acquisitions has slipped. A number of these expenditures will now occur in the first half of fiscal year 1995/96. Commuter Assistance Currently includes disbursements for the SANBAG commuter incentive programs. At year end those disbursements will be recorded as receivables from SANBAG and not as expenditures. BUDGE S. ACTUAL OF T HE RI VERSIDE COU NTY TRANSPO RTATIO N COMMISSION For Nine Months Ending March 31, 1995 R EVENUES Remaining Percent Actual Budget Balance Utilization Sales tax Allocations 42,405,749 53,505,991 $11,100,242 79% DMV User Fees 565,300 1,000,000 $434,700 57% Interest income 3,320,782 2,969,294 (351,488) 112% Reimbursements 1,757,550 8,360,07Q 6,602,520 21% O ther income 406,308 1,664,937 1,258,629 24% TOTAL RE VE NUES 48,455,689 67,500,292 19,044,603 72% EX PENDITURES , Administration: Salaries an d benefits 1,070,101 1,489,744 419,643 72% Pro fessio nal services 500,619 879,890 379,271 57% Office lease 121,485 156,293 34,808 78% Legal serv ices 305,221 508,400 203,179 60% Other ex pen ses 198,173 443,457 245,284 45% Commissioners Per Diem 17,400 33,000 15,600 53% TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 2,212,999 3,510,784 1,297,785 63% Programs: Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) 375,804 638,855 263,051 59% Call Bo x Maintenance 179,384 297,800 118;416 60% Call BoiIn staliation 0 61,500 61,500 0% Call Box Operation 99,521 282,780 183,259 35% Measure A Management 922,062 1,350,000 427,938 68% Right of Way A cquisition 231,023 2,440,000 2,208,977 9% Highway. 14,181,139 25,541,745 11,360,606 56% Local street and roads 13,900,176 18,819,748 4,919,572 74% Regional arterials 3,245,773 19,214,690 15,968,917 17% Park N Ride 33,503 52,300 18,797 64% Commu ter assistance 782,446 910,915 128,469 86% Commuter rail 4,238,968 8,195,018 3,956,050 52% Special tran sp.transit 2,117,174 2,860,327 743,153 74% TO TA L PROGRAMS 40,306,973 80,665,678 40,358,705 50% Local D istribu tion s 269,850 377,790 107,940 71% Capital Outlay , 73,921 135,000 61,079 55% TOTAL EXPENDITUR ES 42,863,743 84,689,252 _ 41,825,509 51% REVENUES OVER (U NDER ) EXPEN DIT UR ES 5,591,946 (17,188,960) (22,780,906) -33% OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Debt Proceeds 15,000,000 20,500,000 5,500,000 73% Operating transfers in (out) (16,941,203) (24,355,186) (7,413,983) 70% O THER FINANCING SOURCES(U SES) AND REVENUES O VER(UNDER) EX PENDITURE 3,650,743 (21,044,146) FUN D BA LANCE -July 1, 1994 136,259,887 137,518,004 1,258,117 FU ND BALAN CE -March 31, 1995 5139,910,630 $116,473,858 (23,436;772) ft COMBI NED STATEMENT OF REVE NI .IES A Nt) EXPENDITURES AND ('II AN GES IN FUND BALANCES OF THE RIVERSI DE COUNTY TRA NSP ORTATI ON COMMISSION For the Quarter E ndi ng March 31, 1995 OTHER FINANCING SOUR CES (USES) Debt Proceeds O peratin g transfers in (out) 15,000,000 (11,640,041) (5,301,162) 15,000,000 OTHER FIN ANCIN G SO10ES(USES) (16,941,203) AND REVENUES O VER(UNDER) EXPENDITURE 1,291,736 174,356 1,001,711 2,327,595 (145,466) (1,055,926) 56,737 3,650,742 FUND BALANCE -July 1, 1994 2,485 349 14,665, 294 28,539,849 3,432,773 19,940,812 65,023,268 FUND BALANCE -Ma rch 31, 1995 .,172,542 136,259,887 $3,777,085 814,839,650 529,541,560 85,760, 368 519,795,346 $63,967 42 _ � 52,229,279 5139,910,629 139,910,629 DRAFT Weste rn E aster n West Cty West Cty Co achella REVEN UES C onst SAFE / FSP Total General County Co unty Comm Paper Co nst Combining Sales tax alloc ations 4,857,699 DMV User Fees 26.792.518 10,755,532 Interest income 542,405,749 Reimbu rsements 485,57857,232 272,649 598626 565,300 8565,300 262,42552,937 195,968 2,097,604 45,766 , 1,009,325 222 83,320,782 O ther 131,235 33,066 81,757,550 TOTAL REVENUES 5,308,591 27,583,812 11,354157 1,062,262 242,007 5406,308 , EXPEND ITURES 196,190 2,097,604 853,073 548,455,689 Admin istratio n: Salaries and benefits 697,452 306,491 Measure A management 922,062 66,158 51,070,101 Pro fessional services 462,185 S922,062 Office lease Legal services 114,196 38,434 5500,619 O ther expenses 195,274 97,812 7,289 5121,485 186,042 12,136 5305,221 Commissioners Per Diem _ 16,356 _ 12,131 8198,173 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 1,671,505 1,326,365 0 1,044 317,400 Programs: 0 0 0 137,192 53,135,061 Freeway Service Pa tro l (FSP) Call Box Maintenance Call Box In stallation 375,804 5375,804 Call Box O peration 179,384 5179,384 80 Right of Way A cquisition 99,521 599,521 Highway Engineering 221,331 9 ,692 Highway Construction f+' 30,793 392,504 1,296,496 7,806 5231,023 47,806 $1,767,599 Lo cal street and ro ads 12,216,841 196,700 Regio nal arterials 10,060,040 3,840,136 512 413,540 169,148 513,900,176 Perk -N -Ride 33,503 3,076,625 33,245,773 Commuter Assistance Co mmuter rail 780,446 2,000 533,503 1,975,221 2,099,384 5782,446 Special tramp /tran sit 1.077,174 144,956 19,407 $4,238,968 TOTAL PRO GRAMS 1,040,000 Local D istributions 2, 006,014 14,443,051 5,051,284 13,734,667 $2 117,174 269,850 341,656 3,153,531 654,709 539,384,912 Capital Outlay 69,486 3269,850 TO TAL EXPENDITURES 4,016,855 15, 769,415 5051284 13,734,667 4,435 373 ,921 ,, REV EN UES O VER (UN DER) EXPEN DITURES 1,291,736 11,814,396 6,302,873 341,656 3,153,531 796,335 542,863,744 [12,672,405) (145,466) (1,055,926) 56,737 35 ,591 ,945 Proposed Budget Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1996 Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by - Finance and Accounting Riverside County Transportation Commission Proposed Budget 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: PROPOSED BUDGET FY 1995-1996 Budget Highlights Page 1 Administration and Personnel 1 Revenue 3 Sales Tax Revenues 3 State and Federal Funding 5 Other Revenue Sources 5 Management Services 7 Administration 7 Intergovernmental Programs 7 Finance and Accounting 7 Measure A Programs 8 Commuter Rail Development and Implementation 8 Highway Project Development and Implementation 8 Other Measure A Programs 12 Special Transportation Programs 12 Local and Regional Programs 13 Non Measure A Programs 14 Transportation Planning and Programming 14 Commuter Rail Operations and Support 15 Motorist Assistance 17 Property Management 17 Section 2: MISSION AND GOAL STATEMENTS Management Services 20 Measure A Programs 27 Non Measure A Programs 38 Section 3: PROGRAM BUDGET 47 Section 4: PROPOSED BUDGET BY LINE ITEM 62 Section 5: BUDGET BY FUND 65 General Fund Special Revenue Funds 67 69 Capital Projects Funds 71 71 Section 6: APPENDIX 73 Section 1: Proposed Budget FY 1995-1996 Fiscal year 1995/96 will be 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 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 only significant changes being the addition of several interchange improvement projects and soundwall mitigation efforts. 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 financial capacity for funding those projects. Budget Highlights Commuter rail project implementation This category includes construction, 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 were met in prior year's budgets. The Commission has 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 Measure A Highway development will be focused on completing existing commitments on interchanges and Route 111. Reflecting the Commission's actions in late 1994, $900,000 has been budgeted for design of the Van Buren Interchange (Phase I and II), $1,352,000, for preliminary engineering and final design for the Galena interchange, and $450,000 for final design of 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 $6,000,000. Nonetheless, a $10,000,000 expenditure on Route 79 will complete the construction of Lambs Canyon, $3,000,000 will fund construction of soundwalls along Route 91, 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 progress being made in 94/95. This is anticipated to continue in fiscal year 95/96. Local jurisdictions are projected to receive $19,911,294 million for local streets and road repair, maintenance and construction. Commuter mil 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 from $1,500,000 to $2,580,000. 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. 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 nineteen, with no projected increases for 95/96. 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 Proposed Budget reflects the Commission's commitment to expending available resources for project delivery and not for administration. Management services Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget 1 consisting of executive and office administration, intergovernmental coordination and legislative monitoring and advocacy, end finance and accounting, amounts to less than 2% of the total budget (exclusive of debt costs). This means 98% of ar'anable dollars are expended on projects. Total amount budgeted for overhead including administrative salaries and benefits is $1,394,577 Additional consultant expenditures for Administrative functions total $661,OOO. All administrative costs are budgeted at $2,055,577, or 2.16% of total expenditures (exclusive of debt costs and contingencies). 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. 1. Administration As a per cpn ve d revenues f.1993 a 1994 •1995(est) 01996(rst) r'ERSONNEL EXPEFDrTURES NY TYPE siolikvienzio 5534. A" s tN2 CIS* $110.534 (%rq 360.$173,018 (11.740 T37 p 31i !BMA ew.rowi1 hmrses IN Heath Mental MI M. in OW Cow Personnel salaries and benefits are projected at slightly above the level of the 94/95 fiscal year. An increase in salary has been partially offset by a decline in the costs for employee health insurance. (Note_ Salary and benefit recommendations have not yet 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. 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget Revenues Total revenues are projected to increase by 11.7% from the 94/95 revised budget. The $8.1 million increase occurs in several revenue categories. Sales tax revenues finally break the 850 million dollar mark by $2,879,642, an increase of 5.8% from 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 Califomia economies. Non Measure A sales tax revenues (i.e., Transportation Development Act (TDA) sales tax) increase $ 1,890,000. This increase is for additional transit Funding Sources 1 7.675.676 (56.711) $5,747,000 (5.111) 517,000.000 (15.011) 55,'74666 pars) 57,544,760 (5.011) $7,777,500 (5211) (klaM.a r Mu.ym.0 p.v.r vreea.�y 5� DIA 57 tai Moore Silo Tr 57 Sir Tec- me D111Yc4nanfs 6A Oho ON Men allocations for rail operations. Reimbursements represent monies expected from the State of Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for project implementation. Unlike prior years the 95/96 reimbursements are for rail rather than highway projects. Although the funds flow through Caltrans, they are principally federal funds from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) allotment of the Intermodal 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 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, the Commission expects sale tax revenues to begin an upward climb. Commission staff estimates 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget 3 The Table below demonstrates the allocation of the sales tax revenues by program and area. Administration Highway Rail Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Western County Total *2,049,877 Regional Arterial $5,466,340 Local *4,783,047 $705,985 Special Transp. Transit $1,366,585 $13,980,873 $5,849,738 $14,422,262 $1,802,782 $2,101,145 $16,030,750 $5,849,738 *5,466,340 *19,911,294 $1,802,782 $1,366,585 Total $13,665,849 $705,985 Sales Tax Revenue Projections Safes tax revenue projections have been updated by the Commission approximately every two years. The Commission uses an econometric model designed by an accounting firm to perform its projections. Financial advisors in 1993 reviewed and updated the last econometric model projection completed in 1992. The 1993 projections paint a more conservative growth scenario than the 1992 forecast. Actual results through 1994 closely parallel the 1993 projections. The model projects an increase of eight percent (8%) compared with staff's budgetary estimate of six percent (6%). Based on sales tax results received through March 1995, the Commission may well break the $50,000,000 mark in the 94/95 fiscal year. If so, the sales tax growth estimate will approximate three percent l3%t. The Figure below graphically depicts the relationship of sales tax projections to actual or budgeted amounts. $36,055,655 $52,528,634 ales Tax Revenue Projections Camarillo' bAt>Srl 1001 1982 1093 1084 1905 1998 1897 1899 1990 2000 Your I Aelualklidgat m ante* w„ 4 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget State and Federal Funding Discussion of state and federal funding does not paint a rosy picture. Both the federal and state governments are intent on balancing budgets and eliminating 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. This 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 Proposed Budget has been a postponement of Route 74 right of way protective 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 CMAQ/TSM 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 Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) funds in the amount of 82,888,482, its share of debt service on the 1993 series A bonds. The Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program is primarily funded with state allocations in the amount of S588,378 to continue this program. 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 state and federal grants of $450,000 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 throughout the County. The Commission has assisted several jurisdictions with acceleration of their local programs by providing loans or advances. Those loans will generate interest income of $582,858 for the Commission in fiscal year 95/96. Most of those earnings will accrue to the highway program. Another new source of federal funding, other than CMAQ, for the Commission will be Surface Transportation Program funds in the amount of $295,000. These monies will be used to fund a commuter assistance rideshare program. Fund Balance The Commission projects its ending fund balance at June 30, 1996 to be $75,019,240. The change from the prior year is attributable to spending the remaining bond proceeds from the 1993 Series A bonds. Fund balance will consist of the following: Coachella Valley Highway Regional Arterial Transit Total Coachella Valley Westem County Highways/Commuter Rail Loans Receivable Transit Total Western County Reserved for Debt Service State Transit Assistance Motorist Assistance Designated for Contingencies Undesignated and unreserved $3,711,847 22,893,622 518 080 $27,123,549 604,659 8,488,136 3,777, 397 12,870,192 23,827,487 2,691,749 2,108,126 3,538,770 2 759 367 Total Fund Balances, 6/30/96 574,919240 Acknowledgements This document is a prime example of what -Commission staff is able to accomplish with its characteristic team effort and spirit. The cover may attribute this document to Finance and Accounting, however, it could not have been accomplished Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget 5 without the input and support of the entire staff.Though all of staff is to be commended for their colloborative effort, a special thanks must be expressed to Kep Kieffer aril Louie Martin of Bechtel, and Debbie Amaya and Donna Polmounter of the Commission's accounting staff. Their dedicated efforts both in time and energy to improve and complete this document are self evident. Finally, the supportive guidance ofthe Executive Director and the Board of Commissioners was invaluable to the successful completion of this document W. Dean Martin, Controller 6 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget 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 Act (TDA), 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 and office administration, daily office functions which includes: commission and staff secretarial support, agenda preparation and meeting minutes, special events coordination, 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 are 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. Personnel and fringe benefits costs of $299,573 include the Executive Director, the Clerk of the Board, and an allocated amount of clerical support. Other costs include an overhead allocation of $86,447 and legal costs of $85,000 for general counsel. Community relations and public information shows an increase in budget. In prior years, public information activities have been centered around the publishing of an annual report in local newspapers and distribution of reprints of the newspaper upon request. Additional activities are to be targeted in the new fiscal year. Greater emphasis will be placed on interagency outreach. A senior staff analyst and the Clerk of the Board will jointly manage this effort. Intergovemmental 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. The Assistant Director of Intergovernmental Programs has the responsibility of working with the 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. Personnel salary and fringe benefits for the Assistant Director of Intergovernmental Programs, the Assistant Director of Planning and Programming, and staff analysts amounts to *140,351. Other costs for the intergovernmental programs includes allocated overhead of $46,650 and a consultant contract for 846,000. 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 $205,149. 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 Commission 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 perforimproject consultant audits and a contingency of 840,000 if additional audit services are required. Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget 7 Debt At June 30, 1996 the Commission will have $211,054,081 in outstanding sales tax revenue bonds. During the year $11,175,040 in principal payments will be retired along with $12,648,023 in interest payments. A total of $52,500,000 should be outstanding in commercial paper notes. It is estimated that the interest cost and investment banking fees on the commercial paper will amount to $2,977,012. 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. The Figure below shows the Commission's historical performance and the expected ratio for fiscal year 95/96. MEASURE A PROGRAMS COMMUTER 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 line for environmental 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 will be managing the construction of two commuter rail stations. Both the La Siena 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 is estimated to cost a total of $3,65:',000, with $3,107,040 budgeted for the 95/96 fiscal year. West Corona is estimated to cost $2,420,500, with $1,870,500 earmarked for 95/96. The remaining amounts are scheduled to be 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 an a reimbursement basis. Other rail expenditures totalling $991,000 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 IMPLEMENTATION 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 Federal Transportation Funding Both state and federal departments of transportation are in the midst of significant restructuring. On the state side, Cattrans 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 8 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget 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 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 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 the coming year are 20% in transit and 30% for highways. The impact of restructuring and reductions in funding on Riverside County transit and highway programs may be: o 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 acquisitiions on Route 74 from the city of Perris to the City of Lake Elsinore will not be completed. Up to $10,000,000 was expected from the state for advance acquisition of properties needed for the interchange project. o 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 commuter 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 project 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. Commission will have to confront the decision on whether to maintain the 95/96 planned staffing level of program management personnel beyond 95/96, especially if funds for construction of the projects discussed below later becomes available. The 1995196 proposed budget shows a decrease of three percent (3%) in program management consulting services. There are several highway and rail capital projects underway that were begun in 1994195 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 program management services is $1,310,000. Engineering 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 $801,000 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. Engineering for Route 86 projects and the 60/91/215 interchange will be performed by Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget 9 Caltrans as STIP projects. The Commission will stay involved providing assistance with staff and program management support where possible and monitoring Caltrans for 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, 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 City 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 111 in the Coachella Valley and the Van Buren interchange in western Riverside County. These construction contracts, while funded by the Commission, will likely be managed by local agencies and Caltrans. The 1995/96 budget contains $2,581,000 for construction along Route 111 and $3,463,000 for right of way acquisition on various projects between Palm Springs and Indio. (See Table on page 11 for a complete listing of projects and budgeted amounts.) 10 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget COMMUTER RAIL OPERATIONS STATION MAINTENANCE BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 Riverside•County Transportation Commission Budget Landscape Maintenance Surface Maintenance Water Service Electric Service Garbage Service Waste Disposal Security Guards Graffiti Removal General Repairs Weed Abatement Subtotal Contingency (5%) Total RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN lq t)LEY STATION $12,000.00 $9,000.00 $1,800.00 $12,000 .00 $1,120 .00 $800.00 $60,000.00 $1,000.00 35,000.00 $2 000.00 $104,720.00 $5,236.00 $109,956.00 $15,000.00 39,000.00 $5,000 .00 38,000.00 $950 .00 3800.00 360,000.00 31,000 .00 35,000.00 $2 000 .00 3106,750.00 $5,337.50 $112.087.50 LA SIERR A $15,000 .00 $11,000.00 $5,000.00 $12,000.00 $1,120.00 $800 .00 $60,000.00 $1,500.00 $5,000 .00 $2,000.00 $113,420.00 $5 671 .00 $119,091.00 W. CO RONA $17,880.00 $11,000.00 35,000.00 $12,000.00 31,120.00 $800.00 360,000.00 $1,500 .00 $5,000.00 $2 000.00 $116,300 .00 $5,815.00 x,122 415.00 'I 'O '1' .'AL $59,880 .00 $40,000.00 $16,800.00 $44,000.00 34,310.00 $3,200 .00 $240,000.00 $5,000.00 320,000.00 $8,000.00 3441,190 .00 $22,059.50 $463.24930 Other Measure A Programs SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION 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, this 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 sixty-four percent (64%) to 81,496,605 (exclusive of overhead and personnel allocations and direct charges). Incentive Programs The Local Commuter Incentive Program has been a huge success, so much so 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 Commuter Incentive 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. Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County The Telecommuting WorkCenter will enter its fourth year of operation. A number of changes are being evaluated to increase use of the WorkCenter and its cost effectiveness. The budgeted expenditures of $132,700 including expansion costs will be partially offset by rental and lease revenues of $31,500. Several new employers were added in 94/95, and it is expected that if demand warrants, the WorkCenter will expand into existing reserved space in 95/96. To improve the utilization rate, different rental bases will be negotiated into all new leases and any renewals to encourage better employee use. Instead of charging a flat monthly fee, the fee is proposed to be based an the amount of time used by the employer, which provides incentive to have their employees teiecommute 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 been 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 promotional materials 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 Home Program which any employer could access. Further, while efforts have progressed to restructure CTS under the direction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), continued funding of CTS rideshare services by Caltrans is expected to be reduced. — Based on the level of reduced funding, the Commission may choose, along with other agencies, to fill the gap of any state funding limitation and/or provide services. directly within the County. 12 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget 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 !Budget Incentive Programs *403,795 Club Ride Commuter Exchange *174,960 Telecommuting Center *93,850 *132,700 Bicycle Commuter Coalition Buspools *145,000 *89,300 Special Projects *150,000 Employer Rideshare Program *295,000 Other Subtotal Allocated Personnel & Overhead Total *12,000 *1,496,605 *122,321 $1,618,926 Seniors and Persons with Disabilities The call for projects for special transit grants was recently completed. The actual budget amount is currently $1,400,000 exclusive of overhead allocations and personnel costs. $1,043,953 has been programmed for projects which will benefit seniors and persons with disabilities in the Western County. A listing of the 95/96 programs in included in the Appendix. Local and Regional Programs Local Streets and Roads 0 Westem County Estrrated Street 3 Road Aio=o1nn HEM TEMECULA RIS MURRIETA LAKE ELSINORE NORco BANNING SAN pACtNT O FAUNIONT CANYON LAKES CALIMESA ',; 0.3 hose Jurisdictions rah loan arrangements rlM RCTCwY scorn sn emounr ion thin lhvdn Dor no lanes of Ihi loan es idlen t:e. ■ S3.892284 e$3,561,585 ■ S ,703,51e ■ S1,531,155 • ▪ $310,154 a1$749,530 IN S445,837 ■ 5409,477 •$370,018 laS353,039 $329,337 a $2114,303 ■ $154,253 Si47,es1 eS142.074 The Commission serves as the funding and compliance review agency for the Measure A local streets and roads. The budgeted amount is set by formula established in ,the Measure A Transportation improvement Plan (TIP). 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. 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget 13 There are three cities in the Coachella Valley which do not participate in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee Program (TUMF). The Measure A allocations of those three cities, Coachella, La Quinta, 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 8610,483. 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 Proposed Budget. 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 Ebbrreltd $a iat & Road Aboron a� eLrne re wvesEEoarrry Regional Arterial The Coachella Valley Association of Govemments has been designated as the body to administer the Regional Arterial Program. Budgeted amount of *36,940,989 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. NON MEASURE A PROGRAMS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING 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 Program (CMP). The Commission provides staff support and consulting support for this responsibility. The proposed 1995/96 budget includes 830,000 for the services of a congestion management consulting firm. Several 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 14 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget planning including coordination of social service transportation issues. During the 1995196 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 (FTA) sources. Trails portaVon PT 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 Caitrans 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. Local Transportation 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 'rechnical 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. All Measure A sales tax have been used for capital acquisition and start up of service, leaving no funding for ongoing operations. TDA transit funding has been identified as the source of funding for commuter rail 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 1 684 daily passengers. Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget 15 JfRGTC PLANNING FUNDS FY 95/96 - [AGENCY PROJECT TYPEICATEGORY LTF-LOCAL LTF RCTC TOTAL LTF AIR QUALITY 1 RCTC AIR QUALITY 541,156 54:156 2 WRCOG AIR QUALITY 540,000 541000 3 RCTC SCAQMD PM10 TECHNICAL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM 520,000 320.000 TOTAL AIR QUALITY 560,000 541,156 5101,156 CONGESTION 1 NAC1m'PRoGRAi ,. :. :,. 4 WRCOG CLAP TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 550,000 530,000 5 RCTC CONG1SITONMANAGEMENT - -- J 548,583 540E3 CONGESTION MANAGME TT PROGRAM LOCAL PROGRAMMMG FUNDS (FEDERAL) 1FTA 550,000 51813 MSC 6 RCfC 7 RCTC CMAQ/STP 536,504 536,504 TOTAL FEDERAL PROGRAMMJNG SD 520,727 5577.31 520,727 557,731 8 WRCOG REGIONAL PLANNING SCAG PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 9 IRCTC 10 11 RCTC RCTC TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIESETEA] STIP/TIP SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 575,000 512,629 531.816 sso,sn 275,000 517629 511:'916 -580,517 12 WRCOG LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM 537,000 13 RCTC REGIONAL PLANS REVIEW TOTAL REGIONAL PLANNING SUI3-REGIONALFLAMM:I'M/PROGRAM 4fING AIR FORCE BASE CIRCULATION STUDY 5112,000 $6,497 516,258 5141,280 537;000 516,258 1153,280 15 WRCOG CAJALCO CORRIDOR STUDY 56,497 16 17 18 19 CVAG RCTC RCTC ROTC PROTECT 2020 RIV COUNTY OFF OF ED. GIS CONTRACT TOTAL SUB -REGIONAL PLANNING STATE PROGRAMMING TDA PROGRAMMING STA PROGRAMMING TOTAL STATE PROGRAMMING 5106.536 • 515,000 5128,033 50 516,448 $4,354 50 5106536 515,600 $1.21.033y 5] 6,448: 54,354 50 520,102 520,802 CONTIGENCY 20 RCTC SPECIAL STUDIES 135,339 335.339 �21;RCTC OTHER PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING FY 9596 TOTALS • Additional information to be obtained from CVAG. NOTE: Administrative funds not included DUPINGRP 5350,033 529,109+ 529.109 073$00 57234131 16 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget 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 rail stations. The operating budget for the four stations (two existing and two to be constructed) includes $240,000 for security, $103,880 for maintenance (landscaping, graffiti removal, vandalism), and $90.,370 for utilities and other services. Commuter rail is supported by a number of consultants and staffing resources. Those support costs budgeted are $75,000 for legal services, $34,017 for personnel salary and fringes, and $175,000 for rail consulting services. The table on page 16 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 when 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 fiat tires to providing a gallon of gas. To maintain this system the Commission expects to expend 5345,810 for operations, and another $343,971 for maintenance. The SAFE Program includes the development of an automated traffic count program. The budget includes $125,000 to support Phase I of this effort. This will assist in supporting RCTC CMP responsibilities. 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 approximate twenty percent (20%) of the total program expenditures, the remaining eighty percent (80%) is funded by the state. If the state fails to fund this program, it is unlikely that the Commission will continue 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 *550,000 to manage the project. This is a coordination effort involving San Bemardino Associated Governments and Caltrans local district office and the Caltrans Office of New Technology. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT With the acquisition of highway 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 been 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget 17 CO Riverside County Transportatio n Commiss ion Budget PROPOSED 95-96 BUDGET MEASURE A STATE HIGHWAY PR OGRAM PRO JECT HIGHWAY PROGRAM PHASE• WI:STERAI COUNTY PROJECTS ROUTE 79 ROUTE 91 • ROUTE 215 GALENA YUMA IC 4 SOUNDWALL AT SERFAS CLUB 5425,000 BO OM AFFECT (5ERFAS CLUB) 4 SOUNDWALLS M ARY TO MAGNOLIA 53,000,000 0 PRELIMIENVIR ON 5250,000 FINISH ENVIRON . DOC . 0 PRELIMIN ENGRIENVIRO N $552,000 GALE NA PR A ND ED PREPARATIO N 5800.000 GALEN A DESIG N W ORK 5450.000 FI NISH PROJECT DESI GN TOTAL PROPOSE D DESCRIPTION 95.96 NOTE 4 LAMBS CANYON $10,000,000 DESIGN AT V AN BU REN PH ASE 11 5900,000 VA N BURE N (PHASE 11) 4 VAN BUREN HOOK RAMP 5250,000 VAN B UREN (HOOK RAMP-PHASEi] DESIGN DESIGN COA CIHELLA VA LLEY IIROJEC TS ROUTE 111 ' TO TA L BUDGET 4 PALM SPRINGS SUNRISE WAY $380,000 CONSTRUCTION AWAR D BY JUNE 30, 1995 GENE A UTRY TRAIL $50,000 CATHEDRAL CITY DATE PA LM $442,000 4 9 DATE PALM $2,962 000 DATE PA LM 51,192,000 PALM DESERT 1 D EEP CAN YONIPORTO I A 5119,000 4 DEEP CANYON 5677,000 INDIAN WELLS 4 COOK STREET 5220,000 LA QUINTA 4 WASHIN GTON 5112,000 SIG NAL MODIFICATIO N 9 WA SHINGTO N $350,040 IND 1O 1 MONRO E TO RUBIDO UX 5190,000 CONTRACT AWARDED TO DELEUW GATHER 9 MONROE TO RUBIDOU X 5151.000 • PHASE 1 - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT , EN VIRONMEN TAL STUDY PH ASE 2 - FINAL D ESIGN PHASE 4- CONSTRU CTION PH ASE 9 - RIGH T OF WAY 523,472,000 Section 2: Mission & Goal Statements Management Services RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION Mission Statement Program Description fbntral the .cthtitles ofa rnt'time! surf complemented welds qtr so as to effectuate sound Pansportation por:4s and demery of gpiial proem= consistent with ssic** *maim. The prograrri for administration includes executive managements 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 procurements functional operation of Commission headquarters, agenda preparation, and human resources administration. All of the Commission's non accounting clerical support is included in this program area. Program Costs: Actuals 1994/95 1995/96 Throuah Revised Proposed Dollar Percentage 3/31/95 Budget Budget Changes Changes Staffing $215,341 $275,542 $299,573 $24,031 8.7% Operating Expenditures 51,445 80,312 86,447 6,135 7.6% Projects 0 0 0 0 0% Other Direct Cost 44 666 54 X45 105 000 20 655 24.5% Total $311,452 $440,199 $491,020 $50,821 11.5% Program Goals: 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 initiating 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. 21 Improve and maintain communications with other agents to heighten their awareness of the role of the Commission and its impact on those agencies and their constituents and endeavor to ensure that the goals and objectives of the Commission's program are acheived. Significant expenditure and staffing changes None Staffing Summary: .94 Executive Director . 03 Assistant Director . 20 Senior Staff Analyst 1.00 Clerk of the Board .67 Allocated support staff 2.84 Assigned Full Time Equivalent 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. 22 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS Mission Statement Program Description 7b Glnstrrr the auccasa oat* ar1rwaltradopted hglaiattw program and provide etlactirs communications wide rapresentsevis of Congress and th. General Assanibly, other #dkral, state end kcal agencies and organizations in an etlbrt to further the goals of th. Commission, inducing V mislay and congestion msrn.gornent 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. Actuals 1994!95 1995/96 Through Revised Proposed Dollar Percentage Program Costs: 3131195 Budget Budget Changes Changes Staffing $102,333 $140,020 $140,351 $331 0.2% Operating 28,655 44,733 46,650 1,917 4.3% Projects 0 0 0 0 0.0% Other Direct Costs 28,500 46,000 46,000 0 0.0% Total $159,488 $230,753 $233,001 $2,248 1.0% Program Goals: Protect current funding levels for transportation program including CTC STIP allocations, state ballot measures, TDA and TOP, and statellocal 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 STIP ROW purchases; to finance Congestion Management programs; to exempt projects delayed by unanticipated .SEIR from being reprogrammed in STIP process. Support increases in transportation revenues and funding sources which 23 enhance the County's ability to implement its transportafion plans. 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 regulatory processes. Significant expenditure and staffing changes None Staffing Summary: .05 Assistant Director - Planning 1.00 Assistant Director - Intergovernmental .12 Senior Staff Analysts .36 Allocated Support Staff 1.53 Full Time Equivalent Performance/Wod load indicators: Volume of Legislation Introduced. Number of Laws Enacted Favorable to Commission. Number of Laws Blocked Unfavorable to Commission. Number of Laws Passed Unfavorable to Commission. Number of Intergovernmental Meetings Attended. 24 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING Mission Statement Program Description Seek iiwcirg ailsaaU ss tat complamertt the Commission' strategic direction. Sam the Commisadorl'I assets by maintaining strong and prudent Esc*, controls in investing, a:counting budgeting and financial reporting including ongoing cisclosure to al interest patties, Finance and Accounting activities include investing the Commission's cash resources, planning financing endeavors and subsequent maintenance of legal and regulatory requirements with respect to inences. Fiscal accountability involves receiving all funds due the Commission and payment of all Commission obligations, general ledger accounting, regular reporting of the Commission fiscal results, and budget preparation and monitoring. Actuals 1994/95 1995/96 Through Revised Proposed Dollar Percentage Provram Costs: 3/31/95 Budget Budget Changes Changes Staffing $95,585 $128,053 $153,635 $25,582 20.0% Operating 27,389 42,757 51,514 8,757 20.5% Projects 0 0 0 0 0.0% Other Direct Costs 349,913 518,571 510,000 (8,571) (1.7%) Total $472,887 $689,381 $715,149 $25,768 3.7% Program Goals: 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 Commission's 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(SEe). 25 In addition to meeting SEC disclosure requirements, rating agencies and bankers to be regularly updated on the Commission, its strategic cLrection, and its capital and operating esults. Ensure the Commission complies with Measure A laws and regulations as they relate to annual fiscal and compliance audits as well as a close cooperation and coordination with independent auditors. Maintain budgetary control through regular monitoring of results and requiring accountability from departments for budget deviations. Significant expenditure and staffing changes None Staffing Summary: .89 Controller .40 Staff Analyst .39 Allocated Support Staff 1.68 Full Time Equivalent 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 Government Finance Officers Association. Submission of 95/96 Budget to GFOA for suggestions on presentation improvements. 26 Measure A Programs RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMUTER RAIL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION Mission Statement 7b oxp•db planning, design, and hnpllsm ntadan oicommuter rap Program Description: The Commuter Rail program includes development of short and long range transit plans; identification/pursuit 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 rail line improvements. Actuais 1994195 1995/96 Throuah Revised Proposed Dollar Percentage, Program Costs: 3/31/95 Budget Budget Changes, Changes Staffing $0 $23,672 $29,934 $6,262 26.5% Operating $ 5,331 8,322 11,497 3,175 38.1% Projects 390,771 5,700,818 9,529,964 3,829,146 67.2% Other Direct Costs 0 0 0 0 0% Total Program Goals: $396,102 $5,732,812 $9,571,395 $3,838,583 67.0% Complete trackage improvements through Santa Fe, and administer care 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 Jacinto 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. ' Based on preliminary conclusions arrived et during the Com,rrssron' May reheat this goal may be revised driimg the 9596 fiscal year. 28 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 57.7 million in total, but it is expected that 55.2 million gill be paid by the state. The budget will be revised if it becomes necessary for the Commission to advance furiElfunds for the entire amount). Station and other construction casts total $5,968,5o4 an increase o f t fly -one percenf(51%) over 1994/95 Revised Budget. The increase is primarily for construction of the La Sierra and West Corona mil stations. Staffing Summary: .29 Senior Staff Analyst .09 Allocated Support Staff .38 Full Time Equivalent Staff 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. 29 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HIGHWAY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Mission Statement Program Description To anus that ca an sound ands c sn*signedhi a manna rthat is �' p cost Advance preparation must be completed prior to acquisition of right of way and construction of major projects. Advance preparation includes environmental studies, preliminary engineering, and final design. Actuals 1994/95 1995/96 Through Revised Proposed Dollar Percentage Program Costs: 3/31/95 Budget Budget Changes Changes Staffing $126,788 $211,817 $204,687 $(7,130) (3.4%) Operating 201,918 315,214 315,277 63 0.0% Projects 2,696,583 3,947,390 5,313,000 1,365,610 34.6% Other Direct Costs 11,153 0 0 0 0.0% Total $3,036,442 $4,474,421 $5,832,964 $1,358,543 30.4% Program Goals: Continue to work towards completion of highway planning, environmental, and engineering studies to create shelf 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 program management consultant and Caltrans. Significant expenditure and staffing changes None 30 Staffing Summary: .56 Deputy Executive Director .37 Staff Analysts .28 Allocated Support Staff - RCTC 2.00 Allocated Support Staff - Bechtel 3.21 Full Time Equivalent Performance/Woridoad indicators: Number of contracts managed by program consultant. Resolution of scope and cost issues with Caltrans. Number of sheff ready projects completed or in process. 31 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HIGHWAY PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Mission Statement Tb keep the Commissional compact olth ihs voters otRiverside Courtly by septionging the piwining, programming and impiamantation poi:oh and programs Ih the Measure A Transportation hr;provsmsnt Man to the extent that funds ars avagabi... 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 es ramp metering. The Commission will continue protective acquisition of highway rights of way as funds permit Program Costs: Actuals 1994195 1995196 Through Revised Proposed Dollar Percentage 3131195 Budget Budget Changes Changes Staffing $59,723 $58,875 $61,817 $2,942 5.0% Operating 10,662 16,645 17,687 1,042 6.3% Projects 12,674,797 25,436,655 19,819,200 (5,617,455) (22.1%) Other Direct Costs 136 435 303 115 710A00 (93 116) -30.7% Total $12,881,617 $25,815,291 $20,108,704 $(5,706,587) (22.1%) Program Goals: 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 strengthen the partnership with Caltrans toward timely delivery of identified Measure A and SUP projects. To the extent permitted by law, pursue reasonable involvement of local fines and minority and women business enterprises in Measure contract work. Provide effective communication of project goals; objectives, and progress to The Commission board members, public, local agencies, Caltrans, and FHWA. 32 Significant expenditure and staffing changes Highway construction expenditures reflect the Commission's decision based on limited resources to complete projects on a pay as you go basis. The only budgeted construclon dollars in the Western County are for the completion of Lamb's Canyon(Route 79) , limited construction at the Van Buren interchange In the City of Riverside and soundwall mitigation along Route 91. Initial construction projects on Route 111 are planned far the Coachella Valley. Staffing Summary: .44 Deputy Executive Director .14 Allocated Support Staff .58 Full Time Equivalent Staff Performance/Workload indicators: Completion of construction on Route 79, Lamb's Canyon. Substantial progress on soundwall mitigation on Route 91. Completion of the Van Buren hook ramp. Start of construction projects along Route 111. 33 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION Mission Statement To enhance hnsporta bon options Ibr comma a.i*ra and parsons with dlaabilines through iinovetian o d communOly intoroction 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 an -ay of services to commuters and employers in a coordinated 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. Actuals 1994/95 1995196 Through Revised Proposed Dollar Percentage Program Costs: 3/31/95 Budget Budget Changes Changes Staffing $110,368 $153,515 $147,756 $(5,759) (3.8%) Operating Expenditures 35,852 55,969 57,926 (11,593) (20.7%) Projects 2,899,620 3,771,242 4,396,605 625,363 16.6% Other Direct Costs 19,500 36,862 25,000 (11,862) (32.2%) Total Program Goals: Commuter Assistance $3,065,340 $4,017,588 $4,627,287 $609,699 15.2% Continue management and assessment of the telecommuting demonstration program and its effectiveness as a transportation control measure. Reduce single occupant commute trips through rideshare incentive and educational programs that support all alternate modes of transportation including related facilityfiechnology improvements. Provide leadership/coordination to entities implementing rideshare programs in Riverside County. 34 Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Provide Measure A Specialized Transit Funds to support services which will increase nobility for seniors, persons with disabilities, and the truly needy. Continue to provide staff resources to assist in the coordination of transit services. Work with Caltrans and social service agenaes to develop a competitive program for Federal Transit Assistance (FTA) Section 16 program. Provide timely information to public and support public relations activities of Measure A. Significant expenditure and staffing changes None Staffing Summary: .04 Assistant Director - Planning 1.11 Senior Staff Analysts .31 Staff Analyst .45 Allocated Support Staff 1.91 Full Time Equivalent Performance/Workload indicators: Commuter Assistance Number of single occupant commute trips reduced. Number of Club Ride memberships and business discount partnerships. Utilization rate of the Telecommuting WorkCenter. Number of public/commuters served by Commuter Exchange. Seniors and Persons With Disabilities Number of specialized transportation grants. Establishment of Section 16 competitive program. Amount of specialized transportation grant funds disbursed for improved mobility. Completion of Fiscal Year 1996/97 Measure A Specialized Transit Call for Projects. 35 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS Mission Statement Promote Imo► government projects by thr*► Aindng end providing*dimmed funding under sstebAished criteria. Program Description The Riverside County Transportation Commission provides funding to locale and subregional agencies for maintenance and construction of local streets and roads 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 Costs Staffing Operating Projects Other Direct Costs Total Program Goals: Actuals 1994/95 1995/96 Through Revised Proposed Dollar Percentage 3/31/95 Budget Budget Changes Changes 0 0 17,145,950 $17,145,950 0 5,088 5,088 100.0% 0 1,769 1,769 100.0% 38,034,438 57,256,943 19,222,505 50.5% o n a 0 $38,034,438 $57,263,800 $19,229,362 50.6% Provide timely allocation of funds to local govemments 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. Assist local governments with financing streets and road projects with Measure A funding to the extent funding does not impact other programs and is financially feasible and pnjdenf. 36 Significant expenditure and staffing changes The Coachella Valley is accelerating its pace of project completion. Budgeted expenditures for regional arterial have increased 94.4% to $37,345,649 from the 94/95 level of S19,214,690. Staffing Summary: .03 Controller .02 Staff Analyst .02 Allocated Support Staff .07 Full Tme Equivalent Performance/Workload indicators: 100% signs on all Measure A local streets and roads projects. Complete internal audit of fifty percent of local jurisdictions. Coordinate with independent auditors to attempt to complete all audits by state mandated deadline. Percentage of projects completed by local jurisdictions as compared to 5 year plans. 37 Non Measure A Programs RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING Mission Statement To exert leadership A' pro *sound planning basis ibr policies and pogroms and to achieve maximum leveraged return of iodate) and stele re$ourm on local investment Program Desorption The Commission is responsible for short range transportation planning and programming. Planning includes the development of the county wide short range transit plan including coordination 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 funding programs/projects to be incorporated into the county wide Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The funding programs RCTC has responsibility for include: Measure A programs/projects, Local Transportation Funds (LTF), State Transit Assistance (STA), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Management and Air Qualify (CMA Q), Federal Congestion Relief (FCR), and Federal Transit Assistance (FTA Sections 9,16,16). Actuals 1994195 1995195 Through Revised Proposed Dollar Percentage Program Costs: 3/31/95 Budget Budget Changes Changes Staffing $182,345 $310,790 $305,132 $(5,658) (1.8%) Operating 77,236 120,573 121,600 1,027 0.9% Projects 1,655,850 1,803,929 1,573,500 (230,429) (12.8%) Other Direct Costs 64 387 124_387 55000 (69,387) -55.8% Total $1,979,818 $2,359,679 $2,055,232 $(304,447) 12.9% Program Goals: 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 entities 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 Southern California Association of Governments -and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 39 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 to 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 Caltrans, California Transportation Commission, and other commissions to provide maximum programming of projects in the ite Transportation Improvement Program. Work with Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), C VA G, and local agencies to implement the Traffic Impact Analysis process of the Congestion Management Program. Significant expenditure and staffing changes None Staffing Summary: .60 Assistant Director 1.09 Senior Staff Analysts 1.36 Staff Analysts .94 Allocated Support Staff 3.99 Full Time Equivalent Performance/Work/oad 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 funds. Complete Fiscal Year 1994-95 SB 821 Call for projects and claims administration. Compete in the Fiscal Year 1995-96 statewide call for TCI funds. Compliance with CMP traffic impact analysis requirements. Complete annual update of Countywide Short Range Transit Plans. Meeting air quality conformance requirements in coordination with transportation projects implementation. Process RTIP amendments on a monthly basis as measured by SCAG submittal forms. Completion of Fiscal Year 1996-97 State Transit Assistance CaII for projects. Monthly processing of all LTF claims. 40 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMUTER RAIL OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT Mission Statement Amide Riverside Court► comrrtuiw with an atWrativo to long work commutes by operathg a commuter rat lino Jokiffy with ihs SCRRA that is clh.n, s.ctn and convent Program Description The Commission provides funding and technical assistance (via staff participation in the SCRRA Technical Advisory Committee) for 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 entire rail program, including capital implementation is supported by Commission stag legal counsel, and various consultants. Program Costs Actuals 1994/95 1995196 Throuah Revised ro osed Dollar Percentage 3/31/95 Budget Budget Changes Changes Staffing $63,879 $40,345 $34,017 $(6,328) (15.7%) Operating Expenditures 7,997 12,484 11,939 (545) (4.4%) Projects 3,846,859 2,364,200 3,430,100 1,065,900 45.1% Other Direct Costs 75 031 114 578 755}{}0 (44 578) (37.3%) Total $3,993,766 $2,536,607 $3,551,056 $1,014,449 40.0% Program Goals: Cooperatively with the SCRRA maintain a commuter rail system which is clean, secure, and convenient. Expand ancillary services offered to commuters at the Commission'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 f felmpolitan Transportation Authority. — - - 41 Promote expanded ridership on existing and new lines. Closely work with SCRRA on devising a marketing strategy to improve the bi-directional lbw of commute► rail traffic from Los Angeles to Riverside County. Significant expenditure and staffing changes Wrth the opening of the Riverside to Irvine commuter rail line, the operating subsidy to the SCRRA has increased $1,080,000 for 1995/96. Staffing Summary: .11 Assistant Director .19 Senior Staff Analyst .09 Allocated Support Staff .39 Full Time Equivalent Staff Performance/Work/oad 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. 42 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MOTORIST ASSISTANCE Mission Statement 7b Improvo and convenience to motorists who exporiorm mochimicrl dilkuityon the y Program Description The Service Authority For Freeway Emergencies is the call box system that allows motorists to call for assistance in the event of a mechanical breakdown on the freeway. Additionally, the Freeway Service Patrol actually will help motorists off the freeway by towing, changing tires, providing gasoline. Actuals 1994/95 1995/96 Through Revised Proposed Dollar Percentage Program Costs: 3/31/95 Budget Budget Changes Changes Staffing $56,251 $62,721 $70,938 $8,217 13.1% Operating Expenditures 17,993 28,089 28,300 211 0.8% Projects 721,954 1,248,580 1,976,356 727,776 58.3% Other Direct Costs 66,818 149,929 92,232 (57,697) (38.5%) Total $863,016 $1,489,319 $2,167,826 $678,507 45.6% Program Goals: 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 ways to provide access to persons with disabilities. Significant expenditure and staffing changes No callbox installations are planned for Fiscal Year 1995196. „sAFe is providing support staff to complete a study of the Intelligent Transportation Syste►n(!TS) for the Inland Empire. The Commission is receiving state and federal grants to manage this study in the amount of $475,000. 43 Staffing Summary: .17 Assistant Director .54 Staff Analysts .22 Allocated Support Staff .93 Full Time Equivalent Performance/Workload indicators: No. of phone calls (85,000 estimated for 94,/95). No. of vehicle assists (18,000 estimated for 9495). Implementation of cost effective handicapped access system. Report on effectiveness of FSP Program. 44 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Mission Statement To menet. properties b a cost etlicidv+e mariner with ew eroness of polsntiel economic benefit to be *deed from the seta, !base, or development of CommlasiOn 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, andpvtentially converted to a revenue stream. Actuals 1994/95 . 1995196 Through Revised Proposed Dollar Percentage Program Casts: 3/31/95 Budget Budget Changes Changes Staffing $57,487 $84,389 $92,269 $7,880 9.3% Operating 27,322 42,653 45,324 2,671 6.3% Projects 8,079 130,000 130,000 0 0.0% Other Direct Costs 20 026 37 857 75 ono 37.143 98.1% Total $112,914 $294,899 $342,593 $47,694 16.2% Program Goals: 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 through 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 ar7d Maintain a working relationship ah affected railroads for ongoing rail property issues requiring their participation. 45 Significant expenditure and staffing changes None Staffing Summary: . 06 Executive Director .08 Controller 1.00 Property Technician . 35 Allocated Support Staff 1.49 Full Time Equivalent Staff PerformancWWorkload indicators: Number of SaleiIJoinf Development leads. Five percent increase in revenues. 46 Section 3: Program Budget REVENUES: Sales Tax Rwwstres- MS *L►I A Ssler Tax Rweivas-lien Measure STA Transit Allocation SAFE User Fees Reimbursements Other Revenue Interest Income TOTAL REVENUES: EXPENDITURES: MANAGEMENTSERV: 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 MEASUREA PROGRAM NON MEASURE A PROGRAMS Transportation Planning and Programming Commuter Heil Operations and Support Motorist Assistance Property Management TOTAL NON MEASUE A PROGRAMS Contingency Total Expenditures Excess(Dehciency)ofRevenues Over Expenditures Other Financing Sources(Uaes): Operating Transfers Comrnerrlel Paper Net Financing Sources(Uses) Excesa(Deficlency)ofRevenues Over Expenditures "tor Year Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance NOTE: Prior year smour►is have been restarted to conform to ..'M„548,0512 . 49,648,99 3 3,857,999. 3,857,000 714876 i,924/72 866300 1,000,000 Z575,720 8471,070 393,588 4,563,937 7.815:469 2.1;12-W5 48,470,704 69,483,717 6.528436 4747;8100 4,998,3448 1,000,000 7,737500 4883,418 1.5.712.1M5 77,54'3,856 2,479,64# 76,178 4 .'4:266,430 309,481 4,060,139 311,452 ": ' :..440,1 9 491,020 50,821 159,488 230,734 ,233;001 2247 472;887 469,331 7{5.149 2766 443,827 1,384334 1.439,171 76,837 3 102 5,732812 9,571,396 3836,583 3,036,442 4474420 4832,964 9,34644 12,851 617 25,815,291 20,108 704 (5706,687} 3065,340 4017,588 4627,287 609,899 ft./46.950 .3$ 034 439 557.28.1.600 19 229,38 30, 525451 78,074,,550 97,404,150 19;329,800 67.0% 30.411 15.27 244% 1,179,818 2,359 680 2,065 232 (0.d448) -1x974 3,.953,766 2,538,807 3,551,058 1,014,449 40-0% 883,018 1,489,318 2.167,826 878,508. 446% 113.914 29til 341593 16.2% 5945,514 6,680,504 8,116,707 1,436,203 24.4194 0 1,754000 1,750,000 0 0:090 44.418,792 4,051,912 §ti.115.388 100.980.027 20.644.639 24.2'.4 (18,401,671) 01,96t/71) (12.7845081) 99478: (18,319,59$) 04355,168) (76,1.75,731) (1,820,545] 7.5% 14000,000 ' 20.500.000 17.000 000 8 ; j7-1% (3,319592) (3,855,166) (9,175,731) (5,320,545) 1330% 732,320 (22,258,857) (40,341,902) (14085,045) 61,.37 137,518,0'04 137,518,004 1154261,147 ` (22755,657) -16.2% 138 230,324 115, 261,147 74 919, 246 (44341,902) -35.074 cumatt year presentation. 48 Psrsanm&.Saitry & Fring,: • &woo*, Director - Asslitarrt DI►,clar Senior Staff Analyst Clerk of Me Board Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits Overhead.Allocation Projects: 37138 Call Box -Maintenance 37137 Cali Box installation 37138 Call Box Operation Freeway Service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 Right-Of 43173 Specllairsd Transportation 43175 Commuter Assistance 43176 Commrtar all 43176 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Conv, wtarFtelf:Engineering 43183 Commuter Rall Construction 43184 Park-N=R/d. 48185 R.O.W. Support Highway Total Projects Other Direct Cost 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Counsel (Debt Financing) 43104 Financial Advisory Services 43158 Legislative Advocate 43186 Audit Services 43701 Legal Services Total Other Direct Coat 44, eee a6 Total Administration 311,452 NOTE: Prior yearamourrts have been restated to conform to currant. yearprissentetion. 11 873 Off := 22,472 113,6f7 •T.Ot9 4611 4❑S 12,976 12. 299,573 2403 86,44' 8135 7.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0. 0 0 64345 84,345 X1:99 20,000 20,000 100.0% 0 0 0 0 84000 655 RS% 10,000 20,655 24.5% 491,020 50,621 ft:8% 49 Axial: am Director ienntng Assistant DIrector-intargovwninantal : :: . : . . . Senior Staff Analyst Senior Stiff Analyst Overhead Allocat/on Projects: 37136 Call Boralalntenance .37137 Cali Box installation 37138 Call Box Operation Freeway Service Patrol 43021 Consultantsfalanagersent 43170 Highway. 43171 Right-Of.Wey 43173 Specllaized Transportation 43175 Commuter ASSiSill7C, 43176 Commuter Rall 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Conslrucflan 43181 CommuterRall Engineering 43183 Commuter Ralf Consttuctlon 43184 Park•N-Ride 48185 R.O.W. Support Highway . Total Projects 0 0 0 0 Other Direct Cost 43051 Professional Service -Other 0 0 43101 Bond Counsel (Debt Financing) 0 0 . . 43104 Financial:Advlsory Services 0 0 43158 Legislative Advocate 28,500 46,000.. 46,000 43166 Audit Services 0 0 43701 Legal Services 0 0 Total OtherDirect:Coat T18300 46,000 46,000 0 ao% Total Intergovernmental Programs 159,488 230,153 23S,0IJ7 ?4d T.A'1G NOTE: Prior year amounts have been restated to conform to cu►'trni year presentation. 50 Personnel Salary S Fringe: Controller. 3taffAnalyst Total Personnel Salary d Fringe Benplytr. 95,565 .: Overhead Allocation 37136 Call Box Maintenance 37137 Call Box Installation 0 37135 Call Box.O 0 p+ration 0 0 0:. t] Freeway Service Patrol 0 43021 Consultants/Management 0 43170 Highway 0 0 43171 Right -Of -Way 43473 S ecllaixed T 0 p 0 P rartaporti0'ort 43175 Commuter Assistance a 0 a 43176 Commuter Rai 0 0. 0 43175 Highway Engineering a 0 3 43179 Highway Construction 0 i7 43181 0 0 0 Cor murar Ralf E=ngineering 43183 Commuter Rell Constructio 0 0 0 43184 Park -N -Ride 0 0 0 48185 R.Q.W. Support Highway 0 0 O 0 0 n. 41,352 .: 3,846 3.1174 153,635 25,582 51,514 8, 757 Total Projects Other Direct Cost 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Counsel (Debt Financing) 43104 Financial Advisory Services 43158 Legislative Advocate 43166 Audit Services 43701 Legal Services Total OtherDlnect:Cok-t 0 0 18,373 60,000 44000 (20,000} • 35,557 50,000 • 50,000 0 p 80;332 . 115,000 134000 15000 110% 0 0 0 208,294 279,720 275,000 I4 720) -17% 7,327 11551 15,000 1.149 13% 349,913 518,571 514000 (8,571} 4.7% 72852 intergovernntsnral Distributions 0 0 0 11 Total Measure A Project Financing 472,887 L NOTE: Prior year antounrs have been restated to conform to current year presentation. 689,351 715149 25,768 3.7% 51 Personnel Salary & Fringe: Overhead Allocation Projects: 37136 Call Bax Alalntenance 37137 Call Fox Installation 37138 Call. Bo* Operation Freeway Service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 Right -01 Way 43173 SpeclJafred Transportation 43175 CorttrrniterAss/stance 43176 Commuter Ralf 43171 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Raii:Enginee►ing 43182 Professional Services-Corrrrnuter.RaFl ROW 43183 CommuterRall Construction • 43184 Park -N -Ride 48185 R.O.W. Support Highway Commuter Rall Capital Total Projects 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Counsel (Debt Financing) 43104 Financial Advisory:ServIces 43158 Legislative Advocate .•` 43166 Audit Services 43701 Legal Services 72852 intergovernmental Distributions 3,175 36.17 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O a 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 206,885 5.39,000 0 39,0o0J 68,886 1,215,000 0 (X,215,000) 115,000 2,096,818 5,968,500 3871682 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 1,850,000 3,581,464 1,711,464 1 e + 390, 771 5,700,818 9,'529,964 3,829,146 67' total CommuterRal! 39 - . - - 6;102 5.732,672. 8,571,355 3,838,583 6%046 NOTE: Prior ear wrtvunts have been restated to conform. 10 current r • . ._... tatlon. -loo. -fad 18•&6% 52 Deputy Executive 'Dir .': Senior St ffAnalyst Staff Analyst 11 Staff Analyst ! Commission Support Staff far Bechtel Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits Overhead Allocation 37136 Call Box Mice 37137 Call Box Installation 0 0 37138 a a 0 -1,2•r;;; 3,177 0 (M8) -40c.0% 24 687 2,100 it 4;280 4280 1L18,718 97,E (11,270] •10.4% 126,788 211,11'7 204,887. (7;1303 -3.4% 315,277 83 0.0% Cal! Box Operation Freeway Service Patrol 0 0 43021 0 Canaarunts/Management 822,017 1,354000 1,310,000 43170 Highway 65,463 x25,060 (40,000) 43171 Right -Of -Way (T5,0o000) 0 43173 Syecllaiaad Trarrsgartetion ,: :.::: 0 0 0 0 43175 CorramuterAsslstence 0 43176 Commuter Ral/ 0 0 0 43178 Highway Engineering 0 0 0 1, 290 2,372390 1, '1,000 (1.271,3. 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Rail Engineering 0 0 0 43183 0 Commuter Rail Construction 0 0 0 43184 Park-N-R/de 0 0 0 48185 Right or Way Supporf..H1�w,y 0 0 0 30,748 50,000 Interchanges -Preliminary Engineering Interchanges -Final 0 552,000 S5 Q00 150.0%gas-Final Design 0 2.154000 Feasibility Studies 3150,000 1080% Total Projects 0 104000 f oQ00o 100.0% 2,696.583 3,947,390 5,313,000 1,366,610 3 Other Direct Cost - 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Counsef (Debt Financing) 43104 Financial Advisory Services 43158 Legislative Advvicete 43186 Audit Services 43701 Legal Services Total Other Direct.Co 72852 Intergovernmental Distributions Total Measure A Project Development 3,036,442 NOTE: Prior year amounts have been restated to conform to Current yu.rivressnnrtlan. 11,153 0 0. 0 0 0 5,532, 964 4,474,421 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. P 0 1,354543 304% 53 Personrtaf$alaty d Fringe_ Deputy 6recut rs131 Total Personnel Salary Fringe Benefte Overhead Allocation 10,662 Projects: 37136 Call Box Maintenance 37137 CV" Box Installation 37138 Call. Box Operation Freeway. Service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 Right -Of -Way 43173 Spscllaizad Transportation 43175 Conenuter Assistance 43176 Cofsnut.r Ralf 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 CortxmnarRalf Engineering 43183 Commuter Ralf Construction 43184 Park-N-Rlde 48185 R.O. W. Support Highway In terchanges-Canslruc trort ROW Engineering Total Projects Other Direct Cast; 43051 Professional Service-Odrsr 43101 Bond Counsel (Commuter Rs11j 43104 financial Advisory Services 43158 Legislative Advocate 43186 Audit Services 43701 Legal Services Total Other Direct Mat . 72852 intergovernmental Distributions 61,817 :Z942 17, 857 1,042 0 O 0 O 0 D 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 2440,000 3,483,000 1.023,000 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 .. 0 O 0 .. 0 12.413,541 22,908,973 16, 005, 000 M900,973) O 0 0 O 0 0 33,503 52,300 50,200 (2,100) O 50;000 50,000 0 750,000 250,000 37.382 0 (31,382) -1.0% 100,0% 100.0% -100.0% 12,074797 25,436,655 19,819,200 (54517,455) dxx 1,G O 0 0 F 0 0 0 O D 0 O 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 138,435 253,116 160,000 (53,116). 8% 1 6.,43'5 303,116 210,000 (93,118) Total Measure A Project Implementation 12,881,817 NOTE: Prior year amounts have been restated to coMbrtrr to current year presentation. 25,815,291 20,108,704 (5,705,587) -2Z1% 54 Personnel Salary & Fringe: Aaslstant Director -Planning Senior Staff Antrlytt. • Senior Staff Analyse Staff Analyst Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits Overhead Allocation Projects: 37136 Calf Box Maintenance 37137 Call Box installation 37138 CO Box Operation Freeway Service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 Right -Of -Way 43173 Specflalzed Transportation 43175 Commuter Assistance 43176 Commuter Rail 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Rwlf Engineering 43183 Commuter Rail Construction 43184 Park -N -Ride 48185 R.O.W. Support Highway Total Projects Other Direct Cost: 876 X9.6# azan 2117,174 782,444 2,899, 620 7472 86,259 : . : . 16,9133 5,778 77,403 43,174 .. 21.402 78 (10.6d81 6 1.395 4409 26. 414 f47S9J... -51814 {11;593) 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O . . . 0 0 860,327 2.900,000 *173 910,915 1,496,5135 565,190 O 0 0 0 0 0 651 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 3,771,242 4,396,605 625,363 18. -QTR 754 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Cor�nael 0 0 0 i['onxntrter RaTlj 0 0 43104 Financial Advisory Services 0 43158 Legislative Advocate 0 0 0 43166 Audit Services 0 0 0 43701 Legal Services 0 0 0 Total Other Direct Cost 72852 Intergovernmental Distributions Total Measure A Project Implemantadon 3,066,340 4,017,588 4,621 287 NOTE: Prier year amount Y�+'P+�+rrielforr: s have been restated to conform to current. 809 899 75.275 19,500 38,862 25,000 (11,862) (9,501} 38,862 25,00 (11,862) 0 0-: 0 55 Personnel Salary & Fringe: Deputy Executive Director Controller ate RAnalyst JP Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits Overhead Allocation Protects: 37136 Call Box Maintenance 37137 Call Box installation 37138 Cali Box Operation: Freeway Service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 Rlght-OAWay 43172 Regional Arterial 43173 Specialized Transportation 43175 Commuter Assistance 43176 Commuter Rah 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Ralf Engineering 43183 Commuter Ralf Construction 43184 Par* -N -Ride 48185 R.O.W. Support Highway Total Projects Other Direct Cost: 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Counsel (Commuter Rail) 43104 Financial Advisory Services 43158 Legislative Advocate 43166 Audit Services 43701 Legal Services Total firer Direct Coat 5,'068 1040% O T,78.9 1,719 1aR0% 0 0 0 ❑. . 0 a O 0 0 4 ❑ 0 4 -0 0 0 3,245,773 19,214,690 37,345, 8.49 18,13a959 o 0 0 O a 0 o 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0- ❑ 0 O o a o 0 0 0 0 0 3,245,773 19,214890 37,345,649 18,130;959 174.4% O a 0 O ❑.. D O 0 p 0 a O 0 0 72852 Intergovernmental Distributions 13,900,177 18;619,748 19,911,294. :• 1,091,546 5,6% !otal Measure A Project Implementation 17,145,850 38,034438 57,263,800 19.229,382 50.10% NOTE: Prior year amounts have been restated to conform to current year prasanbrflon. 56 Assistant Director?' Senior Staff Anal Senior Staff Senior Staff Analyst Staff Analyst 111 Staff Analyst" SMIAnalystl 78,000 253) 772 47,20,1 M1011) o 6,242: : 5,242 10X6% 73,859.:....: :..13,916 60,444 11,1143 28,436 24269 (3 747) -11.19E 37.300. 5-3,607 58,380 4773 119% 16,868. 33,466 2'9573 (4,293) -!t7% torsi Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits 182:346 110,790 3414132 (5,aaa) .i.aac Overhead Allocation Projects: 37136 Call Box Maintenance 37137 Cal! Box Installation 37138 Call Box Operation Freeway Service Patrol 43021 CansultamsJManagrnom 43170 Highway 43171 Right -Of -Way 43173 Specialized Transportation .; 43175 Commuter Assistance 43176 Co1r nu erPslf 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Rai! Engineering 43183 Commuter Rail Construction 43184 Park -N -Ride 48185 R.O. W_ Support Highway Total Projects Other Direct Cost: 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 $and Coalnael 57,6.34 117,000 46.000 (87000) (Debt 0 0 43104 Financial Advisory Services 0 43158 Legislative Advocate 0 0 0 43166 Audit Services 0 0 0 43701 Legal Services 0 0 0 ' 5,553 12,397 (0,000 a387) Total Other Direct Cost 4387 ."` !24,387 �y,O00 77,236 121,600 1,027 O 0 0 O 0 0 D'. Q 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1,426,139 1,200,000 (226 139j O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 1,396;000 1,428,139 1,200,000 0 (229,139) -!SS8% 72852 Intergovernmental Distributions 369,150 377,790 373,500- . Total Transportation Planing and Programming l;973R576- L NOTE: Prior year amounts have been restated to conform 1.o cumnnt year presentation. 57 2,359,679 2,055,232 -19,3% (69.387) -55.8% .. (4,290) .1; i3o4,4pro -12. WI Personnel Salsa d Fringe: : Assistant Director .14445 Senior Strff Analyst . �177fi 1Yas5 1$672:: Total Personnel Sassy 4 Fringe Bene&lle :.. Overhead Allocation Projects: 37136 Calf Box Maintenance 37137 Call Box Installation 37138 Call BoxOperattion Freeway. Service Patrol 43021 Consultants/Management 43170 Highway 43171 Rlpht Way 43173 Spsc0alzed Transportation 43175 Commuter Assistance 43176 Commuter Ralf 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43180 Commuter Rail Operations 43181 Commuter Rail Engineering 43183 Commuter Ralf Construction 43184 Park-NR/de 48184 Professional Services -Ball Support Feasibility Studies Total Projects Other Direct Cost: 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Counsel (Debt Financing) 43104 Financial Advisory Sem:ices 43158 Legislative Advocate 43166 Audit Services 43701 Legal Services Total Other Direct Cost 72852 Intergovernmental Distributions Total Commuter Rail 3,993,768 2,536,607 NOTE: Prioryear amounts have been restated to conform to current year prets:antaiion. 63479 0,.345 7,997 12,484 34017 11,939 (1455,0 7 738 115.4% (0,328) -15.7% O 0 0 0 0 0 Q... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.. 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 2,003,215 174000 1740410 0 O 0 1,639,513 1,869,200 3,205,100 O 0 O 0 O 0 4,131 50,000 54000 250,000 0 3.844,359 2,364,200 3,434100 20,333 54,698 - Y5,1131 0 60,000 0 0 0 59,576 119,578 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,310,900 0 0 0 0 (250.000) 1,064900 .4494 t19 Tfi -400.0'X. 45i1%6 O 0 O (60 000) 10410% O 0 O 0 a 0 75,000. 15,422 2& 75,000 3.551,056 (44,679}:.;. ;; :373% 1,014419 58 Overhead Allocation Projects: 37138 Call Box Maintenance 37137 Call Box installation 37138 Celt Box Operation 43021 ClonsultantsiManagernent 43170 Highway 43171 Right -Of -Way 43173 Specllabred 7ransporwetion 43175 Commuter Ass's -tense 43176 Commuter Rail 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Rail Engineering 43183 Commuter Rail Constzuctims 43184 ParkdV--Ride 48185 R,O. W. Support Highway 50115 Freeway Service Patrol -Towing )0000( Freeway Service Patrol-CHF )000O( Feasibility Studies Tonal Projects Other Direct Cost - 179,384 71,813 119,029 4252 KM) (2,148) 6,217 211 0.8% 297,800 343,971 48,171 15.6% 61,E 0 (61,500) -10110% 282,780 347,810 65,030 23.0% O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 �. 0 O 0 O 0: 0 O a 0 O ❑ 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 o O 0 0 351,728 573,5000 610,442 42,942 7.5% 33,000 43,133 1❑,f33 30.7% 0 825,000 525,000 101.0% 721,954 1,248.580 1,975 356 727,776 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Counsel 6!,314. 139,525 73,732 (Debt Financing) i X7933 43104 Financial Advisory Services 0 0 0 43158 Legislative Advocate 0 0 0 43166 Audit Services 0 0 0 43701 Legal Services 0 0 550 10,404 .18,600 8,095 Total Other Direct Cost " 47.x% 77.8%. 66,818 149,929 92,232 (57,697) -38.5% 72852 intergovernmental Distributions O 0 Total Service Authority For Freeway ErnergendasJFSP 883,016 !,489,3!9 $16T, 828 678,507 4 ;. NOTE: Prior year amounts have been restated to conform to currant 6aG year Wesentadlon. Personnel Salary & Fringe: Exec[rth,* Diracdor Controller Property Technician Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits Overhead Allocation Projects. 37136 Cal/ Box Maintenance 37137 Call Box Installation 37138 Call Box Operation Freeway Service Poirot 43021 ConsulurrrtslManagernent 43170 Highway 43171 Right-t1Way 43173 Spec/hdzed Transportation 43175 Commuter/Assistance 43176 Commuter Ralf 43178 Highway Engineering 43179 Highway Construction 43181 Commuter Rall:Engineering 43183 Commuter Rall Construction - 43184 Park -N -Ride 48184 Professional Services -Roll Support 48185 Professional Services -ROW Support Highway Total Projects Other Direct Cost 43051 Professional Service -Other 43101 Bond Counsel (Debt Financing) 43104 Financial Advisory Services 43158 Legislative Advocate 43166 Audit Services 43701 Legal Services Total Other Direct .most • 72852 Intergovernmental Distributions • :4441 $ . . 4,4489 cAn -61457 476,64T 57,487 - 84,-389 a 0 0 0 0 O 0 O ❑ O 0 4 0 O 0 O 0 8,079 130,000 104000 O 30,000 9,404 i445, 72 alts 92;269 8,079 130 0010 130,000 ' 20,026 Yugo 0 0 0 0. 37,857 37,857 0 0 0 0 lig om 34000 0 4 0' ❑ 0 ❑ a ❑ a O 0 75,000 37,143 75,000 37;.143 0. Total Service Authority For Freeway Frnergencfes4FSP 117914 294899 342, 593 NOTE: Prior year amounts have been restated to conform to current year presentation.. - -23.1% 1001.0% 96.1% 98.1% 181.2% 60 Accounting Services 30026 ' : Equipment Maintenance 30291 Moo Leese 32101 Cc nrnpnlcstlon 32702 Mall Delivery/Postage 34101 Household Expense 35101 Insurance 42101 Office Evans, 43111 Commisalnnere Per Dian) 43602 Data: Processing 44101 Publication & Notices 45107 Rental/Lease Copier 48101 Special Departmerrja! Expense 48130 Information/Publicity 48501 Training and Development 50101 Traneportatio+s?,aveai Total Services and Supplies FIXED ASSESTS 82101 Computer Equipment 9,466 82101 Office Furniture & lrnprrrvemenla 40,000 36,504. PAM) -! 82101 Of3�ice E ui 0 70,000 5,000 a ) ss. Equipment 82101 35,481 40,000 5000 Communications Equipment ' 1 �T 676 752 5,000 2,500 (,7,SOO) -50.0% 82101 Accaunting System 28,522 40,000 5,000 (35000) -67.576 1l;5fS Y 17,272 17,772 100.0% 11,548 22,1 31,727. 8,745 48.1% 12f, : frm„£93 126,210 (23,083) -1a. 29,187 47,362 .. 49,537 1,675 93 % 11,628 14000 14,490 490 3.5% 13,464 14227 14724 497 15% 9,35? 72,377 84645 12,268 17.0% 21,35% . 30,310 39„f 71 8,881 29..,, 17,400 33,000 33,000 0 0.0% 1,9SI 3,427 20,000 16,573 483.6% 2,878 7,1539 7,804 265 3.5% 23,872 32,535 34,088 1,153 ;gam 6,270 21,580 21,580 0 0._,. 75,129 72,025 151,490 79,455 110.3% 15,133 ,35,000 25,000 (10,000) -28.11% 141 .. 69,193 69,192 (1) -0.0% 417,878 832,750 741,930 109,180 17.371 Total Fixed Assets 73.929 135,000 54000 (81,000) -60.0% TOTAL ALLOCATED OVERHEAD PERSONNEL SALARY & FRINGE Salaries and Fringes Total Salaries and Fringes TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT 491,799 767,750 795,930 28,180 3:7% 459,224 543,618 598,647 56,037 1D_!9G 458,224 543,616 598,647 55,031 951,023 1,311,366 1,394 577 83,211 6,3% (1) 95196 Salaries: Measure A $ 450,342, TDA $ 105078, S. FE $ 30,927. Remaining salaries and fringes charged as project casts 10 the three areas. NOTE: Prior year amounts have been restarted to conform to current year -presentation. 61 Section 4: Proposed Budget By Line Item SOURCES OF REVENUE:. Operatlng Revenues: Sales Tax .Revenues Sales Tax MA Planning & Adrnin Sales Tax 7DA Trw slt.Allocation STA Transit Allocation SAFE Fees S2300 Reimbursements Other Reimbursements: ICI Reimbursements Caltrans Reimbursements Other Revenue Interest Income Total Operating Revenues Commercial Paper Proceeds Total Sources of Funds EXPENDITURES: Personnel Salary & Fringe Services and Supplies 82101 Fixed Assets 73,921 135,000 5 010 (1,00( f2 :.>::::::>.;;:.;:1 ,0 .: ,.., 1,2470100 p.IJ -.'7!f t 901,575. 2576,000 . . . 4,5007 000 1,924,000 747% 714878.. 1,9204172 1,996,348 78,176 4.0% 564300 1,000,00000 1,G00, 000 0 0.0% 1,009,325 3,383,070 0 (3363,070) •1040% 735,395 0 7,737,500 7,737,500 100.0% 0 1,175,000 0 (1,125,000) .1040% 531,044 9833,,000 0 f &&,000) -1040% 303, 588 4,6;0.937 4883,418 309,461 !3% 4.895.E ;4073.545 ICS= f: ass, 410 31:!76 44470,74 6'9,463,717 77,543,856 8,080,139 1.14% 1 20.500 QQ R 13.500 0803 47.1$ 63470.704 P. 983.7/Z 94,343.8158. 4.580.139 1,074100 1,489, 744 1,5+45,196 89452 3.7% 417,678 632,750 74192430 109,140 17.3% Other RCTC Direct Costs: 43021 Measure A programrnanagem.nt 43051 Other Profession& Services 43101 Bond Counsel 43104 Financial advisory services 43158 Legislative advocate 43166 Audit services 43701 General Legal counsel Total Other Direct Costs Other Program Costs: 37136 CeilboxMaintenance 179,384 797,800 343,971 45,177 15.5% 37137 CallboxInstallation 71,813 61,500 0 (61,500) -00010% 37138 CallboxOperations 119,029 282,760 347,810 45,030 22.0% 43170 OtherSupport-Highway 85,483 225,000 150,000 (75,000) -313% 43173 Prof. Services-Eld.rfy and Disabled 1,077,174 1,380, 327 1,400,000 39,673 2. 43173 Transit 2,426,000. 2,925,139 4704000 {225,139) .7:770 43175 Prot Services-Correnuter Assistance 782,446 214915 1.4446,805 _ 585,:190 43184 Park W' Ride -. - - x,503 62,300 50,200 (2,100) 48184 Professional Services -hall Support 12,210 480,000 154000 000) -16.7% 48185 Professional Services -ROW Supt Highway 34748 50,000 90,000 30000 k 50115 Freeway Service Patrol -Towing: 351,728 573,500 616,442. 42,942 7.5% Freeway Service Patrol-C/1P Charges 0 33,000 43,133 10,133 30.7% Total OtherPrvgrarn Coats 922,062 1,350,000 1,314000 444000) ,3,0% 137521 311,525 178,732 (132,793) -42:6% 65,920 1140510 50,000 (00.000) ,g 80,332 115,000 130,000 15,000 13.0% 39,653 40,000. 45,000 0 0% 208,294 329,770 325,000 (4720j 4.4% 294.709 MAO 443.5410 (44,900) -8.874 1,738,491 2,770,645 2,503,732 (767,413). -9.7% 5,149,518 8,953 281 7,378,181 424900 el % 63 43171 Highway ht af. ..::;. �' >: ? 753: 4317?:: . . : Regional ArtarYs .... tlCaO. 4414000::... fr�3.00d If�l'1G 43178 Prof Services -Reif i''' : . g, l sBR.: :::•: : 37,3444,4* 15,130,959 Yd,f30,S' (.47i ,r,-,Wea ?T T '. .. ,d8b,000} . . .: 41.4'AG 43178 Highway Engineering 1,578,290 2322,390 '4051,000 43179 Highway Construction 12,413,541 454.7% 11413,541 22,906,973 16,008,000 (6,900,973) -301% 43180 Con: nutter Rail Operations 1,839,513 1, 200 43181 Rail E glneerInp 205,855 ,OdG 20S 1 0 43182 Ralf Right of Way - 55,885 43163 Rai! Construction 0 (1,215000) 1 115,000 2, x,815.:: 5, 968, SOO 3871.882 -odax 18R67G ROW Engineering 0 3738 0 (37,352) -1000% Construction Interchafrges 0 Preliminary fnreth g t:terclungu . 250 000 250.000. 1000% 0 552,000 552.000 100-0% Finn! Design inttrchangas ti Commuter Rail Ce 1150,900 2150,000 100-0% 04401 Contrlbutfv>t 0 3,561,40.4. 3,581,454 100.0% Feasibility Studies 74,000 475. 000 0% 21,798,855 Expenditures before distributions and operating transfers Eccess(Deiclency) of Revenues Over Expenditures After Contingency Section 5: Budget By Fund 31 a i �II 31 3! 1!!;?a1111.441 $!t1- 11414111 !11g 11:111 41i.114111� €111 11!11$11 411 1 4 3E11114 ten sviesfi' e�1i 2rsss- ■g;ss1i111 SEfilikt15igit! a1s WWe:1ki11 11 1 4 1 ! 1 y1Q 1 Nil rt 1 s !4 1 1! 1 1 1 1 £! ! !R 111 I 11 a it 111 rt 11 l�t14R111 4!!!11!!!!1!5!!! 1 14 1 .i 111 1 1 ! g 1 5 1 !Ili 1! 41 11 1411 N 11 MI HI 11 !�s } -7-7,=. ¢!g!!!€!lA111111 11!€ 1 a 1 shit= ig ,0!G 1�El1ksili� 5?34"sIIII1q'iFIE 1111 -Kg-88=-8g eAsa«sirte`8s=_,sttiort 1 8 31 11 1 1! 1 11 4'fl1@!!!fl Efft!!!!!!ff f f4 1411 122a 1 It 12 el 3 1 1 I Edt 11 l I 1 E_ 11 1 r! 1 I IT g to „ 1JIIIJji JJ 1111 blind iii11 I • !illiillillili 116111111 1111 1 11Ji1L ! c 11101111111/111 111111111 111111111111 mil1111111111111141111x1111114 I Jiff -IF - milm:111111111: 11 1 1 1 1 66 General Fund 11 1 ap WiJiWkE14111W01444 411 Fa f la 1s W a M i I o Ei 1 1_ € 1l. I 1 i -r .4 1 M y i L�a a IMP F? ILI F P jiii1I 11111 0 1li 1112! 11 iii - - IiiiiiiiiiI i . 1 ass i. p aOp 41- i $1..11.1 N a�; � �-- �i a ��� � ��� �::�� �` �Oa -� °e}�"ee I�i�l��ii�i� SaO a s r EF 9 i FE lilligill111111111 1::::::::: 1111111111 1111 s'. a 1 -n Special Revenue Funds RWERDE COIIIITYTRAN$PORTATRSN p0 *ON BUDGET BY FUND FISCAL YEAR NOM Fsarray Sew Taal SWAP Wseara Palo • Coachella Torok SP•Ilkd Patrol SAFE County Vann Valley AinM ance Revenue Seta Tan ASloprtlanalon Nreurs A Sales Tea id location -Non Nusau re A Mee Tex AlixMlonJlon..secure A Banta Tex AJleuflon-..swan A Sake Tactligwey, 11.010.875 Sal. T. -Commuter Raft 2.111.177 10,030,710 Sal« Tax -Reg Meal Anenll 1488440 3 738 61147>1 Saar Tex -T 491349 Sake rWi i Roeds 14,422,242 700.013 (703,047 11111//11 analt Salve Tat -Simian A Pson n, 1,301,55553 1,311993 Sales Tax'CominutrArw J nco �' 1101.301 991,311 SAFE Fars 1,(6,341 1. 111300Iteln bursnhs tta 006 1,090.200 Relmeoisminertla tu»ar,s7 Income Other Revenue 89011 149100 310600 1,304760 100,!00 1,174760 Corrmericlal Paper Proceeds >h ' 4.431,N0 TOTAL REVENUES 507,376 1,515,000 31601,655 706,015 17,620,062 2,011341 a2,444042 as 020 aims Fringe Baneflls ��1W 1431 Salares 7T12,,583 216,113 316,247 46821 110,567 Medicare BG2 3,512 4,374 lnsurenp H 1th Insurance 17 11761 w kill Dental Insurance 31,070 3,626 OptlalInsurance !,f11! 2,114 4,11110Deferred Galloon Betio n 1031 12,71 TOTAL APPROP. CLASS CODE 1 10464,3.. 414260 - . - Accounting Servkae uIpm..t Winfenencs 1,904 1,1611111 1,04 Communications 7,083 h 7,672 Hell Delivery 2,972 849 Ho.iishoIC Lineman' 1/e NM Insurance 1071 117 Orrice DemmeCorr,gloh,r, Per Deem 2'244 980 1,(0 N ➢ela ProceeeJng 1' 1,660 Pubildf ion,flioti csa 1,200 1.200 41111 RenllLeaw 416 2,045 2,045 TryfnFng &Oays m lops ent 1,500 Spacial Deperoasrshl Expense 1,211 11,800 ,806 Inlomrtion/Publ city Trenaportetion and Trawl tau Band Coum,l 4.157 4,112 Financial Advisor Legislative Advocate General LegeI Counsel 3,600 10,5500 105,099 2,760 Audit 3srviae 3,792 71 Gll Box ICall Box nvigilation hnp �'m �� Cali Box Operation 347,110 34,370 Ro meo A Program 14nsgsmsrlt 1,210,000 1210,000 Prof melon el Services-Conmricts �ra .�� ,332 Hig hwsy -Other 77 Right of Way Acq4uisllions-Highway 199 � 100000 Regions! Amorist Transit 5.725,200 1,400Can Commuter rauter risrsnee 1,4Sb. 1,600,000000 1,200,000 149551996 il Coninuler Rd! Capital Fans Wady Stud lee 126,1100 Highway Engineering 7 M'� 725,000 Highway Cooenuotion 101,000 101,000 Rill Operations Rat! Engineering Right of Wsy Acqu,iifion e -Ref! RIIII Conitrucuon Park N Rids 991,000 Cg 1300 Roll Support 50,000 10,0100 511990 Hlghwey Snapp 50.000 10,990 ROW Engineering-Htghway Iniorchangsr-Pnllminary Engineer Interehe rag es -En +Am men ial 1nIsrc hahges Fins] Design Inlarchangss-ROW Engineering Interchanges -ROW Acquisition Interchanges -Canal ruction 11 got Intitc hanger Con,truchon CHP Charges Toning Service 018,4421 43,133133 3 442 TOTAL APPROP CLASS CODE 2 -611166" - 5_ -730Q1010- d/17w Local streets la road. Equipment/Furniture TOTAL APPROP CLASS CODE 4 Operating 0ib1Trendirs Out Operating Tranews Out -7-- - Oparuling Transfers In Operating Dell[ Trenews In Contingencies TOTAL APPROP CLASS CODE 5 TOTAL EXPENDITURES REVENUES OVER(UNDER)EXPENDITURES 14,4=212 705,996 4,7E3,047 11,111,2/4 3,240 3 ,340 3,34b 14,422,212 4,713,047 11204546 (147,015) 147,015 147.0413 11799,344 _. 29.750,631 (x531,170) ) [6771, (,47,= (147,015) 147,996 11,231,774 7,031117 20,171731 10,000 499,000 600,000 ah712" -771..2' - 41iOr-70S,71T ,10t,HT -wooer 1ur,v.4 a • -COMM. 7743111 107,030 2,010,993 1787,305 30,727,713 1,715,401 43,474611 115,301 1,042,121 1,121051 27,131612 2,991,749 41,711311 70 Capital Projects Funds ItVEItflisE COUNTY TIUYM/PORTA m costli lanN BUDGET Ifs FUND ROCAL YEAR 1103111 W.r.tern CV T.W Coachella Western Cenener.W Capital Valley County Paper Projects Sale. T.a AAlomdionMon Nsssure A Sales Ta>t A11oo.tlon.+Wn Measure A •ales Tax ArJo stlonaian Mwau ra A Skies Tax Ailoe tIon-lieswure A Sales Tau-llgweya Soles Taa-coneaut.r Rail Salsa Tax -Reg larval Amara Soles TatatrWi & Rosde Sales Tax Tnn.N Sales Tax -Seniors i Pomona S@heT.xxwvanhrA mirtarence Stab Trait Assistance SAFE Fees 0.100 ReYnburw etas ReMI.Miraerrrnh 5.077,000 4mA00 intermit incase 1,014514 540.121 104000 1,755706 Other RevenueConsomiciel Paper Proceeds ' 1 0, 000,560 17. 7,000440 TOTAL REVENUES 1,044504 1182,W =2T�7,062 "` 063 1A tl6;603- Other Fringe Benefit@ Ssleri.. Retirement Medicare Insurance. Health insurance Dental Immune" Optical Mneuranca Deferred Covripensetiori TOTAL APPROP. CLASS CODE 1 Accounting Service* Equtpment llaintener,c. Office Leese Gormrmnicaiime ale I ONivery Household Expenses h7wrance Office Engenm. C orw.rrsainera Per Diem Date Processing PubllcationdNaticee RentlLMu Tre Inrng4 Development Spacial Departments Expense InlonmeSionRublicity Trynepore•lion and Travel Bond Gounes! Finenc iel Advisor Lsgylaliw Advocate General Legal Counsel Audit Services Call Box Ma intenance Call Box inst.ilatlon Cali Rol Operation Nea.un A Program Nan.pement Prof **Elena! Setylcee-Corn recta Highway .Other Right of Way Acquisition. Highway Regional Arterial Tenth Cunnuler Assistance Commuter 111 Corm ut.r Rail Capitol Fea NI till Ply Sludira Highway Engineering Highway Construction Rail Op.Mlone Rail Engineering Right of Way Acqui. Ilona-R.il Reif [ono ru coon Park N Ride R.II Support Highway Support ROW Engineering -Flag marahang es -Preliminary Engineer nterchengmEnvlronmenta I nt.rc hengss-Final Design nrarcheng.v-ROW Engineering n1.rchangeFROW AAquisftian nt.rchang.s•Conn ruction ygriit. CHp Chary netrudian es Towing Semite TOTAL APPROP CLASS CODE 2 Local street@ & roads Equip snt/Fumhure TOTAL APPROP CLASS CODE 4 Opevating DebeTrenafem Oul Operating Transfere Out Operating Transfers In Operating Debt Transfers In Contingencies TOTAL APPROP CLASS CODE 5 100,000 100,000 3.4113,000 31,550,441 31.,640.441 37,680,R.T 2.600,000 2,504000 000 264000 2,501,000 425,000 13,000,000 14004000 4,077,500 4,077,500 552,000 652,000 500,000 1,260,000 2,150,000 250,000 250,000 —Ir.70itigr X000- X7714100- —`rtitet3 - 500,000 250,000 250,000 1,000,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES ---;O,ygr a,r,6isi,e4� REVENUES OVER(UNDER)EXPENDITURES tor,i rmatj timis,ex4J --(152310/1 .aUd@y) 45,251,417 20,703,21 2,515.410 14517,236 4130,510 10./00./76 2,513,072 30,304,357 72 Section 6: 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 confract with inland Transportation Services (ITS) to provide FY 95196 consultant staff services to manage and implement various commuter assistance programs as recommended by staff and approved by RCTC. (TS has agreed to provide services at FY 94195 hourly rates: Project Manager - $68.50, Program Administrator - 547.50 and Administrative Coordinator - 525.00. 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, Caftans, etc. The following three line 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 (SOLO 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 trips should be realized as a result of ttie new A/le Clink fine. The estimated FY 95196 budget is nearly $30,500 (17%) higher than FY 9495 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 trips reduced. The historical reality is that more effort is required to reach and remove Riverside based long distance single occupant vehicle (SOV) divers for several reasons: 1) the Program requires the cooperation of employers in Orange and Las 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, and3) OCTA and LACMTA 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: 5195,005 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 94,195 goal of 615 but lower than the projected performance of 925 trips reduced. The estimated FY 95/96 budget is nearly 545,000 (29%) higher than FY 94,195 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 indicates that it becomes harder to reduce trips over time; the Local Program has not yet experienced that trend. The Local Program's history is more constant based an 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 are closely linked with CTS and its employer services through the monthly ETC Transportation Forums. 74 RCTC's recent employer survey regarding CTS services and the Forums highlights that the Forums have a sting po,sitive °npact on ETC's arid their programs at employer work sites in Riverside County. RCTC's full range of commuter assistance programs, from education to incentives, is making a difference. They empower the ETC by increasing their skill level and offering support services and financial incentives. Through the ETC's direct link to warkplace SOV drivers, they are able to match riders and support individual use of alternate modes of transportation. Another indicator that Riverside County is making a difference is the finaings ofthe CTS 1994 State ofthe 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 program goal of 3,250 members. FY 94/95 goal set at 5,000 members ,960 with projected performance at 2,750 members. One of the lessons teamed this year is that membership levels are Corn hard to om maintain given the economy and workforce mobiTdy which was not factored into the FY 94195 goat l n9 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 reasons 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 95196 budget is $8,000 (4%) less than FY 94,95 due to small changes in various line items, Consultant labor costs are slightly less (1%) in the proposed budget over the current year. The proposed budget for Club Rime includes the production and cisfibution ofthe Merchant Discount Catalogue and at least three newsletters. Funning 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 additions is the Automobile Club of Southern California who is offering a free first aid kit with new membership. In addition to the Catalogue discounts, other benefits have been secured for special promotions such as In N Out Burgers who donated 3, 000 free cheeseburger coupons valued at $1.50 each. In the area of marketing, the PennySaverhas agreed to run free ads for Club Ride and other incentive programs when space is available as a public 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 program for employers in their City. ■ Special Projects/Contingency: Budget to provide staff/media support ass $50,000 programs, i.e. special promotions, tr sportation fairs, evaluation surveys, outsidestance efforts t of the three incentive NOTES: ■ The budgets for the Freeway and Local Commuter Incentive Programs have been adjusted to reflect estimated costs savings as a result of the Applied Management & Planning Group effectiveness survey findings which recommended that incentive payments be changed from three monthly payments to a single lump sum payment to decrease program administrative costs and reduce the impact of program implementation on employer ETC's. ■ Bi-monthly progress reports fully document the activities of consultant staff responsible for implementation of the above three incentive programs as well as the Commuter Exchange and Telecommuting WorkCenter, Progress reports are on file at RCTC. 75 It is anticipated that SANBAG will continue their contract with RCTC for FY 95#96 to administer their sister commuter assistance program in San Bemarctno County. 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 Transportation Services, Inc. after three years under their operation. As little documenfaton r+egarr1ng 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 that the Commuter Exchange continue to be managed and operated by ITS. The proposed FY 95/96 line item budget is attached under Exhibit and represents a 10% increase. It 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 materials/incentives 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 stall (ITS). FY 94/95 $111,109 budget funded by Petroleum Violation Escrow Account and Measure A ($12,000±) funds. Only Measure A monies will be available to fund the WarkCenter in FY 95196. The proposed budget of $132.700 reflects expenditures only. Revenue from lease of office space to tlecommuting employers and other commuter assistance programs is estimated at $31,500, reducing the proposed expenditures to $101200 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 F?CTC'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.L.P. 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 1300 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. While the telecommutirig offices are 86% leased, staff recognizes that utilization should be evaluated based on actual number of telecommuting uses. Staff is in the process of evaluating utilization and will prepare a written repot for the June commission meeting. Assuming continuation of the WorkCenter, staff plans to provide employers with bi- monthly utilization reports to encourage higher use of the WorkCenter. in addition, as new leases are negotiated, specific use rates will be included in lease agreements. To further encourage employers to maintain a high use rate, a new approach to the monthly fiat 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 are telecommuting on a regular basis. if the existing flat rate of $100 per office space increased incrementally based on reduced use, then employers might be more motivated to ensure participation. 76 Buspools: 189,300 Assumes: 1) Three continuing buspools at 47 seats each at $25/seat/month X 12 mos. 2) Two new buspools at 47 seats each at S25/seat /month X 12 mos. 3) Two new buspools at 47 seats each at $25rseat /month X 8 mos. Riverside Bicycle Commuter Coalition: 1145,000 Continuation funcing for implementation of Phase 11 of the Wheels to Work project approved ($150,000) in FY 94/95 It is a bi-county project funded by SANBAG. AB2766 end RCTC. The budget represents the estimated carryover amount required to complete the project which will begin implementafion late in the fiscal year as a result of multiple budget approval processes. Special Project Development/Contingency. 1100,000 Proposed budget established to allow for new project development dining year. Possible projects under consideration at this time include development and production of an Employee Transportation Coordinator Resource Directory es a tool for local employers including employers data and trip reduction program statistics, cross-referenced vendor providers, etc. Another possible project is the development and fnplementaion of a Guaranteed Ride Home Program which any employer could access. HIGHWAY PROJECT PROGRAMS: Park -n -ride Lease Program: 150,200 Budget based on actual experience and established lease agreements as listed below. Assumes maintenance effort only. 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 STATE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM $295,000 RCTC staff submitted a proposal for Provision of Employer Rideshare Services in Riverside County for FY 9536 and FY 96/97" under the Commission's State Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Call for Projects dated January 12, 1995. Assuming the Commission approves the funding request, staff proposes that the funds be used to provide rideshare services within Riverside County which will supplement regional "core services" to be provided by Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. (CTS) which, on July 1, 1995, will be merged with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Due to reduced funding for regional rideshare programs statewide, the core services (funded wholely by Caltrans) will be substantially reduced Continuance of local rideshare services is critical to ensure the highest possible level of support to commuters and employers to: 1) maintain existing rideshare arrangements and 2) develop new ones. It is proposed that RCTC directly provide supplemental services to SCAG's core program as part of its Commuter Assistance Program. Discessions are on -going with San -Bernardino Associated Governments to develop a joint program to provide coorrinatedservices more cost effectively within the Inland Empire. Staff hopes that the existing contract with inland Tranportation Services, the Commission's transportation demand management consultant, will be expanded to provide consultant staff as negotiated to implement a specific workplan under the direction of RCTC. Consultant FY 94195 labor rates would apply to rideshare workplan services. 77 Exhibit A Revised 4/25/95 RCTC COMMUTER INCENTIVE PROGRAMS PROPOSED FY 95/96 BUDGET CLUB LINE ITEM FREEWAY LOCAL JIM 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 $195,005 $174,960 $578,755 95BUDG1 78 3/1/95 RCTC COMMITTER EXCHANGE PROPOSED FY 95/96 BUDGET LINE ITEM BUDGET 1. Gasoline $ 1,800 2. Marketing Materials/Incentives S 13,500 3. Photocopy $ 750 4. Postage $ 750 5. Registration/Event Fees $ 1,500 6. Rent S 2,800 7. Telephone $ 1,500 8. Vehicle Enhancements S 3,500 9. Vehicle Maintenance/Repairs $ 2,000 10. Vehicle Registration $ 1,000 11. Consulting Expenses $ 4,750 12. Consulting Labor $ 60,000 TOTAL S 93,850 95BUDG5 79 * 3/1/95 RCTC TELECOMMIJTIJ G WORKCENTER PROPOSED FY 95/96 BUDGET LINEMEM BUDGET 1. Equipment S 3,500 2. Furniture S 3,000 3. Marketing Material S 2,500 4. Photocopier Supplies S 3,500 5. Photocopy $ 250 6. Postage $ 750 7. Registration/Event Fees $ 250 8. Rent * $ 61,000 • existing 3,833 sq. ft. at an annual cost of S48,272 • expansion of 1,000 sq. ft. at an additional annual cost of S12,627 9. Storage $ 150 10. Office Maintenance/Services $ 3,350 11. Tenant Improvements $ 5,000 12. Telephone $ 5,000 13. Consulting Expenses $ 750 14. Consulting Labor $ 43,700 TOTAL S132,700 Rent line item does not include revenue of 523,700 generated from sub -leasing existing space or projected additional revenue of 57,800 generated from expansion. 95BUDG5 80 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MOTORIST ASSISTANCE IService Authority for Freeway Emergencies i 1 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 o7spatchers, 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 time 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 = $127, 110. CHP Operating Costs - The Commission is billed by CHP based upon a formula on the number of calls for the required full time equivalent (FTE) dispatchers 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 pro 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 $200 per month or $2, 400 annually. Call Box Maintenance: $343,971 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, 81 Professional Services: $675,000 Funding requested for continuation of contract with RMSL Traffic Systems ($50,000) to provide support services for statistical reporting, system performance monitoring and auditing, highway construction removals replacements, and handicapped access issues. Also requested is fuming for Intelligent Transportation System (NHS) program support ($125,000) and for IVHS Strategic Deployment Plan Development ($500,000 - 80% FHWA ITS funding; 5% RCTC; 5% San34G; 10% Calt ans). 82 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MOTORIST ASSISTANCE Freeway Service Patrol Operations: $616,442 Funding requested for continuation of contract with Hamner Towing, Inc., to provide tow truck service for the Commissions Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on three segments of Route 91 and one segment of Route 604-215. The Commission's contract with Hamner provides for six (6) hours of service, Monday through Friday except holidays, during the morning and afternoon commute peak hours (5.00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 pm, 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. Professional Services: $2,400 $43,133 Funding requested for any required overtime pay for the two CHP officers providing the field supervision of the FSP program. Supplies: $5,800 Funding requested for brochures end survey forms ($2,800); patches, signs, hats, etc. ($2,000); and postage ($1,000) for the FSP program. Equipment: $15,532 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 dispatch4ield 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 6130/95; and 4) purchase of additional brochures, forms and promotional articles. 83 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA77ON COMMISSION OTHER MEASURE A PROGRAMS Special Transportation Programs Riverside Transit Agency $260,000 Funning to provide required match to purchase 10lift-equipped replacementbuses. The replacement buses will be altematively fueled, replacing diesel equipment City of Riverside, Parks and Recreation $46,000 Funding to provide local match to purchase five replacement, 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 Westem Riverside County. In addition, match funds are requested for 4 expansion vehicles to be used in the Hemet area. 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. 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. Riverside Transit Agency $20,000 Funding to support the provision of inter -city anal -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 $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. Meditrans Services _ $142,000 Funding to provide both continued and expanded paratransit service in southwestern Riverside County. The expansion of service would occur on Mettrans' South Loop which provides service into Riverside, Highgrove, Loma Linda and Moreno Valley (+28 hours4veek). Additionally, funds would provide continued funding for the lnterL/NK service, while providing an extra 12 hours weekly for expanded service during peak periods. 84 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 JurupalRubidoux areas. Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center S26,000 Funding to provide continued support of the "MoVan" 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. 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 are 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 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. Contingency Operating Assistance/Training Programs $200,000 $156,047 85 AGENDA ITEM #5C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Recurring Contracts The Commission uses several consultants to perform a number of administrative and project responsibilities. These consultants have been routinely used by the Commission for several years. In the past, a Schedule of Recurring Contracts has been included in the budget and approved by the Commission as part of its budget adoption. For the 1995/96 Fiscal Year, staff anticipates continued use of the same consultants. Those consultants are listed on the attached Schedule of Recurring Contracts/Contributions. Staff is presenting this as a separate agenda item to accommodate those commissioners who may have conflict of interest concerns. The one new addition to the Schedule is the annual $5,000 contribution to the Inland Empire Economic Forecasting Center and Data Bank. All executed contracts will not exceed the amount shown on the Schedule, and will be on the Commission's standard contracts subject to legal counsel review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the attached Schedule of Recurring Contracts/Contributions and authorize the Executive Director to execute contracts as needed subject to legal counsel review. :jw Attachment F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\RECONTR.DM Riverside County Transportation Commission Recurring Contracts/Contributions For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1996 Vendor Bechtel Civil Schiermeyer Consulting Valley Research Best, Best & Krieger O'Melveny & Myer Ernst & Young Charles A. Bell DJ Smith ( Smith Kempton) Inland Transportation Services UCR Forecasting Center Scope of Work Project Management Rail Advisor CMP Legal Legal Audit Financial Advisory Legislative Advisor Rideshare FY95 Contract $ FY96 Contract 5 Dollar Change Percent Change 1,350,000 1,310,000 ($40,000) -2.96% 175,000 175,000 $0 0.00% 50,000 60,000 $10,000 20.00% 508,400 463,500 ($44,900) -8.83% 110,000 50,000 ($60,000) -54.55% 233,000 325,000 $92,000 39.48% 65,000 65,000 $0 0.00% 96,000 96,000 $0 0.00% 281,805 330,000 $48,195 17.10% 5,000 5,000 $0 0.00% 2,874,205 2.879,500 $5 295 10.25% AGENDA ITEM #5D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM. W. Dean Martin, Controller Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial and Cost & Schedule Reports Attached are Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (Unaudited) and the Highway and rail projects quarterly budget report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 1995. Also, attached is the cost and schedule status of the Measure A Contracts. The contracts are segregated by Measure A Plan category and includes Highway, Rail and other Plans and Programs. The cost information includes Commission authorized funds to date, contractual commitments to date, current monthly expenditures, and total expenditures to date. The cost and schedule reports are through the month ending April 30, 1995 prepared by Bechtel Civil, Inc. Detailed supporting material for all contracts and Cooperative Agreements is available from Bechtel staff. Staff will be available at the meetings to answer any questions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Commission receive and file LM:jw Attachments 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 • Riverside, California 92501 (909) 787-7141 • FAX (909) 787-7920 RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS QUARTERLY BUD GET REPORT PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1995 PROJEC T DESCRIPTION CITY OF CO RONA CITY OF MUfitR IETTA R OU TE 60 ROUTE 74 ROUTE 79 ROU TE 86 ROU TE 111 PROJE CTS ROUTO1 I-215 PROJECTS IN TER CHANGE IMPR OV.PROGRAM BECHTEL P ROJECT }GMT SERV P ROGRA M PLAN S SVCS. P ARK -N -RI DE COMdUTER!' RAI L TO TALS Cot+ffsSION AUT HORIZED ALLOCATI ON $5,212,623 $17,000,000 $3,839,295 $11,542,627 $53,150,069 $21,334,078 $1,854,115 $55,016,393 $39,486,504 $8,378,848 $10,098,912 $8,648,340 $4,605,759 $94,620,144 $334,787,707 CONTRACT URAL COM MMENTS TO DATE $5,212,623 $4,250,000 $3,411,944 $11,542,627 $41,415,339 $17,367,369 $1,604,215 $49,568,852 $38,210,721 $7,678,823 $9,850,912 $8,599,357 $4,605,759 $94,620,144 $$ 297,938„685 NUMBER OF INV OICES PRO CESSED FOR QU ARTER 999 NUMBER OF INV OICES P AID F OR QUARTER 795 % C OMMIT ED E XPE NDIT URE FO R A GAINST AUTH. QU ARTER E NDING A LLO CATION MARCH 31,1995 100.0% 25.0% 88.9% 100.0% 77.9% 81 .4% 86.5% 90 .1% 96.8% 91.6% 97.5% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 89. 0% $18,727 $19,206 $5,711,253 $25,493 $1,162,454 $43,779 $270,940 $308,906 $4,535 $318,539 $913,111 $8,796,943 E XPE NDITU RES TO DATE THR U MARCH 31,1995 $5,212,623 $1,140,487 $2,839,778 $10,420,054 $27,869,559 $17,137,436 $1,328,116 $43,926,293 $34,985,176 $3,752,921 $8,839,476 $6,499,634 $3,909,895 $86,281,231 '4254442,670. ��4. RCTC MEASURE A HI GHWAY/RAIL P ROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE C OMMISSION PR OJECT AUTHORIZED DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION ROUTE 60 PR OJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ (R 0 9218, 9232, 9303, 9304, 9305, 9306) SUBTOTAL ROUT 60 ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Cooperative Agreement Preliminary Engrg/Environ/Flnal Engrg (R09012,9106,9115,9117,9122) Construction & ROW (R09225,9226,9206,9207) (9012 ConstrJROW Only)R09329,9330,9331) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 ROUT 79 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Enviran. /ROW (809111,9112,9116.9118,9301,9302,9337,9306) Lambs Canyon Project (R09423,9429,9518) Sanderson Project (R09011) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 75..N ROUTE 86 PRO JECTS Final Design (RO8907) Construction & Mftigition (R09213,9227,9342,9343,9106) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 86 RO UTE 111 PROJECTS Corridor Study (R09016,9219,9234,9523,9227) AUBTOTW. ROUTE 1#1 $3,839,295 $3,839,296 (4) $3,358,713 $8,183,914 $11,642,627 $8,961,366 *21,073,703 $23,115,000 $63;150,069 *1,219,000 *20,115,078 (4) *21,334,070 *1,854,115 $7,86�1,71$ CONTRACTURAL COMMITMENTS TO DATE $3,411,944 $3,4 % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE F OR AGAINST AUTH . MONTH ENDED ALLOCATION April 30, 1995 88 .9% $3,358,713 100.0% $8,183,914 100 .0 % $11,642,627 100.O% $8,455,649 94.4% $19,937,168 94 .6% *13,022,522 041,416,338 $1,219,000 $16,148,369 (4) *17,367,369 *1,604,215 $1,$04.211$ Page 1 of 4 56 .3% 77.0% 100.0% 80.3% 81.4% 86.5% 60 $0 $1,005 $752,674 *284,358 $1,03L031 *0 $2,473 12,473 % EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE 52,839,778 $2,086,778 *2,937,277 $7,482,777 $10,420,054 $8,1'59,270 $8,869,049 $11,869,277 328,907,606 $1,210,000 $15,927,436 $17',137;4.36 $1,330,589 $1,330,11 83.2% 83.2% 87 .5% 91.4 % 90,3% 96 .6 % 44.5 % 91.1 % 89:0% 99 .3 % 98.6% 58;7% 82 .9% SZS% RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY R OUTE PR OJECT DESCRIPTION ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Magnolia to OCL (HOV) R08801,8901,8902,9001 9002,9133,9214,) City of Corona (Smith, M aple, Lincoln IC) (3) d Magnolia to Mary (R09101,9102,9103,9105,9212,9415, 9308) SR71 to 1-15 (R09123,9128,9129,9130) 1-15 to 1-215 (R09131) M cKinle y Undercrossing (R0 9326) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Ehviron. (R09008, 9018) (5) Right -of -Way (R09003, 9004,9009,9336, 9222 0007PR1 /2& 0007PR3/4, 00071183-5,9411) SUBTOTAL 1-216 INTERCHANG E IMPROV. PROGRAM Prelim. Engrg (PSR'S) (9107,9124-9127) (1) RT91 Interchange (M aple & Lincoln) (3) Eastridge Overcrossrng (R09132) Galena Interchan ge' (R09014) Yuma IC Final Design' (PS&E) R09428 Yuma IC (City of Norco R09237) SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE BEGHTEL PROJECT MGMT SERV. (R 08900,9000, 9100,9200,9300,9400,9500) SUBTOTAL BECHTEL COM MISSION C ONTRACTURAL T. CO MMITTED EXPENDITURE F OR % E XPENDITURES AUTHORIZED COMMIT MENTS AGAINST AUTH . MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATI ON April 30, 1995 TO DATE C OM MITMNTS TO DATE $30,982,198 $8,104,137 $10,812,508 $3,393,807 $108,792 $1,614,951 $2,300,000 $56.016,393 $6,726,504 $32,760,000 $39,486,504 $3,666,628 $1,288,240 $1,500,000 $73,980 $1,200,000 $650,000 S8,378,848 $10,098,912 $10,098,912 $27,055,658 $7,015,976 $10,530,460 $3,261,015 $108,792 $1,614,951 $2,300,000 $49,5t38,$ag $5,450,721 $32,760,000 $38,210,721 $3,666,628 $1,288,240 $900,000 $73,980 $1,099,975 $650,000 $7,678,923 $9,850,912 49416012 Page 2 of 4 87 .3% 86 .6% 97 .4% 96 .1% 100 .0% 100 .0% 90.1% 81.0% 100.0 % 96.8% 100 .0 % 100.0% 60.0% 100. 0% 91.7% 100.0% 91.6% 97.5% 97.6% $376 $376 $50,751 360,751 $88,166 $88,186 $26,878,754 99 .3% $7,015,976 100 .0% $7,279,812 69.1 % $2,642,335 81.0% $108,792 100 .0% $1,370,299 84 .9% 543,926,869 88.6% $5,340,091 98.0 % $30,695,836 93 .7% 536,036 ,927 94.3% $1,807,046 49 .3% $1,288,240 100.0% $73,980 100.0% $391,821 35 .6% $280,000 43 .1% $3,841,087 50.0% $8,839,476 89 .7% $8,639,478 al<9.7% r RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REP ORT BY R OUTE COMMISSI ON C ONTRACTURAL PR OJECT AUTH ORIZED C OM MITMENTS DESCRIPTION ALLOCATI ON TO DATE PROGRA M PLAN & SERVICES Program Studles (R09006,9010,9013,910891199227 9307,0007PC2/3/40ACO G/DTIM) Co rridor Studies (R09017,9110,9120) M apping Control/QA (R09007) SUBTOTAL PROGRAM PLAN & SVCS. PARK-N-RIDEIINCENT. PROG RAM (R09113,9114,9121,9134,9202,9203,9412,9413 9204,9205,9211,9210,0007CA2/3, Impr,9410 9236,9311,9328,9332,9344,9401,9402,9403,9418 9501-9506,9514-9517,9519) SUBTO TAL PARK-i-RIDE COMMUTER RAIL' Studies/Engineering (R09021,9105,9220,9309,9319,9321,9310) 9325,9235,9323,9327,0007RS3-BB&K only, 9320 9 322, 9324 , 9 3 3 3, 9345 , 9 414, 9227, 9420, 9430) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs (RO8905,9201,9209,9009,9221,9223,0007RF3-5, 9224 , 9417, 0007RA2-4, 9416,9424,9510, IMPR. 0007RS3 ,9335,9341,9340,00041p3,9521, 9529) SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL ' TOTALS NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. (2) May be reduced by passage of SB 300 funds. (3) RCTC project actual share after portion allocated to RT 91, IC Improvement Program (loan) & Local Streets & Roads Program. (4) RCTC portion only of Caltrans Contract (5) SANBAG responsible for 25% Report does not Include Legal and Financial services or salary and fringe benefds All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Page 3 of 4 $5,275,161 $689,450 $2,683,729 $8,648 .340 $4,605,759 $4,606,769 $4,143,756 $5,275,161 $640,467 $2,683,729 $11,5119,357 $4,605,759 $4,608,759 $4,143,756 $90,476,388 $90,476,388 $94,620,144 $308,736,789 $94,60,144 9295,0132,118 % C OMMITTED EXPENDITURE F OR AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED ALL OCATION April 30, 1995 100.0 % 92 .9 % 100.0% 99 .4'. 100.0% ta4;a% 100 .0 % 100 .0 % 109:0% 92.3% 90 $14,720 $14,720 $44,685 $34,977 $78,882 $1,274,186 EXPENDITURES TO DATE $3,201,593 $628,900 $2,619,141 $9,449,634. $3,924,61$ $3,924,916 $4,004,659 $82,356,234 $88.344,893 $260,012.764 % EXPENDITURES TO - DATE AGAINST C OM MITMNTS TO DATE 60.7% 98 .2 % 97.6 % 76.O% 85.2% 96 .2% 96 .6% 91 .0% 91,3% 87:714 Statue M o. Ending 04/30 /95 RCT C MEASURE A HIGHWAY/L OCAL STREETS & ROADS PR OJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY OF MURRIETA Loan Agreement I -1/I-215 Interchange improvements (R09334) SUBTO TAL MURRIETA LOA N 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 MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES C OMMITMENT April 30, 1995 TO DATE $17,000,000 $17,000,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $0 So TOTALS $23,81,623 $0 NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs (2) May be reduced by passage of SB 300 funds. All value$ are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Page 4 of 4 $2,379,711 $2,379,711 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $9,192,334.. % EXPENDITURES LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST BALANCE C OMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT. $1,140,487 $1,140,487 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $5,212,623 $8,212,823 $7,953,110 $15.859,513 $16,859,$13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,859,513 14.0% 14.0 % 100 .0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 38.6% St atus Mo Ending 04/30/95 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller SUBJECT: Refunding of 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Early in 1994 the Commission granted the Executive Director the authority to refund the 1991 Series A bonds if the opportunity presented itself. However, interest rates shortly thereafter began to escalate and any savings that the Commission might have realized from a refunding did not materialize. The Commission's authorization expired as of December, 1994. Recently, interest rates have begun to decline as the economy slows and the market perceives that Congress is serious about deficit reduction if not elimination. In fact the very day this memo was drafted(Friday, June 2) the bond market staged a huge rally dropping nearly twenty basis points on the Treasury 30 year bond yield. This occurred as a result of economic data indicating a slowing economy. Speculation is increasing that if economic data continues to demonstrate a slowdown in the economy, that the Federal Reserve Bank may cut interest rates to forestall a recession. If rates continue to drop, the Commission may be able to refund its 1991 Series A bonds at a lower interest rate and realize dollar savings in excess of $1,000,000. Staff needs Commission authorization to proceed with a refunding if the opportunity arises and to draft the necessary documents to accomplish the refunding. The market information was obtained by staff after the agenda had been processed. Staff is requesting that this be added as an emergency item to the Budget and Finance Committee agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. authorizing the refunding of the 1991 Sales Tax Revenue(Limited Tax) Bonds. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\APR.95\refund.DM AGENDA ITEM #6A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT:. CVAG Request for Funding Advance for Highway 111 Project/Cathedray City The attached May 15, 1995, letter from Patricia A. Larson, Executive Director of CVAG, requests an indication from RCTC regarding the possibility of advancing funds to accommodate both phases of a Route 111 highway improvement project in Cathedral City concurrently. It appears that CVAG is willing to advance funds, either TUMF or Measure A Regional Arterial funds or other funds now programmed to a project which may not be on an advanced schedule. We are working with CVAG staff to prepare a schedule for Coachella Valley highway fund cash flows to determine when RCTC payback could occur for funds advanced. This item is intended as a place holder. If the cash flow information is generated in time to enable RCTC and CVAG staff to agree upon an approach for advanced funds by the June 14, 1995 meeting, we propose the item be brought forward. :jw CVAG • Cathedral City • Indian Wells • Coachella • Indio • Desert Hot Springs • La Ouinta • County of Riverside • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS May 15, 1995 Mr. Jack Reagan Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Highway 1 1 1 projects/Cathedral City Dear Mr. Reagan: At the May 3rd meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee meeting, I spoke to the request by Cathedral City for an advance by CVAG on future funding by RCTC for Highway 111 projects. Per the handout given to the CVAG Executive Committee (relevant pages attached) at their meeting of April 24th, by Mr. Blackwelder, the committed RCTC funding through the year 1997-98 is $4.4 + million with a notation of "future funding" (i.e. sometime after 1997-98) of an additional $4.7 + . (As I indicated at the May3rd meeting, I was going by memory and I referred to the amounts as 6.4 and 6.7 million which is incorrect. The correct amounts per the information are 4.6 and 4.7 million.) As I indicated at the May 3rd meeting, Cathedral City has approached .CVAG to advance the "future funding" amount of $4.7 so that the total project can be done all at once. I think that is a very sound idea and one of considerable regional value beyond the obvious project economy. It is possible that CVAG might be able to advance the funds. We have not run our cash flow numbers, however, it would be contingent that this would not jeopardize the RCTC commitment of "future funds" and as well we would need some sort of commitment from RCTC as to the year the funds would be projected to be available. This project is the number one priority for Cathedral City. I suspect that it is very important to the neighboring cities of Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage as well. It has been my observation that there is always a way to make something possible if we think about creative solutions. If at all possible, CVAG staff would like to accommodate the City. In order to evaluate the request for the Executive Committee, I need to know the RCTC position on this matter as soon as possible. Yours very truly, COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Patricia A. 'Larson Executive Director encl: Attachment Al Attachment A2 cc Bruce Liedstrand, Consultant Vern Hazen, City Manager David Berry, Mayor 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 • Palm Desert, CA 92260 • (619) 346-1127 • FAX (619) 340-5949 AGENDA ITEM #6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Gary Martin, Bechtel Route 111 Coordinator Tom Horkan, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, RCTC Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorization to Use Savings Anticipated on the Sunrise Way/East Palm Canyon Drive project in Palm Springs to Accelerate Two Other Route 111 Projects in Palm Springs and Indian Wells The project to construct Sunrise Way improvements on East Palm Canyon Drive in the City of Palm Springs is included in the Measure A Route 111 Expenditure Plan. This project has reached the construction bid stage and is expected to be completed for approximately $350,000 less than the current approved budget. Two jurisdictions have made requests to accelerate work on projects as described below. The City of Palm Springs requests consideration to use some of the cost savings to accelerate design work on the Route 111/Gene Autry Trail intersection. The City would also like to reserve the right to come forward near completion of design to either enter into a reimbursement agreement with RCTC for construction funding, or if funds are available and no other projects are delayed, to have the project funded for construction using the appropriate CVAG/RCTC policy of cost sharing with local jurisdictions. The initial effort for design will cost approximately $50,000 with a final scope to be determined. The City of Indian Wells has been developing an intersection modification at Route 111 and Cook Street with local funds. The City requests consideration for reimbursement of the construction costs for this project from the $350,000 in Measure A cost savings from the Palm Springs project. The Cook Street improvement at Route 1 1 1 was also shown in the Route 1 1 1 Improvement Program future years (beyond 1998). The City requests the total project of $220,000, to be split according to the CVAG/RCTC cost sharing policy with the local jurisdictions. The majority of the project cost is within the Route 111 right-of-way and would therefore be funded with Route 111 funds. Approving Measure A funding as requested for the two projects will not jeopardize schedule or delivery on any other projects shown in the Measure A Route 111 Improvement Program. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\SUNRISE.GM Page 2 Funds for both projects are proposed as part of the 1995-1996 Measure A Highway Budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Approve the acceleration and funding of the design of the Route 111/Gene Autry Trail project and construction of the Route 111/Cook Street project as described above. The recommended FY 95-96 funding for these projects is $50,000 and $220,000 respectively and is shown in the proposed budget; and, 2) Direct Staff to move forward with Cooperative Agreements with the City of Palm Springs and with the City of Indian Wells for the projects described above. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\SUNRISE.GM ATTACH MENT Al 27 -Apr -94 01:SS PM ROUTE 111 LOCATION PA LM SPRINGS 1. SU NRISE WAY 2 GENEAUTRY CATHEDRA L CIT Y 3. CATH EDRAL C ANYON 4. WIDE NIN G CC TO D; P. S. D ATE PALM DRIVE [R ANC HO MIR AGE:`:;;: l6 39TH TO FRANK S PALM DESER T 7. TO WN C WIEL PASEO 8. MON TERE Y 9. SAN PABL❑ _10. SAN LUIS REY 11. PORTO LA 12 EL PASEO/CAARILLQ 13. D EEP CANYON !INDIAN WELLS;; 14. COOK STREET INDIO !6, MON R OE TO RUB. TO TAL COST PR OJECT COST P DE V I CONST I R OW 1 TOTAL 30.123 50.817 S0.000 50 .104 50.293 50.410 50.681 50,016 50 .763 50.168 S1.783 53 .844 L OCAL COST P DEVICONST I ROW 1 T OTAL 50.940 50 .801 52 .839 54.422 50.500 $1.360 32.963 54.823 $0.656 50.155 30.811 50.085 50. 186 50.025 50.027 50 .030 50.205 50 .025 50.014 50 .167 50.167 50.000 30.016 50.192 50.210 50 .167 50.047 50.244 50.084 51.922 52.211 50. 30.167 000 50 .192 50.556 50.151 50.711, ME ASURE A COST P DRY L CONSTj ROW ! TOT AL 50.098 50.077 50.650 50.514, 50.000 50.748 50.000 50.591 50.263 50 .205 50.596 50 .084 51.736 51.922 50.475 51.193 $2.963 32.595 52.211 $4.631 n1A & 50,100 50.000 50.100 30.090_ 50.084 50.460 51. 037 50.588 50.542 50.159 _ 50.307 50.020 50.027 50.704 51.530 50 .698 50 .653 50.083 50.060 50. 253. 50. 081 50.518 50. 397 50. 887 50.567 50. 054 50.000 51.189 50. 018 50.655 50.457 52328 30.672 50.112 $0.350 50. 462 50.438 52.549 50.552 53. .539 50.067 50.022 50.008 50 .020 50 .000 50.150 50 .054 50 .293 50 .134 50 .034 50.098 50 .000 50 .210 50.054 50.230 50.020 50.027 50.054 50.000- 51.189 50.122 50 .590 50 .176 50.069 50.172 50.000 . 51.549 50.000 50.000 50.000 50.000 50.206 51.107 50.401 526.332 I 50.071 50.119 50.406 50.744 50 .105 50 .077 50,068 50.454 50.000 50 .582, 50.940 50.522 50.076 50.508 50.063 50.420 50 .000 50.000 50.584 50 .483 50 .060 $0.397 30.000 50.102 50 .677 50.000 50 .457 50 .112 50.350 50.462 50.731 5I.442 50.131 . 51 .824 58.1511 $18 .181 f:\ users\preprint\zt\route l l 1\atta lmik3 AUAil#BL,t ASS oiler 4i q . -I 04,4_4:/. , f O CiT IO v PALM DESERT TIEWEIrrT immi L:77L ITTEMT NE MINIE .77-010M11111. . �, � `T 1a7 - ---• tip MEASURE A �crexotiv R r•_� R OW of3v ■� il Qt1r D6 Y ■11110 `miles= ow ow g am ' ■mm.mnimmEN O:Y •� �f'tl��3TltT'] 90.7, T �� DM _ .'. .4f � �.1_'i''ii_iii nomi`+I3�.Fi ME Rwmow= sm. Imo inim wesiumminnwi Wu ffir. TM NMI NM NM MINIM= T=i]s ;�risi�rCsi PITT A} NM�I■� �NM M.21111111"23 E17 21311 23.111311111 .... .Z 1SP S0.704 SO 021 077 -- L. — ����—~� 98431 .2) MOSO. = SOJZI ~~ moo .420 SO OW SODA Elm worm MN NM NM MOM MIN mono= limn Mal= limilrlim MI SO 109 WA x MN 111111 .1.111.1 ill Liu ,• �r'7Y > MN 1.1011111111111111111111111 M EIN NM MIR M.1..1111..1.111.1.111...1.1..1 mammal X20 = aoa _=_Iajzzlivii====.N=MMINUI.1111 saz�- a isi.... . �� �� o �Ea=NMI`Mini "��MMIIIIIIMILIMINIINIMINIIIII 04.132INIMME mmumulMIMMICIMMEmmerm R Afatl.ft ouefi nirtO.wfd AGENDA ITEM #7A DA's June 7, 1995 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds According to the preliminary estimate from the State Controller's Office, it is expected that Riverside County will receive $1,996,348 in State Transit Assistance Funds in FY 1996. However, for FY 1995 the preliminary estimate was $1,920,172 and the actual came in at $1,426,139. In previous years we have experienced the actual allocation coming in significantly lower than the preliminary estimate. All public transit operators were contacted to solicit a list of projects that could be funded with State Transit Assistance funds. We received responses from the City of Corona, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency. The following is a summary of how the operators propose to use the funds: City of Corona: A total of $8,000 in STA funds are requested to purchase a new copier and laser printer for their transit operation. Riverside Transit Agency: A total of $490,000 is requested to fund three capital projects -- $300,000 for refurbishing of their bus washer, $130,000 for a computerized paratransit dispatching system, and $60,000 for methane detection devices. SunLine Transit Agency: A total of $995,000 if being requested to fund (or provide match for) 6 capital projects. These projects are listed in priority order and a short project description is provided by SunLine. The three requests total $1,493,000. While the estimated revenues are $1,996,348, we expect actual receipts to be much lower. Staff recommends that the City of Corona and Riverside Transit Agency's requests by fully funded, totaling $498,000, with the balance of State Transit Assistance funds, up to $995,000, being allocated to SunLine Transit Agency for the projects requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission allocate State Transit Assistance funds to the City of Corona, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency for the above. summarized projects. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\STAF.CB OFFICE. OF: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (909) 738-2284 (909)738-2498(FAX) April 18, 1995 PW-0415-95 1.14 815 WEST SIXTH STREELf.O. BOX 940, CORONA, CALIFORNIA 91718-0940 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 ATTENTION: Cathy Bechtel, Sr. Staff Analyst STATE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUNDS Pursuant to your letter of March 31, 1995, the City hereby submits its request for funding. City would like to purchase a replacement copier and a laser printer for its Dial -A -Ride operations center. The existing copier was purchased in June, 1991, and because of an increase in both Corona and RTA operations it no longer has enough capacity to get the job done. When the copier was purchased in June, 1991, we required a machine with a capacity of about 2,500 copies per month. Today the number of copies actually being made for Corona and RTA operations exceeds 5,000 copies per month. Maintenance cost for our copier is very high because we are making more copies per month than the machine was ever designed to make. The total cost of the proposed copier should be about $7,000.00 and would have a life expectancy of five years. Our present Dot Matrix printer was purchased in 1991 with our 386 personal computer system. While this 24 -pin Panasonic printer was state of the art in 1991, it is now no longer capable of printing letter quality by today's standards. With the cost of laser printers decreasing over the last few years, it seems reasonable to purchase a new printer at this time. The total cost of the proposed laster printer should be about $ 1,000.00 and would have a life expectancy of five years. Thank you for considering this project for STA funds. cerely, -s. SEPH R. PALENCIA Public Works Director JRP:CW:ed April21, 1995 MEMBERS: Cathedral City indron Wells Palm Springs Caachelia Indio Rancho Mirage Desert Hot Springs La Quinta Riverside County Polm Desert A Public Agency Cathy Bechtel Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave. Suite 100 Riverside, Ca. 92501 Dear Cathy, Please find enclosed SunLine Transit Agency's request for State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds for the 1995/96 fiscal year. Because of the estimate of only a limited amount of STA funds available, SunLine is keeping requests to only those capital items which are absolutely necessary. If we have further capital needs, we will seek capital from other funding sources. - The following information includes a capital project worksheet, and a project description and justification page. It is important to note that two of the STA funded capital projects, are matching funds for federal funds. The projects are listed in order of importance and of SunLine's priorities. If you have any questions, or need further information, please give me a call. Sincerely, SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY • Rand Watts Chief Financial Officer • -s. 32 -SOS Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276 Phone 619-343-3456 Fax 619-343-3845 May 10, 1995 Jack Reagan Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Riverside, CA 92507 Dear Mr. Reagan: Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone: (909) 684-0850 Fax: (909) 684-1007 Pursuant to your call for projects, RTA is hereby applying for STA funding for the following capital projects: Bus washer re -furbishing $300,000 Computerized paratransit dispatching $130,000 Methane Detection Devices $ 60,000 Total $490,000 The bus washer will need re -furbishing during the next year, which is appropriate with such equipment after almost 20 years of use. The funding for computerized paratransit dispatching will expand our program to include enhancing dispatching of more paratransit services than were involved in the original demonstration project. Methane detection devices have been found to significantly enhance safety at facilities with CNG, by providing early warning of any gas leaks, of any magnitude. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, e_9 Susan J. Hafner General Manager RLiaav4;v— BUS LEASE PAYMENTS: This item is the annual lease payment on seventeen of the 40' CNG motor coaches. The STA funds act as local matching funds for Federal Section 9 Funds. INDIO CNG FUELING STATION: This project is of major importance to both public transit, and to the furthering of clean fuels technology in the Coachella Valley. The Compressed Natural Gas fueling site will be located on SunLine's Indio property. Besides providing fuel for both SunLine' fixed route vehicles located in Indio, and SunLine's Dial -A -Ride vehicles, the station will be open to the public and other governmental fleets. The station will provide for substantial cost savings for SunLine. Since SunLine will own the station, the fuel cost itself will be dropped to 60% of the present cost of fuel. SunLine will also save on fuel delivery charges. The annual operational savings will be approximately $90,000. The station will also further the Valley's CNG program by providing a full time down valley fueling location. The location is central for several cities, and Riverside County. FACII_.ITY IMPROVEMENTS: This project includes various smaller facility improvements at both the Thousand Palms location, and SunLine's new Indio facility. Improvements at the Indio location will help provide additional office rental income. MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT: Included in this project are new tools and diagnostic equipment for the new CNG motor coaches, and equipment required to comply with environmental regulations. COMPUTER EQUIPMENT: SunLine continues to push toward modernization and technology advancement, therefor it is necessary to maintain an efficient, up to date information system. This includes new personal computers, network upgrades, and various items. BUS STOP SHELTERS: SunLine now contracts with a vendor to sell shelter advertising. This vendor now owns and operates the shelters. SunLine currently maintains the shelters. The vendor desires to sell the shelters at this time. This would provide an opportunity for SunLine to purchase the shelters and receive a substantial increase in operating revenues. It is estimated that through advertising revenues, the shelters will pay for themselves in six or seven years. The shelter program is also very important because of the benefit they provide to SunLine's customers. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 STA FUNDS OTHER PROJECT PROJECT TITLA REOtgSTFp Emz BUS LEASE PAYMENTS $120,000 $480,000 $600,000 INDIO CNG FUELING STATION $375,000 $375,000 FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS $75,000 $75,000 MAINT EQUIPMENT $50,000 $50,000 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT $50,000 $50,000 BUS STOP SHELTERS S325,000 5475.000 S TOTAL CAPITAL $995,000 $955,000 $1,950,000 AGENDA ITEM #7B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1996 Short Range Transit Plan The Riverside County FY 1996 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) covers three areas of the county, the Western County area, the Coachella Valley area, and the Palo Verde Valley area, and is comprised of plans for the six municipal operators, the Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and Regional Commuter Rail. Staff has reviewed the plans of the operators for compliance with the unmet transit needs responses, reasonableness of estimated cost and ridership increases, compliance with fare revenue to operating cost ratio requirements, and justification for capital projects. Western Riverside County Operators The Plans for the operators look a bit different this year since we are only presenting the first year of a seven year plan. As is explained at the beginning of the Western County section, projected Western County revenues for FY 1997-2002 do not meet levels of service demand. (This occurred in the Coachella Valley a number of years ago and they have had to trim service to fit revenues). A hard look at current service levels and plans for expansion is required since any expenses shown in the Regional Transit Improvement Plan (RTIP) must have funds available to provide the service. Staff from the operators and the Commission will work together over the summer to nail down revenue projections and service demands and return to the Cornmission in September for consideration of the balance of the seven year plan. Another factor we will need to consider when planning for service in the future is receipt of federal operating funds. We are hearing that operating assistance may be cut 30-50% in FY 1996 with additional cuts in subsequent years. One note of good news, however, is that additionaTfederal capital revenue wilFcome to the County due toihe operation of the Metrolink. RCTC has just confirmed that for the two weeks of FY 92/93 that the Riverside Line operated, approximately $1.4 million in Section 9 rail capital was generated for Riverside County. At minimum, we will receive this same amount for operation of the F:\USERS\PREPRI NTW UN.95\SRTP96.CB service in FY 93/94. These funds are in addition to existing Section 9 bus revenue since they come from a separate pot of funds. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority is still avoiding the use of federal funds on the system due to the incredible new costs that would be incurred due to federal regulations. We will be working with the bus operators in our County and throughout the region to maximize the use of these available funds. You will notice in the Western County plans that many of the operators do show plans for some service expansion in FY 1996. The Short Range Transit Plan Committee members are requesting that the operators not implement any brand new service improvements until we have completed our analysis and planning for years two through seven. The previously approved service expansions such as the headway improvements associated with the 10 bus expansion on RTA or the service capacity expansion on the Corona Dial -a -Ride are an exception. We are reticent to start any new services that may not be able to be supported in the next fiscal year. Since we are still trying to get a handle on the exact amount of federal capital funds available in the Western Riverside County, we are recommending that all capital purchases be considered in September along with the balance of the plan. The operators have informed us that waiting three months to move forward on capita( purchases would not negatively affect their operations. Coachella Valley Operators The operators in the Coachella Valley are not planning any significant service changes in FY 1996. The ridership on the City of Rancho Mirage's Dial -A -Cab is increasing slightly so costs are boosted proportionately to pay for the fixed rate per ride charge. SunLine is planning to operate at the same budget level as last year, $8.6 million. They do plan on shifting service hours an their,SunDial service in order to provide more service on weekday afternoons and will add one trip on Line 31 to accommodate demand and add service to La Quinta High School on Line 70. Due to their tight funding situation, they are having to trim unproductive trips or other operational costs to fund the service improvements. SunLine's capital projects are clearly outlined in their Table 4. Palo Verde Valley The Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency is proposing a number of improvements in FY 1996, most in response to comments received through the unmet needs process. Staff is excited about the City's plan to implement_ the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Program (TRIP) in the Palo Verde Valley. The TRIP is highly successful in the Western County and recently was instituted in Coachella Valley too. This mileage F:\USERSIPREPRINT JUN.95\SRTP96.CB reimbursement program will provide a low cost service option to seniors and persons with disabilities residing in areas currently receiving no public transit service due to the high cost associated with serving the rural, low population density areas. In addition, the City is including costs to hire a part-time staff person to oversee the transit program for the city. RCTC staff agrees that more attention must be given to the transit program to ensure correct reporting and monitoring. We are currently undergoing discussion on how many staff hours are required. The budget includes $12,500 to fund a half-time person; this may be reduced slightly after negotiations but will not increase. The Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council reviewed the Plans at their meeting on May 30, 1996 and concur with the staff recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Approve the FY 1996 Short Range Transit Plans as presented for SunLine Transit Agency, City of Rancho Mirage, and the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency; and, 2) Approve the FY 1996 Operating Plans for the transit operators in the Western Riverside County contingent on approval of new expansion service plans. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRIMIJUN.95\SRTP96.CB WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FY 1996 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS In the Western part of the County, six public transit operators provide services. These operators are: City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona City of Riverside Riverside Transit Agency Southern California Regional Rail Authority In order to ensure coordinated and efficient transit services, a committee of policy and technical representatives from each operator is involved in the development of the Short Range Transit Plan. We are now facing a challenging period to continue to fund expansion of transit services in the Western County. Major issues at hand are compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and delivery of the identified rail services. Revenues for the upcoming years are not projected to be sufficient to meet the demands for transit service. Choices must be made to determine exactly where funds will be allocated. If you will recall in June of 1993 a study was conducted for the Commission by Barton- Aschman Associates which looked at the development of an integrated transit planning process for the Western Riverside County. One of the recommendations from the study was to establish funding priorities for the seven year program which would be updated annually. The Commission adopted a policy to maintain a base level of local transportation funds to support transit service, both bus and rail. The policy stated that bus and paratransit operators are to be funded based on the level approved in the FY 1993 Short Range Transit Plan (amended April 1993) and is to be escalated by an appropriate inflation factor each year. The need to replace vehicles is also factored in to the estimate of the base funding level for each operator. For rail service, the baseline policy includes funding obligations to implement commuter rail services outlined in Measure A, which include service on the Union Pacific line between Riverside -Los Angeles, Riverside -Orange County/Los Angeles service via the Santa Fe line, and implementation of Hemet/San Jacinto to Riverside service on the San Jacinto branch. Any local transportation funds in excess of the baseline level can then be allocated to fund expansion of bus, paratransit or commuter rail operations as needed. The seven-year Plan developed last year included plans to expand bus service in fiscal year 1997, however operating funds were not specifically identified. Recent changes made at the Federal level require all projects identified in the Regional` Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) to be financially constrained. The first three years of the Plan must have firm funding commitments while the projects in the remaining four years must have funds identified which are reasonably expected to be available. • Full funding requirements for Metrolink commitments are not yet pinned down due to budget negotiations at the SCRRA level, so it is unknown at this time how much money may be available for expansion of bus and paratransit services in the Western County. The SRTP Committee grappled with this dilemma and decided that since the service and funding requirements for FY 1996 can be identified, and so that current services are not negatively affected, the first year of the Plan will be completed in June with the balance of the Plan completed by September. This will give us the summer to finalize all service and revenue requirements for the Metrolink and other transit services. New transit projects must be submitted for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan by June 30, 1995. The first year of they SRTP could be put into the RTIP by the 30th, with the remaining years updated in September as an amendment. Since the majority of transit projects are federally exempt from the conformity finding, amending the projects into the RTIP at a later time is not expected to be problematic. Working with the transit operators, we have received their estimated cost projections to operate service in FY 1996. The following pages provide a short summary of each operators' plan for service in the upcoming year. FY 1996 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN CITY OF BANNING CITY OF BANNING Current Service The City of Banning operates two fixed -routes within the City limits and a dial -a -ride service for passengers unable to use the accessible fixed -route service. Fixed route service is available Monday -Friday, 6:00a.m.-8:00p.m. with Saturday service from 8:00a.m.-5:00p.m. with a break in service from 12:00-1:00 p.m. for lunch. Dial -a -ride service is available from 9:00a.m.-3:OOp.m., Monday -Friday, with complementary paratransit service available the same hours as the fxed-route for ADA certified passengers. Proposed FY 1996 Service Level During the 1994 unmet transit needs public hearing process, there were comments regarding the need to improve travel opportunities to the Cabazon area. The City, in cooperation with the Riverside Transit Agency, has planned a one year demonstration route between Banning and Cabazon. Service is scheduled to be available Monday through Friday, 8:00a.m.-6:00p.m. and Saturday 8:00a.m.-5:00p.m. Service is proposed to begin in July 1995. A fare of $0.75 per ride is proposed for service to Cabazon; the regular fixed -route is $0.50. Dial -a -ride weekday service hours are proposed to expand by 3 hours per day to allow an 8:00a.m.-5:00p.m. service day. Paratransit service is currently available for ADA certified riders during this time; city staff is proposing that the service also be available for non-ADA certified seniors and persons with disabilities since the van driver is already scheduled. In addition, the noon hour break in fixed -route service on Saturdays will be eliminated to allow continuous 8:00a.m.-5:00p.m. service. Proposed Capital Improvements for FY 1996 No capital improvements are planned for FY 95-96. However, a $7,500 carryover is budgeted for the purchase of ADA compliant bus stop signs which were approved in FY 1995. TABLE 1: PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY 1996 SERVICE TYPE: Fixed —Route & DL —A—Ride OPERATOR: City of Banning SERVICE UNUNKED PASSENGERS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE HOURS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE MILES (000'S) OPERATING COST ($000'S) FARE REVENUE ($000'S) NET OPERATING COST (000'S) TOTAL COST/VEH. HR. NET COST /VEH. HR TOTAL COST/VEH. MI. NET COST/VEH. MI. PASSENGERS /VEH. MI. PASSENGERS/VEH. HR. AVG FARE REV./PASSENGER FARE REV./OPER. COST SUBSIDY/PASSENGER FY 1995 174.7 9.0 129.2 $345.6 $58.9 $286.7 $38.40 $31.86 $2.67 $2.22 1.4 19.4 $0.34 17.0% $1.64 FY 1996 213.3 13.2 212.4 $494.7 $67.8 $426.9 $37.48 $32.34 $2.33 $2.01 1.0 16.2 $0.32 13.7% $2.00 TRANSIT PR OJECTS SCAG FY 1996-2002 SRTP/RTIP PREPARED BY: C. Becht el DATE: May 12, 1995 COUNTY: RIVERSIDE AGENCY: City of B anning PAGE 1 OF 1 TABLE 5: FINANCIAL PLAN PR EX FTA FTA CO DE PROJECT DESCRIPTION YR YR TOTAL Sec 9 Sec 18 STA TDA FARES OTHER (1) (2) (3) TR6N FY 1995-96 Operating Assistance Fixed Route & Dial —A —Ride 96 96 $495 $427 $68 CITY OF BEAUMONT CITY OF BEAUMONT Current Service The City of Beaumont provides general public dial -a -ride service to the City of Beaumont and the unincorporated areas of Cherry Valley and Highland Springs. Transfers between the Beaumont dial -a -ride, the Riverside Transit Agency Line 31 to Hemet, and the Banning fixed route system are coordinated hourly at San Gorgonio Pass Hospital. Dial -a -ride service is operated Monday -Friday, 8:0Oa.m.-5:OOp.m. with a fare of $0.75 per trip. Proposed FY 1996 Service Level The City of Beaumont is planning a continuation of its existing level of general public Bial- a -ride service for the City of Beaumont and the unincorporated areas of Cherry Valley and Highland Springs. Proposed Capital Improvements for FY 1996 One new capital purchase is planned for FY 1996. $55,000 is budgeted for the replacement of a 1986 Ford van. In addition, previously allocated capital funds will be carried over to purchase already approved projects. These projects include: . Brake lathe One replacement van ('84) Four radios Two replacement vans('84 & '87) Computer & Shop Equipment $ 5,000 $35,000 $ 6,000 $80,000 $ 6,000 Approved in FY 1993 Approved in FY 1994 Approved in FY 1994 Approved in FY 1995 Approved in FY 1995 TABLE 1: PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY 1996 SERVICE TYPE: Dial —A —Ride OPERATOR: City of Beaumont SERVICE UNLINKED PASSENGERS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE HOURS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE MILES (000'S) OPERATING COST ($000'S) FARE REVENUE ($000'S) NET OPERATING COST (000'S) TOTAL COST/VEH. HR. NET COST /VEH. HR TOTAL COST/VEH. MI. NET COST/VEH. MI. PASSENGERS /VEH. MI. PASSENGER SNEH. HR. AVG FARE REV./PASSENGER FARE REV./OPER. COST SUBSIDY/PASSENGER FY1995 112.4 10.5 160.4 $437.8 $60.8 $377.0 $41.70 $35.90 $2.73 $2.35 0.7 10.7 $0.54 13.9% $3.35 FY 1996 116.9 10.9 166.8 $500.7 $63.2 $437.5 $45.94 $40.14 $3.00 $2.62 0.7 10.7 $0.54 12.6% $3.74 TRANSIT PR OJECTS SCAG FY 1996-2002 SRTP/RTIP PREPARED BY: C. Bechtel DATE: May 12, 1995 COUNTY: RIVERSIDE AGENCY: City of Beaumont PAGE 1 OF 1 TABLE 5: FINANCIAL PLAN PR EX FTA FTA CODE 1PROJECT DESCRIPTI ON YR YR TOTAL Sec 9 Sec 18 STA TDA FARES OTHER (1) (2) TR6Q (3) Purchase brake lathe (1) (2) Purchase 1 Replacement 12 —Passenger (3) TR6A3 Van w/Lift & Tiedo wns (1) (2) (3) TR6O Purchase 4 Radio s (1) (2) Purchase 2 Replacement Vans w/lifts (3) TR6A3 & tiedowns (1) (2) Purchase compute r system, printer, (3) TR6O software, & sho p equipment 93 96 $5 $5 94 96 $35 $35 94 96 $6 $6 95 96 $80 95 96 $6 (1) (2) FY 1995-96 Operating Assistance 96 96 $501 (3) TR6N $80 $434 $63 (1) (2) Purchase 1 Replacement 16—Psgr. Bus 96 96 $55 $55 (3) TR6A3 by/lifts & tledowns sa CITY OF CORONA CITY OF CORONA Current Service The City of Corona operates a general public dial -a -ride. The service area includes the City of Corona and a portion of the adjacent unincorporated areas of Home Gardens, El Cerrito and Green River. Service is provided by a private contractor, Dave Transportation Services, Inc., and is available Monday -Friday from 6:30a.m.-6:0op.m. with Saturday service available from 9:OOa.m.-5:OOp.m. Fares on the system are $1.00 full fare with a $0.50 reduced fare charged to seniors and persons with disabilities. The City has had difficulty meeting the minimum required fare revenue ratio of 20% due to increasing costs and the proportion of senior and disabled passengers (approximately 50%) using the system at a reduced fare level. included in the FY 1996 farebox revenue projection of $128,000 is $22,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds which the Commission has approved to augment fare subsidies for seniors and persons with disabilities. Proposed FY 1996 Service Level While the operating hours and days of service are planned to remain the same in FY 1996, the available service capacity of the system will increase with the addition of two expansion CNG powered vehicles which were ordered in FY 1995. Proposed Capital Improvements for FY 1996 Two replacement lift -equipped vans with radios, fareboxes and tiedowns are planned for purchase in FY 1996. These vehicles will replace two 1992 Ford vans. No other capital projects are planned in FY 1996. TABLE 1: PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY 1996 SERVICE TYPE: Dial —A —Ride OPERATOR: City of Corona SERVICE UNUNIED PASSENGERS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE HOURS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE MILES (000'S) OPERATING COST ($000'S) FARE REVENUE ($000'S) NET OPERATING COST (000'S) TOTAL COST/VEH. HR. NET COST /VEH. HR TOTAL COST/VEH. MI. NET COST/VEH. MI. PASSENGERS /VEH. MI. PASSENGERSNEH. HR. AVG FARE REV./PASSENGER FARE REV./OPER. COST SUBSIDY/PASSENGER FY 1995 105.3 17.4 239.4 $473.8 $94.8 $379.0 $27.23 $21.78 $1.98 $1.58 0.4 6.1 $0.90 20.0% $3.60 FY 1996 137.6 22.4 307.8 $635.6 $127.1 $508.5 $28.38 $22.70 $2.06 $1.65 0.4 6.1 $0.92 20.0% $3.70 A TRANSIT PR OJECTS SCAG FY 1996-2002 SRTP/RTIP PREPARED BY: C. Bechtel DATE: May 12, 1995 COUNTY: RIVERSIDE AGENCY: City of Cor on a PAGE 1 OF 1 TABLE 5: FINANCIAL PLAN PR EX FTA FTA CODE PROJECT DESCRIPTION YR YR TOTAL Se c 9 Sec 18 STA TDA FARES OTHER (1) (2) FY 1995-96 Operating Assistance 96 96 $636 $86 (3) TR6N Dial —A —Ride $422 $106 $22 (1) (2) Purchase 2 Replace. Vans w/lifts 96 97 $120 $96 (3) TR6A3 Radios, Fareboxes & Tiedowns $24 CITY OF RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES CITY OF RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES Current Service The City of Riverside has provided dial -a -ride service for seniors and persons with disabilities within the City limits since June 1975. Currently, the Riverside Special Services Program operating hours are Monday -Thursday, 7:00a.m.-6:00p.m., with service on Friday from 7:00a.m.-9:30p.m. Weekend service is available Saturday and Sunday from 9:00a.m.-4:30p.m. The amount of ADA ridership has increased significantly so that ADA riders comprise one- third of the monthly ridership. Proposed FY 1996 Service Level Changes for next year include an additional 8 hours of service per day, which will be added as two, four-hour afternoon routes and an additional four hours of service for Friday Night Friendly Stars (a social program for persons with disabilities). Both requests for service are needed to meet RTA's requirements as listed in their ADA implementation plan. In addition, a fare increase has been approved by the City Council. Regular fares will increase from $0.45 to $0.50 per passenger, with premium service offered for $35.00 per month per client, an increase from $25.04 per month. The fare change is scheduled to take effect July 1, 1995. This increase in fares will allow the City to meet their required farebox recovery ratio of 10% without a subsidy of Measure A Specialized Transit funds. Proposed Capital Improvements for FY 1996 Five replacement lift -equipped alternatively fueled vans with lifts and tiedowns are scheduled for purchase in FY 1996. These vehicles will replace 5 gas -powered 1991 Ford vans. No other capital projects are planned in FY 1996. TABLE 1: PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY 1996 SERVICE TYPE: Di1I—A—Ride OPERATOR: City of Riverside SERVICE UNUNKED PASSENGERS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE HOURS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE MILES (000'S) OPERATING COST ($000'S) FARE REVENUE ($000'S) NET OPERATING COST (000'S) TOTAL COST/VEH. HR. NET COST /VEH. HR TOTAL COST/VEH. MI. NET COST/VEH. MI. PASSENGERS /VEH. MI. PASSENGERSNEH.HR. AVG FARE REV./PASSENGER FARE REV./OPER. COST SUBSIDY/PASSENGER FY1995 141.0 35.9 517.0 $1,084.9 $80.1 $1,004.8 $30.26 $28.02 $2.10 $1.94 0.3 3.9 $0.57 7.4% $7.13 FY 1996 150.8 37.7 527.8 $1,222.0 $85.4 $1,136.6 $32.41 $30.15 $2.32 $2.15 0.3 4.0 $0.57 7.0% $7.54 TRANSIT PROJECTS SCAG FY 1996-2002 SRTP/RTIP PREPARED BY: C. Bechtel DATE: May 12, 1995 TABLE 5: FINANCIAL PLAN CODE '• PROJECT DESCRIPTION (1) (2) FY 1995-96 Operating Assistance (3) TR6N E & H Dial —A —Ride (1) (2) Purchase 5 Replacement Vans (3) TR6A3 Willis and Tledowns COUNTY: RIVERSIDE AGENCY: City of Riversid e PAGE 1 OF 1 PR EX FTA FTA YR YR T OTAL Sec 9 Sec 18 STA TDA FARES OTHER 96 96 $1,221 $1,196 $85 96 97 $230 $184 so $46 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RTA SRTP YEAR ONE - FY 1995/1996 OVERVIEW Directly -operated fixed -route services will increase with the arrival of 10 CNG-fueled expansion buses. Approved in FY 1993, this service expansion will improve headways on the Route #2/Corona, Route #25 Riverside/Loma Linda, Route #13/Riverside, Routes #16 & #17 Moreno Valley/Riverside, and will re -align the Routes #14/21/29 within Riverside to improve service. These vehicles were funded through a COP, with annual debt service payments funded 80% through Riverside Section 9 funds, and 20% through local match. The operating budget does not include additional administrative staff related to this bus expansion. A total of approximately 30 new drivers and 1 mechanic will be required for the additional directly -operated services. Contracted -service improvements include the replacement of 22 paratransit vehicles. These will be a combination of mini -buses & large vans which currently have exceeded over 100,000 miles of service. In addition, 4 vehicles are planned for improved services in Hemet. At least 16 of these vehicles will be funded with existing Hemet Section 9 (carryover) funds, with the remainder funded with Riverside Section 9 funds. Additional service hours will also include implementation of the ADA Inter -city services. Contracted -services which were implemented during FY 1994/95, such as the Routes #30, #35 and #36 will continue, with #35 and #36 increasing from 3 to 5 days of service per week. Additional dial -a -ride hours will also continue, based on ridership and demand, as will the recently implemented taxi -service for evening and weekend travel in Riverside and Corona. RTA will work with the cab company to determine the feasibility of providing intercity cab service between Corona and Riverside. Route #149 will be reduced to it's prior level of service, using one bus instead of two. Although ridership has been quite good, OCTA has reduced its level of funding. Route #496 will remain with modified headways and stops, and the #49, which will be directly operated, will serve the area between downtown Riverside and Mira Loma which was previously served by the #496. Exact contract costs for the #149 and #496 will be determined by bids received. The capital budget includes replacement of 10 - 40' buses and the purchase of the 6th trolley. RTA currently has a pending CMAQ application for the 10 buses, and already has approval for the 6th trolley through CMAQ and PVEA funds. Capital support equipment/services in maintenance and operations includes steam cleaners, minor building improvements, and appropriate expense to refurbish the bus washer, which is now 20 years old, and nearing the end of its useful life. Most of these are proposed for funding through LTF. Other support equipment includes computerized dispatching equipment for paratransit services, which is pending as a Measure A grant application. Other portions of this project have previously been funded by FTA and PVEA. Miscellaneous computer equipment is proposed for FTA funding. FTA funding is proposed for continued efforts in the design/development of the 2nd operating facility in Perris. This is a multi -year project, with initial funding for FY 1994/95 coming from STA and LTF. Please see attachments for further budget detail. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Service Description INCREMENTALCOSTS SERVICE CHANGES FY 1996 5t22/95 Hemet -additional hrs. Rt 35 additional days Additi onal Hrs Cost/FY1996 Equipment Required add 11/wkday add 3.5 Sunday Demo services (8hrs/wkday) $195,679 $67,673 4/new request Rt. 36 additional days Taxi Voucher inter —city 10 exp nsio n buses Rt. #149 reductio n add 103 days add 103 days add app 7 trips/wkday; 4trips/Sun add 36,000 hrs/year includes dema ($ 1ONO) $25,141 $13,872 $41,315 $1,920,953 —0— —0— —0- 10/on order Route #496 reduction Route #49 addition ADA intercity Total cut app 8 hrs/day cut by app 2/3 ($136,082) ($268,331) —1 vehicle —2 vehicle add app 16 hrs/day; 14 hrs/Sat & Sun begin 16 hrs./week Total inflatio n, etc.. $331,122 +1 v ehicle $155,076 $2,346,418 $675,120 $3,021,538 +2/on site FY 95 ANNUALIZED ESTIMATES and FY 96 PROJECI1ONS: SUMMARY 1 PASSENGERS Fixed Routs FY95 1 2 7 8 852,468 578,731 61,237 57,164 FY96 876,168 752233 61,517 58,042 REV. HOURS FY95 27,689 15,542 5-17-95R FY96 27,666 19,611 REV. MILES FY95 328,749 179,158 FY96 335,833 232,869 FARE REVENUE OPERATION CO, FY95 FY96-Est FY95-adj [ FY96 10 12 13 162,515 247,049 215,933 181,659 567,572 588,431 644,711 j 630,403 14 15 16 16 17 c 169,220 247,708 320,954 236,127 175,32T 31,656 216,384 18 19 21 21 89,465 145,635 86,007 22 25 26 27 29 242,165 243,764 69,527 222,697 95,889 6,215 242,716 439,728 6,4781 6,461 205,809 96,536 206,159 218,744 154,310 3,377 4,234 8,243 9,890 9,465 8,317 16,609 23,514 13,368 4,976 5,183 4,711 3,430 65,781 3,452 90,371 8,392 145,185 9,948 134,474 14,035 135,165 9,229 100,525 16,793 219,587 25,660 1029 65,444 72,552 141,017 133,896 200.904 130,666 219,908 368,734 360,551 16,664 235,895 5,045 97,665 8.114 91,651 6,355 85,067 724 18,105 291,145 97,711 140.147 94,841 12,089 7,626 12,241- 259,083 13,480 100,631 637 889 15,560 12,0491 12,212 309,031 49 Demo TOTAL 1 4.380.260 Contracted Routes: 5,871,289 4,680 192.219 3 23 30 25,678 43,244 25,943 62,896 74,532 31 32 29,126 42,208 29,085 64,448 79,437 34 3,435 4,281 35 36 I 4,161 Demo Trolle 149 t 65,501 100 496 99,067 7,921 7,595 36,177 35,068 30,337 20,726 95,104 13,868 6,841 6.885 4,081 6,876 7,045 1,790 1515 1525 3,940 6,147 259,651 181,529 15,519 309,556 8,440 69,479 157,435 5,107 96,444 228,318 3,029,791 3.561.870 444,753 474,157 299,913 404,348 1,023,847 t 1.271,518 33,992 35.4201 222,502 30,581 32,207 279,399 79,684, 86,063 543,059_ 544,112 117,187 121.075 651,618 844,996 107,584 165,865 623,623 909,987 1,789,326 1,793,909 83,339 112,362_ 547,933 290,403 301,6611 1,094,174 323,021 327,618 1,549,255 16,452 86,623 110.894 47,697 49,497 74,393 117,995 40,725 47,096 3,241 125,981 130,960 104,188 194,947 3,645 3.771 117,116 42.327 121,685 99,483 88,032 882.075 327,844 341,441 310,404 0 796,436 537,241 222.391 223,817 596,380 1.088,807 1,663,716 66,717 1,080,443 327,102 526,087 412,039 46,942 793,669 874,002 41,941 793,860 308,349 57,640 791,789 547,224 331,122 100,000 2.453.162 3.045.630 12,664,33E 14,916,413 7,291 105,921 120,142 6,767 116,629 113,834 4,084 45,312 50,800 6,880 161,615 � 165,604 7,484 103,893 110,730 28.957 2,591 2,535 35,345 64,516 50,795 93,980 12,310 22,441 7,867 23,291 26,828 1,8761 1,457 1,220 2,183 68,946 49,126 60,516 2624 14,483 22.719 261,635 262,371 133,737 230,060 240,083 278,2( 258,221 155,841 262,533 285,581 9,148 24,755 29,6591 0 2,854 2,310 ADA Inter 'TOTAL 3,868 34,590 5,424 408 4889 447,196 491.100 51.220 DIAL -A- IDES Sun City Hemet Perris Norco Calimesa Canyon L. 309 Home/Rom 707 Jurupa 7,437 L.Etsinore 9,507 Moreno V. Murrieta Riv. Taxi Meditrans TOTAL DA 195,238 207,349 Tor co 15,994 79,316 36,928 17,008 20.983 81,726 38,647 17,175 6,175 6,206 7,861 9,996 14,515 14,663 5,621 2,157 4,470 5,185 5,448 47,126 61,827 16,808) 20,974 234,536 241,663 8,576 10,056 150,588 157,598 5393 6,012 86,192 1,925 726 656 4,028 4,375 6,798 2,223 58,956 642,434 696,450 110,176 GRAND TO 5,522,694 6,569,739 2,032 4,425 5,535 7,527 3,048 4,499 71,092 134,042 302.395 23,937 10,057 6,600 63,297 69,598 78,340 41 473 9,696 821,640 1,752,738 362.560 1 4.782.529 69,342 85,873 23,876 66,902 73,180 79,140 44,958 20,092 855,109 1,984,178 5,546.048 58,447 1,998 146,885 44,980 61,810 2,032 3,707 69,088 12418 43,092 118,480 34,669 22,552 19,633 10,749 55,625 73,728 82,861 219,371 0 98,870 96,733 83,289 0 444,693 9,866 100,120 76,241 77,539 4,064 473,856 8,631 155,076 931,098 1.129,069 219.646 202,162 �a 2.402.099 6,984 9,323 62.950 47,276 24,236 14,508 12,687 50,527 26,309 15,196 3,686 2191 467 4,513 5,639 8,128 3,275 4,948 6,150 8,517 3,682 14,226 135,345 354,991 15,288 146,990 349,152 170,768 194,015 604,664 276,614 219,439 64,236 29.031 24,389 144,137 177,723 210,790 30,362 84,000 4,329,423 266,501 800,343 383,725 229,411 77,539 168,853 211,209 287,2 116,308 71,677 84,000 2,695,789 5,098,887 2,808.153 3.394,782 16,993,762 20.015,300 TABLE 1: PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY 1996 SERVICE TYPE: Fixed —Route & Dial —A —Ride OPERATOR: Riverside Transit Agency SERVICE UNUNKED PASSENGERS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE HOURS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE MILES (000'S) OPERATING COST ($000'S) * FARE REVENUE ($000'S) NET OPERATING COST (000'S) TOTAL COST/VEH. HR. NET COST NEH. HR TOTAL COST/VEH. MI. NET COST/VEH. MI. PASSENGERS NEH. MI. PASSENGERSNEH. HR. AVG FARE REV./PASSENGER FARE REV./OPER. COST SUBSIDY/PASSENGER FY 1995 5,522.7 302.4 4,782.5 $16,993.8 $2,808.2 $14,185.6 $56.20 $46.91 $3.55 $2.97 1.2 18.3 $0.51 16.5% $2.57 FY 1996 6,569.7 362.6 5,546.0 $20,015.3 $3,394.8 $16,620.5 $55.20 $45.84 $3.61 $3.00 1.2 18.1 $0.52 17.0% $2.53 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY REVENUE PROJECTION - OPERATING FY 1996 POTENTIAL SOURCE FY 1994/95 Estimated Carryover Projected Passenger Fares Interest Income AB 2766 Human Resource Grant (Caltrans) Measure A Operating FTA Riverside Section 9 FTA Hemet Section 9 FTA Sec 18 1 Trolley CMAQ Assem Wegeiand Planning Studies TDA (LTF) Private Sector Participation Total Prepared for RCTC: Version II AMOUNT $625,768 3,394,782 35,000 57,000- 24,000 20,000 500,000 200,000 227,000 460,890 150,000 14, 241,968 78,892. $20,015,300 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL BUDGET REQUESTS CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY FY 1996 FLEET CAPITAL ITEM SUPPORT FLEET FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS O PERATIONS SLPP & EQ 05/23/9B 08:18:38 TAKE FINAL 1 COST 55,807,600 MAINTENANCE SLPP & EQ ~OFFICE SUPP & EQ COMPUTER EQUIP PHONE EQUIP 82,000 105,000 60,000 575,000 146,400 57,216 DESIGN/DEV SECOND FACILITY 9.940 2.724.000 LTF FTA RIVERSIDE 5376,600 $346,400 16,400 65,600 73.000 32,000 12,000 48.000 123,000 92,000 16,400 0 11,443 39,293 1,988 7,952 0 2,724,000 FTA HEMET 5880,000 0 CMAQ 53.301,800 0 MEASURE A 5397,800 0 A827 0 0 0 6,480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 59,567,156 5630,831 53,355,245 5888,480 53,301,800 5397,800 s405, 6 PVEA STA 1,000^ 6100,000 50 0 0 0 0 0- 0. 0 0 0 0 0 360,000 0 0 130,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 5100,000 5490,000 fi RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL BUDGET FUNDING SOURCES REVENUE FLEET FY 1996 t CAPITAL ITEM C OST LTF FrA 05/23/95 08:18:38 TAKE FINAL 1 RIVERSIDE F TA CMA O HEMET MEASURE A AB2766 PVEA BUSES REPLACEM ENT (10) W IC LIFTS (10) PT VEH REPLACEMENT (22) PT VEH IXPANSION (4) PT VEH LIFTS (22) PT VEH LIFTS (4) DEBT SERVICE SIXTH TROLLEY 3,277,500 260,000 1,100,000 225,000 116.600 21,200 433,000 220,000 86,600 346,400 880,000 $3,097,500 5180,000 260,000 116,600 21,200 225,000 FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET 304,300 204,300 100,000 FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET TOTAL $5,737,600 $306,600 5346,400 �map ,400 53,301,800 $397,900, 5405,000 5100.000 50 50, RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL BUDGET FUNDING SOURCES OPERATIONS FY 1996 CAPITA ITEM FULL SIZE PICKUP (1) REPLACEMENT TRUCK (1) COMPUTER EQUIPMENT .SIGNAL PRIORITIZATION _ OPERATIO N SUPPLIES STO P & ZONES POLES COST 22.000 35.000 10,000 0 20.000 0 LTF 4,400 7,000 2,000 4.000 0 FTA RIVERSIDE 17.800 28,000 8.000 18,000 FTA HE MET CMAQ MEASURE A A132788 05/23/95 09:28:24 TAKE FINAL 1 CATEGORY 0 SUPPORT FLEE T SUPPORT FLEET C OMPUTER EQUIP FLEET OPER SUPP & EQUIP OPER SUPP & EQUIP TOTAL $87,000 817,400 889,800 80 80 $0 80 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL BUDGET FUNDING SOURCES MAINTENANCE & STORES FY 1996 CAPITAI,Ii ITEM INDUSTRIAL WATER CLARIFIER (2) STEAM CLEANERS COST $40,000 FUELING SYSTEM METHANE DETECTION DEVICES 40,000 100,000 SUPV, LOCKER ROOM, LO UNGE REFURBISH PARTS & SERVICE TRUCK 60,000 LTF $8,00 FT A RIVERSIDE 8,000 05/23/95 08:18:38 TAKE FINAL 1 $32,000 FTA HEMET C MA Q MEASURE A AB2788 STA CATEG ORY FACILITY I MPR 32,000 100,000 MAINT SUPP & EQUIP MAINT SUPP & EQUIP BUS WASHER RELOCIREFURB RE-STRIPING/BUS PARKING RE -WORK M AIN BUILDING RO OF 20,000 25,000 300,000 PERRIS FACILITY REPAIRS 25,000 13,000 TRAINING DIAGNOSTICS RETROFIT 28 VEHICLES RECARO SEATS OVERHAUL 15 POST -TRAP BUSES 2,000 75,000 20,000 25,000 50,000 MAINT SUPP d EQU P FACILITY I MPR 25,000 13,000 RETROFIT 14 VEH U FT-U WIC LIFTS 40,000 30,000 2,000 15,000 40,000 30,000 300,000 SUPPORT FLEET MAINT SUPP d EQUIP FACILITY I MPR 60,000 FACILITY IMPR FACILITY IMPR MAINT SUPP a E GUP FLEET FLEET FLEET • GRAND TOTAL $770,000 $286,000 $124,000 10 $0 10 $o $360,000 fr RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL BUDGET FUNDING SOURCES CONTRACTED OPERATIONS FY 1996 05/23/95 08:18:38 TAKE FINAL 1 CAPITA4 ITEM C OST LTF FTA RIVERSIDE FTA HEMET CMAQ MEASURE A A82700 STA CATE GORY HEMET FACILITY IM PROVEMENTS CONT. COMPUTER SYS & MO DEMS (3) COMPUTER PARATRANSIT DISPATCHING $5.000 8,100 130,000 $5.000 1,820 0 0.480 130,000 FACILITY IMPR COMPUTER EQUIP OFFICE SUPP & EQUIP T 4- TOTAL $143,100 $0,820 80 $0,480 SO i0 $0 $ 130,000 k RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL BUDGET FUNDING SOURCES FINANCE & INFORMATION SYSTEMS FY 1996 CAPITALS ITEM COST EXPANSION CABINET 8 LIN E MODULE 8 STATION MI X MOVE OLD EXPANSION CABINET REL 3 SOFTWARE PRO GRAM 2ND QUE FO R PARATRANSITT 8 NEW PHO NES COMPUTER SOFTWARO ACCESS (4 FULL VERSIONS) RIDERSHIP PROGRAM S (BID WSPATCH) COMPUTER HARDWARE COMPUTER SYSTEM (JP) CO MPUTER SYSTEM (YD) COMPUTER SYSTEM (JRD) 1,500 2.000 2,000 LTF FTA RIVERSIDE FTA CMAQ HEMET MEASURE A AB2766 05/23/95 08:15:35 TAKE FINAL 1 CATEGORY 300 400 400 1,200 1,600 1,600 PHONE EQUIP PHONE EQUIP PHONE EQUIP 500 1,700 100 400 PH ONE EQUIP 340 640 1,600 1,316 2,500 3,000 2,700 128 320 263 500 1,360 512 1.280 1,053 2,000 PHONE EQUIP PH ONE EQUIP 600 540 2,400 2,160 PH ONE EQUIP C OMP UTER EQUIP C OMPUTER E QUIP COMPUTER EQUIP COMPUTER EQUIP C OMPUTER EQUIP COMPUTER SYSTEM (CONTINGENCY - 2) CONCENTRATORS (2) NETWORK MODEM (SHIVA) JET DIRECT CARDS TOTAL 5,000 2,400 1,800 1.600 $30,258 1,000 480 360 320 $6,051 4,000 1,020 1.440 1,280 C OMPUTER EQUIP C OMPUTER EQUIP COMPUTER EQUIP COMPUTER E QUIP COMPUTER EQUIP $24,205 $0 80 80 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL BUDGET FUNDING SOURCES MARKETING FY 1996 CAPITM ITEM 11" X 17' LASERJET 4MV PRINTER HP SCANJET 600 DPI SCANNER SOFTWARE UPGRADES BRAILLE ON BUS STOPS (2,000 STO PS) 'PHONE BILINGUAL CAPABILITY SYSTEM MEM ORY UPGRADES GRAND TOTAL COST 15,000 4,000 3,000 40,000 LTF 05/23/05 08:18:38 TAKE FINAL 1 11,000 800 800 8,000 FTA RIVERSIDE 84,000 3,200 2,400 FTA HEMET CMAQ MEASURE A A82788 CATEG ORY 32,000 0 800 852,800 0 CO MPUTER EQUIP COMPUTER EQUIP COMPUTER EQUIP OPER EQUIP & SUPP PHONE EQUIP 120 810,520 480 842,080 80 80 80 80 CO MPUTER EQUIP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL BUDGET FUNDING SOURCES PERSONNEL FY 1996 CAPITAL' ITEM AFFrRM AT1VE ACTIO N SOFTWARE COST EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS SOFTWARE 32,000 LTF FTA RIVERSIDE FTA HEMET CMAQ MEASURE A 5400 $1,800 1,500 300 1.200 A82788 05/23/05 08:18:38 TAKE FINAL 1 CATEGORY COMPUTER EQUIP C OMPUTER EQUIP GRAND TOTAL $3,500 3700 32,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL BUDGET FUNDING SOURCES PLANNING FY 1996 CAPITAL rTEM COST LTF FTA RIVERSIDE 05/23/95 09:18:38 TAKE FINAL 1 FTA HEMET CMAQ MEASURE A AB2766 CATE GORY RELACEMENT COMPUTER $2.700 $540 $2.160 COMPUTER E QUP V GRAND TOTAL. $2,700 $540 $2,160 so RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL BUDGET FUNDING SOURCES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FY 1996 CAPfrAL ItEM COST LTF FTA RIVERSIDE GENERAL OFFICE EQUIPMENT DESK I/DEV 2ND FACILITY $16,400 2,724,000 $16,400 2,724,000 FTA HEMET CMAQ 'MEASURE A AB2766 05/23/95 08:18:38 TAKE FINAL 1 CATEG ORY OFFICE SUPP & EOUI SE COND FACILITY GRAND TOTAL $2,740,400 $16,400 $2,724,000 COMMUTER RAIL COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM The Riverside County Transportation Commission's commuter rail program consists of both planning and implementation elements. RCTC, as a partner in the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, contributes toward the operation of "Metrolink" commuter rail service in Southern California. In addition, the Commission directs various activities related to rail transportation issues within Riverside County. A large part of RCTC's Commuter Rail Program budget supports operations, maintenance, and capital expenditures in the Metrolink system. The construction of rail corridors, stations and support facilities and the acquisition of rolling stock has been accomplished primarily through the use of state rail bonds and dedicated, local sales tax revenues. Currently, Metrolink operating expense is borne entirely - by fares and subsidies from the five counties in which operations occur. Because there are significant system -wide overhead expenses, known as "common costs," decisions by each county regarding service levels have the effect of altering the allocation of common costs among all the counties. Consequently, development of the SCRRA budget is an ongoing process. Metrolink has no operating dollars of its own; each of the five member agencies, the transportation authorities or commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, must approve SCRRA's annual budget, committing to contribute a specific share of operating and capital costs. Another major element in the rail program budget is RCTC's in-house support costs. These include administration, overhead, salaries, consultant support, and station operation and maintenance. The third element consists of rail -related construction projects administered directly by RCTC and funded through a combination of Measure A local sales tax, state bond revenues and various grants. Construction of two inew stations (La Sierra and West Corona), expansion of the Downtown Riverside station and layover facility, and necessary track connections will occur in FY 96. RAIL SERVICE OPERATIONS The next two charts show the estimated FY 95/96 operating statistics, by line, for the specific services described in the following pages. PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY 1996 SRTP SERVICE TYPE: Commuter Rail OPERATOR: SCRRA SERVICE --Riverside Line UNLINKED PASSENGERS (000'S) TRAIN MILES (000'S) PASSENGER MILES (000'S) OPERATING COST ($000'S) FARE REVENUE ($000'S) NET OPERATING COST (000'S) TOTAL COST/TRAIN MILE NET COST /TRAIN MILE TOTAL COST/PASSENGER MI. NET COST/PASSENGER MI. PSGR MI/BOARDING (AVG TRIP LENGTH) PASSENGERS/TRAIN MILE AVG FARE REV./PASSENGER FARE REV./OPER. COST SUBSIDY/PASSENGER FY 1996 825.6 199.8 33,940.4 $9,886.5 $3,560.9 $6,325.6 $49.48 $31.66 $0.29 $0.19 41.1 4.1 $4.31 36.0° $7.66 PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY 1996 SRTP SERVICE TYPE: Commuter Rail OPERATOR: SCRRA SERVICE— —SB/Riverside/Irvine Line UNLINKED PASSENGERS (000'S) TRAIN MILES (000'S) PASSENGER MILES (000'S) OPERATING COST ($000'S) FARE REVENUE ($000'S) NET OPERATING COST (000'S) TOTAL COST/TRAIN MILE NET COST /TRAIN MILE TOTAL COST/PASSENGER MI. NET COST/PASSENGER MI. PSGR MI/BOARDING (AVG TRIP LENGTH) PASSENGERS/TRAIN MILE AVG FARE REV./PASSENGER FARE REV./OPER. COST SUBSIDY/PASSENGER FY 1996 270.6 45.2 9,471.0 $3,485.6 $984.4 $2,501.2 $77.12 $55.34 $0.37 $0.26 35.0 6.0 $3.64 28.2% , $9.24 Current Service Four peak -period round -trips, one reverse -peak round-trip, and one off-peak round-trip are currently operated Monday through Friday from Riverside to Los Angeles on the Union Pacific's mainline right of way. Operations on this line began in June, 1993. Daily hoardings have averaged over 3,300 since February, 1995. This number represents a cumulative increase of 24% since the fourth peak -period train was added in October, 1994. Approximately 43% of the morning boardings occur at Riverside County's two existing stations at Downtown Riverside and Pedley. The entire route is 58.9 miles, and the average trip length per passenger is 41 miles. Proposed FY 1996 Service Levels Riverside - Los Angeles (Union Pacific Line) The addition of a second off-peak round-trip, designed to accommodate non -commute trips, is proposed for October 31, 1995. Increased frequency of morning trains was among the top requests in last year's Metrolink passenger survey. Though one more morning peak train was added last fall by turning a San Bernardino -LA train back to Riverside, the lack of additional rolling stock constrains our ability to add more peak -period service on this line. Many passengers boarding the last AM peak train, especially at the Riverside station, are making occasional or leisure trips. In addition to making the service more accessible and more affordable to greater numbers of people, it can be expected that additional capacity for continued daily rider growth will be created by diverting some of the casual use to the off-peak morning time period. Experiences of this rail system and others has demonstrated that the availability, of off-peak return trips encourages use by commuters who would otherwise not be willing to give up the flexibility of their automobiles. The incremental cost to RCTC for adding the off-peak train is approximately $122,000 for the eight month period ($37,000 direct costs including fuel and track charges, $3,000 miscellaneous, and $82,000 reallocated common costs and Amtrak charges.) Because of limited seating capacity remaining on many of the system's peak period trains, and because Metrolink is unable to add much more peak available, near term marketing efforts will concentrates on buildingervice off-peak ffre passenger cars are that an increase of 400 to 500 unlinked passenger trips P ridey could rship. the It is allocated costs of this particular off-peak service. Many residents havr e expressed an interestlin using Metrolink for business and medical appointments, meetings, court appearances, y visits, etc., which the current frequencies do not accommodate. Also, since the discountedl child/youth fare is only offered during off -peak -periods, some families have'bund the costs of traveling with their children prohibitive during the peak. CR-2 San Bernardino - Riverside - Irvine The long-awaited rail service into Orange County is scheduled to begin on October 2, 1995, with the operation of four peak -period trains (2 round trips) from San Bernardino to Irvine. Trains traveling this route will begin at San Bernardino's rail depot and stop at Downtown Riverside, La Sierra, West Corona, Orange, Santa Ana and Irvine. The service will utilize Santa Fe's mainline right of way, the "San Bernardino Subdivision," running parallel to Highway 91 and through the Santa Ana Canyon, then continue southwest on the Olive and Orange subdivisions. The end -of -first -year ridership forecast of 1,100 hoardings per day reflects downscaled projections caused by delays in constructing stations at Anaheim Canyon and Tustin. The completion of these stations during the next two fiscal years should result in a subsequent increase of 45 % to 55 % in unlinked passenger trips. Extensive capital improvements have been underway on the line. RCTC's local contribution to SCRRA for capital construction reflects the required local match of state funds for projects on Santa Fe's San Bernardino subdivision which will serve both this line and the future Riverside - Fullerton service. ($1,000s) Table 1 SCRRA BUDGET SUMMARY - Fiscal Year 1995/96 Total SCRRA RCTC Local Share Sub -Total Operating Subsidy Net Includes Maintenance of Way Capital SB 1402 Capital Special Projects New Capital Capital Maintenance Expense (Less Carryover - Mechanical) Sub -Total Capital of Revenues (Table 3) (Tables 5 & 6) (Table 7) (Table 8) (Table 9) Sub -Total RCTC Local Allocation to Metrolink 38,679.8 51,508.0 505.0 1,646.0 6,014.6 Sub -Total RCTC Support Costs (including Administration, Overhead, Staff Support, Station Operation & Maintenance, and Consultant Support) 2,411.9' 959.0 46.2 44.4 308.0 (45.6) 1,312.02 3,723.9 776.1 TOTAL LTF REQUEST 4,500.0 2 See Addendum. Subject to approximate 1% variation due to service reductions in Ventura County. CR-3 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995196 PR OPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SERVICE ASSUMPTI ONS - BASE TRAINS OPERATING LINE RIVERSIDE LINE EXISTING SERVICE RIVERSIDE - LAUS NEW SERVICE RIVERSIDE - LAUS TOTAL RIVERSIDE LINE ORANGE COUNTY LINE EXISTING SERVICE OCEANSIDE - LAUS NEW SERVICE IRVINE - LAUS TOTAL ORANGE COUNTY LINE SAN BE NIRIVERSIDE -ORANGE COON NEW SERVICE SAN BERNARDINO/RIVERSIDE - IRVINE TO TAL SAN BERNIRW - ORANGE COUNTY LINE START DATE 07/01/95 10/30/95 07/01/95 10/02/95 1 -WAY TRIPS PEAK OFF-PEAK 10 0 10 8 2 8 10/02/95 4 4 Table 2 CR - 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 -WAY TRIPS BASE TRAINS 8 0 8 8 0 8 4 4 COMMENTS REVERSE PEAK NOT COUNTED FrIliNVPREPV xit-5... (:03 PIA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY MUSS PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY (Excludes A naheim Canyon) LINE ALLOCATED SUBSIDY SAN BRNARDINO LINE VENTURA COUNTY LINE ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE RIVERSIDE LINE (UP) ORANGE COUNTY LINE SAN BERN/RIVERSIDE - IRVINE AMBASSADORS SUBTOTAL LINE ALLOCATED SUBSIDY COMMON COSTS (POINT -IN -TIME) • 2,572.3 2,154.0 2,982.0 2,755.9 (750 .3) 369.7 480 .3 10,563.9 19,005.8 1,669.8 1,417.1 2,982.0 1,671.4 (200 .7) 234.7 7,774.3 10,183 .9 TOTAL OPERATIONS SUBSIDY MOW - NE+ SUBSIDY TOTAL COUNTY ALLOCATION COSTS FUNDED BY SIR COUNTY ALLOCATION - METROLINK 29,569.7 10,310.1 39,879.8 (1,200.0) 24,183.3 (643 .0) 38,679.81 23,540.3 17,958.2 6,225 .1 Table 3 (549.7) 177.6 83.2 (288.8) 3,400.4 3,111.6 2,346 .9 5,458.5 (214.7) 633.8 156.3 50.7 902.4 450.7 35.8 71.4 840.8 1,514.2 2,355.0 152 .5 2,607.5 (95.6) 1,460.3 2,365.3 3,825.6 1,268 .8 5,094.4 (149 .3) 737.0 40.3 5,243.8 2,411.9 4,945 .1 777.3 1,542 .0 2,319.3 316.8 2,636.1 (97.4) 2,538 .7 SOUTHERN CAUFORtGA REGION/U. RAIL A.umoitITy FY 1995195 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET Table 4 COMPARATIVE DETAIL OF NON -MOW OPERATING EXPENSES i! • Thousands) Total Train Miles (thousands) PIEVENUEII EXPENSES -NET SUIt DY TOTAL REVENUES - FAREBOX REVENUE (NET OF TRANSFERS) Farabox Revenue Tnnsfers to Other Transit Operators MISCELUWEOUS REVENUES FY 94196 Budget Total FY 94185 Forecast Potpoot d FY 95/96 Budget 1,044.4 1,003.7 1.161.3 11,901.0 11,271,9 49.165.0 45,674.1 FY 95191 % Chimp Contpred to FY 94111 MAW Form ant 11.2% 16.7% 20,217.0 20.9% 24.9% 50.258.4 2J% 10,3% J1M1A ' ,8A% 2.215 18.801.0. _ 16,271.9 20,317.0 16,175.7 16,646.6 18,936.6 16,861.8 16,681.9 20,201.1 (686.1) (1,035.3) (1,264.5) 625.3 825.3 1.380.4 T T T P E P P D M M P PDS D P P P EXPENSES w/o MoW TRAIN OPERATIONS & SERVICES AMTRAK Train 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, Priming, Advertising, Research Customer Information Service GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE Staff P Personnel Si Overhead D Ambassadors P Direct Costs Services • P Professional Services P MIS P CONTINGENCY (Non -Amtrak) INSURANCE P Liability/Property/Auto Iexcl. from farebox recovery) S Claims P Claims Administration - ,48,655.0 40,780.7 21,379.8 20,879.5 500.3 16,769.1 3,705.2 1,860.4 1,706.6 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 46.574.6 36.911.9 21,379.8 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 3,836.5 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 50.258.4 -- 39,916.4 24,387.1 23,816.4 570.7 13,286.3 2,480.0 1,897.7 1,168.9 1,676.7 1,531.2 1,406.1 456.0 338.5 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 20.81. 24.9% 17.1% 19.8% 84.3% 21.011 21.1% 22.1% 120.8% 120.9% 2.975 -2.1% 14.1% 14.1% 14.1% -20.8% -33.1% 2.0% -32.1% 5.2% 41.4% 15.5% -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% 165.7% 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% 8.27E 2BA% 21.2% -54.2% 5.571 476.9% -17.1% -21.1% -10.9% 14.7% -20.7% -12.8% 18.7% 27.2% 26.1% 13.5% 56.7% -13.991 -18.5% 70.071 5.9% 22.2% 6.075 245.7% 45.7% COMMUTER RAIL CAPITAL 1995/96 RCTC's capital expenditures to support commuter rail fall into two major categories: projects managed by the SCRRA, funded through a variety of sources including local match of state grants, and projects managed directly by RCTC, utilizing some of the same funding sources and other grants. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority administers capital projects in four separate accounts: 1. SE 1402 Capital Projects (Tables 5 & 6) These are right-of-way improvements and the rolling stock acquisition necessary to implement the regional rail system identified through Senate Bill 1402. Other than the System Summary below, accompanying charts and project descriptions reflect only those lines for which RCTC is contributing. 2. Special Projects: Locomotive Emissions Reduction Program (Table 7) 3. New Capital Expenditures (Table 8) 4. Capital Maintenance (Table 9) SB 1402 CAPITAL Los Angeles -Riverside Line (Table 5) Current schedules indicate all SB 1402 construction on this line will be completed in FY 94/95. 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. SB 1402 CAPITAL Fullerton-Riverside/San Bernardino Line (Tables 5 & 6) The majority of SB 1402 construction on this line is Santa Fe's "adjusted base plus low case" work on its San Bernardino Subdivision between Riverside and Fullerton. The work consists of construction 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 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. Capital projects on the line are split among Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange Counties. The Los Angeles County share of Santa Fe force account work appears in the LA -Fullerton Line budget. Rolling stock acquisitions for the 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. This line is budgeted for $21,373,000 in FY 95/96, with RCTC's local share calculated at $959,000. A line budget of $5,078,000 is anticipated for FY 96/97, estimated to complete construction. The line is projected to remain at or within the amended Adjusted SB 1402 Budget. CR-7 Table 5 SB 1402 Capital ($1,000's) CAPITAL LINE SEGMENT/PROIECT DESCRIPTION LA -SAN BERNARDINO Right -of -Way Improvements Rolling Stock LA-FULLERTON Right -of -Way Improvements Rolling Stock FULLERTON-OCEANSIDE Right -of -Way Improvements Rolling Stock FULLERTON-R/VERSIDE-SANBDNO Right -of -Way Improvements Rolling Stock LA -RIVERSIDE (Complete 1994/95) Right -of -Way Improvements Other Improvements Rolling Stock LA -SANTA CLARITA (1994/95) Right -of -Way Improvements Rolling Stock LA-VENTURA Right -of -Way Improvements Rolling Stock (1994/95) SHARED FACILITIES (1993) Right -of -Way Improvements Other Improvements SYSTEM TOTALS Right -of -Way Improvements Other Improvements Rolling Stock Locomotives (31) Passenger Cars (94) Specs/Testing TOTAL 95/96 63 6,081 3,878 14,622 5,491 14,534 6,839 51,508 35,300 16,206 3,003 11,376 1,829 FY 1995/96 System Summary Total 1402 LACMTA 95/96 38 6,081 3,878 9,997 6,119 3,878 980 2,290 608 OCTA 95/96 RCTC 95/96 14,622 5,491 3,683 2,603 8,085 4,236 SANBAG 95/96 25 2,766 VCTC 95/96 26,399 18,305 8,094 988 6,260 846 12,321 8,085 4,236 1,035 2,826 375 2,791 2,791 Estimate at Completion By Line 193,293 138,895 54,398 79,088 60,056 19,032 U1,262 92,260 28,642 104,737 80,488 24,249 66,906 41,510 2,034 23,362 39,752 17,194 22,558 93,437 61,151 32,286 51,157 42,328 8,829 749,633 534,243 10,863 204,527 FUNDING SOURCES FY 95/%TOTAL Prop 116 Prop 108 _ TCI / TP&D Local Match 51,508 37,446 743 567 12,752 9,997 6,759 3,238 26,399 19,109 7,290 12,321 10,052 743 567 959 2,791 1,526 1,265 CR-8 Table 6 Fullerton-Riverside/San Bernardino Line - SB 1402 Capital Projects ($1000s) Description Right -of -Way Improvements Crossovers at Placentia 2nd Track Lambert 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 Track Madison to West Riverside 3rd Track W Riverside to E Riverside 2nd Track E Riverside to Highgrove 3rd Track Embankment/ Bridge Work Santa Ana Canyon Env. Mitigation, Santa Ana Canyon Station Track at Riverside Olive Subdivision - Track/Signal TVM's, Validators & Signage OCIP Insurance Design & Construction Management Construction Support Rolling Stock Locomotives (5) Passenger Cars (7) Procurement & Testing Actual through Jun 94 34,723 681 4,143 12,748 351 549 4,687 631 2,633 1,395 3,743 101 23 1,098 1,940 17,292 10,715 5,954 623 FY 94/95 6mo.Act 6mo.F/C 26,154 622 2,918 9,162 117 398 3,316 432 1,856 994 1,607 157 2,399 626 96 782 672 118 •118 FY 95/96 Budget 14,534 431 2,335 2,208 36 1,412 34 2,066 1,118 1,240 400 1,413 567 116 391 766 6,839 1,685 4,543 611 FY 95/96 OCI A 3,683 2,603 650 1,717 236 FY 95/96 RC C 8,085 4,236 1,035 2,826 375 FY 95/96 Sanbag 2,766 0 FY 96/97 Forecast . 5,078 213 658 1,088 696 1,017 551 611 245 0 Estimate at Com- pletion 80,488 1,947 10,054 25,206 468 983 10,111 1,097 7,572 4,058 5,350 1,850 400 1,570 2,500 1,193 235 2,271 3,623 24,249 12,400 10,497 1,352 TOTAL Fullerton - Riverside / SB 52,015 26,272 21,373 6,286 12,321 2,766 5,078 104,737 FUNDING SOURCES FY 1995/96 Prop 116 Prop 108 TCI / TP&D Local Match 21,373 17,664 743 567 6,286 6,086 2,399 ' 200 12,321 10,052 743 567 959 2,766 1,526 1,240 CR-9 SPECIAL PROJECTS: Locomotive Emissions Reduction Program (Table 7) The SCRRA has contributed to the ongoing low emission natural gas locomotive research and development program. In FY 95/96, work will continue and a total of $505,000 is t is projected that $158,750 in Petroleum Violation Escrow Account funding will be awarded ed. IRRA for use on this project. The balance of $346,250 is proposed as local funds to be split among the counties using the all -share formula. Table 7 Locomotive Emission Reduction Program (1,000s) Program/Description AMOUNT LACMTA OCTA RCM SANBAG PROPOSED EXPENDITURE Funding Source PVEA VCAPD Local Funds TOTAL FUNDING 505.0 203.5 132.6 67.4 80.4 VCTC 158.8 14.4 331.8 505.0 64.0 41.7 139.5 90.9 203.5 132.6 21.2 46.2 67.4 25.3 55.1 80.4 21.1 6.6 14.4 21.1 NEW CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (Table 8) For the FY 1995/96 Budget, SCRRA proposes New Capital Expenditures in three categories: Right- of-Way/Signal, Communications, and Mechanical. RCTC's only obligation is in the Mechanical category: 1. Fuel Oil Truck To improve operating efficiency at Taylor Yard and shorten equipment turnaround time as well as support increasing levels of service, SCRRA staff has recommended the purchase of fueling truck at $100,000. Servicing time at Taylor Yard would be reduced by eliminating three equipment moves per train set 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, resulting in both quicker servicing and reduced crew time and related costs. The fuel truck would also be used to fuel, on an occasional basis, at outlying points. This is especially important for the new San Bernardino/Riverside-Irvine service since those equipment sets will not be maintained in Los Angeles on a daily basis. 2. Califorma Car Engineering Development of the California Car has been a long and difficult process. Based on the progress of the California Car program to date, SCRRA staff believes the engineering oversight is essential to ensure that the equipment, when received, will meet SCRRA specifications. CR - 10 Table 8 NEW CAPITAL SUMMARY ($1,000s) Category ROW / Signal Communications Mechanical 1. Fuel Truck 2. Cal Car Engineering Proposed Expenditures 756.0 110.0 100.0 680.0 LACMTA TOTAL NEW CAPITAL 1,646.0 756.0 38.7 64.2 436.6 1,295.5 OCTA 60.0 11.7 79.5 RCTC 5.7 38.7 SANBAG 13.0 88.2 VCTC 11.3 5.4 37.0 151.2 44A 101.1 53.8 CAPITAL MAINTENANCE (Table 9) SCRRA's overall capital maintenance budget is more than $6 million. As with maintenance -of -way in the operating budget, RCTC's obligation for capital maintenance is minimal since the lines over which our services operate are owned by freight railroads, and maintenance contributions are included in our agreements with those entities. RCTC does have, however, a fair -share obligation to help maintain the corridor adjacent to the Los Angeles River, and our portion of right of way and signal capital maintenance amounts to $222,000. The second category of capital maintenance, mechanical, proposes expenditures in overhaul and replacement of various rolling stock components and resurfacing a portion of Taylor Yard. These costs are allocated to the member agencies on the basis of train miles operated within each county since that is the most accurate gauge of wear and tear in this category. RCTC's share of mechanical capital maintenance is $86,000, offset by a proportionate $45,600 carryover from this fiscal year. Table 9 only lists those capital maintenance items in which RCTC has a funding interest. CR - 11 Table 9 CAPITAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES 01,000s) T Program / Description OTM (TURNOUTS) PROGRAM - River Corridor Replace 2 worn turnouts and 1 crossing at East Bank Junction Replace worn components of Pasadena Junction double slip switches SIGNAL PROGRAM - River Corridor Install Eiectro-Code electronic coded track on both main tracks from Pasadena Junction to Ninth St. to replace relay style coded track Replace code line between Pasadena Jct. and Ninth St. with ATCS Data Radio Replace all -relay interlocking at Ninth St. with Microprocessor interlocking TOTAL ALL ROW / SIGNAL CAPITAL MAINTENANCE MECHANICAL Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Units (HVAC) Overhaul (Passenger Car components requiring periodic overhaul) Truck Overhaul (suspension system for passenger cars) Begin maintenance cycle to space out over several years. Traction Motors (Four per locomotive, provide driving effort to wheels) Begin maintenance cycle; traction motors on 4 locomotives should be changed out each year. Door Operators — scheduled overhaul of door operating mechanism. Paving in Storage Yard to allow area to be used for maintenance. TOTAL ALL MECHANICAL CAPITAL MAINTENANCE Less FY 94/95 Local Carryover (Mechanical) ' Total Local Contribu�on - CAPITAL MAE TENANCE- P: oposed 1 RCTC Expenditure Local Share 210.0 100.0 575.0 214.6 750.0 4,504.6 500.0 480.0 320.0 150.0 60.0 1,510.0 (800.0) All Ageturies 5,2I4.6 RCTC 25.2 12.0 69.0 25.8 90.0 220.0 28.5 27.3 18.2 8.5 3.4 86.0 (45.6) 262.4 CR - 12 ADDENDUM This is the first year that the Commuter Rail Program has sought LTF funds for rail capital programs. Until this point, the extensive capital expenditures for acquiring and building the commuter rail system have been funded through state bonds, proposition revenues, grants and local sales tax. No federal dollars have been spent on the system to date. As the Metrolink system approaches its planned -for, and substantially funded, built -out configuration, the continuing needs for capitalized maintenance and infrastructure upgrades will have to be addressed. One avenue for pursuing capital funds is to capture the significant dollars generated through the federal Section 9 accrual process. RCTC has just confirmed that for the two weeks of FY 92/93 that the Riverside Line operated, approximately $1.4 million in Section 9 rail capital was generated for Riverside County. Those funds, which may be claimed this Fall, do not replace any existing bus Section 9 entitlement in the county. Rather, rail -related Section 9 comes from a separate pot of money, and, while Metrolink services will compete nationally with other rail operators, this is new source of money for Southern California. If the formula for distribution remains as it is today, a similar amount should be available next year. The key is finding eligible, worthy projects on which to spend the money. At this time, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority is still cautiously avoiding the use of federal funds on the Metrolink system; however, there is speculation that some long hoped -for regulatory and legislative reform may remove the most costly and onerous requirements tied to the use of Federal Transit Administration funds. In the meantime, the transit operating community, within Riverside County and throughout the region, may be able to work cooperatively to maximize the use of all available transit -related funds CR-13 PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY Current Service Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) operates a general public dial -a -ride in the City of Blythe and adjacent unincorporated areas. Service has been provided by the Valley Resource Center under a contractual agreement with PVVTA since September, 1981. Service is provided Monday -Friday, 8:00a.m.-5:O0p.m. and on Sunday from 8:00a.m.- 2:OOp.m. Fares on the system are $1.25 per ride within 5 miles of the city limits and $1.75 charged to passengers traveling 5-10 miles from the city limits. The intervalley service, which provided twice weekly service to the Coachella Valley, was discontinued March 31, 1995 because of substandard performance. Proposed FY 1996 Service Level A number of changes are planned to occur in FY 1996. The Sunday service which was implemented in FY 1995 has not been productive despite intensive marketing with area churches. The service has been carrying an average of 6.5 passengers per Sunday. The PVVTA intends to discontinue this service as of June 30, 1995. As an alternate, cost effective source of transportation, the City is recommending implementation of the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) in October 1995. TRIP offers mileage reimbursement at the rate of $.28 per mile to volunteer drivers of Palo Verde Valley seniors and people with disabilities and should help relieve the cost of residents needing to travel to the Coachella Valley for special services. The TRIP program will also be available to seniors and persons with disabilities in the Lost Lake and Ripley, areas currently without public transit options. This program is budgeted for $40000 which would be funded through available local transportation funds. In addition, the City is planning to implement operation of a second dial -a -ride van 20 hours per week during peak usage periods. This expanded level of service is in response to testimony received through the unmet transit needs hearing process. Implementation of the expanded service level will also being in October, 1995. The City is also proposing to add a half-time staff person with responsibility for monitoring the transportation program in the city. This is in response to comments raised through the triennial performance audit which emphasized the need to reevaluate staff management of the program and tighten internal auditing of billings and performance reporting. Proposed Capital Improvements for FY 1996 No capital improvements are planned for FY 95-96. TABLE 1: PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY 1996 SRTP SERVICE TYPE: Dial —A —Ride OPERATOR: Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency SERVICE UNLINKED PASSENGERS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE HOURS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE MILES (000'S) OPERATING COST ($000'S) FARE REVENUE ($000'S) NET OPERATING COST (000'S) TOTAL COSTNEH. HR. NET COST NEH. HR TOTAL COSTNEH. MI. NET COSTNEH. MI. PASSENGERS NEH. MI. PASSENGERSNEH.HR. AVG FARE REV./PASSENGER FARE REV./OPER. COST SUBSIDY/PASSENGER FY 1995 8.6 2.9 49.1 $66.5 $10.0 $56.5 $22.93 $19.48 $1.35 $1.15 0.2 3.0 $1.16 15.0% $6.57 FY 1996 9.0 3.0 49.8 $84.0 $11.5 $72.5 $28.00 $24.17 $1.69 $1.46 0.2 3.0 $1.28 13.7% $8.06 TRANSIT PROJECTS SCAG FY 1996-2002 SRTP/RTIP PREPARED BY: C. Bechtel DATE: May 24, 1995 C OUNTY: RIVERSIDE AGENCY: PVVTA PA GE 1 OF 1 TABLE 5: FINANCIAL PLAN PR EX FTA FTA CODE PROJECT DESCRIPTION YR YR TOTAL Se c 9 Sec 18 STA TDA FARES OTHER (1) (2) FY 1995-96 Operating Assistance 96 96 $124 $112 $12 (3) TR6N Dial —A —Ride i CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE City of Rancho Mirage Current Service The City of Rancho Mirage operates a dial -a -cab program through a contract with Checker Cab Company (formerly Desert Cab). The objective of the dial -a -cab program is to ensure that all residents of and visitors to Rancho Mirage have access to low-cost demand -responsive transportation to meet basic needs. Service is available 7:30a.m.- 5:30p.m. Monday - Saturday with charges of $1.75 full fare and $1.40 for seniors and persons with disabilities. Ridership on the system has been increasing this year with an infusion of new users becoming routine riders. The City has made a greater effort to locally advertise the program through articles in the city's magazine, MirageScape, attracting new riders. Proposed FY 1996 Service Level No service deficiencies or needs for additional service were identified in the planning process or the unmet transit needs public hearing process. A status quo operation is planned for FY 1996. Proposed Capital Improvements for FY 1996 The dial -a -cab is provided under a contract with the Checker Cab Company. The contractor provides all vehicles, maintenance and storage facilities, and dispatching facilities. No facilities or equipment are owned by the city. TABLE 1: PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY 1996 - SERVICE TYPE: Dial —A —Cab OPERATOR: City of Rancho Mirage SERVICE UNLINKED PASSENGERS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE HOURS (000'S) REVENUE VEHICLE MILES (000'S) OPERATING COST ($000'S) FARE REVENUE ($000'S) NET OPERATING COST (000'S) TOTAL COST/VEH. HR. NET COST /VEH. HR TOTAL COST/VEH. MI. NET COST/VEH. MI. PASSENGERS /VEH. MI. PASSENGERS/VEH. HR. AVG FARE REV./PASSENGER FARE REV./OPER. COST SUBSIDY/PASSENGER FY 1995 5.7 2.8 17.1 $46.9 $9.4 $37.5 $16.75 $13.40 $2.74 $2.19 0.3 2.0 $1.65 20.0% $6.58 FY 1996 5.9 2.8 17.1 $49.0 $9.8 $39.2 $17.51 $14.01 $2.87 $2.29 0.3 2.1 $1.65 20.0% $6.61 TRANSIT PROJECTS SCAG FY 1996-2002 SRTP/RTIP PREPARED BY: C. Bechtel DATE: May 24, 1995 TABLE 5: FINANCIAL PLAN PR EX FTA FTA CODE PRQJECT DESCRIPTI ON YR YR T OTAL Sec 9 S ec 18 STA TDA FARES OTHER (1) (2) FY 1995-96 Operating Assistance (3) TR6N Dial —A —Ride C OUNTY: RIVERSIDE AGENCY: Rancho Mir ag e PAGE 1 OF 1 96 96 $49 $39 $10 SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY INTRODUCTION In 1977, SunLine Transit Agency was created through a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of five cities (Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Indio, and Coachella) and Riverside County. In July of 1977 SunLine Transit Agency began providing public transit service to the members of the JPA. With the addition of the Cities of Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, Cathedral City, and La Quinta to the JPA , the Agency now provides public transit service to the entire Coachella Valley. SunLine has a service area of approximately 366 square miles encompassing 10 local jurisdictions with a population which varies seasonally between 237,000 and 375,000 and is bounded by the San Gorgonio pass in the northwest, the Salton Sea in the southeast, and the seven mile -wide valley between those landmarks. Nfission Statement As a public agency, SunLine Transit Agency advocates and provides safe, economical, and environmentally friendly transit service to the Coachella Valley. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS CURRENT POLICIES Inter -Agency Coordination SunLine Transit Agency coordinates activities with the -California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), through membership on the following committees: RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Technical Coordinating Committee for the Riverside County Transportation Plan Mid -Valley Parkway Technical Advisory Committee Service Providers Association of Riverside County Senior and Disabled Citizens Coalition SunLine staff regularly attends the following committees: CVAG Technical Advisory Committee CVAG Transportation Committee CVAG Technical Transportation Area Sub -Committee CVAG Technical Planning Subcommittee RCTC Citizen Advisory Committee Disabled Students Program Advisory Committee of College of the Desert The SunLine Board of Directors is comprised of elected officials, one from each of the nine Coachella Valley cities and the fourth district representative to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. All are active in regional government agencies. Jerry Pisha, Mayor of the City of Desert Hot Springs, serves on the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Executive Committee and is a Member of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Will Kleindienst is a Coucimember for the City of Palm Springs. Sarah Di Grandi, Vice Chair of SunLine Transit Agency, is a Councilmember for the City of Cathedral City. Richard Kelly, Councilmember for the City of Palm Desert, serves as the lst Vice President on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Board of Directors and is a Member ofRCTC. Sybil Jaffy, Councilmember for the City of Rancho Mirage, serves on the Southern California Regional Rail Authority and is a Member of RCTC and the CVAG Executive Committee. Phil Bostley, Chairperson of SunLine Transit Agency and Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Indian Wells, serves on the CVAG Executive Committee and is a Member of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Marcos Lopez is a Councilmember for the City of Indio. Juan De Lara, Mayor of the City of Coachella, serves on the CVAG Executive Committee and is a Member of RCTC, Palm Springs Regional Airport Commission, Coachella Valley Regional Airport Authority, and Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Authority. Ray Wilson, Supervisor for the County of Riverside, serves on the SCAQMD Board of Directors and is a Member of the Coachella Valley Regional Airport Authority, Mohave AQMD, Salton Sea Authority, CVAG Executive Committee, and Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Authority. Performance of Existing Services The Riverside County Transportation Commission reviews the performance of transit services through Quarterly operations Reports. These Quarterly reports indicate ridership, service miles and hours, cost per mile and hour and fare revenue for each service whether operated directly or under contract with a private provider. Services with poor performance when compared to projected goals are singled out for investigation and improvement through revisions as required. Every year, RCTC contracts with an outside auditing firm to perform both the financial and single audits. Every three years RCTC also contracts for the Transit Development Act (TDA) Review. This is a management review looking at the Agency's performance, and compliance with TDA requirements. The ETA also performs a triennial review at which time compliance with federal regulations is reviewed. Early Notification Each year the RCTC sends letters to the private sector transit operators to notify them the Short Range Transit PIans(SRTP) are being updated and to invite their participation in the process. Any private operator interested in submitting a proposal for services will contact the public provider or the Commission. 2 The California Bus Association has agreed to act as a clearinghouse for members to insure they receive notification letters from the Commission and copies of the appropriate RFP's for new or restructured services. They have also committed to work with association members to identify the areas and service levels which private operators would be interested in proposing to provide service under contract to the public operators. The private sector is encouraged to submit proposals through the RFP process. The RFP process is open and recommendations made to the Board of Directors regarding contractor selection are substantiated by statements regarding responsiveness to the proposal and other factors defined in the individual RFP. Selection is not made based entirely on lowest cost submitted. Other important criteria related to providing a high quality, on time, service is taken into account before a selection is made. Protests regarding the selection are handled through a procedure adopted by the Board of Directors. The private sector may, at any time, submit an unsolicited proposal to operate services currently operated by the public operator or one of its contractors. These proposals will reviewed and be given full consideration. OTHER FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS Customer Comrnent Procedures SunLine Transit Agency records, summarizes and maintains information on customer service comments as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A summary of the procedure can be obtained by contacting the General Manager, SunLine Transit Agency, 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California, 92276 or telephone (619)343-3456. Compliance with the Requirements of -the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 SunLine continues to implement its Compliance Plan in conformity with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In FY 1995 SunLine added Sunday paratransit service to persons who are ADA eligible. SunLine is currently operating at capacity, but there is need for additional service. A plan has been initated to address this issue. The plan for full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 includes a four year implementation schedule. This plan and this year's update to the Plan is available by contacting the Department of Special Services, SunLine Transit Agency, 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, CA 92276, or by calling (619) 343-3456, or TTY/TDD (619) 343-3451. SunLine Transit Agency has been designated as a Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) by the Riverside County Transportation Commission. With this 3 designation, SunLine has assumed a lead role in the coordination of transportation services provide by social service agencies. SunLine has: developed an inventory of available resources for social service transportation; developed technical assistance programs for social service transportation providers; provided workshops on low cost insurance and funding possibilities; developed a consolidated service for agencies needing recurrent transportation service; submitted joint proposals for vehicle acquisition; developed a program of low cost vehicle maintenance services; participated in seminars and workshops throughout the qt-te to stay current with legislative and administrative mandates; and sponsored agencies to workshops and seminars. All of the above activities are consistent with a five year plan adopted by the SunLine Board of Directors. This plan identifies all activities that should be included in a coordinated social service transportation system. SunLine is also a member of the California Association for Coordinated Transportation (CaIACT). This association monitors coordination efforts from a statewide perspective. Public Participation Public participation in the provision and planning of SunLine service, although required by federal regulations, is encouraged by SunLine Transit Agency and several methods are used by staff to garner public comment. The following are methods enlisted by SunLine to receive public comment: Public hearings for service changes, fare changes, and grant applications. A 30 day notice for a hearing is published in local newspapers and posted on all transit coaches. SunLine Board Meetings have time scheduled for public comment. Board agendas are published in accordance with the Brown Act and are distributed in advance to local media and various public agencies. - Comments and recommendations received through SunLine's CustonxerService Department via mail and telephone. ▪ Community workshops sponsored through SunLine's Marketing Department to discuss service problems and alternatives. 4 Attendance and serving on subcommittees with local groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committees. Meetings with special interest groups for service request or comments. Attendance at CVAG's Transportation and Technical Advisory committees. Unmet Needs Hearings sponsored by RCTC on an annual basis. Access 1995 Advisory Committee meets monthly and has scheduled time for public comments on the agenda. This committee is comprised of representatives from organizations representing older persons and members of the disability community throughout the service area. Access 1995 also serves as the Agency's advisory committee on compliance with the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). FARE STRUCTURE In March of 1993 the fare structure changed from a zone based fare structure with paid transfers to a fiat fare system. In October 1994, minor changes were made to the fare structure. The current fare structure appears to accomplish the desired results of maintaining a good compromise between generating sufficient revenues, while keeping fares affordable and equitable. SunLine does not see a need for further adjustments to the fare structure in the near future. In April of FY 92-93 a new transit pass outlet program was initiated and administered through the Finance and Marketing Departments of SunLine. This program, localizing pass sales throughout the Coachella Valley, began with six (6) outlets and has expanded to seventeen (17) outlets selling transit passes to the general public. The program has proven to be a success. The Marketing Department is continuing a program to show the convenience of using a bus pass over a cash fare. SunLine also offers a group trip fare. Information on the group trip policy is available through SunLine's Customer Service Department, located at 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, CA 92276, or by calling (619) 343-3456.A copy of the current fare structure is seen on Table 1 in Appendix A. PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND STANDARDS In FY 91, SunLine Transit Agency adopted a procedure to be used to evaluate transit service performance. The following criteria were adopted as a means of judging service performance: Total Cost per Revenue Mile Total Cost per Revenue Hour 5 Total Cost per Unlinked Passenger Subsidy per Unlinked Passenger Farebox Recovery Ratio Unlinked Passenger per Revenue Mile Unlinked Passenger per Revenue Hour Table 6, of Appendix A, indicates the projected performance of the services provided by SunLine. These projections are used as the base to compare actu4 p 'onnance provided by SunLine at the end of each fiscal quarter. A quarterly report is prepared and presented for our Board of Directors and the Riverside County Transportation Commission. A route is considered to be operating with acceptable performance if four of the seven criteria are within 15% of the projected performance. If four or more criteria are outside the 15% range, an in-depth analysis is prepared and presented to the Board of Directors with recommendations as part of the quarterly report. As part of the Riverside County, Congestion Management Plan (CMP), SunLine's Board of Directors adopted the following policies: 1. Change all references of "Passenger Rail Standards" to "Alternate Transit Systems." 2. Route Spacing a. Local Urban Service; 60% of the population should be within 1/4 mile of bus route or general public demand response service. b. Regional Service: Coordinate with local transit service. c. Demand Response: Not applicable d. Express Service: As appropriate for demand to inter -modal centers and/or major employment centers. 3. Frequency Standards a. Local Urban Service: 60 minutes b. Regional Service: Determined by actual estimated demand. c. Demand Response: 1. Maximum 15 minutes from scheduled pickup time. 2. Maximum 60 minute ride for one-way trip. 3. Maximum 90 minute ride for a subscription trip. d. Express Service: As necessary to meet identified demand. SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE PRIVATESECTOR 6 Laidlaw Contracting Services, Inc. is operating two services for SunLine Transit Agency for FY95-96. SunDial, a demand response service designed to serve seniors and person with disabilities on an appointment basis and Social Services, a subscription based service which is contracted through agencies serving people with disabilities who need regular, repetitive trips. These two services are provided throughout the entire SunLine service area DIRECTLY OPERATED SERVICE Public transit service provided by SunLine consists of 12 fixed routes covering the entire valley linking the communities from Desert Hot Springs in the northwest to Mecca in the southeast. In late August of 1993, SunLine initiated an entirely new service delivery system for the Valley. The new system, a modified pulse system, has one major trunk line (Line 111), which is interconnected with 11 smaller community "feeder routes" to provide access to every community in the entire valley. This new system was developed to provide as much service to the valley as possible with the operating funds available. This new system did reduce the number of service miles and hours by approximately 18%. A more detailed description the individual routes is explained in the Operating Plan and Table 6 of Appendix A. FACILITIES SunLine owns and occupies a 10 acre site located in Thousand Palms, California This site was selected because of its central geographic position in the service area. The maintenance building cover 15,000 sq/ft and was built in 1986. Other permanent buildings in the maintenance area include a fueling island and bus wash. All administrative offices are prefabricated buildings placed in a campus-lilce pattern on the property. Substantial improvements were made in FY 93-94 to provide a new Compressed Natural Gas fueling facility in the Northeast corner of the property. SunLine has opened a new facility in Indio, in the southeast part of our service area to house the contracted services provider and as a staging area for a portion of the directly operated fixed route fleet. This new facility has saved a substantial number of deadhead miles and hours for all systems operated by SunLine. Plans for the facility also include, office and maintenance space for alternate fuel technolgy training and vehicle conversion. To improve amenities for the riding passenger, SunLine plans to purchase existing bus shelters and construct new ones. Betond the obvious comfort to riders, additional operating revenue will be generated through advertising sales. SunLine has on file a plan to meet all facility modifications necessary to become compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Copies of this plan are available through the Personnel office of SunLine Transit Agency, 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, CA 92276, TTY/TTD (619) 343-3456. 7 UNSERVED DEMANDS Each year the Riverside County Transportation Commission holds Unmet Transit Needs Hearings as part of the Transportation Development Act requirements. These hearings offer an opportunity to the public to request service to meet transit needs not being provided by the service provider. It is then determined, by staff from both RCTC and SunLine, which requests are actually an unmet need and which can be reasonably provided with the available funding. All of the requests at the hearings in February 1995, were for existing service improvements through expanding current fixed route service, increased funding for Social Service transit provision through additional hours. SUNLINE SERVICES GROUP (SSG) In January 1993, the SunLine Board of Directors voted to create an additional Joint Powers Authority to be named SunLine Services Group. The mission of this new JPA is to provide services to member jurisdictions in order to generate additional operating and capital resources for SunLine Transit Agency: Because SunLine Transit Agency clearly understands that neither state nor federal transit funds may be used for any other purpose than public transit, the SunLine Services Group will be entirely self -funded. Member - jurisdictions to date include, the Cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quints, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, and the County of Riverside. In addition to partnerships, SunLine hopes to broaden the funding base through the establishment of SunLine Services Group grant submissions and legislation. The activities encompassed by the SSG are described below. Mobil Refueling: In 1993, the second largest compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling station m California opened in Thousand Palms on SunLine property. The station was built by Southern California Gas Company, a private utility company, as a partner with SunLine. SunLine, on behalf of the Coachella Valley, is leading an effort to seek funding investment to develop and implement a mobile refueling program using compressed natural gas. Mobile refueling is a type of flexible infrastructure, ideally suited to locations outside urban centers. SSG has leased a Tren-Fuels mobile refueling unit for five years. The delivery unit, compresses, transports, and offloads CNG into storage vessels or directly into vehicles. CNG will be available for delivery throughout the Coachella Valley in order to build demand to a level which warrants private investment in refueling stations. The first "customers" of mobile refueling are the member cities of Desert Hot Springs, Cathedral City, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and Indio. Fuel sites being planned for FY1995-96 are the new operations facility in Indio, Indian Wells, and La Quints. Graffiti Removal Program: Tourism is the number one industry for the Coachella Valley. For this reason, graffiti is a major concern for the communities in the SunLine service 8 area. SunLine's maintenance crews currently remove graffiti on and around the 600+ bus stops throughout our service area. As an extension of this practice, through SSG, with the assistance of youths sentenced to community service hours as imposed by the court system and referred by the Riverside County Probation Department, a weekend graffiti removal program is currently underway in Thousand Palms, Thermal, and Mecca. This program is funded by the County of Riverside Redevelopment Agency. SSG has also been contracted by the City of Palm Desert to remove graffiti seven days a week anywhere within the City Limits. SSG is available for contract graffiti removal services to member agencies. FINANCIAL CONDITION SunLine Transit Agency, like many other public and private organizations, experienced the effects of the economic slow -down which took place during the first part of this decade. Over one half of SunLine's operating revenues are directly related to area sales. During the late 1970's and through the 80's, SunLine experienced considerable growth in these sales tax derived revenues. In the past, SunLine was able to increase service each year to meet many of the transportation needs of the rapidly growing Coachella Valley. However, over the last few years, area sales have shown little growth. SunLine could not continue its previous rate of expanding service. In fact, SunLine had to look at ways to cut costs and still try to maintain a level of quality service for the area Two years ago, SunLine performed an extensive review of all existing routes and services, and the entire system in general. The new pulse system was implemented during the 93/94 fiscal year in an attempt to lower costs, and still provide the highest level of service possible with existing revenues. During the 1993/94 fiscal year, SunLine made great strides in reducing operating costs. Further cost savings were realized during the 1994/95 fiscal year. Projections for the 1995/96 fiscal year indicate that SunLine has been successful in bringing current expenditures in line with new revenues. Economic indicators show that some economic growth will take place in the next few years and additional operating revenues may be available. SunLine will continue to closely monitor revenues, and maintain only expenditure levels which can be supported by current funding. One area of concern, is with federal operating funding levels. Current federal plans call for a thirty percent reduction in federal operating dollars. SunLine has factored this into the revenue projections for the 1995/96 fiscal year. SunLine will continue to seek additional funding sources in an effort to secure our financial condition, and to provide for additional service. One way in which we have done this is by engaging in innovative public/private, and public/public partnerships. This has helped bring federal, state, and private funding into the Coachella Valley, not. only for the benefit of public transit, but also to assist other programs in the Coachella Valley. SunLine will stay on the cutting edge, not only technologically, but also financially, with innovative fiscal solutions to the challenges we face. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM SunLine adheres to the following bus maintenance schedule according to factory recommendations in order to meet manufacture warranty requirements. A pre -trip equipment safety inspection for our equipment safety is performed by the operator on each bus prior to leaving the yard for service. In addition, the utility person checks engine oil, transmission fluid, power steering level_ Weekly, or if reported by an operator, a mechanic checks running gear, tire tread and air pressure, and all lights prior to release from shop. Safety inspections are performed at each of the following preventive maintenance intervals (A -B -C -D). Every 14 days: Brakes, steering, suspension, lights, batteries and tire pressure are checked for each bus in active service. A -PM 6. 000 Mile Intervals: Air conditioning equipment and freon, compressed oil, heater, defroster system operation, and belts are checked for each bus in active service. Corrections are scheduled as required. Preventive maintenance including oil, filter and lube is also done at this time, along with draining air tanks, and checking all hoses and cables. B -PM 12.000: Same as 6, 000 plus change transmission fluids, filter changes and wheel chair lift services. C -PM 24.000: Same as 12,000 plus change differential oil, change brakes if necessary, and perform tune-ups. D -PM 48.000: Same as 24,000 plus complete air conditioning service, change air dryer cartridge, change hydraulic system fluid and filters. Major Repairs are scheduled at the time the problem occurs. SunLine has two computers in the maintenance facility. Two software programs, Fleet Controller and Parts Controller, assist the staff in scheduling and tracking defects, performance problems, and preventive maintenance. 10 RECOMMENDED OPERATING PLAN FIXED ROUTE Line 14: Desert Hot Sprines-Palm Springs: This route provides service between the Cities of Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs (DHS) seven days a week on 50 minute headways. Line 14 provides transfer connections with routes 21, 22, 23, 30, and 111 and service to the Palm Springs Mall and Paim Springs High SchooL Hours of service are from 5:39 A.M. to 11:17 P.M.. There is no change recommended for this Line. See Appendix B for route map of the Line 14. Line 21: Palm Springs: This route provides service to the major employers on Gene Autry Trail, the Employment Development Department office, the Palm Springs Airport, PS Convention Center, PS City Hall, and Palm Springs Mall. The service operates seven days a week on one hour headways. Hours of service are 5:50 A.M. to 7:17 P.M.. There is no change recommended for this Line. See appendix B for route map of Line 21. Line 22: Paim Springs -Cathedral City: This route operates in North Palm Springs and the Panorama area of Cathedral City. The route serves the Desert Hospital in Palm Springs and Raymond Cree Middle School , as well as provides a connection with the Line 111. It operates on 1 hour headways. There is no change recommended to this route at this time. Line 23: Palm Springs (Sunrise Way): This route operates three times a day Monday -Friday and serves a Coyote Run Apts. housing project, the Palm Springs Senior Center, High School and Mall. No changes are recommended. Line 30: Cathedral City -Palm Springs: This route travels two main arterial streets, Ramon Road, in Palm Springs and Cathedral City and Date Palm Road in Cathedral City. Line 30 operates on 25 minute peak hour headways and 50 minute off peak headways. Hours of service are from 6:00 A.M. to 9:43 PM. No changes are recommended. Line 31: Thousand Palms -Cathedral City: This route operates six trips per day, from Thousand Palms into Cathedral City Monday -Friday. It supplies service to both middle and high school students and retired residents in the Thousand Palms area. Due to several request for increased service on the Line 31 and 30%+ increase in current over projected ridership, it is recommended that one trip be added to the A.M. and PM schedule for the second quarter on an experimental basis to determine if ridership will support these extra trips. Based on this trial a recommendation will be made to continue or discontinue the additional service. Line 45: Fixed -Route Group Trip: This -is -a service provided by SunLins to provide trips for large groups on an as needed basis. Although Line 45 is service provided on existing fixed route street alignments, we list it as a separate fixed route for tracking purposes. This allows us to monitor its performance as part of the Transit Operators 11 Report to our Board of Directors and RCTC_ Group trips can be arranged through the operations department. There is a copy of the Group Trip Policy available by calling SunLine at (619) 343-3456. Line 46: Fixed Route Special Events: This is a new fixed route category for service operated by SunLine. Due to request for service to events within the Coachella Valley, SunLine will operate fixed route service to special events and public facilities, such as, the Coachella Valley Fireworks, Palm Springs Convention Center, Indio Fair Grounds, Palm Springs Baseball Park and the Indio Polo Grounds. This service will be operated as fixed route service, with published schedules and route alignments using the existing fare policy. Special Event routes will be published at a minimum of three days in advance and posted on all fixed route service coaches. The published media will contain a copy of the schedule and route alignment and days the service will be operated Customer Service will be notified of the events being served and prepared to answer all questions passengers may have concerning the "Special Event" service. Line 50: Palm Desert -Rancho Mirage: This is a loop type route providing 50 minute service seven days a week in the Cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. It provides a transfer connection to the Line 111 at Palm Desert Town Center, service to Eisenhower Medical Center, the Foundation for the Retarded, Palm Desert High School and Palm Desert City Hall. No changes recommended at this time. Line 70: La 9u inta: This route provides service to Bermuda Dunes and the City of La Quinta seven days a week on hourly headways. There is a connection with the Line 111 at Washington Street and Hwy. 111. The only change in service will be morning and afternoon route deviations to the new La Quinta High School when Adams Street goes through to Highway 111. Line 80: Indio: This route provides service in the City of Indio, seven days a week. In January of 1995, with the opening of the new operations and maintenance facility in Indio, Line 80 was modified, to operate with one coach on 50 minute headways on an experimental basis. The modification did eliminate one coach being operated on this route. This change resulted in the a 38% reduction in total trips over the first three months but over 50% of this reduction was in transfers. At this time, the ridership on Line 80 is improving even with the reduction in transfers. Line 80 continues to have transfer connections with the routes 90, 91 and 111 at the new Indio Facility. Staff recommends that the experimental modification to Line 80 become a permanent change to Line 80 schedule and alignment for the next fiscal year. Line 90: Coachella: This route provides service in the City of Coachella, seven days a week, with connections to the routes 80, 91; and 111 at the new Indio operations and maintenance facility. 12 Line 91: Coachella -Thermal -Mecca: This route provides service to the City of Coachella and the Unincorporated County communities of Thermal and Mecca with four round trips a day from the new operations and maintenance facility in Indio. Line 111; Palm Springs-Coachella/Coachella--Palm Snrin s: This is the main Trunk Route for the fixed route system. This route runs along Ilghway 111 from downtown Palm Springs to the new operations and maintenance facility in Indio. Line 111 has transfer connections with Lines 14, 21, 22, 30, 50, 70, 80, 90, and 91 to provide service to all communities in the service area. Eight coaches provide 25 minute headways Monday - Friday and four coaches on 50 minute headways on Saturday and Sunday. SPECIAL SERVICES North Shore: A new program was started in early spring that involves a unique partnership between the County of Riverside, the North Shore Community Council and SunLine. The service is an agreement in which the County, through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, purchased of a small transit vehicle. This vehicle is owned by SunLine and operated by volunteers in the North Shore community. The service is available to the general public.' SunLine has agreed to maintain the vehicle and provide necessary technical support, including training, to the volunteers. This innovative approach to transit service is in compliance with all Federal, State and Local requirements. SunDial: This service was established August 5, 1991 under contract with a Laidlaw Transit, Inc.. SunDial operates valley wide service from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Saturday and Sunday for eligible ADA passengers. All vehicles are accessible to persons who require the use of mobility devices. Reservations are required and can be placed up to 14 days in advance. SunDial carries 130 passengers on an average weekday. ' SunDial currently has a weekday productivity rate of 2.1 passengers per hour. In FY 1996, productivity was planned to increase to 2.25 passengers per hour. Hours of service were reduced to reduce costs. Future year recommendations include: FY 1997 1. Increase vehicle capacity through vehicle replacement. FY 1998 1. Provide full complementary paratransit services on the same days and wring the same hours that fixes route service is providing in_the-area as required by the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. 2. Increase vehicle capacity. 3. Provide trips requested by ADA eligible persons. 13 FY 1999 No change FY 2000 No change FY 2001 No change FY 2002 No change Social Services: This service was established September 3, 1991 under contract with Laidlaw Transit, Inc.. Social Services Transportation provides subscription trips and allows consolidation and coordination with other paratransit providers. In order to qualify, sponsoring agency must pay 50% of costs. The remaining balance is funded through Measure A funds and 5% from LTF. This service operates valley wide schedule service Monday through Friday. Service hours can vary depending on the program. The range of intermittent service is from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m Social Services carries 120 passengers on an average weekday. Social Services has a weekday productivity rate of 5.75 passengers per hour. Future year recommendations include: FY 1997 Increase vehicle capacity. FY 1998 Increase vehicle capacity. FY 1999 Increase vehicle capacity. FY 2000 No change. FY 2001 No change. FY 2002 No change. 14 To improve amenitites for the riding passenger, SunLine plans to purchase existing bus shelters and construct new ones. Beyond the obvious comfort to riders, additional operatint revenue will be generated through advertising sales. 15 TABLE 1 SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY FARE STRUCTURE FY 1995/96 CATEGORY FIXED ROUTE SUNDIAL Base/Zon es SOCIAL SERVICES PEAK HOURS : 'I Full Far e Senior Disa bled Stu dent Trans fer (a ll pass engers) Other Dis co un ts : Regular Monthly Pas s Senior /Disa ble d Pa ss Youth Pass Employer Clean Air Pa ss Un limite d Use Day Pass CATEGORY 6 A.M . - 9 A.M . AND 2 P.M. .75 .75 .75 .75 .25 28 .00 16.00 20.00 20.00 3.00 FIXED ROUTE - 6 P.M. (MONDAY N/A 1 .00/ .50 1 .00/ .50 N/A .50 SUNDIAL Bas e/Zones THROUGH FRIDAY) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SOCIAL SERVICES OFF-PEAK HOURS: Full Fa re Senior Dis abled Student Transfer Transfer BEFORE 6 A.M., 9 A.M.- 2 P.M., .75 .25 .25 .75 (Full Fa re Pas senger) .25 (Senior/Disabled) .10 Note : Maximum fare to ADA eligible passengers on Sun Dial AND AFTER N/A 1.00/ .50 1.00/.50 N/A .50 N/A 6 P.M. (MONDAY -FRIDAY) /A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A is $1 .50. ACTIVE FLEET Year Built Mfgr. Model TABLE 2 REVENUE VEHICLE INVENTORY AS OF MAY 15, 1995 SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 1982 Gillig Phantom 1985 Gillig Phantom 1985 Gillig Phantom 1994 BIA Orion V 1994 Eldo . Escort 1980 Ford Van 1985 Ford Van 1989 Ford Van 1991 Forj CoI. Van 1991 Forif CoI. Van 1992 Ford CoI. Van 1993 Ford Van 1993 Ford Van TOTALS INACTIVE FLEET Year Built Mfg Model 1974 Flxble 1975 Flxble 1982 Gillig Phantom 1985 Flxble ABR Whlchr. Type Owned Capacity Lift Fuel Leased 46 1 Diesel Owned 46 7 Diesel Owned 46 1 • CNG Owned 44 34 CNG Owned 24 5 CNG O wned 5 12 0 Gas Owned 9 2 Diesel Owned 20 1 Gas Leased 14 1 CNG Leased 14 4 Gas Leased 12 1 GasCNG Lsd. 12 3 GasCNG Lsd. 12 2 CNG Owned Active SerVICQ Year Fixed Demand to Replace 1 7 1 34 2 2 1 1 4 1 3 2 Active Reserve Active Reserve 2004/5 99/2000 94/95 99 98 2000 95 2000 62 48 16 Whlchr. Type. Owned Fixed Demand Capacity Lift Fuel Leased Route Response 34 4 Diesel Owned 43 3 Diesel Owned 47 5 Diesel Owned 48 0 Diesel Owned Comments 4 Replace 94 2 Replace 94 5 Replace 94 5 Replace 94 Note: These vehicles are not in service, not included in the spare ratio, and are awaiting disposition. Twelve of these vehicles to be auctioned May 20, _1995. SUNLI NE TR ANSIT AGENCY TABLE 3 SYSTEM CHARACTERISITCS FY 196 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 199 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FLEET CHARACTERISTICS: I///f/////// 1/11/11//1 /1/1/1/// ///////// //////I/i/ ///////// ///////// /////////// Ge nera l Public a nd Special Servi ces Peak Hou r Flee t 37 37 38 38 40 40 Spar es 15 1542 15 12 10 10 10 Spar e Ratio (* ) 41% 41% 39% 32% 25% 25% 24% Emer ge nc y Re ser ve 8 0 0 0 V ehicles Una vailable for Ser vice 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Ve hic le s 80 52 53 50 50 EXPANSION Vehicle s to be de live red 0 0 50 52 0 0 0 0 0 REPLA CEMENT Ve hic les to be deliver ed 3 0 2 2 2 3 3 FINANCIA L DATA: fl/////////////////// ///////// ///////// ///////// ////////// ///////// ///////// /////////// Fa re Revenue s (000's) Ope rating Co sts (000's) $1,615 $1,650 $1,700 $1,775 $1,850 $1,950 $2,050 $8,600 $8,800 $9,000 $9,300 $9,650 $10,000 $10,400 OPERA TING CHA RACTERISTICS: //////// ///////// ///////// ///////// ////////// ///////// ///////// /////////// Re ven ue Bus Miles (000's) 2,015 2,015 2,051 2,051 2,130 2,130 2,260 To tal Bus Miles (000's) 2,217 2,217 2,256 2,256 2,343 2,343 2,486 Re venue Bus Hou rs (000's) 123 123 125 125 129 129 133 To tal Bus Hour s (000's) 129 129 131 131 135 135 140 Unlinked Pass enge rs (000's ) 2,691 2,749 2,833 2,958 3,083 3,249 3,416 Full Time Equivale nt Employees 159 159 161 161 164 164 167 TABLE 4 CAPITAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION Transit System: SunLine Transit Agency Project Title: Lease payments on 40' motor coaches Project Detailed Description: Annual lease payments (certificates of participation) on eighteen 40' Orion V motor coahces. Project Justification: Required per lease agreement related to full fleet replacement of new CNG buses which took place during 1994. Primary Fund Source (in thousands) Sec. 9 Sec. 18 Sec. 3. LTF STAF/STP Mea. A Other 480 120 Phase Prog. Exp. Total Year Year Cost Fed. State Local 96 96 600 480 120 1 TABLE 4 CAPITAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION Transit System: Site .ine Transit Agency Project Title: Compressed Natural Gas Station at SunLine Indio Facility Project Detailed Description: This item is a complete CNG station and related improvements at SunLine's Indio facility capable of fueling SunLine's fixed route and Dial -A -Ride vehicles which operate out of the Indio facility. The station will also be capable of fueling other public sector vehicles, along with private sector vehicles. Project Justification: The station will save approximately $90,000 in operating costs on an annual basis. This is achieved by lower fuel costs and the elimination of fuel delivery costs. The station will also be a benefit to the clean fuels technology effort in the Coachella Valley by providing a down valley fueling site for other public sector vehicles, and private sector vehicles. Primary Fund Source (in thousands) Sec. 9 Sec. 18 Sec. 3. LTF STAF Mea. A Other 375 Prog. Exp. Total Year Year Cost Fed. State Local 96 96 375 375 2 TABLE 4 CAPITAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION Transit System: SunLine Transit Agency Project Title: Facility Improvements Project Detailed Description: Various minor facility improvements at both the Thousand Palms and Indio locations. Included are installation and upgrade of heating and cooling systems, further earthquake stabali7atiou, and other office improvements. Project Justification: Necessary to help maintain functional and secure facilities. Also to provide additional office space in Indio, some of which can be rented out bringing in additional operational revenues. Primary Fund Source (in thousands) Sec. 9 Sec. 18 Sec. 3. LTF STAF Mea. A Other 75 Prog. Exp. Total Year Year Cost Fed. State Local 96 96 75 75 3 TABLE 4 CAPITAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION Transit System: SunLine Transit Agency Project Title: Maintenance Equipment Project Detailed Description: Tools and diagnostic equipment to help maintain the fleet of new CNG vehicles, and envirnomental equipment required to keep SunLine in compliance with federal and state regulations. Project Justification: Environmental equipment required to to comply with regulations. Tools and equipment necessary to continue SunLine's high level of maintenance. Primary Fund Source (in thousands) Sec. 9 Sec. 18 Sec. 3. LTF STAF Mea. A Other 50 Prog. Exp. Total Year Year Cost Fed. State Local 96 96 50 50 Y TABLE 4 CAPITAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION Transit System: SunLine Transit Agency Project Title: Computer equipment Project Detailed Description: Various upgrades to SunLine's networked management information system. Also replacement of aging and outdated equipment. Included are new personal computers, printers, network hubs, and diagnostic equipment. Project Justification: Necessary in order to continue furthering SunLine's effort at providing accurate, readily available management information. Primary Fund Source (in thousands) Sec. 9 Sec. 18 Sec. 3. LTF STAF Mea. A Other 50 Prog. Exp. Total Year Year Cost Fed. State Local 96 96 50 50 5 TABLE 4 CAPITAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION Transit System: SunLine Transit Agency Project Title: Purchase of bus stop shelters. Project Detailed Description: Purchase of existing shelters located at stops throughout the SunLine service area, and installation of additional stops where needed. Project Justification: The shelters provide a valuable amenity to SunLine's patrons. The shelters also display advertising which generates operating revenues. Primary Fund Source (in thousands) Sec. 9 Sec. 18 Sec. 3. LTF STAF Mea. A Other 475 130 325 Prog. Exp. Total Year Year Cost Fed. State Local 96 96 930 605 325 C TABLE 5 SCAG FY 1996/2002 SRTP/RTIP May 31, 1995 SUNLINE TRANSIT A GENCY TRANSP ORTATION IMPR OVEMENT PLAN FYS 1995-2001 COUNTY: RIVERSIDE FY 1995/96 PR EX FTA FTA FTA PRA YR YR IOIAL > ara Sc 18 MA..A LIEU SIA FARES QlliFamiacil FY 96 Operating Assistanice 96 96 8600 0 275 100 1500 4950 0 1615 160 (Various) Lease/Purchase Motor Coaches 96 96 600 480 120 CNG fueling station 96 96 375 375 Facility Improvements 96 96 75 75 Maintenance Equipment 96 96 50 50 Computer equipment 96 96 50 50 Bus stop she lters 96 96 930 475 130 Total FY 96 Capital/Operating 325 10680 0 1230 230 1500 4950 995 1615 160 Po ' Revised May 15, 1995 TABLE 6 PERFORMANCE MEASURES GENERAL PUBLIC FY 1996 LINE LINE LINE LINE LINE LINE LINE LINE LINE LINE LINE LINE LINE LINE GENERAL SERVICE 45 46 14 21 22 23 30 31 50 70 80 90 91 111 PUBLIC UNLINKED PASSENGERS : 15,200 13,800 291,054 96,059 99,306 18,915 476,339 29,298 43,555 89,819 169,820 126,981 24,969 1,133,898 2,629,013 REVENUE VEHICLE MILES 5,300 5,300 260,958 68,970 83,344 6,501 145,368 35,897 77,138 82,220 79,860 83,490 44,940 629,270 1,608,555 REVENUE VEHICLE HOURS 350 350 12,855 4,882 5,082 287 13,108 2,022 5,100 4,839 5,924 6,008 1,726 39,468 102,000 OPERATING COST $25,987 $25,987 $1,033,856 $356,545 $384,981 823,890 $909,634 $156,451 $378,559 $369,987 $428,058 $437,099 $150,670 $2,968,299 $7,650,000 FARE REVENUE $8,817 $8,005 $168,830 $55,720 .$57,604 $10,972 $276,308 $16,995 $25,265 $52,101 $98,507 $73,657 $14,484 $657,735 $1,525,000 TOTAL COST/VEN. MI. 4.90 4.90 3. 96 5.17 4.62 3 .67 6.26 4.36 4.91 4.50 5.36 5 .24 3.35 4.72 4.76 TOTAL COST/VEN. HR. 74. 25 74.25 80.42 73. 03 75.75 83 .24 69.40 77 .37 74 .23 76 .46 72.26 72.76 87.29 75 .21 75.00 TOTAL COST/PASSENGER 1.71 1.88 3.55 3.71 3.88 1.26 1.91 5.34 8 .69 4.12 2 .52 3.44 6 .03 2 .62 2.91 SUBSIDY/PASSENGER 1. 13 1.30 2. 97 3.13 3. 30 .68 1.33 4 .76 8 .11 3 .54 1 .94 2 .86 5.45 2.04 2.33 FARE REV./OPER. COST .34 . 31 .16 .16 . 15 .46 .30 .11 .07 .14 .23 .17 .10 .22 .20 PASSENGERS/VEH. MI. 2. 87 2. 60 1.12 1.39 1.19 1.00 3. 28 .82 .56 1.09 2.13 1.52 .56 1.80 1.63 PASSENGERS/VEH. HR. 43. 43 39.43 22.64 19.68 19.54 65.90 36.34 14.49 8.54 18.56 28.67 21 .14 14.47 28.73 25.77 a Revised May 15, 1995 TABLE 6 PERFORMANCE MEASURES SPECIAL/TOTAL SERVICES FY 1996 SOCIAL SPECIAL GENERAL SYSTEM SERVICE SUNDIAL SERVICES SERVICE �tJLIC TOTALS UNLINKED PASSENGERS 37,350 25,300 62,650 1 2,629,013 2,691,663 REVENUE VEHICLE MILES 305,606 100,750 406,356 1 1,608,555 2,014,911 REVENUE VEHICLE HOURS 16,600 4,400 21,000 1 102,000 123,000 I_ OPERATING COST ,_ 1751,450 $198,550 8950,000 187,650,000 $8,600,000 FARE REVENI1E $40,000 $50,000 $90,000 181,525,000 $1,615,000 TOTAL COST/VEN. MI. 2.4i6 I 1.97 2. 34 j 4.76 4.27 TOTAL COST/VEH. HR. 45. 27 45. 13 45.24 TOTAL COST/PASSENGER 20.12 7.85 15. 16 75.00 69 .92 2.91 3 .20 SUBSIDY/PASSENGER 19. 05 5.87 13.73 2.33 2.60 FARE REV. /OPER. COST . 05 . 25 .09 ' . 20 .19 PASSENGERS/EN. MI. . 12 .25 .15 ' 1. 63 1.34 PASSENGERS/1IEH. HR. 2.25 5.75 2. 98 25.77 21.88 2i•rson Hot Springs Don English Way.,.....46 Two Synch Palms Vi Ji Bariafa7 Palm Springs Palm Hacienda A Rout. Line 111 0 Time Point 0 Transfer IConnecting Line(s) L City Hall Post Office Library High School Middle School -- Senior Center Boys & Girls Club Palm Springs Mall Department of Motor Vehicles Route 2Eli Line 111 0 Time Point 0 Transfer C J Connecting Lines) Ice High School • City Hall O Employment Office ® Palm Springs Mall © Convention Center ® O.rt Fashion Plase ® Oeaart Museum Palm Springs II I Vote Gino Transfer To: 111 'W% Palm Springs — Route =Line 111 0 Time Point °Transfer CIConnecting Line(s) b Middle School Q Desert Hospital Transfer To: Cathedral City Palm Springs Tahqutz Baristo LINE 23 ALM PRINGS UNRISE WAY rhino IL L ° a r. Transfer To: N A Route — Alternate Route 0 Time Point °Transfer Connecting Line(s) = High School L Library Palm Springs Mall ® Boys & Girls Club ® Senior Center 1 T Springs LINE 30 ATHEDRAL CITY - Palm Springs Mal( — Route Line 111 0 Time Point ° Transfer <—IConnecting Line(s) High School Middle School City Hall Post Office Library Senior Center N A Cathedral City Transfer To: w VI c a T EIIo it ol a_____c Arne 30 McCallum c Dinah Shore 7._ 7. Ti a a r i cI Cathedral City Victoria b I. E a Thousand Palms o w GI L Ramo <30, c 0 ~" Route 0 Time Point 0Transfer <-1 Connecting Line(s) H Charter Behavioral Health System 0 Post Office L High School b Middle School 0 Braille Institute Rancho Mirage Eisenhower Media Center Palm Desert Miff j f Fred Warm t►I II:? t Transfer To: -- Route =Line 111 0 Time Point 0 Transfer C-1 Connecting Line(s) 16 'High School g Post Office d City Hall Q Palm Desert Town Center ® McCallum Theater _ ® College of the Desert LINE 70 LA QUINTA Country Club Route 22 Line 111 -- Alternate Route 0 Time Point 0 Transfer CT Connecting Line(s) b Middle School Post Office L Library a City Hall C Senior Center Bermuda Dunes Transfer To: xw LINE 8 INDIO Indio Transfer To: C 90 91 -- Route ME Line 111 0 Time Point .J Transfer C-1Connecting Line(s) lie High School b Middle School L Library d City Hall 0 Post Office H JFK Hospital ® Employment Development Department ® County Health & Mental Health Bldg ® Indio Fashion Mall ® Department of Motor Vehicles ® El Progresso Del Desierto ®-Girls Club ® Coachella Valley Museum ® Senior Center Indio Dr Carreon Route =Line 111 0 Time Point 0 Transfer C-1 Connecting Line(s) Et Middle School City Hall Post Office L Library 0 Senior Center 0 Employment Development Department Coachella i Transfer To: fi Transfer To: C 80 90 Route TM Line 111 OTime Point c Transfer C Connecting Line(s) 0 a School Post Office Senior Center Employment Development Deportment ®O Palm Springs Vista Chino Ulu mina 8 Cathedral City LINE 111 PALM SPRINGS - INDIO L T 0 a .® -y Frantic Enema Rancho ® Mirage Route Time Point TOTransfer Connecting Line(s) Ubrary City Hall Desert Fashion Plaza Desert Museum Camelot Park Senior Center Children's Museum Palm Desert Town Center McCallum Theatre College of the Desert Indio Fashion Mall Fair Grounds County Bldg Fred werttp Palm Desert Indian Wells La Quinta Indio Transfer To: < 14 < 30 < 50 <70 < 80 < so U ®® Barido Palm Springs Vista Chino Satumino VI 0 Cathedral City Rancho ® Mirage LINE 111 INDIA - PALM S N A Frank gratra Palm Desert Indian Wells — Route QTime Point 0 Transfer Connecting Line(s) L Library City Hall tD County Bldg ® Fair Grounds ® Indio Fashion Mall • Palm Desert Town Center • McCallum Theatre ® College of the Desert • Children's Museum ® Senior Center ® Oasis Water Park a Desert Fashion Plaza Q Desert Museum fi® Fred worhg La Quinta Indio Transfer To: C22 30 31 < 50_ <701 • 80 < 90 91 AGENDA ITEM #7C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1996 Allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit Funds At last month's meeting the Commission approved Western County Measure A Specialized Transit funding for 12 projects in FY 1996, totaling $1,043,953. A balance of $156,047 remained from the original $1.2 targeted for programming in FY 1996. Staff requested and received approval from the Commission to work with three agencies to scale down and/or refine their proposals with the understanding that the revised proposals would then be reviewed by the Evaluation Committee and ranked against the remaining projects under consideration for funding. Staff worked with representatives from Care -A -Van Transit System, the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, and the Volunteer Center of Greater Riverside and each agency submitted a modified proposal which has been rated and ranked by the Committee. Attachment I provides a listing of all projects in rank order with a summary of the three revised projects presented in Attachment II. The three projects were ranked 13,15, and 16 (projects 1-12 were approved for funding last month and project 14, the paratransit dispatching equipment is recommended for funding with State Transit Assistance Funds). The three revised proposals request a total of $189,055, $33,008 over the anticipated programming level. The budgets for each of the projects have been carefully reviewed and in the case of Care -A -Van and the Volunteer Center, reduced by approximately 30%. These two projects were previously funded with Measure A funds and provide a great benefit to seniors and persons with disabilities in the Western County. The RSVP project is a new request for funds and involves training volunteers to be escorts for seniors on public and private transit. This proposal was submitted in response to requests from social service staff representing seniors. Staff considers the three projects very worthwhile and recommends that all three projects be fully funded. When staff prepared the Specialized Transit budget for FY 1996, $200,000 was included for contingency. Staff recommends using $33,008 from contingency to fully fund the three projects. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\MEASURE.CB Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve allocation of Western County Measure A Specialized Transit funds for FY 1996 to Care -A -Van Transit System ($89,000), Retired Senior Volunteer Program ( $7,985), and the Volunteer Center of Greater Riverside ($92,070) and direct the Executive Director to execute funding agreements, pending legal counsel review, with agencies as needed. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\MEASURE.CB FY 95/96 RI VERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATIO N COMMISSION ME ASURE A RANK SPECIALIZE D T RANSIT FUN DING REQUESTS AGENCY 1 RSV TRANSIT AGENCY PR OJECT TYPE W HL CHR LFTS FO R 10 REPLACEMENT B USES FUN DS REQ UESTED 2 C ITY OF RIV PARKS&REC 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 RSV TRAN SIT AGENCY SEN & DIS CIT CO ALITION MEDITRANS SERV RIV CO OFF OF EDUCATION MATCH FU NDS TO REPL ACE 5 VA NS 5260,000 546,000 C UMULATI VE F UNDI NG WHLCI-IR LFTS F OR 22 RPLC & 4 E XPN VANS&MINIBUS TRANSPORTATI ON REIMBURSEMENT & INF O PROJECT OPERATING ASSISTA NCE BUS TICKETS FOR TRAVEL TR AI NING $137,800 S171,050 5260,000 5306,000 OPERATING FUNDS REQU 5443,800 5614,850 5142,000 RIV TRAN SIT AGENCY OPER ASST FOR AD A I NTER -CIT Y SERVI CE CITY OF C OR ON A FAMILY SERV ASSOC M ATCH FUNDS TO REPL ACE 2 VANS & FARE SUBSID Y OPERATING ASSISTANCE FRIENDS OF MoVal Snr Ctr RIV GEN HO SPITAL INLAND AIDS C ARE -A -VAN TRA NSIT SY S RIV TRAN SIT AGENCY 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 V OLUNTEER CENTER RETIRED & SNR VO L PRGM RIV TRAN SIT AGENCY BLINDNESS SUPPOR T SRV OPERATING ASSISTANCE OPERA TING A SSISTANCE O PER ATING ASSISTA NCE 53,480 520,000 546,000 5100,000 S26,000 550,190 541,433 OPERA TING A SSISTANCE COMPUTERIZED PARATRANSIT DISPATCH EQUIPMENT TRANSPORTATION ACCESS PROG RAM TR AIN ING SEN IOR VOLUNTEERS IN TRANSIT USE DEVELO PMENT OF A TRA VEL TRAINING PROGRAM BRAILLE TRANSCRIPTIO N SERV IC ES R1V CO CO MM A CTION AUTO REPAIR & GAS ASSISTA NCE 589,000 5130,000 592,070 57,985 540,000 515,141 SUN CITY RHF HOUSING PURCHA SE OF ACCESSIBLE VAN 514,470 PH OENIX PROG RA MS VALLEY RESTART SHELTER THE CO NCERNED FMLY OPERA TION SAFEH OUSE FAMILY SERV ASSOC FARE V OU CH ERS FA RE VOUCHERS OP ASST, PURCH ASE 2 VAN S, CO MPUTER , CO PIER TAXI SU BSIDY C APITAL MATCH FOR EXPAN SION VA N 556,000 519,720 52,500 S146,143 TOTAL FU NDS REQUESTED TOTAL FUND S AVA ILABLE FUN DS FOR OPERATING AND /OR CAPITAL FUNDS FO R CA PITAL ONLY * = Recommended for fun ding though State Transit Assistan ce Fu nds. 512,000 $17,500 51,686,482 51,200,000 5756,850 5760,330 5780,330 5826,330 5171,050 CAPI7 'AL FU NDS REQU 5260,000 546,000 T OTAL P ROJECT SCORE 98.17 96.50 $137,800 5142,000 53,480 520,000 822,000 5924330 5952,330 51 ,002,520 5100 ,000 526,000 550,190 5I,043,953 541,433 51,132,953 51,132,953 585,800 51,225,023 51,233,008 51,273,008 51,288, I49 51,302,619 S1,358,6I9 592,070 57,985 540,000 96 .33 96 .08 94 .67 94.17 524,000 93 .83 92 .33 90.83 90.80 90.001 89 .83 53,200 5130,000 89 .00 88.00 83,33 510,136 81.83 77 .50 55,005 70 .00 814,470 51,378,339 51,380,839 519,720 52,500 67 .50 556,000 43 .67 43.17 40.33 51,526,982 51,538,982 r 51,556,482 5120,015 512,000 526,128 36 .50 35 .33 517,500 1 5980,849 5840,000 5705,633 2 .83 P $360,000 ATTACHMENT 11 CARE -A -VAN TRANSIT SYSTEM $89,000 Funding to provide continued support for the operation of three vans operated by a consortium of social service agencies in the Hemet/San Jacinto area. The member agencies are Hemet Hospice, Phoenix Programs, Valley Restart and Prime of Life. The vans provide specialized service to the clients of these agencies as well as other seniors and persons with disabilities in the area. VOLUNTEER CENTER OF GREATER RIVERSIDE $92,070 Funding to allow the Volunteer Center to continue the Transportation Access Program (TAP) which provides bus tickets to social service agencies for distribution to their clientele. The tickets are distributed to allow truly needy persons to use public transit to reach medical or personal appointments, job interviews, shopping,etc. Currently 140 social service agencies in the Western County receive tickets through the Transportation Access Program. RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM $7,985 Funding to allow development of a Senior Ride Along Program by the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). RSVP will recruit and train seniors to be companions to more frail seniors or persons with disabilities requiring an escort to allow travel on available transit services. The escorts will be trained to use RTA services as well as receive CRP and First Aid Classes. AGENDA ITEM #7D DATE: TO: FROM: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION June 7, 1995 Budget and Finance Committee Cathy Bechtel, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT:. Senior & Disabled Citizens Coaltion--Additional Allocation of Western County Measure A Specialized Transit Funds for FY 1995 The Senior & Disabled Citizens Coalition administers the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP). TRIP is aimed at helping those who require mobility assistance but cannot use fixed -route services, or who need to travel to areas where dial -a -ride services are- unavailable, by providng a mileage reimbursement of $.28 per mile to offset some of the costs incurred by friends who volunteer to drive a senior or person with a disability to their destinations. This service has been highly successful since it provides a travel option for the longer distance rider and those requiring the assistance of an escort. This service has been well received by the public, so much so that the funding for FY 1995 has been completely allocated. The Coalition is now facing interruption of mileage reimbursement until the beginning of the new fiscal year when the new allocation of funds commences. Commission staff is very supportive of this worthwhile service since it provides a creative, low cost, alternate source of transit service with a built in escort which is needed by many of our residents. During the first three quarters of the year 12,682 one-way trips were reimbursed for a total of 317,470 miles. The average length of each trip was 25 miles with an average cost per trip of only $ 11.04 ($.44 per mile). So as to prevent a lapse in service, the RCTC Executive Director approved an additional allocation of $10,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds for the Western County TRIP under his single signature authority. Staff is requesting that the Commission ratify this allocation and approve an additional allocation of $2,000, bring the amount to $12,000, the amount Coalition staff estimates will be needed to carry them through the end of the year based on current reimbursement levels. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Ratify the Executive Director's allocation of $10,000 in Western County Measure A Specialized Transit funds to the Senior and Disabled Citizens F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\TRIP.CB Page 2 Coalition to be used for their Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project; 2) Authorize an extra $2,000 in Western County Measure A Specialized Transit funds bringing the total additional allocation to $12,000; and, 3) Authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract amendment to include this allocation. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\TRIP.CB AGENDA ITEM #7E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Twenty-five Percent Discretionary Transportation Demand Management Funds Project Proposal For FY 95/96, Caltrans has agreed to provide transportation demand management (TDM) funds to metropolitan planning organizations throughout the state. The agreement between Caltrans and the California Association of Councils of Governments stipulates the formula distribution and type of TDM services to be provided. Based on current state budget estimates, it is anticipated that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) will receive $3.2 ± million. Based on the agreement no more that 75% can be spent on "core" rideshare services generally relating to data base maintenance, RideGuide support and production, limited materials production, and support of multi -site employers through telephone assistance. The remaining 25% must be spent on services other than core services. Project types cover a broad range from vanpool subsidies to guaranteed ride home to telecommunting. How the MPO determines which projects will be funded is up to the region to determine. Beginning July, 1995 Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. will be merged into SCAG who will hold responsibility for delivery of the state funded TDM program. The reconstituted Regional Transportation Agencies' Coalition (RTAC) has assumed responsibility for policy discussions and recommendations regarding TDM services in the SCAG region. The RTAC has established a process to solicit projects for the 25% discretionary portion of the state TDM funds. Due to continuing negotiations at the state level regarding TDM funding, a relatively short time frame now exists for RTAC to identify and select projects to incorporate within the SCAG FY 96 Overall Work Program (OWP). Among the issues discussed by the RTAC at its May 26, 1995 meeting was county equity. Riverside County's equity share of the 25% discretionary portion is estimated at $199,500±. Based on the type of projects that may be proposed by RTAC members, equity will be considered as part of the selection process. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\25%.MW Page 2 In order to compete for the 25% discretionary funds, staff is seeking Commission approval to develop and submit a destination based rideshare demonstration project to provide flexible rail feeder links for Riverside County commuters. The focus of the project will be the new Riverside to Orange County Metrolink line beginning service in October 1995. The Commission will recall that at its May 1995 meeting, staff received authorized to "work cooperatively with Orange County Transportation Authority to implement a destination based rideshare demonstration program to reduce demand for transit integration at rail stations in Orange County". Should the demonstration project not require the total estimated Riverside County equity share, staff recommends that the Commission assign any balance of equity funds to support a SCAG proposed project to develop a traveler information system for the Southern California Priority Corridor area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Authorize staff to develop and submit a destination based rideshare demonstration project to seek funding under SCAG's 25% discretionary TDM program; and 2) Depending upon Riverside County's equity share balance, support SCAG's proposal for the development of a traveler information system. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\25%.MW AGENDA ITEM #7F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: David Ledwitz, Staff Analyst I THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1995/96 Measure A Commuter Buspool Subsidy Requests The Commission adopted a Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy in October 1990. The policy set the rate for subsidizing the seats on buspools used by Riverside County residents at $25 per seat per month. Previous to this action, the Commission provided a $10 passenger subsidy funded by Local Transportation Fund (LTF) resources for the long running Riverside to Hughes Fullerton buspool. The Commission has approved the subsidy for four buspools since the adoption of the general buspool policy. The buspools, of which three are currently operating, run from (with start date in parenthesis): 1. Riverside to the Hughes Company site in Fullerton (10/90); 2. Riverside to the Santa Ana Civic Center (12/90); 3. Moreno Valley to the Hughes Company site in Fullerton (12/90), [discontinued]; and, 4. Riverside to Anaheim (6/91) BUSPOOL ANNUAL FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS: Representatives from each buspool are required to submit requests for funding continuation to the Commission annually. The three buspools have submitted their requests to continue the $25 per seat/$1,175 per bus per month subsidy for the period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996 (ATTACHMENTS 1, 11, and III). Attachment IV presents the monthly ridership record of the three buspools for the last 12 months. The following descriptions provide a brief overview of each buspool: Riverside to Santa Ana Civic Center: The ridership of this buspool consists of Orange County, Federal, State, and Santa Ana City employees who live in Western Riverside County and commute to the Santa Ana Civic Center area. During the last year, the average monthly ridership for the buspool has been 35. Even with the Orange County bankruptcy, recent layoffs, and the elimination of many of the rider's flex work F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\BUSPOOL.DL Page 2 schedules, the average ridership is just 1 less than what it was last year. The current passenger fare is $119.00. This fare is the per passenger share of the buspool's operational cost. It does not include any employer or RCTC subsidies and increases and declines in response to the buspools ridership level. The members of the Santa Ana buspool are ready to provide physical assistance to passengers who require this assistance in order to board, and disembark from, the buspool. The Orange County bankruptcy is expected to impact the ridership level of the buspool. The loss of one passenger from the buspool causes an additional $5.00 to be added to the remaining passengers' monthly fares. Representatives from the buspool indicate that they would be willing to pay up to $150 per person to ride the buspool. This price per person would be reached if the ridership fell to 25 passengers. As a result of the bankruptcy, Orange County petitioned the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to exempt it from the Rule 1501 rideshare rule. The SCAQMD granted the waiver. The SCAQMD's ruling will result in the loss of Orange County incentives to try multi -passenger commute modes. This will also negatively impact the buspool's ridership level. Riverside to Anaheim: The City of Anaheim and private sector buspool sponsors have been supporting this buspool for Riverside County residents who commute to work in the Anaheim area for four years. The buspool has had a wheelchair accessible bus permanently assigned to it since the Spring of 1994. The City and the private sector sponsors subsidize the cost of their employee seats, market and promote the buspool, and administer the contract with the buspool service provider. Each private sector sponsor contributes $100 per month to the buspool. City employees pay $77.00 per month for a monthly ticket. Riders who do not work for the City pay $92.00 for a monthly ticket. Daily tickets are sold for $5.50 per round trip. This year, the buspools average ridership has been 36, with an additional 10 to 15 daily passengers riding per month. Riverside to Hughes Fullerton: The Riverside to Hughes Fullerton employees maintain full responsibility for the operation and cost of this buspool service. The Fullerton buspool has access, upon request to the contract provider, to wheelchair lift equipped buses. Economic conditions are requiring the Hughes Company to restructure its operations. The restructuring has resulted in the Company's decision to reduce its Fullerton work force and relocate a variety of Fullerton based operations to El Segundo and Long Beach in Los Angeles County. The Company's restructuring actions might reduce the buspool's ridership below a level that is appropriate to warrant RCTC buspool policy subsidy support. The buspool contract service provider has told the buspool representatives that they will F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\BUSPOOL.DL Page 3 continue to provide the buspool service at the same price per passenger until the ridership falls below 20. The contractor will allow the buspool to continue with a ridership at or below 20 because a close family relative of the contractor drives the buspool from Riverside to the Hughes site in Fullerton. MINIMUM BUSPOOL RIDERSHIP FOR FUNDING ELIGIBILITY: Currently, no policy exists regarding the minimum ridership level the Commission would consider appropriate to qualify for funding under the Commuter Assistance buspool program. While recognizing the unique family situation of the Riverside to Hughes Fullerton buspool, staff is concerned that a buspool ridership level of 20 might be too low to warrant the $1,175 per bus per month subsidy. Current Commuter Assistance incentives for the use of alternate modes of transportation have been set by the Commission at up to $2.00 per day per person. A ridership level of 20 would result in a per person per day buspool incentive of $2.67. By setting the limit of the incentive at $2.00 per day per buspool passenger, the minimum buspool ridership should be established at 27 [$1,175/($2 * 22 workdays per month) = 27 passengers]. Another way to determine a minimum buspool ridership level is to compare buspool subsidies per passenger with what is spent per passenger per trip on a public transit route from Riverside to Anaheim. If this method is used to establish a minimum ridership level, the minimum ridership could be set at 13. The per passenger per trip subsidy paid for Riverside to Anaheim public transit service is $2.04. A two way, commute trip, cost $4.08 in subsidies per passenger. Based on this expense level, a buspool having a ridership greater than 13 would have a lower per passenger subsidy than the public transit service. Staff recommends that consideration be given to how a minimum buspool ridership is to be established. If a minimum buspool ridership level is established, there are two additional issues which would need to be addressed. The first is the need for a grace period for buspools with riderships which fall below an established minimum level. As shown on attachment IV, buspool ridership levels do fluctuate. To pr ovid a safety net, staff recommends that buspools be given two months to raise their riderships to, or above, the minimum level before they are disqualified from receiving funding under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy. Staff recommends that a buspool be eligible to receive funding again upon the provision of documentation to the Commission indicating that the minimum ridership level has been achieved. The second issue which would need to be addressed, if a minimum ridership level is established, is the need for a waiver from the minimum ridership level for new buspools. New buspools will require a period of time to get started. The time is needed to allow potential passengers to become aware of the new buspools. Current Commission Commuter Assistance policy provides for three month empty seat subsidy F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\BUSPOOL.DL Page 4 for new vanpools to get started. Staff recommends that new buspools also be given a three month waiver from the minimum ridership requirement. THE USER SIDE SUBSIDY AND BUSPOOL EFFECTIVENESS: Like all the commuter assistance incentives, the Measure A $25 per seat per month subsidies ($1,175/month) are administered as "user side subsidies". The subsidies are allocated to reduce the cost of monthly buspool tickets that are paid by Riverside County residents who use the buspools to commute to work. Unlike the other Commuter Assistance incentive programs administered by the Commission, the buspool incentive is approved for a 12 month period. The monthly cost of each buspool varies based on route miles and the operator the buspool has contracted with. The $1,175 the Commission pays each month has constituted an average subsidy rate of 23.4% across the three buspools during the last fiscal year. The cost effectiveness of the Commission's buspool subsidy policy can by demonstrated by comparing this average subsidy rate with the average subsidy for a public transit route. The average subsidy paid for a public transit route is 80% of the total cost. Another way to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the subsidy is to calculate the per trip cost. Based on practice, buspools operate 5 days per week, 4 weeks per month. The per seat per day subsidy is $1.25 or $0.63 per one way trip. Based comments received throughout the year, the passengers firmly believe the Measure A subsidy reduces the passenger cost to a competitive point in relationship to driving a personal vehicle. When taking other factors into consideration such as the number of vehicle miles saved and reduction of vehicles on the highway, the $1.25 per seat per day is an effective use of Measure A commuter assistance revenues. This is consistent with the Commission's Commuter Assistance policy of providing up to $2.00 per day in incentives as part of its other Commuter Assistance programs. REQUEST FOR NEW BUSPOOLS: As mentioned in the description of the Riverside to Hughes Fullerton buspool, the Hughes Company is planning to transfer a significant portion of its operations from its Fullerton facility to facilities in El Segundo and Long Beach. The move to El Segundo is currently underway. The move to Long Beach will begin in the Fall of 1995. The ridership on the Hughes Riverside to Fullerton buspool is expected to decline significantly by the end of the year as the riders re -locate to the Hughes El Segundo and Long Beach facilities. A survey of Hughes Fullerton employees indicates that 90 are interested in using a buspool to commute to work in El Segundo. 64 Hughes Fullerton employees are interested in using a buspool to commute to Long Beach. The current contract bus F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\BUSPOOL.DL Page 5 company has agreed to run two buspools to El Segundo. The number of buses to be used to run to Long Beach will be determined closer to the date the service will start. The Hughes Fullerton buspool representative expects that two buspools will be needed to run between Riverside and the Hughes Long Beach facility. Representatives of the Hughes Riverside to Fullerton buspool have asked for the Commission's assistance in supporting the new Riverside to El Segundo and Long Beach buspools. Staff recommends the support of up to four additional buspools: the Riverside - El Segundo buspool(s) commencing in June 1995 and the Riverside -Long Beach buspool(s) within 30 days of the receipt of documentation of paid ridership from its representatives. The contractor will charge a total of $146 per passenger per month for the El Segundo service. This fare would consist of a $100 passenger fee, a $21 Hughes subsidy, and the requested $25 per seat per month RCTC Measure A Buspool subsidy. The new Hughes Riverside - El Segundo buspool began running on June 1, 1995. Representatives from the Hughes Riverside - Fullerton buspool requested the Commission to provide funding under the Measure A Commuter Assistance buspool policy for the El Segundo buspool in a letter dated May 4, 1995 (Attachment V). This request was too late for staff to present it to the Commission at its May 12, 1995, meeting. Staff recommends the adoption of a 13 month period for the funding of up to two buspools from Riverside to the Hughes facility in El Segundo, beginning on June 1, 1995 to June 30, 1995. REQUIREMENTS: In order to receive funding under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy program, representatives of each buspool are required to submit monthly ridership documentation to the Commission throughout the funded year. The representatives are also required to submit a written status report regarding the operation of their individual buspool on a semi-annual basis to the Commission. The status reports should include a description of any changes to the buspool, general ridership trends, ridership recruitment activities, and the physical accessibility of the buses. The second status report is to be submitted as part of the annual funding request letter to the Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Consider the adoption of a policy establishing a minimum buspool ridership level that would need to be maintained in order for buspools to qualify for funding under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy; F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\BUSPOOL.DL Page 6 1 a) If a minimum buspool ridership policy is adopted, adopt a policy establishing a two month grace period for buspools with riderships which fall below the minimum ridership level. Buspools which cannot maintain the minimum ridership level after the two month grace period would be disqualified from receiving funding under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy until documentation is provided to the Commission that the buspool's ridership level equals, or exceeds, the minimum ridership level. 1 b) If a minimum buspool ridership policy is adopted, adopt a policy that the minimum buspool ridership requirement will be waived for the first three (3) months of a new buspool's operation. If a new buspool's ridership is not at, or above, the minimum buspool ridership level by the beginning of the fourth month of operation, the Commission will not continue to provide funding under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy to subsidized its per passenger expense. 2) Approve the requests for funding under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy ($25 per seat per month) totalling $1,175 per month per buspool for the period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996 for the Riverside to Anaheim, Riverside to Santa Ana, and Riverside to Fullerton buspools; 3) Approve the buspool subsidy to provide funding for the start-up of up to four new buspools under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy ($25 per seat per month) totalling $1,175 per month per buspool for the new Riverside to El Segundo buspools beginning on June 1, 1995, or thereafter, and the two Riverside to Long Beach buspools beginning within 30 days of documentation of paid ridership from its representatives. Funding for these proposed buspools is included in the Proposed FY 95/96 Budget, to be approved under a separate agenda item; and, 4) Direct the Executive Director to require the representatives of each buspool to submit monthly ridership documentation to the Commission throughout the funded year and semi-annual written status reports regarding the operation of their individual buspool in order to continue funding support under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy ($25 per seat per month) totalling $1,175 per month per buspool. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\BUSPOOL.DL ATTACHMENT I May 1, 1995 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue Suite 100 Riverside, Ca 92501 Attention: David Ledwitz Subject: Request for Continuation of Buspool Funding for Fiscal Year 1995-96 for Riverside/Corona to Santa Ana Buspool Dear Commission Members: The Riverside/Corona - Santa Ana buspool riders wish to express our sincere thanks for your financial assistance to our buspool during fiscal year 1994-95. We request that you continue the $25 per month per rider subsidy for the coming 1995-96 fiscal year. During the past 12 months, we have averaged 35 riders as follows: Jun 94 37 Dec 94 35 Jul 94 37 Jan 95 32 Aug 94 38 Feb 95 35 Sep 94 37 Mar 95 34 Oct 94 35 Apr 95 32 12 month Nov 94 34 May 95 31 average 35 The ridership consists primarily of County, Federal, State, and City employees. We continue to use "Airport Coach" as our contractor, and are very pleased with the service they provide. They have a large fleet of buses with backup buses always available, a 24 hour dispatch, and bus radio communications. During the past year, we have not had any inquiries or requests from disabled individuals to ride the buspool. However, please be assured that we welcome and are committed to serving all riders, the physically challenged as well as the able bodied. Because of the Orange County bankruptcy, recent layoffs, and the elimination of the flex work schedule, our ridership has dropped down slightly. Accordingly, our monthly ridership fee has increased from $100 (for 38 riders) to the most recent fee of $119. We are fully committed to keeping this buspool operating, and appreciate the support that the Riverside County Transportation commission has provided to us in the past. Your financial support is what makes the difference as to whether individuals can afford to ride the bus or not. Your consideration of our request to continue your funding for next fiscal year will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please call me at 714-834-5747. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Kent L. Lindsey 2522 Shamblin Court Riverside, Ca 92504 ATTACHMENT II DRUG USE Is . EASE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Public Works Department P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, California 92803 (714) 254-5176 FAX (714) 254-5225 May 17, 1995 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 SUBJECT: RIVERSIDE/CORONA TO ANAHEIM BUSPOOL SUBSIDY CONTINUATION FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 1, 1995 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1996 Dear Commissioners, It is with great pride that the City of Anaheim Commuter Services Office would like to report that the Riverside/Corona express buspool service has been in operation for over four years, providing a valuable alternative transportation option for the Riverside County residents. The service has proven to be very successful and ridership is growing steadily. On the average, 36 full-time passengers and 10 to 15 part-time passengers use the Riverside/Corona buspool service on the monthly basis. In order for the City of Anaheim to provide this valuable service, it is imperative that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) continue the $25 per seat monthly subsidy. It is our intention that through this team effort we will be able to continue the buspool service, providing the highest quality customer and transportation service at a truly cost effective price. Since the initiation of the buspool service, on April 15, 1991, the City of Anaheim and numerous other local buspool sponsors (Walt Disney Company, Pacific Bell, Kwikset Lock & Key, Anaheim Memorial Hospital, Carl Karcher Enterprises, and Odetics) have been supporting the buspool project as well as other commute programs sponsored by RCTC using Measure A funds to benefit Riverside County residents. The City of Anaheim and sponsors commitment to the buspool consists of: * Monthly per seat subsidy for employees * Marketing and promotion of the buspool to employees and other local employers * Administrative support of the project, i.e. sale of monthly passes and daily tickets directly to the buspool passengers * Contract administration * On -going empty seats subsidy * Guarantee for the full cost of the service less the monthly subsidy from RCTC Subject: Riverside/Corona Express Buspool Service Page 2 Even though the City of Anaheim and the sponsors continue to provide financial assistance, a major portion of the revenue is generated by the riders themselves. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has presented new challenges regarding the provision of accessible transportation. To address these sensitive and important issues, the City of Anaheim and the service provider, Kim's & Bill's Transportation, worked closely to obtain lift -equipped vehicles for this route. As a result, beginning Spring 1994, an accessible vehicle has been permanently assigned to our Riverside/Corona express buspool route. The City of Anaheim and all sponsors are committed to providing effective altemative modes of commuter transportation to assist our region in attaining much needed air quality and enhanced mobility. It is our hope that RCTC will continue to provide the assistance that has made this buspool program a success that we all can enjoy. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact the City of Anaheim Commuter Services Office at (714) 254-5277. Thank you for your continued support and assistance. Sincerely Gary E. Johnson Director of Public Works and City Engineer J hn Low T afffc and ransportation Manager DK:pr c: Diana Kotler, City of Anaheim Marilyn Williams, Riverside County. Transportation Commission David Ledwitz, Riverside County Transportation Commission Grant Dawdy, Walt Disney Company Karen Kawanami, Walt Disney Company Jacquiline Hansen, Anaheim Memorial Hospital Linda Krumme, Odetics Tony Romero, Carl Karcher Enterpirses Linda Vesner, Pacific Bell Marcella Gardner, •Kwikset 05/02/1995 10:09 714-732-1952 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO PAGE 02 ATTACHMENT III 1 May 1995 r Mr. David Ledwitz, =II AEROSPACE AND DEFENSE SECTOR At this time the Hunt Bus is operating at full capacity to the Fullerton site picking up passengers at the two stops In Riverside and one stop in Corona. Our current fare to Fullerton remains at $65.00 per person with subsidies from Hughes Aircraft Company of $21.00 per person, and from Riverside County Transportation Commission of $25.00 per person ($65.00 + $21.00 + $25.00 - $111.00). We would like to request the continuation of the subsidy that we have been getting each month for our service. This bus service will continue through until the end of the year 1995 for sure and attached is the list of riders that are currently signed up on the bus. 1 will be faxing over the latest updated list of ridership after all have paid for this month on the 10th. The bus service does provide capability for handicap people to ride as well; however at this time we do not have anyone riding from Hughes that is handicapped. There are other handicapped people using their services on other routes but not on a regular basis. Thank you for your consideration for our renewal of the current subsidy for the existing service to Fullerton. Please advise if any Other Information is needed. WIII be looking forward to hearing from you soon. Claudine Johns d n Bus Coordinator, Hunt Transportation Hughes Aircraft Company w Post OMcr Sox 9310 Fullerton, CaS rnia 021194- 1310 (714) 7224232 ATTACHMENT IV RCTC BUSPOOL RIDERSHIP SANTA ANA ANAHEIM FULLERTON TOT MONTHLY AVG TICKETS 2.11.1 2.11.2 2.11.3 TICKETS SOLD PER MONTH MAY 95 31 36 44 111 37.00 APR95 32 36 47 115 38.33 MAR95 34 37 52 123 41.00 FEB95 35 35 36 106 35.33 JAN95 32 36 41 109 36.33 DEC94 35 33 39 107 35.67 NOV94 34 32 36 102 34.00 OCT94 35 33 38 106 35.33 SEP94 37 32 37 106 35.33 AUG94 38 33 38 109 36.33 NL94 37 30 35 102 34.00 JUN94 37 32 39 108 36.00 AVERAGE 35 34 40 05/04/1995 0E:22 714-732-1952 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO PAGE 02 AITACHKENT V. 4 May 1995 Mr. David Ledwitz, =1 AEROSPACE AND DEFENSE SECTOR Hughes ran a survey for the interested people who would want to ride the bus to El Segundo and Long Beach. To summarize the results, 183 surveys were turned in for review. Out of the 163, 90 were Interested in the route to El Segundo and 84 for the Long Beach route. Attached Is the article written and submitted to the 1T Newletter at Hughes. Hunt Transportation has agreed to run two buses each day from La Sierra park - n -ride with a stop at Corona park -n -ride to El Segundo beginning June 1st. One bus will leave Riverside to arrive at El Segundo for the 6:00 AM to 2:30 PM shift and one bus to leave Riverside to arrive at El Segundo for the 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM shift. Hughes Aircraft Company has agreed to subsidize these buses as It has the current one running from Riverside t0 Fullerton. Hughes will give $21.00 per person for each bus. Also Hughes will subsidize the Fullerton bus as well. Hunt Transportation would like to have the Riverside County Transportation Commisoion consider this service to El Segundo with a subsidy as has been provided for the Fullerton service. There is no discrimination to ridership and handicapped people are welcome to sign up. We are now in the process of mailing out to the surveyed individuals a form to turn with their check for their first month's ride to El Segundo due back in to us no later than the 15th. After the 15th, I will be able to fax a list of the ridership on these El Segundo buses. Will be Pooking forward to hearing from you soon on the approval for this request 'for subsidy. Claudine Johnson Bus Coordlnator, Hunt Transportation Hughes Aircraft Company Post Oflloo Om 3910 Fuquian. Cpkm. 02634.3310 (714) 732.3232 05/04/1995 0E:22 714-732-1952 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO PAGE 03 SURVEY FOR HUNT BUS SERVICE TO EL SEGUNDO After running a survey of people based on zip codes from Mike Chaftee's flies, we collected about 163 surveys. Out of those 163 individuals wishing for service, 90 were for El Segundo, 64 for Long Beach, and 8 for continuing to Fullerton. We are happy to announce that the Hunt Bus Company has agreed to run two buses for the El Segundo Individuals beginning about the first of June. The cost will be $100.00 per person as quoted by Mike Sugarman of the Hunt Ei,,s Service. First bus would leave La Sierra Park -n -Ride to arrive at El Segundo for the 6:W) to 2:30 shift. Second pick up would be the Corona Park-n-Rlde. Second bus would leave La Sierra Park -n -Ride to arrive at El Segundo for the 7:00 to 4:00 shift. Also a second pick up point at Corona Park -n -Ride. LOOK FOR MAIL. The people on the survey will receive a small draft form t: fill out and return. This will be to collect funds to start this, bus servIc.0 by the first of June. IndtvIdLlaIs wishing to go to Long Beach need to keep us informed as to their Oparture times the closer to that actually happening. We will then be ab! s, to set up the schedules. Claude ie . Johnson, Bus Coordinator. AGENDA ITEM #7G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County As one of the Commission's transportation demand management programs, the Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County (WorkCenter) is the last program to be reviewed during this years evaluation efforts by staff. The WorkCenter opened its doors November 1991 amid high hopes that the facility and its services would attract multiple employers to assign their long distance commuters to work at the facility at least one day per week. Historical Context In 1991, only two telecommuting center demonstration projects were underway in the United States, one in Hawaii and one in Washington. Their primary users were public employees. In contrast, the WorkCenter was designed to service the private sector to demonstrate the role telecommuting could play not only to address trip reduction and air quality requirements but to support employer recruitment/retention efforts, reduce sick leave use, increase employee morale and productivity, and reduce office space expansion requirements. The opening of the WorkCenter was cutting edge as little experience existed regarding how the business community would embrace the concept. On a policy level there was high hope for telecommuting strategies as the Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Mobility Plan proposed to eliminate 3 million daily work trips through telecommuting and work -at-home strategies. In comparison, transit use was estimated to increase to 1.4 million daily work trips for the region. In 1995, the role of telecommuting and its impacts on business and transportation is an even more frequent focused on trip reduction strategy. There are now 24 telecommuting centers including satellite offices in the Los Angeles basin with five more in the planning stages. Each one is configured slightly different based on management philosophy, potential market, funding resources and so one. Each provides users with an office environment close to home at subsidized market rates. 6/No telecommuting center has elected to close its door to date. While several are F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\WORK.MW Page 2 addressing financial constraints, there has been sufficient public investment available from federal, state and local resources for telecommuting centers as well as from private sector telecommunications interests. Background Funding for the WorkCenter demonstration project was established by AB 3069 (Clute) as amended by AB 1065 which authorized the establishment of telecommuting centers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. It allocated $100,000 in state funds to both Counties if matched by their Commissions and private business. In its first two years, the WorkCenter was managed by the Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP). The majority of the required business funding was provided by Pacific Bell who was a founding partner of the WorkCenter. In September, 1993, the Commission considered the future of the WorkCenter based on available resources, projected expenses and IEEP's progress report. While it was clear from IEEP's report that employers had not readily embraced telecommuting centers as an alternative business strategy, the Commission took action to continue the project based on anticipated reduced costs and available state funding. Since assuming responsibility for the WorkCenter in November, 1993, Commission staff has implemented a number of cost reducing steps including relocation and downsizing of the WorkCenter facility, and reduction of: 1) consultant hours to manage and market the facility, 2) marketing material costs, and 3) operational costs (by combining the WorkCenter with the Commuter Assistance Program office). Based on low telecommuter use, two original employers who leased two offices each were consolidated into one office each. Two new employers were added, one in a shared office configuration that would accommodate multiple employers in the same office. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\WORK.MW Page 3 Below is a list of cash contributions which were made in the first 3 1/2 years (not including FY 94/95) of the WorkCenter demonstration project. In addition, various in - kind contributions of office furniture and consultant services were made early in the projects first year. Expenditures during this same period totaled $561,401. Riverside County Transportation Commission State of California: AB 3069 Caltrans Marketing Grant Petroleum Violation Escrow Account ($150,000) Pacific Bell Southern California Edison City of Riverside Southern California Gas Company South Coast Air Quality Management District Bank of America Office Lease Rent TOTAL Evaluation $200,000 100,000 75,000 89,424 52,500 15,000 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 27,949 $569,373 Among telecommuting centers, the typical evaluation approach has been to simply compare lease rates of office and/or work cubicles in centers. Based on that standard, the lease rate for the Riverside WorkCenter is 87% as six of the available seven telecommuting offices are leased to employers. This level of evaluation does not document actual telecommuting use or vehicle miles eliminated. Exhibit A is attached which details a cost/benefit analysis of the WorkCenter. In summary, there are 352 available telecommuting uses in a month given the current WorkCenter configuration. During the first eight months of FY 94/95, the average number of telecommuting uses per month is 57 equaling a monthly WorkCenter utilization rate of 16%. The average monthly cost (expense less revenue) per telecommuting use is $91.75. The average number of miles saved per month is 4,250 for an average cost per mile saved of $1.23. The WorkCenter has been conservatively operated during FY 94/95 so that actual costs have been maintained at a relatively low rate ($63,000± yr). Based on this bare bones budget, the cost per telecommuting use at 100% utilization is $14.86. At 50% utilization, it is $29.72. And at 25% utilization, it is $59.43. The question at a policy level is, are any of these costs per telecommuting use acceptable given the purpose of the WorkCenter as a trip reduction strategy and within the context of the Commission's overall transportation demand management efforts? F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\WORK.MW Page 4 As noted above, staff has made progress in placing new employers at the WorkCenter and discussions are on -going with potential employers. When budget materials were prepared for FY 95/96, an optimistic approach was taken by staff. The proposed budget includes dollars to increase the WorkCenter number of offices should new employers elect to lease space. Successful steps have been taken to assist employers in increasing their telecommuters use of the facility and additional ones are in the planning stages. But even if staff and employer efforts resulted in a 100% increase, the utilization rate would rise from 16% to 32%. The likelihood of generating a 100% increase in the coming year is very low given the existing depressed economic environment in Southern California. Experience has demonstrated that participation fluctuates due to many factors outside the control of the WorkCenter staff and grows at a relatively slow rate. As part of staff's evaluation, the Commission adopted Guidelines for the Measure A Commuter Assistance Program (May 1992) were also considered. The Guidelines provide a framework for the development, implementation and maintenance of commuter assistance programs. Those most applicable to evaluation issues are as follows: 1) Be cost effective in delivery of services and leverage other resources/expertise. 2) Be viewed as short or medium term; they are not intended to be permanent programs requiring on -going funding. 3) Be quick to respond to implementation and operational feedback. 4) Be restructured or terminated when it is determined that they no longer meet their original objective or become cost prohibitive. Conclusion In keeping with the adopted Guidelines and in consideration of the cost/benefit analysis, it is staff's recommendation that the Commission consider termination of the Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County. As part of the Commission's policy discussion regarding the WorkCenter, staff recommends that the cost/benefit consideration be weighed against the more subjective value associated with telecommuting strategies. Telecommuting remains an important part of various federal and state mandates and is listed as an approved transportation control measure. Those mandates require that efforts implemented to meet conformity requirements be reported and that such efforts demonstrate expeditious implementation. The Commission can take pride in its foresight and leadership that paved the way for the establishment of the first two telecommuting centers in the State of California. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\WORK.MW Page 5 The South Coast Air Quality Management District recognized the Commission for its efforts with a 1992 Clean Air Award that honored the WorkCenter as an important workplace alternative strategy. An objective of any demonstration project is to learn. Much has been learned. While the combined investment in the demonstration project is significant during its first 3 1/2 years, cost reduction efforts have brought the current year's actual costs down significantly 063,000 ±) and may make continuation of the WorkCenter feasible should the Commission determine it is appropriate to continue support of the WorkCenter. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission consider the termination of the Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County as a continuing demonstration project based upon past and future performance considerations, cost effectiveness and policy issues. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\WORK.MW EXHIBIT A 5/30/95 TELECOMMUTING WORKCENTER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY Cost/Benefit Analysis Report for the Period 7/1/94 - 2/28/95 FACTS: 1. Number of Existing Offices 7 2. Number of Existing Desks 16 3. Number of Workstations 1 4. Number of WorkCenter Clients (Employers) 5 5. Number of Leased Offices 6 6. Number of Telecommuters 32 7. Total Number of Available Telecommuting Uses Per Month 352 (Item 2 multiplied by 22 days) 8. Average WorkCenter Expenses Per Month $5,230 (Expenses: $7,330 less Revenue: $2,100) 9. Average Monthly Cost per Telecommuting Use a. Assume 100% use @ 352 b. Assume 75% use @ 264 c. Assume 50% use @ 176 d. Assume 25% use @ 88 COST ANALYSIS: 10. Average Number of Telecommuting Uses Per Month (Actual telecommuting uses divided by 8 months) 11. Monthly WorkCenter Utilization Rate (Item 10 divided by Item 7) 12. Average Monthly Cost Per Telecommuting Use (Item 8 divided by Item 10) 13. Average Number of Miles Saved Per Month (Actual miles saved divided by 8 months) 14. Average Monthly Cost Per Mile Saved (Item 8 divided by Item 13) $14.86 $19.81 $29.72 $59.43 57 16% $91.75 4,250 $1.23 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Use of Friis Building for Commission's Commuter Assistance Program Office Given the vacant status of the Commission owned Friis building, staff has been considering the feasibility of renting a portion of the Friis building to house the Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) Office and related functions. The CAP Office currently shares rent costs with the Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County whose annual lease is renewable beginning July 1, 1995. The monthly rental rate for the WorkCenter's 3,485 useable sq.ft. is $3,967 ($1.14 sq.ft.) and will increase to $4,106 in January 1996. There are several factors which should be considered in determining if the Commission should use the building for its own programs. First, the termination of the Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County is the subject of a separate June agenda item. The Friis building (5,880 sq.ft.) is large enough to accommodate the current needs should the Commission approve the continuation of the WorkCenter. If not, it reduces the space requirements of the CAP Office and would allow the Commission to consider finding an additional tenant to lease any unused portion of the building in a share office environment. Second, the provision of local rideshare services by the Commission will be considered as part of the June agenda item awarding project funding under the Discretionary State Transportation Program (STP). Staff submitted a proposal to fund employer services which will no longer be provided by Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. (CTS) under its merged role with the Southern California Association of Governments. The Commission provided employer services would be managed by staff and implemented by consultant staff. To reduce overhead, the Inland CTS office will be closed and combined with the CAP Office. Furniture, equipment and all existing supplies from the Inland CTS office will be transferred to the Commission as long as it is used for the delivery of rideshare services. Third, the Friis building has been vacant since October 1994. Given the current economic market, the prospects for locating a tenant in the near future are limited. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\FRIIS.MW Page 2 During its vacancy, the property has suffered from vandalism. Having the building occupied may help to deter vandalism related problems. Fourth, the CAP Office overhead costs are split by various programs based on actual office space used. For example, Club Ride, Commuter Exchange, Freeway and Local Commuter Incentive Programs and San Bernardino Associated Governments' Option Rideshare all arc assigned a portion of rental costs. In this manner, the individual budgets reflect appropriate overhead costs but realize cost savings through a shared office environment. As previous individual program cost/benefit analyses have included rent and other typical overhead costs, staff recommends that the CAP Office continue to pay rent if it moves to a Commission owned facility. Based on the above factors, staff recommends that the Commission rent a portion (yet to be determined) of the Friis building to the CAP Office at a rate of $1.10 sq.ft. and that the useable space be determined as that space actually used by the CAP Office plus a percentage share of the common area space (reception area, restroom, lunchroom, etc.). In essence, rent will be paid from the Measure A Commuter Assistance Program to the Highway Program. The proposed rental rate is less than the asking rental rate of $1.25 for the Friis building. As the decision to move is weighed, the Commission should also consider the fact that moving is disruptive to staff and work production, and moving related expenses will be incurred. Therefore, it is suggested that the Commission consider its own use of the Friis building for a period of at least two years. Should the Commission approve the move of the CAP Office to the Friis building, staff will also continue its efforts to identify other potential users. The proposal to rent a portion of the Friis building by the CAP Office has been agendized for the June 2nd meeting of the Commission's Properties Ad Hoc Committee. The recommendation of the Committee will be reported to the Budget and Finance Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission consider renting a portion of the Friis building to house the Commuter Assistance Program Office and related functions at a rental rate of $1.10 sq.ft. including common area space. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\FRIIS.MW AGENDA ITEM #7I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: San Bernardino Associated Governments FY 95/96 Commuter Assistance Program Contract Amendment For the past two years, San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) has contracted with the Commission to develop, implement and manage a commuter assistance program for San Bernardino County commuters. The program, known as Option Rideshare, was designed as a companion incentive program to Measure A's Freeway and Local Commuter Incentive Programs. Based on the performance of the Option Rideshare program, RCTC was asked to develop and submit a FY 95/96 budget for continuation of the program under Contract No. 94-021 and Amendment No. 1. The budget was prepared by staff and the Commission's transportation demand management consultant, Inland Transportation Services (ITS), who staffs and administers the program. Amendment No. 2 (Attachment A) to the current SANBAG/RCTC agreement incorporates the FY 95/96 budget and defines terms and conditions of funding and payment for services rendered. The Amendment is being review by staff and Legal Counsel. The SANBAG board took action to approve the amendment at its May meeting. Staff seeks Commission approval to execute the contract amendment. The program budget assumes the same labor rates for ITS as set forth in the Commission's FY 95/96 Commuter Assistance Program budget. Staff also seeks approval to incorporate the SANBAG program consultant costs in an amount not to exceed $197,396 for labor and $7,000 for expenses into RCTC's consultant agreement with ITS for FY 95/96. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve: 1) Amendment No. 2 to the SANBAG/RCTC Contract No. 94-021 to continue management and administration of the Option Rideshare incentive program for FY 95/96 and authorize the Chairperson, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 2) incorporation of the SANBAG program consultant costs in an amount not to exceed $197,396 for labor and $7,000 for expenses into RCTC's FY 95/96 consultant contract with Inland Transportation Services. SANBAG Contract No. 94-021-02 Page 1 of 3 AMENDMENT NO. 2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION This AMENDMENT NO. 2 to CONTRACT NO. 94-021 entered into as of this 3rd day of May , 1995, by San Bernardino Associated Governments (hereafter called SANBAG) and Riverside County Transportation Commission (hereafter called Contractor): WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, SANBAG, under Contract No. 94-021, has engaged the services of CONTRACTOR with respect to implementation and administration of a commuter incentive program for the San Bernardino County area on behalf of SANBAG, and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the aforesaid contract to extend the term of the program administered by CONTRACTOR; and NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree to amend Contract No. 94-021 as follows: 1. This.Amendment 94-021-02 authorizes additional services not to exceed $391,716 over the existing contract amount of $747,641 for a total of $1,139,432. This amendment reflects additional funding necessary to continue the implementation and administration of a rideshare program serving San Bernardino County residents as set forth in Exhibit 1, Option Rideshare FY 95/96 Budget. 2. It is agreed that SANBAG funding for the Program under this amendment shall come from the following sources: (a) $107,220 from SANBAG's Measure I funds (b) $284,496 from ISTEA Surface Transportation Funds It is agreed that the Measure I funds provided by SANBAG shall be the source of the direct commuter incentives implemented under this amendment. It is further agreed that in the event funds set forth in (b) above do not become available to SANBAG for this amendment, SANBAG shall pay to RCTC from other sources any amounts required to SANBAG Contract No. 94-021-02 Page 2 of 3 cover RCTC's costs to the date of contract termination. RCTC shall provide SANBAG with bi-monthly reports of the total cost under this amendment in order for SANBAG to be able to give notice of early termination authorized in the contract in the event the funds under (b) above do not become available for partial funding of this amendment. 3. Upon execution of this amendment, this contract shall be extended to terminate on June 30, 1996, unless it is extended by an amendment approved the parties or terminated as otherwise set forth in the contract. 4. CONTRACTOR shall invoice SANBAG on a bimonthly basis for the funds described in Item 2 above based on the costs incurred by RCTC and its consultants for operation of the rideshare incentive program. 5. Except as amended by this amendment, all other provisions of Contract No. 94-021 remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE AUTHORIZED PARTIES HAVE BELOW SIGNED: RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: ALEX CLIFFORD, Chairperson Dated: ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS Dated: -_ -, - 5)5. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: y. By JACK REAGAN AYES MC DANIEL Executive Director /Executive Director Riverside County San Bernardino Transportation Commission Associated Governments lei Dated: Dated: — SANBAG Contract No. 94-021-02 Page 3 of 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL CONTENT: By: By: iRtozs•o2ck-f24�' STEVEN C. DE BAUN RONALD D. REITZ Best, Best & Krieger Counsel for San Bernardino Associated Counsel for the Riverside Governments County Transportation Commission Dated: Dated: / (.2 7 IY s M:A940212.DRB EXHIBIT 1. SANBAG OPTION RIDE.SHAICE PROPOSED FY 95/96 BUDGET LESEITEM TOTAL 1, Computer S 9,000 Programming 2. Equipment 5 2,000 3. Marketing Material/ S 28,000 Incentives 4. Photocopy S 6,000 5. Postage S 10,000 6. Program Incentive 5107,220 7. Promotional Events S 5,000 8. Rent S 5,300 9. Telephone S 5,300 10. Workshops S 2,500 11. Consulting Labor 5197,396 12. Consulting Expenses S 7,000 13. Program Development _ 5 •7,000 Oversight TOTAL 5391,716 DR AFT 3/23/95 SAN BA G OPTIO N RIDESHARE PROGRA M GOALS/PER FOR MANCE 1. Local 2. Freeway 3. Total FY 9}/94 GOAL FY 93/94 12 mo . / Aduslcd PERFOR MA NCE / & mo. 615/410 750/500 1,365/910 396 (97%) 256 (51%) 652 (72%) FY 94/95 GO AL PERFORMANCE 12mo. /Minted ASOF1/31I9S / 10 mo. 615/513 750/625 1,365/1,138 PROJECTED PERFORMANCE TURD 6/30/95 320.5 (62%) 575 (1 12%). 199 (32%) 475 (76%) 519 .5 (46%) 1,050 (92%) FY 95/96 PROPOSE D 650 600 1,150 DRAFT 3/23/95 SA NBAG OPTIO N R IDESIIARE LOCAL PROGRAM CONSULT ANT LABOR /BUDGET WORKSHEET FY 93/94 FY 94/95 7/1/94- 2/1194 - ACT UAL/ 1Y95/96 ADOPTED ADOPTED 1/31/95 6/30/'95 PROJECTED PROP OSED POSITION BUDGET GET ACTU AL PROJECTED TOTAL BUDGE T Project Manager 3I5 315 151 126 277 300/$20,550 (11 months) Marketing 670 670 371 309 680 724/$34,390 (11 months) Administration 1,020 1,150 545 545 1,090 1,300432,500 (10 months) TOTAL 2,005 2,135 1,067 980 2,047 2,324/$87,440 Consultant Gabor Ra tes FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95196 Project Man ager $65.00/hr $68, 50/hr $68, 5O/hr Marketing $45.00JIU $47.50/hr $47.50/hr Administration $25.00IIur $25.00/hr 525.00/1hr 95DUD 03 DRAFT 3/23/95 SANBAG OPTION RWESHARE FREEWAY PROGRA M CONSULTANT 1 ABOR/BIUDG ET WORICSI WET PO ST 1TON Project Manager Marketing A dministratio n TOTAL Consultant Labor Project Manager Marketing Administratio n FY 93/94 ADO PTED BUDGET 375 1,630 865 2,870 Rate FY 93/94 $65.00/hr $45.00lhr $25.00/hr FY 94195 711194- 2/1/94 - ADO PTED 1/31/95 6/30195 BUDGET ACTUAL PROJEC TED 375 1,300 1,450 3,125 FY 941'95 FY 95/96 $68. 50/hr $68.50/hr 1;47. 50/hr $47.50/hr $25. 00/hr $25.00/hr 149 512 S80 1,241 ACTUAL) PROJECTED TOTAL FY95/96 PROPOSED BUDGE T 124 273 326/$22,331 (11 months) 625 1,137 1,200/$57,000 (11 m onths) 527 1,107 1,225/$30,625 (10.5 m onths) 1,276 2,517 2,751/5109,956 9SBUDG3 AGENDA ITEM #8A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 8A June 7, 1995 To: From: Budget & Finance Committee Susan Cornelison, Senior Staff Analyst As explained in the published staff memo, the SCRRA Budget (issued in preliminary form in April) is still undergoing revisions. On June 6, 1995, SCRRA staff produced new capital requirements for the San Bernardino -Riverside -Irvine Line, specifically in the area of line mobilization costs. These costs are identified as $250,000, with RCTC's share calculated at $106,000. Please see the attached revised spread sheet. It is anticipated that savings in some other capital projects within Riverside County, funded by Proposition 108 rail bonds, will be used to fund this line item; but, until those savings are realized, staff is asking that RCTC include the $106,000 within its locally funded share of the. Capital Budget. Line opening expenses for the current SCRRA rail lines have been identified as legitimate capital expenditures, and though the opening of this line has been anticipated for some time, the actual line item did not appear in the SB 1402 Line Budget until this month. Ongoing service adjustments and other changes to specific line items and funding sources have also altered RCTC's current "bottom line." The summary of these adjustments to both capital and operating accounts is also attached. AMENDED STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff intends to amend the published report to reflect these adjustments. Staff asks that the Committee concur with its amended recommendation that the Commission adopt the SCRRA Fiscal Year 1995/96 Preliminary Budget and approve an allocation to SCRRA for commuter rail capital and operating expenses up to a total of $3,850,000. SC SRN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORIT Y FY ._,,6/96 PROPOSED BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL ($1000s) FULLERTON-RIVERSIDE/SAN BERN ARDINO LINE DESCRIPTION TOTAL FY 95/96 PLAN LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG BUDFY95 00,0$N5 BFF VCTC =R.IMC AICAXIM o 14; -_ so.; CROSSOVERS AT PLACENTIA 2nd TRACK LAMBERT TO ESPERANZA 2nd TRACK PRADO TO CASA BLANCA CROSSOVER AT RIVERSIDE JUNCTION CROSSOVER AT ATWOO D 2nd TRACK YORBA LINDA TO PRADO CROSSOVERS 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 MITIGATION SANTA ANA CANYON STATION TRACK AT RIVERSIDE OLIVE SUBDIVISION - TRACK/SIGNAL TVMS,VALIDATORS,SIGNAG E START-UP SAN BERNARDINO-IRVINE SERVICE OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM cONS1TtUCi70N SUPPORTS 1 AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RU L€NG'S f(]CK `' .. LOCOMOTIVES (5) PASSENGER CARS (7) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL - FULLERTON-R€V ERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO I-F,L119PINGLSOURCE PROP 116 PROP 108 TCl/TP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL MATCH/OVERM ATCH OTHER $431 $2,335 52,208 50 $36 51,412 134 12,066 11,118 $0 $1,240 $400 11,413 50 $567 $250 $116 $391 ,5787 5724 543 50 50 50 50 50 $0 50 50 50 $0 30 30 50 50 *0 30 50 50 $0 30 10 11,665 50 $4,543 50 $611 50 ,. - E ° MUMS ` -#n 8144 $782 $739 50 512 5473 111 5691 $374 $0 10 $200 $0 10 50 $120 SO $0 ''$257 $242 $14 $224 $1,211 $1,145 $0 119 1732 818 *1,072 1580 $0 50 $200 $1,413 $0 5587 8108 $116 5391 53a8 $376 $22 3650 $1,035 51.717 12,826 3236 $375 383 *342 *324 $0 $5 5207 55 3303 $164 $0 81,240 50 10 ID 10 $24 50 $0 5106 $6 $0 $0 *0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 *0 10 $0 $0 10 $0 $0 $0 10 $0 10 30 SO 50 $0 *0 ZINIt $6 50 10 so 521,623 "x:$21;62 517,884 8743 5567 $0 52,849 80 SO $6,406 512.427 82,790 SO 50 30 50 50 50 50 SON $6,088 50 50 50 $320 S0 $12,426 570.052 $743 $567 80 *1,065 30 $2,790 11,526 10 *0 *0 11,264 $0 So s0 *0 $0 so $0 $0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT CO MPLETION (EAC) (5=000) FULLERTON - RIVERSIDE/SAN BER BUD9596A 31 -May -95 DESCRIPTION BUDGET EXPENDITURES ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION 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 FORECAST E AC VARIA NCE (OVER)/ UNDER R16_,R7-0F AMAY1MPRPVEME iTS,?i; :+? , c •'� �� f; , ,, ;:',''�''�, �`�� CROSSO VER S ATPLACENTIA194_ • �77,29�_'j�;$3�;�3� k, '. a ,`;.w';� �'�'� S1b,ig4 ,..$6,004 "'3 1$81 � ,,,, '`�u386 i ) 2nd TRACK LAMBERT • 51,947 8681 5822 5.131 2213 51,947 80 TO ESPERANZA 2nd TRACK PRADO TO • $10,546 $4,143 82,918 $2,335 $658 810,054 5492 CASA BLANCO CROSSOVER AT RIVERSIDE • 525,206 $12,748 59,162 82.208 52.014 528,132 (5926 JUNCTION CROSSOVER AT ATWOOD • $488 5351 $117 $0 $0 5488 50 2nd TRACK YORBA LINDA TO PRADO • 5983 $549 8398 $38 *0 $983 $0 . CROSSOVERS AT MONROE • 810,111 $4,887 83,318 81,412 5898 810.111 80 2nd TRACK MADISON TO WEST • 81,097 $631 $432 834 50 81,097 80 RIVERSIDE 3rd TRACK WEST RIVERSIDE TO EAST RIVERSIDE • 2nd TRACK EAST RIVERSIDE • $7,572 $4,058 $2,633 $1,395 81,858 $994 82,066 51,118 81,017 5551 57,572 $4,058 (50) $0 TO HIGHGROVE 3rd TRACK EMBANKMENT/BRIDGE $4,861 53,743 81,607 80 $0 $5,350 (5488) WORK SANTA ANA CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL 81,850 $0 $0 $1,240 $611 51,850 $0 MITIGATION SANTA CANYON STATION TRACKATRIVERSIDE $400 80 80 $400 80 $400 $0 OLIVE SUBDIVISION TRACK/SIGNAL $1,570 80 8157 51,413 80 81,570 $0 - TVM'S, VALIDATORS 82,000 8101 52,399 *0 $0 $2,500 (5500) & SIGNA GE SAN BERNARDINO-IRVINE 8759 80 5628 $587 $0 $1,193 ($434) ...START-UP SERVICE OCIP INSURANCE $0 80 $0 $250 80 8250 (5250) DESIGN & CM $79 823 • 898 $118 80 $235 (8156) CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT *181 81,098 $782 *391 $0 82,271 (52,090) 53,59E 81,940 $872 $788 8245 $3,823 (527) ROLLING STOCFC,-. .. �... r`` ` LOCOMOTIVES ,,,, $28 8 $2 S ' $r$ $ :. rrr o �: .•r k$24,2'_._ r: . 1 •r:: 34;23.8' (5) PASSENGER CARS (7)• P518,500 ROLLING STOCK PROCUREMENT 59,440 510,715 85,954 80 $0 51,885 $4,543 80 $0 $12,400 810,497 (52,960) 58,003 8 TESTING $545 8623 $118 $811 SO $1,352 ($607) TOTAL $105,769 $52,015 $26,272 $21,623 $6,004 $105,913 ($144) NOTES: > ADJUSTED BASE PLUS LOW ITEMS (y ARE AT THE AMOUNTS NEGOTIATED WITH ATSF. > 3rd TRACK/BRIDGE WORK AND ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION THROUGH SANTA ANA CANYON ARE ADDED LINE ITEMS PER THE ATSF NEGOTIATIONS . > POTENTIA L ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES ABOVE THE *400,000 NEGOTIATED AMOUNT WITH ATSF ARE NOT INCLUDED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED BUDGET COMPARISON OF LOCAL FUNDS IN PRELIMINARY BUDGET WITH CHANGES DISCUSSED 6/6/95 4/14195 Preliminary Budget SB1402 Capital Operations Maintenance -of -Way * Locomotive Emissions Reduction Program Capital Maintenance New Capital Total Net Local 6/6/95 Budget SB1402 Capital Operations Maintenance -of -Way * Locomotive Emissions Reduction Program Capital Maintenance New Capital Total Net Local 12,752.0 29,021.5 10,310 .1 331.7 6,014 .6 1,646.0 60,075.9 13,714.0 28,614.9 10,762.7 39.7 6,014. 6 1,646.0 60.791.9 Bold numbers in 6/95 that are changed from 4/14/95. * Shown net of revenues from freight & Amtrak. 3,238 .0 17,749.6 6,215.6 139 .5 2,444.0 1,295 .5 31,082.2 3,665.0 17,485 .9 6,536 .6 16.7 2,444.0 1,294 .7 31,442.9 7,290.0 2,927.9 2,352.1 90.9 2,538 .9 151.2 15,351.0 7,410 .0 3,037.5 2,303 .6 10 .9 2,538 .9 152 .5 15,453 .4 959.0 1,265.0 - 2,239.7 3,848 .0 2,256 .3 157.6 1,269.6 315.2 46.2 55.1 - 308.0 549.1 174.6 44 .4 101 .1 53.8 3,754.9 7,087 .9 2,799.9 1,065 .0 1,574.0 - 2,273.6 3,819.2 1,998.7 151.2 1,251 .7 519.6 5.5 6 .6 - 308.0 549 .1 174.6 44.3 100.9 53 .6 1 3,847.6 7,301.5 2,746.5 SUM.XLS 6/6/95 10:39 AM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PR OPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY 2 reverse peak RTs to Chatsworth (100%. LACMT A), no exte nsion fr om Chatsworth to Moorpark, Ven tura Line ridership = 30001da incremental revenues to Chatsworth re verse trains LINE ALLOCATED SUBSIDY SAN BERNARDINO LINE VENTURA COUNTY LINE CHATSWORTH REVERSE TRAINS ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE RIVERSIDE LINE (UP) ORANGE COUNTY LINE SAN BERN/RIVERSIDE - IRVINE AMBASSADORS SUBTOTAL LINE ALLOCATED SUBSIDY COMM ON COSTS (POINT -IN -TIME)' TOTAL OPERATIONS SUBSIDY MOW - NET SUBSIDY TOTAL COUNTY ALLOCATION COSTS FUNDED BY SIR COUNTY ALLOCATION - M ETROLINK CHART B - 5/25/95 TAC M EM O INOMEAWREAs SATURDAY SERVICE ` OTAUC (?EMINGIStirMM' 1W.` ,> 2,629 3 1,383.8 366 .0 3,023 .4 2,792.5 (572.0) 378.2 480.3 10,481.5 19,053.3 29,534.8 10,762.7 1,706.9 880 .1 366 .0 3,023.4 1,693.6 (153 .5) 234.7 7,751.1 10,210.6 17,961.7 6,536.6 40 .3 (418.4) 181.7 83 .2 (153 .6) 3,405 .6 3,252.0 2,303 .6 642 .2 159.9 852 .8 1,516.3 2,369.1 151 .2 922.4 456 .7 36.6 50 .7 71.4 1,487.1 2,368.2 3,855 .4 1,251.7 CHART B 544.0 1,552 .6 2,096.5 519.6 40,297.5 (1,200. 0) 39,097.5 38,685. 4 280.2 :: 39;x' 24,498 .3 (643.1) 23,855.3 23,563.7 5,555.6 (214.5) 5,341 .1 5,399 .0 II OM 167.2 24A2"_ k- - 2,520.3 (95.5) 2,424 .8 2,422.2 5,107.1 (149 .2) 4,957 .9 4,968.8 0.9) 113 .0 2,616.1 (97 .8) 2,518.4 2,331.7 2,01150 ASSUMPTIONS: 1) RIDERSHIP OF 3,000 ON VENTURA LINE: FAREBOX REVENUE INCREASE=100K, TRANSFERS=9.9K (90.1K NET CHANGE). 2) COSTS WERE NOT CHANGED FOR THIS EXERCISE. 3) MOW INCLUDES ESTIMATE FOR TAKING OVER THE COAST LINE MAINTENANCE FY95981BUDG EV SI MI2A.XLS-Allocate 8/8/95 10 54 AM Most recent replacemen t of Table 2, page 2-5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY 2 reverse peak RTs to Chatsworth (100% LACMTA), no extension fr om Chatsw orth to Moorpark, Ventura Line rldershi • = 30001da Incremental revenues to Chatsworth re verse trains LINE ALLOCATED SUBSIDY SAN BERNARDINO LINE VENTURA COUNTY LINE CHATSWORTH REVERSE TRAINS ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE RIVERSIDE LINE (UP) ORANGE COUNTY LINE SAN BERN/RIVERSIDE - IRVINE AMBASSADORS SUBTOTAL LINE ALLOCATED SUBSIDY COMMON COSTS (POINT -IN -TIME) " TOTAL OPERATIONS SUBSIDY MOW - NET SUBSIDY TOTAL COUNTY ALLOCATION COSTS FUNDED BY SIR COUNTY ALLOCATION - METROLINK BASELINE (INCL. 7/17 IRVINE-LAUS) MOWN 2,629 .3 1,437.0 366.0 3,026.3 2,792.5 (540.0) 378.2 480 .3 10,569.6 19,005.8 29,575 .4 10,310.1 39,885.5 (1,200.0) 38,685.5 38,775.7 AgOW 1,706.9 913.9 366.0 3,026.3 1,693 .6 (144 .9) 234.7 7,796.5 10,185.2 17,981.6 6,225.2 24,206.8 (643 .1) 23,563.7 23,532.3 ) (395.0) 181.7 83 .2 (130.1) 3,397 .1 3,266 .9 2,346.6 5,613 .5 (214.5) 5,399 .0 5,367 .9 642.2 159 .9 50.7 , 852.8 1,512 .5 2,365.3 152 .4 2,517 .7 (95.5) 2,422.2 2,407.7 922.4 458 .7 36 .6 71.4 1,487.1 2,362.3 3,849 .5 1,268.5 5,118 .0 (149 .2) 4,968 .8 4,933 .6 CHART B 523.1 40.3 563.4 1,548 .7 2,112.0 317.4 2,429 .4 (97 .8) 2,331.7 2,534.2 ASSUMPTIONS: 1) RIDERSHIP OF 3,000 ON VENTURA LINE: FAREBOX REVENUE INCREASE=100K, TRANSFERS=9 .9K (90.1K NET CHANGE). 2) COSTS WERE NOT CHANGED FOR THIS EXERCISE. 3) MOW DOES NOT INCLUDE ESTIMATES FOR TAKING OVER THE COAST LINE MAINTENANCE FY96961BUDGETiSIMI2A .XLS-Allocate 6/25/05 2:45 PM CALCULATION OF 1995-96 POINT -IN -TIME FORMULA #1 (Existing) CORRECTED 08 -May -95 1/6 Route miles + 1/6 Stations + 1/6 Riders (exd LAUS) + 12 Base Train Miles O\scrra196shaab2 05:27 PM SB/Riverside-Irvine service starting 10/2/95, no Tustin or Anaheim Canyon station, SB/Riv-Irvine ridership of 4/18/95. Riverside Unduplicated Route miles San Bernardino Une Ventura Une Santa Clarita Line Riverside Une Orange County Line San B/Riv-Irene Ventura Line Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) TOTAL Unduplicated Stations (3) San Bemardino Line Ventura Line Santa Clarita Une Riverside Line Orange County Line San B/Riv-Irvine Ventura Une Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) TOTAL Projected AM BoardingslAlightings (4) San Bemardino Line Ventura Line Santa Clarita Line Riverside Line Orange County Line San B/Riv-Irvine Ventura Une Extension (1) Antelope Valley Une (2) TOTAL Base Train Miles San Bemardino Line Ventura Une 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 Une Orange County Line San B/Riv-Oceanside Ventura Line Extension (1) Antelope Valley Line (2) FY 1995-96 Paint -In -Time FY 1994-95 Point -in -lime Current All Share Original All Share LA 33.60 26.10 27.80 33.92 20.20 42.20 183.82 53.3% 6.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.96 3.00 20.96 49.0% 1558 977 1180 616 39 38 875 5284 45.9% 68,544 66,504 96,416 72,624 32,283 58,293 394,664 57.8% 11.2342% 9.1019% 11.2781% 9.0147% 4.1582% 0.0551% 8.7409% 53.5831% 55.927% 40.298% 40% Orange 42.49 16.61 59.10 17.1% 5.88 1.46 7.33 17.1% 1812 388 2200 19.1% 101,133 21,734 122,867 18.0% 14.3678% 3.5235% 17.8913% 18A05% 26.248% 25% 13.74 18.68 32.41 9.4% 1.63 1.88 3.50 8.2% 682 439 1120 9.7% 27,540 19,123 46,663 6.8% 4.3000% 3.6672% 7.9672% 4.617% 13.356% 12% San B. 22.70 9.35 4.28 36.32 10.5% 5.63 1.00 0.38 7.00 16.4% 1552 363 32 1947 16.9% 46,308 19,584 4,378 70,270 10.3% 8.9257% 2.7999% 0.7193% 12.4450% 14.100% 15.927% 18% Ventura 14.20 19.30 33.50 9.7% 2.00 2.00 4.00 9.3% 856 94 950 8.3% 28,968 19,686 48,654 7.1% 4.8255% 3.2880% 8.1135% 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 mare than one line are split equally between each line. New stations included in proportion to months of service provided. (4) Projected by Baoz.Allen 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 and 4/18/95. SB/Riv-Irvine service ridership uses Schiermeyer estimates. TOTAL 56.30 40.30 27.80 57.00 62.69 39.56 19.30 42.20 345.15 100.0% 11.63 6.00 3.00 5.63 7.83 3.71 2.00 3.00 42.79 100.0% 3110 1833 1180 1661 1851 859 132 875 11502 100.0% 114,852 95,472 96,416 119,748 133,416 45,235 19,686 58,293 683,118 100.0% 20.1599% 13.9274% 11.2781% 16.1146% 18.5260% 7.9100% 3.3431% 8.7409% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100% LATEST REVISION OF PAGE A-1-8 IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 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 Southern California Regional Rail Authority FY 1995-96 budget (Metrolink service) is presented to the Commission for action this month. Included in the attachment are eighteen pages of briefing papers prepared by Metrolink staff which summarize system characteristics, projected revenues and expenditures, and the level of subsidy required from each county. The proposed budget consists of an executive summary and separate sections for operations and capital expense. Table 1 on page 1-5 shows proposed expenditures totalling $125.7 million, with $66 million of that amount for operations and $59.6 million for capital programs. Funding sources include farebox revenues, state rail bonds, ICI and TP&D grants, dispatching and maintenance fees paid by tenant railroads, and local agency contributions. The operating budget is based on "service assumptions" found in Tables 4 and 4A beginning on page 2-9. Certainly, the greatest, new, budgetary impact for Riverside County is opening the route into Orange County (shown as San Bernardino - Irvine on page 2-10) with 4 peak -period trains (2 round trips). Since the majority of the route miles, AM boardings, and stations are within Riverside County, RCTC bears a large share of the line's operating costs, and a comparatively larger share of the system's common costs. Also factored into this budget is the addition of a second off-peak train on the existing Riverside Line. Though preliminary, this budget has been released by the Authority board for consideration by each of the member agencies. Metrolink's budget cannot be finalized until it has been adopted by all five counties. Because system overhead represents a significant portion of the operating budget, each of the counties can impact the others by modifying levels of service on any of the lines (frequency of trains, length of routes, number of stations open, etc.). Consequently, as adjustments have occurred, further refinements to the budget have been made. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\METROBUDG.SC Page 2 To illustrate, we have added two charts at the end of the attachment showing the projected costs adjusted for 1) delay in the opening of Anaheim Canyon station, 2) service reductions in Ventura County, and 3) earlier implementation of a fourth Orange County train. Though not one of those changes occur within Riverside County, we are also impacted by the resultant projected farebox return, train mile allocation of common costs, etc. The direct fiscal impact of these variables to RCTC is about $85,000. (Likewise, other agenda items being considered by the Commission this month could either increase or decrease RCTC's total contribution.) Using this most recent projection, RCTC's contribution to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority for Metrolink operations, maintenance of way (MOW), and capital in FY 95-96 would total $3,737,250: RCTC Share of Operations Subsidy RCTC Share of MOW Subsidy Less Costs covered by Self Insurance Reserve Operating Budget Contribution RCTC-funded Capital Maintenance Capital Expenditures (Riv - OC Line) New Capital Expenditures Capital Expenditures (Special Projects) Capital Budget Contribution Total FY 95-96 Contribution to SCRRA Sources of Funds: 2,365,300 152,400 (95, 500) 2,422, 200 262,400 959,000 44,400 46,250 1,312,050 3,734,250 (see revised chart, 2nd to last page) n (page 3-35) (page 3-24) (page 3-29) (page 3-26) (Preliminary) 1. Local Transportation Funds (LTF) Operating & Capital: Per Short Range Transit Plans 1995-2001 and 1996/97. 2. Federal Section 9 Capital (to be exchanged with eligible projects): Accrued from commuter rail operations within Riverside County during FY 92/93, available Fall, 1995 (approximately $1.4 million). Please note that RCTC's internal support costs for staffing, administration, consultant support, and operation and maintenance of stations are not included in the amount above. These items are enumerated in the Commission's own proposed budget, which raises RCTC's projected commuter rail program costs to approximately $4.5 million. Also absent from the SCRRA budget, but included in RCTC's, are the major station and track construction projects managed by RCTC and funded through CMAQ, state rail bonds, and state grant programs. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\METROBUDG.SC Page 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the SCRRA FY 1995/96 Budget and authorize RCTC's participating contribution to SCRRA in the amount of $3,734,250. :jw Attachments F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\METROBUDG.SC 11 111 METROLINK May 8, 1995 Mr. Jack Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Dear Meagan: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Govemments Ventura County Transportation Commission Ex -Officio Members: Southern California Association of Governments San Diego Association of Governments State of Califomia As you know, the Joint Powers Agreement which established the Southern California Regional Rail Authority requires that SCRRA adopt a budget no later than June 30 of each year. Therefore, as directed by the SCRRA board, I am transmitting the preliminary Metrolink budget for each member agency's review and funding commitment. Enclosed you will find the operating and capital budgets for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission. I have also provided a chart comparing RCTC's FY 93, FY 94, FY 95 and FY 96 service levels to the budgeted operations subsidy. It shows that even though Riverside is increasing its train -miles by 56% in FY 96, the subsidy increases by only 42%. As you know, the common cost allocation formula used in the FY 96 budget is the same as that used in the current year, updated for new service assumptions. This may be changed as a result of discussions among the member agencies. Your staff has received the analyses of the budget impact of different scenarios under consideration. Other pending budget adjustments currently under review include: reduced fare revenues (and formula change) due to a later opening of the Anaheim Canyon station, reduced expenses for security officers, guard services, and liability premiums resulting from recent procurements for these service, and, an increased estimate for legal services needed to defend SCRRA in pending claims. These items are expected to generally offset each other, and will be reviewed with the TAC next week. Southern California 818 West Seventh Street, 7th Floor Mailing Address: P.O. Box 194 213 972-6000 Regional Rail Authority Los Angeles, CA 90017 Los Angeles, CA 90053 FAX 213 489-1469 Mr. Jack Reagan May 8, 1995 Page 2 Sue Cornelison has provided valuable direction and insight in the development of this budget. If we can be of any help in your review of the budget, please do not hesitate to call me at 213/244-6803 or Annette Colfax at 213/244-6553. Richard Stanger, Executive Director c: Sarah Catz, SCRRA Sue Cornelison, RCTC 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 94 247% 123% • Increase FY 94 - FY 95 Budget 48 % 18 % Increase FY 95 - FY 96 Proposed 11 % 1% Increase FY 93 - FY 96 Proposed 470% 167% 4YP '.XLS •Tohl .16 2:61 PM METR4L/NK RIVERS_IDIE COUNTY COUNTY TRAIN MILES SUBSIDY FY 93 1,500 $ 86,800 FY 94 27,600 $ 1,140, 900 FY 95 Budget 42,300 $ 1,684,500 FY 96 Proposed Budget 66,150 $ 2,397,300 Increase FY93-FY94 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% 4YRCOMP.XLS.RCTC 4/20/OS 2:51 PM METR OLI NK FY 1995/96 PRELIMINARY BUDGET 1 4YRCOMP .XLS-Co ver 4120/0511:06 AM 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 - SB1402 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 4YRCOMP.XI&Rwbwt "9611:05 AM FY 95196 PROPOSED BUDGET COMPARED WITH FY 94195 BUDGET ($ MILLIONS) $200 -- $175 $150 $125 $100 $75 $50 $25 $0 4121/95 7:5eAM TOTAL $190.5 1402 CAPITAL $124.8 ,OTHER $2.6 MOW $14.3 OPERATIONS $48.8 FY 94/95 TOTAL $125.7 1402 CAPITAL $51.5 MOW $15 .8 OPERATIONS $50.2 OTHER $8 .2 3 FY 95/96 d CHARTB.XLS OPERATIONS BUDGET - 4 YEAR CO MPARISON REVENUES MOW OPERATIONS FY 93 $ 1,716,700 $ 2,538,000 203,750 $18,896,600 $14,641,900 FY 94 $ 3,802,100 $10,930,200 708,000 $47,431,200 $32,698,900 FY 95 Budget $ 7,717,900 $16,801,000 1,044,400 $63,129,900 $38,611,000 FY 96 Proposed Budget $ 4,863,900 $20,317,000 1,161,300 $65,514,200 $40,333,300 Increase FY 93 - FY 94 Increase FY 94 - FY 95 Budget Increase FY 93 - FY 96 Proposed 121% 331% 103% 183% 54% 701% TRAIN MILES _EXPENSES SUBSIDY 247% 48% 470% 151% 33% 247% 123% 18% 175% 4 4YRCOMP.XLS-OpsComp1 4/21/86 8:14 AM METROLINK ESTIMATED METROLINK SUBSIDIES BY LINE 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 SUBSIDY/ TRIP $ 6.76 $ 8 .72 $ 14 .05 $ 7.66 $ 6 .58 $ 7.19 $ 8.28 SUBSIDY/ PASSENGER MILE $ 0.21 $ 0.31 $ 0 .44 $ 0.19 $ 0.16 $ 0.21 $ 0.24 5 4YRCOMP .XLS-Subtldy 4/20/95 2:12 PM METROLINK FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 Budget FY 96 Proposed Budget Increase FY 93 Increase FY 94 Increase FY 95 - Increase FY 93 - - FY94 - FY 95 Budget FY 96 Proposed FY 96 Proposed TOTAL - ALL COUNTIES COUNTY TRAIN MILES 203,750 707,400 1,044,400 1,161,300 247% 48% 11% 470% SUBSIDY $ 14,641,900 $ 32,698,800 $ 38,611, 000 $ 39,051,400 6 4Y' 1P .XLS-Total 195 2:51 PM METROLINK 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 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 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 PAS ORANGE COUNTY FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 Budget FY 96 Proposed Budget Increase FY 94 - FY 95 Budget Increase FY 95 - FY 96 Proposed Increase FY 93 - FY 96 Proposed COUNTY TRAIN MILES 26,900 135,600 135,750 404% 0% 405% Pro SUBSIDY $ 2,188,100 $ 4,806,400 $ 5,280,000 120% 10% 141% 8 4YRr ',XLS-OCTA '95 2:51 PM RIVERSIDE COUNTY FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 Budget FY 96 Proposed Budget COUNTY TRAIN MILES 1,500 27,600 42,300 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 FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 Budget FY 96 Proposed Budget Increase FY 93 Increase FY 94 Increase FY 95 - Increase FY 93 - SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY - FY94 - FY 95 Budget FY 96 Proposed FY 96 Proposed COUNTY TRAIN MILES 4,450 82,000 112,100 150,600 1743 % 37% 34% 3284 % SUBSIDY $ 337,300 $ 3,932,200 $ 4,701,900 $ 5,004,600 1066% 20% 6% 1384 % 10 4YRCO' '.S•SANBAO /95 4:61 PM Ale <00gm4 VENTURA COUNTY W/ OXNARD SERVICE COUNTY TRAIN MILES SUBSIDY FY 93 21,900 $ 1,338,700 FY 94 42,750 $ 1,997,600 FY 95 Budget 51,300 $ 2,119,100 (1) FY 96 Proposed Budget 63,200 $ 2,571,500 Increase FY_93 - FY 94 95 % 0 49/0 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.XL&VCTC 4120195 2:51 PM METROLINK COMMITTEE FEEDBACK o Ambassador Staffing Levels o New Positions o Insurance 12 CO MMFEED.XLS-Sheell —1/958:17 AM METROLINK INSURANCE PREMIUMS TRAIN INSURANCE MILES PASSENGERS PREMIUM 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% 42/0 o 13 4YRCOMP.XLS-Insure 4/20/95 2:67 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•Sheet1 4/20/95 3:38 PM METR OLINK FY 96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET OPERATING BUDGET COSTS "DIRECT" ALLOCA TED ON TRAIN MILES 41% MAINT-OF-WAY ALLOCATED TO COUNTY OWNING RIGHT-OF-WAY 23% 4/19195 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 116 UNDUPLICATED ROUTE MILES 1/6 PROJECTED A.M. BOARDINGS/ ALIGHTINGS 1/2 BASE TRAIN MILES CHARTS XIS OTHER ISSUES o Oxnard Service, VCTC Funding o Separation 16 OTHERISS .XLS-Shset1 4121195 8;20 AM METROLIN K FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIM ';BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT COMPLETION (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 $5Z015 EXPE FY 94/95 06 MO ACT 06 MO F/C $25,860 $3,812 $1,378 $1,901 $o $18,557 $34,808 $26,272 NDITURES FY 95/96 PROPOSED BUDGET $63 $0 $0 $0 $o $9,958 $20,113 $21,373 FY 96/97 EXPENDITURE FOREC AST $0 $o $o $o $o $0 $15,779 $5,078 ESTI MATE AT COMPLETION EAC $193,293 $93,437 $39,752 $66,906 $51,157 $79,088 $121,262 $104,737 VARIANCE (OVER)/ UNDER PERCENT VARIANCE (OVER)/UNDER ($4,768 -2.596 ($3,752 -4 .296 $581 1 .4% $964 1.4% $1,543 2.9 % ($0 ($0 $1,032 -0.096 -0.096 1.0% TOTAL $745,232 $564,680 $112,589 $51,507 $20,857 $749,633 ($4,401 -0 .6 % 17 evo9s0e9 20 -Apr -95 METROLI 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 $505 $6,015 $1,646 $204 $2,444 $1,296 $133 $2,539 $151 $67 $308 $44 $80 $549 $101 TOTAL PROPOSED EXPENDITURES $8,166 FUNDING SOURCE CARRYOVER FROM FY 1994/95 (MECHANICAL) OTHER LOCAL FUNDS $800 $173 $7,192 $3,943 $514 $64 $3,365 $2,823 $420 $731 $21 $175 $54 $249 $94 $42 $2,687 $104 $21 $295 TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $8,166 18 $3,943 $2,823 S420 $46 $25 $660 $44 $21 $185 s731 $249 CABUD IMMUMALL4 20 -Apr -95 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Fisca I Yea r 1995/96 PreliminaryBudget Proposed April 14, 1995 memMETROLINK Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL 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 IMETROLINK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PRELIMINARY BUDGET 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 final 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 1, following this narrative, summarizes the entire proposed 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 forecast), although MOW -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 train 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 Staffing 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 monitoi=ing 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 maintained in good condition. These have been reviewed in detail with the TAC, and are described in Section 3 of the budget. 1-4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY PROPOSED FY 1995/96 BUDGET BUD GET CATEGORY OPERATING EXPENDITURES (EXCLUDING MOW) ORDINARY MAINTENANCE SB1402 CAPITAL SPECIAL PROJECTS (Locomotive Emissions Reduction) CAPITAL M AINTENANCE NEW CAPITAL TOTAL FY 1995/96 $50,258 $15,770 $51,508 $505 $6,015 81,646 Table 1 %OF TOTAL 40 .0% 12.5 % 41 .0% 0 .4% 4 .8% 1.3% TOTAL PROPOSED EXPENDITURES $125,702 EUNDING SOURCE FAREBOX REVENUES (NET OF TRANSFERS) DISPATCHING/OTHER REVENUES SIR RESERVE M OW REVENUES CARRYOVER FROM FY 1994/95 (MECHANICAL) PROP 116 PRO P 108 TCl/TPBD OTHER LO CAL FUNDS $18,897 $1,420 $1,200 85,460 8800 837,446 $743 $567 8173 858,996 100 .0 % 15.0% 1 .1 % 1 .0 % 4.3% 0 .6 % 29 .8% 0 .6 % 0.5% 0.1% 46.9% TOTAL FUNDING SO URCES NOTE: NUMBERS MAY NOT ADD TO TOTALS DUE TO ROUNDING. $125,702 100.0% LACMTA OCTA $29,900 89,577 $9,997 8204 82,444 81,296 $7,081 $3,742 $26,399 $133 $2,539 $151 SUMALL3 .WK4 06 -Apr -95 JSC RCTC SANBAG VCTC $3,599 $158 $12,321 $67 $308 $44 $6,410 $1,978 $2,791 880 $549 $101 $3,268 $315 SO $21 $175 $54 $53,417 $40,044 ;16,498 $11,910 $3,833 $11,031 $3,244 $1,245 $2,503 8874 $650 $691 $16 $23 $42 $637 $218 $99 8150 $96 $3,361 $1,390 SO $709 $0 8514 894 $104 $46 i44 $6,759 819,109 $10,052 $1,526 $0 80 80 $743 80 $0 $0 80 8567 80 i0 864 $42 821 $25 $21 830,401 815,258 $3,652 $6,929 82,756 553.417 $40,044 $16,498 $11,910 $3,833 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMA TED FY 1995/96 OPERATING ST ATISTICS BY LINE Operating Statistics: Pa ssenger Boardings Passenger Miles Train Miles Avg Trip Length (miles) Financial ISK): Operating Co st Operating Cost (w/o MOW) Subsidy Revenues Cost Effecth ness;, Op Cost / Passenger Op Cost / Passenger Mile Subsidy / Passenger Subsidy / Passenger Mile Service_Efficiencv: Op Cost / Train Mile Op Cost / Train Mile (w/o MOW) Subsidy / Train Mile Revenue Recovery Table 2 1,393,200 736,000 774,000 61,000 825,600 774,000 306,200 4,870,000 45,153,612 20,733,120 24,582,240 486,170 33,940,416 32,655,060 10,717,000 168,267,618 316,761 184,693 249,849 13,898 199,815 151,003 45,235 1,181,254 32 28 32 8 41 42 35 35 $15,821. 6 $9,236 .1 $15,902.5 $9,886 .5 $11,181.9 $3,485 .6 $65,514 .2 $11,899. 9 $8,282 .2 $10,116 .2 $9,420.6 $7,590 .6 $2,948.9 $50,258.4 $9,422. 2 $6,415.7 $10,875 .1 $6,325 .6 $5,093.5 $2,201.2 $40,333.3 $6,399. 4 $2,820.4 $5,027.4 $3,560.9 $6,088.4 $1,284.4 $25,180 .9 $11. 36 $12.55 $20.55 $11.97 $14 .45 $11 .38 $13.45 $0. 35 $0. 45 $0.65 - $0.29 $0 .34 $0 .33 $0.39 $6.76 $8. 72 $14.05 -- $7 .66 $6.58 $7.19 $8.28 $0. 21 $0. 31 $0.44 $0 .19 $0 .16 $0 21 $0 .24 $49. 95 $50. 01 $63. 65 - $49.48 $74 .05 $77 .06 $56.42 $37.57 $44.84 $40.49 - $47 .15 $50 .27 $65.19 $43.28 $29. 75 $34. 74 $43. 53 - $31.66 $33.73 $48 .66 $34.73 42.6% 33. 0% 33. 3% - 38 .5 % 58 .3% 41 .0% 41.0% Notes: Revenues include farebox, 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. Southern California Regional Rail Authority Section 2 Operations HMETROLINK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PRELIMINARY BUDGET SECTION 2 OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS OPERATING BUDGET APPENDIX 1 METROLINK TRAIN OPERATIONS DETAIL PAGE 2-1 A-1-1 APPENDIX 2 MAINTENANCE OF WAY A-2-1 LIST OF TABLES 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 summary 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 $.24. The distribution of expenses changes somewhat, with train operations and passenger services categories showing a decrease (due to decrease in equipment lease costs after the return of GO Transit equipment and decreases in customer telephone information and marketing costs). G & A shows an increase, due to increases in Ambassador program costs to cover new stations and retain current levels at existing sites, a shift in staffing costs from capital, and increased professional services for legal, lobbying, a performance audit. etc. Insurance also increases, due primarily to anticipated. claims payouts. More detail is provided in Appendix 1. Increases to MOW costs are detailed in Appendix 2. With an average system age of only 2.6 years at the end of FY 95/96, Metrolink plans to meet its adopted three-year goal of a 40 % recovery ratio. The projected "revenue recovery" or "farebox" ratio for next year is projected to be 41%. Our current year forecast shows a savings compared with budget for the current year. Staff will continue to update this forecast for recent events (such as the recent damage to TVMs at San Bernardino and Riverside line stations). It is provided for information only, and is subject to revision. 2-2 (o,e.12-6e 4i s `fit SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET OPERATING BUDGET COMPARATIVE SUMMARY ($K) 5661 '01 iudy pasina)J Metrolink Revenues MOW Revenues TotaInies Metrolink Expenses Amtrak Train Ops Train Operations Passenger Services G&A Insurance & Claims Contingency .ta 'agEMO-Pera1ir'g) Net Op. 5t sidY1- 16,801.0 6,752 .3 23,553.3 71.3% 28.7 % 100.0% 21,379.8 34.5 % 16,769.1 27.1% 2,631.8 4 .2% 4,429.2 7 .1% 3,150.0 5.1% 495.1 0.8% 48$55.0'' 78..6% 131217 21;2% 61,976.7.. 16,271.9 (3.1%) 6,752.3 0.0% 024:2 2. aid). 21,379.8 13,014.0 2,518.1 4,586.8 3,580.8 0.0 % (22.4 %) (4.3%) 3.6 % 13 .7 % 495.1 0.0% 45;. , ..4346114 AttifEr 20,317.0 80.7 % 20.9% 4,863 .9 19.3% (28.0%) 25.180.9 1:0Q4.6I ` 6.9% 24, 387 .1 13,286.3 2,243 .0 5,442.7 4,375.0 524.3 40,333.3 37.2 % 14.1 % 20.3 % (20.8%) 3.4% (14.8 %) 8.3% 22.9% 6 .7% 38.9% 0.8 % 5.9% .5 16.3% w'!' 57$ 5.6% Other MOW Revenues Other MOW Expenses NieNo =Operating MOW 965.6 1,153.0 187. 4 965.6 0.0 % 763. 9 (33.7 %) (201. 7)' `' (207:8%) 595 .8 513 .9 (81.9) (38.3 %) (55.4%) (143.7 %) m Q CD J FYf591AFINAL UMMARY.XLSComp 4/145 9:S2 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 bb 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 94195 budget, updating the formula's elements for the new service assumptions. A schedule showing the detailed calculation of the formula ie 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. The "total count; 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 aUUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PR OPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY LINE ALLOCATED SUBSIDY SAN BERNARDINO LINE VENTURA COUNTY LINE ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE RIVERSIDE LINE (UP) ORANGE COUNTY LINE SAN BERN/RIVERSIDE - IRVINE AM BASSADORS SUBTOTAL LINE ALLOCATED SUBSIDY COMMON COSTS (POINT -IN -TIME) * TOTAL OPERATIONS SUBSIDY COSTS FUNDED BY SIR COUNTY ALLOCATION - METROLINK M OW - NET SUBSIDY TOTAL COUNTY ALLOCATION TOTAL FY 95196 2,627 .8 2,207 .6 3,017.9 2,809.6 (697.3) 96 .8 480 .3 10, 542 .8 19,398 .5 29,941 .3 (1,200 .0) 28,741.3 10,310. 1 39,051.4 LAC MTA SHARE 1,705.9 1,452.3 3,017.9 1,704 .0 (186.5) 234.7 7,928.3 10,290 .7 18,219.0 (636 .6) 17,582.4 6,215 .6 23,798 .0 OCTA SHARE (510.8) 46.5 83 .2 (381 .0) 3,527 .1 3,146.1 (218 .2) RCTC SHARE 2,927.9 2,352 .1 5,280.0 646 .2 40 .9 50 .7 737 .8 1,600 .9 2,338 .7 (99 .0) 2,239.7 i57.6 2,397.3 SANBAG I VCTC SHARE ` SHARE 921 .9 755 .3 459 .5 9 .4 71.4 1 40 .3 1,462 .2 795.6 2,422 .7 1,557.0 3,884.9 2,352.6 (149 .9) (96.3) 3,735.0 1 2,256.3 1,269.6 315 .2 5,004 .6 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 I 2,119 .1 302.7 fl 452 .4 6%I 21% * Current year formula & definition of co mmon costs, updated for 95/96 service assumptions (including 10/2 start of SB - Irvine service). FY95961BUDGETZUDGET .XLS-Alloc ate 4/5/95 5:06 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 $.25 - very competitive with other operators' performance in the region. 2-6 SOUTHERN t.ALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELI MINARY BUDGET ESTIMATED FY 1995/96 OPERATING STATISTICS BY LINE Operating Statistics: Passenger Boardings Passenger Miles Train Miles Avg Trip Length (miles) Financial ($K}: Operating Cost Ope rating 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 MOW) Subsidy / Train Mile Revenue Recovery Sa n Ventura. Antel ope Bernardino County Valiey Line i ine Line 06g% Sign Bern '> versid County ;irvilne; Turns' Line • .- - =ine ine . 1,393,200 736,000 774,000 61,000 825,600 774,000 306,200 4,870,000 45,153,612 20,733,120 24,582,240 486,170 33,940,416 32,655,060 10,717,000 168,267,618 316,761 184,693 249,849 13,898 199,815 151,003 45,235 1,161,254 32 28 32 8 41 42 35 35 $15,821.6 $9,236.1 $15,902 .5 $9,886.5 $11,181.9 $3,485 .6 $65,514 .2 $11,899.9 $8,282 .2 $10,116 .2 $9,420 .6 $7,590.6 $2,948.9 $50,258 .4 $9,422.2 $6,415 .7 $10,875.1 $6,325.6 $5,093 .5 $2,201.2 $40,333.3 $6,399.4 $2,820 .4 $5,027 .4 $3,560.9 $6,088.4 $1,284 .4 $25,180.9 $11. 36 $12.55 $20.55 $11.97 $14 .45 $11 .38 $13 .45 $0. 35 $0.45 $0 .65 $0 .29 $0 .34 $0 .33 $0.39 $6. 76 $8. 72 $14.05 $7.66 $6.58 $7.19 $8.28 $0.21 $0.31 $0 .44 - $0.19 $0 .16 $0 .21 $0.24 $49.95 $50. 01 $63.65 $49 .48 $74 .05 $77.06 $56 .42 $37. 57 $44. 84 $40. 49 $47.15 $50 .27 $65 .19 $43.28 $29. 75 $34. 74 $43. 53 $31 .66 $33.73 $48.66 $34.73 42.6% 33. 0% 33. 3% 38.5% 58.3% 41 .0% 41.0% Notes: Revenues include farebox, 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. Fi'9996'F PH A L£ SOMA R Y. X LS -State 44195 G:21 AM 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: 1) Increasing or decreasing costs and 2) Changing the formula elements used to allocate common costs. 2-8 Table 4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY11110/1141 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY 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 7/01195 9 9 Rancho Cucamonga - LAUS 7/01195 4 4 Montclair - LAUS 7101/95 2 2 Off -Peak Trains San Bernardino - LAUS 7/01195 6 6 Sweeper Trains San Bemardino - LAUS 7101/95 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 10/30/95 4 4 Off -Peak Trains Moorpark - LAUS 7101195 2 10130/95 2 4 Extend Chatsworth Chatsworth - LAUS 7/01/95 2 10130/95 -2 0 trains to Moorpark 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 Clarita - LAUS 7/01/95 2 Off -Peak Trains Princessa - LAUS 7/01/95 2 Sweeper Trains Lancaster - LAUS 7/01/95 1 Princessa - LAUS 1 Total Santa Clarita Line No forecasted new service 7 5 2 18 0 2-9 2 1 1 18 Revised April 10, 1995 Table 4A sound N CAUFORNU REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1MMSlli PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS Riverside Line Existing Service New Service 1 -Way 1 -Way Total Date Trips Date Trips Trips Peak Trains Riverside - LAUS 7101/95 10 10 Off -Peak Trains Riverside - LAUS 7101/95 2 10130195 2 4 Total Riverside Line 12 2 14 Orange County Line Existing Service New Service 1 -Way - 1 -Way Total Date Trips Date Trips Trips Peak Trains Oceanside - LAUS 7101/95 6 6 Irvine - LAUS (connected with SB/Rv - Irvine service) 10102/95 2 2 Total Orange County Line 6 2 8 San Bernardino - Irvine Peak Trains San Bernardino - Irvine Existing Service New Service 1 -Way 1 -Way Total Date Trips Date Trips Trips Total San Bernardino - Irvine 0 10/02195 4 4 4 4 Burbank Turns Burbank - LAUS Total Burbank Tums TOTAL TRAINS Existing Service " New Service 1 -Way 1 -Way Total Date Trips Date Trips Trips 7101/95 5 5 5 77 Peak Trains: Before 8:30AM, 3:30PM-7:30PM Off -Peak Trains: 8:30AM-3:30PM Sweeper Trains: After 7:30PM 2-10 0 5 12 89 Revised April 10, 1995 Table 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 (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 FY9596\BUDGET\BUDGET.XLS-Saturday 4/5/95 5:49 PM 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 (_ - Thousands) Total Proposed FY 95/96 % Change FY 94/95 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 Compared to FY 94/95 Budget Forecast Budget Budget Forecast Total Train Miles (thousands) 1,044.4 1,003.7 1,161.3 11.2% 15.7% REVENUES 16,801.0 16,271.9 20,317.0 20.9% 24.9% EXPENSES 4R 855.0 46,574.' 50,258.' - 9% 10.3% 054.0 NET SUBSIDY .. tF '9t,�02, ,.r,'�;1�41 e . .. vN ' : Lt.�. «� TOTAL REVENUES FAREBOX REVENUE (NET OF TRANSFERS) Farebox Revenue Transfers to Other Transit Operators MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 16,801.0 16271.9 _• 20,317.0,_ - .. 20.9%. . 24.9% 16,175.7 16,861.8 (686.1) 15,646.6 16,681.9 (1,035.3) 18,936.6 17.1% 21.0% 20,201.1 19.8% 21.1% (1,264.5) 84.3% 22.1% 625.3 625.3 1,380.4 120.8% 120.8% EXPENSES w/o MoW 48,855.0 45,574.6 50258.4 2.9% TRAIN OPERATIONS & SERVICES 40,780.7 36,911.9 39,916.4 -2.1% AMTRAK Train Operations 21,379.8 21,379.8 24,387.1 14.1% T AMTRAK 20,879.5 21,129.8 23,816.4 14.1% T Contingency (Amtrak) 500.3 250.0 570.7 14.1% Train Operations 16,769.1 13,014.0 13,286.3 -20.8% T Fuel 3,705.2 2,100.0 2,480.0 -33.1% P Security - Sheriff 1,860.4 1,520.0 1,897.7 2.0% E Security -Guards 1,706.6 1,419.7 1,158.9 -32.1% P Utilities/Leases 1,593.6 1,550.0 1,676.7 5.2% P Revenue Collection 1,082.9 1,192.6 1,531.2 41.4% D Rail Agreements 1,216.3 1,161.8 1,408.1 15.8% M LAUS Rail Yard Ops & Maint 995.0 995.0 456.0 -54.2% M LAUS Station Routine Maintenance (Catellus) 312.0 321.8 339.5 8.8% P Maintenance of SCRRA Station Fixtures 115.1 13.0 75.0 -34.8% PDS Other Train Service Expenses 4,182.0 2,550.0 2,113.2 -49.5% D Special Trains 190.1 150.0 0.0% Passenger Services 2,631.8 2,518.1 2,243.0 -14.8% P Public Safety Program 561.8 517.1 593.0 5.6% P Marketing, Printing, Advertising, Research 1,295.0 1,198.0 950.0 -26.6% P Customer Information Service 775.0 803.0 700.0 -9.7% GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE 4,429.2 4,586.8 5,442.7 22.9% Staff 4,109.2 3,636.8 4,624.4 12.5% P Personnel & Overhead 3,501.8 2,913.6 3,674.1 4.9% D Ambassadors 347.0 423.2 480.3 38.4% P Direct Costs 260.4 300.0 470.0 80.5% Services 320.0 950.0 818.3 155.7% P Professional Services 270.0 900.0 733.3 171.6% P MIS 50.0 50.0 85.0 70.0% P CONTINGENCY (Non -Amtrak) 495.1 495.1 524.3 5.9% INSURANCE 3,150.0 3,580.8 4,375.0 38.9% P Liability/Property/Auto (excl. from farebox recovery) 3,000.0 3,145.0 3,335.0 11.2% s Claims 0.0 202.5 700.0 0.0% P Claims Administration 150.0 233.3 340.0 126.7% 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% A-1-2 FY959s\8UDGETIBUDGET.XLS-Surnmary 4/6/95 5:06 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 lo 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 programming, 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 percentage of riders (over 5-10%), due to special promotions which require mail -in purchases, for example, additional resources may be needed. 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 ll (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 staffing 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 staffmg at LAUS 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 staffmg (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 claims activity lags operations. A-1-7 CALCULATION OF 1995-96 POINT -IN -TIME FORMULA #1 (Existing) 05 -Apr -95 1/6 Route miles + 1/6 Stations + 1/6 Riders (excl LAUS) + 1/2 Base Train Miles 05:11 PM S6/Riverside-Irvine service starting 10/2/95, no Tustin station, using new ridership/trainmiles c-Lscrra196shaab LA Orange Riverside San B. Ventura TOTAL Unduplicated Route 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 33.60 26.10 27.80 33.92 20.20 41.80 183.42 53.2% 42.49 16.61 59.10 13.74 18.68 32.41 17.1% 9.4% 22.70 9.35 4.28 36.32 10.5% 14.20 19.30 33.50 9.7% 56.30 40.30 27.80 57.00 62.69 39.56 19.30 41.80 344.75 100.0% Unduplicated Stations (3) 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 Projected AM Boardings/Aiightings (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 Base 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 OA FY 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 FY 1994-95 Point -in -Time Current All Share Original All Share 6.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.96 3.00 20.96 48.4% 1558 977 1180 616 39 38 875 5284 43.5% 1.63 5.88 1.46 1.88 7.33 16.9% 3.50 6.00 1.13 0.38 7.50 8.1% 17.3% 2.00 2.00 4.00 9.2% 12.00 6.00 3.00 5.75 7.83 3.71 2.00 3.00 43.29 100.0% 1812 741 2553 21.0% 1552 682 363 7191 53 1400 1967 11.5% 1 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 57,222 394,052 57.7% 101,133 21,734 27,540 19,123 122,867 46,663 18.0% 6.8% 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% 18.1825% 18.405% 26.248% 25% 46,308 19,584 4,378 70,270 10.3% 28,968 19,686 48,654 7.1% 8.9281% 4.2421% 2.8171% 4.0108% 8.2529% 4.617% 13.356% 12% 0.7437% 12.4890% 14.100% 15.927% 18% 114,852 95,472 96,875 119,748 133,416 45,235 19,686 57,222 682,506 100.0% 4.7525% 3.2741 % 8.0266% 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 on adjusted 1402. Incorporates ridership projections developed by RS and TAC on 3/14195. SBIRiv-irvine service ridership uses Schiermeyer estimates. A-1-8 20.0203% 13.7661% 11.2142% 16.0191% 18.3588% 8.7278% 3.3262% 8.5676% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100% SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995196 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SERVICE ASSU MPTIONS - BASE TRAINS OPERATING LINE START DATE 1 -WAY TRIPS PEAK OFF-PEAK 1 -WAY TRIPS BASE TRAINS SAN BERNARDINO 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 SIM I 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 , COMMENTS REVERSE PEAK NOT COUNTED REVERSE PEAK NOT COUNTED FY9596\PREP\FY9596.XLS-6au 4/5/95 6:03 PM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROP OSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS - BASE TRAINS OPERATING LINE RIVERSIDE LINE EXISTING SERVICE RIVERSIDE - LAUS NEW SERVICE RIVERSIDE - LAUS TOTAL RIVERSIDE LINE ORANGE COUNTY LINE EXISTING SERVICE OCEANSIDE - LAUS NEW SERVICE IRVINE - LAUS TOTAL ORANGE COUNTY LINE SAN BERN/RIVERSIDE - ORANGE COUNTY NEW SERVICE SAN BERNARDINO/RIVERSIDE - IRVINE TOTA L SAN BERN/RIV - ORANGE COUNTY LINE START DATE 07/01/95 10/30/95 07/01/95 10/02/95 10/02/95 1 -WAY TRIPS PEAK 10 0 10 6 2 8 4 4 OFF-PEAK 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 -WAY TRIPS BASE TRAINS 8 0 8 6 0 6 4 4 COMMENTS REVERSE PEAK NOT COUNTED FY9596\PREPW ' '6.XLS-Ba . 3 6:03 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 unelected 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 budgets are somewhat interchangeable. Because the most economical methods of replacement of railroad elements (rail, ties, crossings, etc.) are through large specialized operations, railroad owners usually arrange for periodic replacement of elements using capital budgets. Under one extreme maintenance philosophy, a railroad owner may elect to continually replace worn elements using ordinary maintenance forces. In this scenario the property is kept in excellent condition and there is no need for a partial maintenance program. However, total expenses are very high. The other extreme is to limit ordinary maintenance to little more than legally required inspections and to repair what breaks, counting on future 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 minimized. 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, it is obsolete and it is very difficult to find replacement materials. This 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, A▪ llen, 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 CALIFORNI A REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUD GET MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY BUDGET SUMMARY LINE SEGMENT/TERRITORY ESTIM ATED REVENUES OPERATING LINES LA - SAN BERNARDINO LA - VENTURA (BURBANK JCT TO MOORPARK) LA - LANCASTER FULLERTON - SAN DIEGO COUNTY LINE OLIVE SUBDIVISION RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY RIVER CORRIDOR EXTRA -ORDINARY M AINTENANCE (Derailme nts, storm damage) NON-O PERA TINQ USES SIERRA MADRE - CLAREMONT (PA SA SUB ) BALDWIN PARK BRANCH (SAN BERNARDINO CO ) TOTAL ESTIMA TED REVENUES (6) FY 95/96 FORECAST PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUMBI- O PERATING LINES LA - SAN BERNARDINO (1) LA - V ENTURA (BURBANK JCT TO M OORPARK) (2) LA - LA NCASTER FULLERTON - SAN DIEGO COUNTY LINE OLIVE SUBDIVISION RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY (3) RIVER CORRIDOR (4) EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE (Derailments, storm dama ge) (5) NON4]PERATINO LINES _ 7.7-1.' ?" - 717-7 .,"-"'" t' :'--• r - SIERRA MADRE - CLAREMONT (PASA SUB ) BALDWIN PARK BRANCH (SAN BERNARDINO CO ) $4,863,871 8939,188 $0 $1,695,297 51,295,899 594,011 SO 5839,476 S0 5595,835 3584,435 311,400 $5,459,706 TOTAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES LAC MTA SANBAG ;2,776,509 $241,736 $0 $1,695,297 SO so 50 $839,476 SO 5584,435 $584,435 $0 $3,360,944 8697,452 5697,452 SO SO SO So 50 SO SO :11,400 SO 311,400 rawo5oe03 OS -Apr -es JSC OCTA RCTC VCTC 31,389,910 $0 30 SO 31,295,899 $94,011 50 SO 50 30 30 SO :0 so so so s0 so so s0 so s0 s0 ,• 80 so so so so so so s0 so SO 30 $708,852 ;15,255,846 33,397,088 $506,048 35,267,901 $3,110,255 3307,957 346,192 $2,120,405 $500,000 85113,941 8463,564 350,377 $15,769,787 $1,389,910 $0 $0 ;9,112,972 81,699,025 $333,790 $5,267,901 $0 30 328,015 31,518,996 3265,245 5463,564 S463,564 SO 51,928,036 31,698,063 SO $0 SO SO $7,552 3159,975 362,445 --550,377 SO 350,377 ;3,742,028 SO SO $0 $3,110,255 $307,957 SO $232,905 390,913 '.:^.•. --- .. . : > SO SO $9,576,536 $1,978,413 $3,742,029 $0 $0 30 50 $0 310,624 3105,714 541,265 'r. ems " ;pf , •�. ,. T 810 50 SO SO 3172,259 $0 30 SO $0 3102,815 540,133 s0 30 $157,602 $315,207 ' NET FUNDING REQUIREMENT $10,310,081 $6,215,592 $1,269,561 2,352,119 71 $157,-6d2 ,,$315,20? (1) SPLIT OF M OW NET SUBSIDY IS BY TRACK M ILES (59 29% LACMTA AND 40.71% SANBAG), M OW REVENUE IS BASED ON COUNTY SPECIFIC AGREEM ENTS. (2) SPLIT IS BY TRA CK M ILES (65.96% LACM TA AND 34 04% VCTC). (3) SPLIT IS BY ROUTE MILES (60.65% LACMTA, 23 00% RCTC, AND 16 35% SANBAG) (4) SPLIT IS ASSUMED ALL SHARE (53.049% LACM TA, 18 18% OCTA, 12 489% SANBAG, 8.0266% VCTC, AND 8. 2529% RCTC) OF COST IN EXCESS OF REVENUES (5) SPLIT IS ASSUMED ALL SHARE. (6) REVENUES ARE BUDGETED BY SCRRA AS INFORM ATION THEY BELONG TO MEM BER AGENCIES WHO ARE PARTIES TO AGREEM ENTS WITH THE RAILROADS MEMBER AGENCIES ALLOCATE THESE REVENUES TO SCRRA AS A PORTION OF THEIR FUNDING FOR MOW. SHOULD REVENUES BE MORE OR LESS THAN ESTIMATED, M EMBER AGENCIES' NET FUNDING REQUIREMENT MAY CHANGE. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET Table 2 MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY EXPENDITURE/REVENUE SUMMARY MW9596C2 05 -Apr -95 JSC LINE SEGMENT/TERRITORY FY 95/96 EXPENDITURE FORECAST FY 95/96 REVENUE FORECAST (1) FY 95/96 MofW NET SUBSIDY OPERATING LINES LA - SAN BERNARDINO LA - VENTURA (BURBANK JCT TO MOORPARK) (2) LA - LANCASTER FULLERTON - SAN DIEGO COUNTY LINE OLIVE SUBDIVISION RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY RIVER CORRIDOR EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE (DERAILMENTS, STORM DAMAGE) NON -OPERATING LINES SIERRA MADRE - CLAREMONT (PASA. SUB) BALDWIN PARK BRANCH (SAN BERNARDINO CO.) TOTAL $15;255,846 $3,397,088 $506,048 $5,267,901 $3,110,255 $307,957 $46,192 $2,120,405 $500,000 $513,941 $463,564 $50,377 :, 4;8632871 $939,188 So 31,695,297 $1,295,899 394,011 30 3839,476 SO $595,835 --- 3584,435 311,400 _ $10,391,975 $2,457,900 3506,048 $3,572,604 $1,814,356 $213,946 $46,192 31,280,929 3500,000 ($81,894) ($120,871; $38,977 $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 Table 3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY EXPENSE CATEGORY DETAIL SYSTEM SUMMARY BY LINE SEGMENT LINE SEGMENT/TERRITORY OPERATING LINES LA - SAN BERNARDINO ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AGENCY COSTS LA - 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 65.1 11.0 82.9 71.0 5.5 1.5; 25.5 FY 95/96 EXPENDITURE FORECAST WNW 05-4 Jsc COST PER TRACK MILE PER YEAR (1) 115,255,846 �.�- $3,397,088 52,955,105 5441,983 $506,048 $431,323 574,725 $5,267,901 $4,705,044 5562,857 $3,110,255 52,628,303 5481,952 $307,957 5270,690 537,267 $46,192 335,958 310,234 $2,120,405 51,947,203 $173,202 $500,000 545.393 339,211 556,756 537,018 549,21P $23,972 576,361 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 $513,941 $463,564 5327,822 5135,742 $50,377 337,439 312,938 $16,391 319,705 TOTAL ORDINARY MAINTENANCE ORDINARY MAINTENANCE EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AGENCY COSTS 284.4 $15,769,787 513,338,887 3500,000 $1,930,900 546,902 (1) DOES NOT INCLUDE EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE NOR AGENCY COSTS, PER STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE. A-2-8 Table 4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/98 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET ORDINARY MAINTENANCE DETAIL. (1) SYSTEM SUMMARY BY LINE SEGMENT UNE SEGMENTITERRRORY 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 & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACIUTY TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER RIVER CORRIDOR TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER TRACK M{LES 45.1 11.0 82.9 71.0 5.5 1.6 25.6 t FY 9598 EXPENDITURE FORECAST COST PER TRACK MILE PER YEAR (1) ' 112.973,62 °349,423 12,965.106 81.625,174 81,191,800 5296.900 8196109 1244.97] $431,323 1182,750 8194,192 $0 532.972 641,409 14,706,044 82,117,840 51,507,541 1519.400 1248.358 6311,905 $2,625,303 $778,880 11.000.912 5371,000 6212.659 3287,072 1270,690 5130,487 528.908 374.200 516.444 120,651 136,968 68,667 517.104 SO 64.516 65.671 51,947,203 s868,611 51.031.989 874,200 $78,424 195,979 546,393 115,758 $18,304 11.559 13,009 63,762 139.211 314.795 517,854 SO 62,997 13.784 156,766 $25,547 616,185 60,285 52.996 13.752 $37,018 510,939 614,097 65,225 52.995 63,762 149.216 123.725 65155 513,491 $.990 13.755 123,972 85.778 511,403 SO 83.011 53,781 876,361 624220 140,470 12,910 62.997 83,764 NON -OPERATING LINES 21.9 $365,261 $16.679 SIERRA MADRE - CLAREMONT (PASA. SUB.) TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER BALDWIN PARK BRANCH (SAN BERNARDINO CO.) TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER 20.0 1.9 1327,822 633,705 s10,600 8148,400 659,896 575,221 $37,439 515,408' 59,154 10 65,708 67,169 116,391 81,685 6530 57,420 52,995 63.761 519,705 68,109 64,818 80 53,004 53,773 TOTAL ORDINARY MAINTENANCE TRACK SIGNAL & COMMUNICATIONS BRIDGE PROCUREMENT OTHER 284.4 $13,338,887 _ $46,902 84,940.002 84.992.000 81,484,000 8852.685 51.070,000 817,370 517,553 85.218 52.999 83.762 (1) DOES NOT INCLUDE EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE NOR AGENCY COSTS. PER STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE A-2-9 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Section 3 Capital eMETROLINK 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 1995/96 PROPOSED BUDGET SECTION 3 CAPITAL LIST OF TABLES (continued) PAGE SPECIAL PROJECTS: LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAM 3-27 NEW CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 3-29 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 SB 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 fmally 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 FUNDING SO URCE PROP 116 PROP 108 TCl/TP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL M ATCH/OVERMATCH OTHER TOTAL TOTAL FY 95/96 PLAN LACMTA $63 so so so 50 $9,959 $20,113 $21,373 $38 so so so $0 $9,959 SO SO $51,508 $51,508 $37,446 $743 $567 $o $12,752 so $9,997 :3091 $6,759 SO $0 $0 $3,238 So BUDFYfiS 0/105195 BFF OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC *0 $0 SO so $0 SO 520,113 56,286 50 *0 *0 So so SO *0 512,321 $25 SO $0 $0 so 50 $0 52,766 i0 SO So $0 $0 50 SO SO $26,399 _ $12,321 $2,791 ;0 _ $26,39" 519,109 $0 50 50 57,290 50 .'$12,311 $10,052 5743 5567 SO 5959 50 51,526 so SO SO SO So $0 $0 *1,265 50 SO SO 1 SOUL ncRN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995196 P ROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL ($1000s) SYSTEM SUMMARY SB1402 DESCRIPTION LA - SAN BERNARDINO ' ". • RIGHT-O F-WAY IM PROVEMENTS ROLLING STOCK LA-VENTURA RIGHT-OF-WAY IM PROVEM ENTS ROLLING STOCK LA - SANTA CLARITA' :- RIGHT-O F-WAY IM PROVEMENTS ROLLING STOCK LA RIVERSIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY IM PROVEMENTS OTHER IMPROVEM ENTS ROLLING STOCK SNARED FACILITIES - RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEM ENTS OTHER IM PROVEMENTS LA - FULLERTON RIGH T-OF-WAY IM PROVEM ENTS ROLLING STOCK PULLERTO N ='OCEANSI6Er" RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ROLLING STOCK FULLERtoN . RIVi:IRgIb AN BI:RNAitbiNd 7-7 RIGHT-OF-WAY IM PROVEM ENTS ROLLING STOCK SYSTEM TOTALS '• . RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ROLLING STOCK LOCOM OTIVES (31) PASSENGER CARS (94) SPECS/TESTING FUNDING SOURCE PROP 116 PROP 108 ICl/7118D SECTION 130 LOCAL. M ATCH/OVERM ATCH OTHER tr r - TOTAL FY 95/96 PLAN $63 863 80 80 80 80 80 80 so 80 80 80 80 80 80 so "=9,959 86,081 83,878 -'"•830,113 814,622 35.491 777 831.33 814,534 86,839 851,508 835,300 80 818.408 83,003 111,376 11,829 851,508 337,446 8743 3567 80 812,752 10 MTA 838 838 80 80 80 s0 3o 80 10 80 10 80 so 80 80 so ;` $9 ,,859 36,081 83.878 +r 1 .-;-r' . .,, 880 80 80 80 89,997 88,119 80 83,878 8960 82,290 8806 89,997 86.759 10 80 80 83.238 80 OCTA *0 SO 30 80 80 80 80 80 50 80 80 80 80 80 80 SO ' 4gr$0 80 80 °`.811,1/3 814.622 35.491 "ITETIVitili 83,683 82,603 828;390 818,305 80 88,094 8988 86,260 8846 826,399 819.109 80 80 80 $7,290 80 RCTC SANBAG $0 80 825 80 80 r - 80 .. 8o 80 80 so :o $oSO 80 80 so 30 •80 -d 80 80 80 80 so so 80 80 so so 80 80 so so 80 :0 88.005 82,766 84,236 i0 312A,If 88,085 80 14,230 81,035 12,826 8375 812,321 810,052 3743 8567 80 8959 80 82.791 $0 80 80 80 16 $2;TU 81,526 80 10 80 81,285 80 VCTC 80 so so 80 SO 80 30 t w.-,.. 30 80 80 80 80 80 10 80 SO F 7796 SO 80 777r -*0 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 10 80 80 SO UTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELI MINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) (5=000) SYSTEM SUMMARY OU DISFOA 05 -Ayr -95 OFF DESCRIPTION BUDGET EXPENDITURES ESTIM ATE AT COMPLETI ON ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET ACTUAL THR OUGH - JUN 94 FY 94/95 06 MO ACT 06 MO F/C FY 95/96 PROPOSED BUDGET FY 96/97 EXPENDITURE FOREC AST EAC VARIANCE (OVER)I UNDER LA =SAN SERNa orNO LINT= .., , :. $18$,5525 $167,370 - ......6 ' , _- •.-$011- siv " -r-(s 'ru11 o RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS 5134,127 5112,972 525,860 563 50 5138,695 (54,786 ROLLING STOCK 354,398 $54,,3988 50 10 50 554,398 $0 �r LA - EN 1 URA LINE •. -- --fit•' • '- ' - + i8,g88 : ,,: .,., . $so e2s i $3 812 4 . 'R K- ;' 77-$0 ir'sr, !�� r" $1:321 rnr,i r' : 7�'■ y �9J,�7/ RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS 557,399 157,339 53,812 50 50 561,151 ($3,752 RO LLING STOCK 532,266 532,288 50 50 50 532,266 10 LATSANTA OLARITA LINE - - . - $40,333 '. *3 374 '717 .7' $i 7`1 i$ ' "" �� 7 rc--- � .■.a.• `�„i�y1�c-�:.igoT, Ingrigr .ra�rr P7/1" ,.:;i�a�ras RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS r 517,775 � $15,816 51,370 $0 .. ,'�`�,`ii0° 50 517,194 $581 ROLLING STOCK 522,558 $22,558 50 10 50 522,558 50 LA -RIVERSIDE LINE ., ,_,, ' _ . ,_, _- S67,610 ; �$Ii6,006 ,.• �+ •'"e• :_ � mr- :: ;� 7 .' . �,. :fr s 9.i i:�yb;E +v' �� s..- w�. .:i; fin. wYsW -; ,- . , , ; Ri��, ::,i?I_•iQ' 4 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS 842,035 540,957 $553 50 50 541,510 51.125 OTHER IMPROVEM ENTS 81,800 51,697 5337 $0 $0 52,034 (5234) ROLLING STO CK 523,435 522,351 $1,011 50 50 $23,362 173 SHAREDFACILmEs- ... -. -. - . 7,..-,_.r . RIG HT-OF-WA Y IMPROVEMENTS * 52,700 539.900 - ''9 , ;li1�167` 542,328 7r'- 50 .- : 'r`'iv` 50 . ,;, .,ci:E iv 50 ix:.�cg „ ;;;_.: $42,328 •.. - . hs* illower i:ilto.+,, ($2,428; OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 112,800 58,829 30 I. 50 50 16,529 $3,971 .- r - .��- •--r=- 7- - .' - rr. . ''„ _-:T - ,., LA .��. �. � � *78 068 .,�� !� 3 '� $II�,II'ii 'arw•.rFra�s�-��, 1. -.3, -,!FT‘', RIGHT-OF-WAYITERTO-LINE IMPROVEMENTS . 569.388 536,237 ��: '��1 d,a0F 117,736 �i��� 58,080 CIF "F�e P.'. ' �.'.Ir(`iw.�I� 50 iii, �'-1Ci�1�� ' $60,056 1332 ROLLING STOCK 518,700 514,335 $819 $3,878 50 119,032 (1332) FULLERTON=OCEANSIDE LINE _. • .. . - . - RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS $121,282 387,026 r.,, -;r �� $27,068 ; z,,�,{X,V.w.r,•• 515,779 �r�Tl�s�vi r.__ '-_ __ $1 S .-. ��6 } � �,i34EMI 134,353 ,,.s,.�Mratq- og41 _;� iw1'��T $14,622 ROLLING STOCK 534,236 $22,696 $456 15,491 50 192,520 128,642 (55,594) $5,594 $ 106, 769 n;-7,{. i6z,v76 -. � �� :i:, , so,xrs..1... �, :,r,_- .-:,_ e rr>:T "r".1 -n .,.r ...,;".,,,EMST FULLERTON". RIVERSIbE/AN'BERNARDINO LINE'""' '7.7 '' ► r"r' RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS 577,284 534,723 $26,154 $14,534 15.076 $80,466 (13,204) ROLLING STOCK $28,485 $17,292 $118 16,839 50 524,249 $4,236 TOTAL *745,232 5564,680 *112,589 $61,601 - $20,867 $749,633 ($4,4011 geles 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 Bemardino 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 CALIF ORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995196 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL (moos) LA - SAN BERNARDINO LINE DESCRIPTION RIGHToF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ' UPGRADE CTC M ISSION TOWER TO EL MONTE UPGRADE TRACK MISSION TOWER TO EL MONTE TRACK/SIGNAL - EL MONTE TO BASSETT (FLYOVER) UPGRADE TRACK BASSETT TO CLAREM ONT CONNECTION UPGRADE SIGNAL BASSETT TO CLAREMONT CONNECTION UPGRADE TRACK CLAREMONT CONNECTION TO SAN BERNARDINO UPGRADE SIGNAL CLAREMONT CONNECTION TO SAN BERNARDINO PASADENA (CLAREMONT) CONNECTION SAN BERNARDINO LAYOVER FACILITY/FLYO VER SEISM IC RETROFIT RIO HONDO BRIDGE TVMS,VALIDATORS,SIGNAGE COMM UNICATIONS OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ROLLING LOCOMOTIVES (9) PASSENGER CARS (26) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL - LA -SAN BERNARDINO FUNDING SOURCE PROP 116 PROP 108 TCl/TP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL M ATCH/OV ERMATCH OTHER :WI • T OTAL FY 95/96 PLAN $63 $0 80 $0 10 80 $0 10 80 $0 80 $0 80 10 880 $3 13 10 so 50 80 $0 $63 • Su 10 50 50 50 563 80 BUDF YYS owsAs BFF LACMTA OCTA RCTC S ANBA G VCTC '-- $3B s() s0 so 10 10 10 s0 s0 10 s0 so 50 so 538 S2 82 S0 '-*a 80 80 80 id so 10 so so 80 s0 s0 s0 s0 s0 so s0 so $0 80 80 10 --'77T--' '$O so 10 80 — s id so s0 so so 10 s0 s0 10 s0 s0 so s0 so 10 10 10 80 3"- . F ''-. -- , [-rib- so s0 so so 10 s0 s0 s0 s0 s0 so s0 so 80 .. - "'t0 10 50 or so s0 so so s0 s0 s0 s0 s0 s0 so 80 so 824 . , ii 51 10 80 80 30 30 10 10 SO 10 10 S38 SO SO 525 50 $38' $0 80 80 10 838 10 - .'7$0, 80 :0 80 so $0 10 $0 10 10 $0 $0 50 $0 SO $0 10 825 30 50 80 $0 80 $0 50 SOUTHEk, . CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT CO MPLETION (EAC) (8=000) LA - SAN BERNARDINO LINE BUDIPSVIA 05 -Apr -95 OFF DESCRIPTION BUDGET ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET EXPENDITURES RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS UPGRADE CTC MISSION TOWER TO EL M ONTE UPGRADE TRACK MISSION TOWER TO EL MONTE TRACKISIGNAL- EL M ONTE TO BASSETT (FLYOVER) UPGRADE TRACK BASSETT TO CLAREMONT CONNECTION UPGRADE SIGNAL BASSETT TO CLAREMONT CONNECTION UPGRADE TRACK CLAREM ONT CONNECTION TO SAN BERNARDINO UPGRADE SIGNAL CLAREM ONT CONNECTION TO SAN BERNARDINO PASADENA (CLAREMONT) CONNECTION SAN BERNARDINO LAYOVER FACILITY (PHASE I,II,FLYOVER) RIO HONDO BRIDGE • SEISMIC RETROFIT TVM 'S, VALIDATORS, SIGNAGE COMMUNICATIONS O CIP INSURANCE DESIGN 6 CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT ROLLING LOCOMOTIVES (9) PASSENGER CARS (26) ROLLING STOCK PRO CUREMENT it TESTING _ TO TAI. ACTUAL THROUGH JUN 94 $134,127 $219 1818 824,704 822,517 89,859 821,870 89,500 52,142 810,455 $2,716 50 $6,605 $4,802 $12,197 55,723 $54,388 $19,882 533,964 $552 $188,525 NOTES: > CURRENT SCHEDULES INDICATE ALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF FY 94/95. > ABOUT $5,000,000 OF TRACK AND SIGNAL EX PENDITURES BETWEEN MO NTCLA IR 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 INCORPORA TED INTO THE FY 94/95 RECONCILIATION OF ACTUALS TO MEMBER AGENCY RECEIPTS. > FY 95/98 EXPENDITURES OF $63,000 ARE TO ACCOMO DATE CONTRACT CLOSE-OUTS ON THE LINE. $112,972 8188 $567 525,533 $23,111 510,076 $7,611 86,617 $1,951 $1,347 82,470 5456 $4,058 54,404 519,702 84,881 $54;308 519,882 $33,964 8552 $167,370 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 06 MO ACT PROPOSED 06 MO F/C BUDGET $25,880 $0 SO 10 $57 80 511,599 55,857 5132 $4,012 50 $551 $469 81,238 81,255 $692 #Q 80 $0 $0 $25,860 $63 so 80 So $o 8o $0 50 50 80 80 50 50 80 $60 13 "1--rmeir so 50 80 10 $63 ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION FY 96/97 EXPENDITURE FORECAST EAC VARIANCE (OVER)I UNDER 80 8188 831 $0 1587 $251 10 125,533 ($829) 80 523,186 (1851) $0 510,078 ($217) 80 519,210 82,660 80 112,474 (82,974) 50 52,063 859 $0 85,359 55,096 10 82,470 8246 $0 81,007 ($1,007) 80 84,527 $2,078 80 85,640 (8836) $0 821,017 (56,820) 80 85,576 $147 " "`T' 1 iq - y IX Iw o F� ;. ++ "' :"",991Fio, 50 519,862 $o 833,964 i0 8552 80 $0 $193,293 ($4.768j 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 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL (sl000s) LA - VENTURA LINE RiGHT-OF-WAY IM CTC DAYTON TOWE TRACK IMPROVEME SIGNAL IMPROVEM REVISE CONTROL 2nd TRK/XOVERS - CTC BURBANK JCT CTC RAYMER TO EA UPGRADE CHATS UPGRADE SIDING UPGRADE SIDING CONSTRUCT NEW S LAYOVER FACILITY LIVE TRACK TIE-INS TVMS,VALIDATORS, COM MUNICATIONS OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SU AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL Al Al 110WNd STOCR LOCOMOTIVES (5) PASSENGER CARS( SPECS/TESTING BUDF,95 04/05/95 BFF DESCRIPTION ENTS MACHINE BUR WORTH T OTAL FY 95/96 PLAN LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANB AG VCTC PROVEMENT3 so ., $d , ,'7 i0 T.; .'T. ' ., . .,0T . .1 1/0 ..;, 71:E- R TO BURBANK JCT 50 $0 10 10 $0 10 NTS LAUPT TO BURBANK JCT *0 $0 80 $0 80 110 LA UPT TO BURBANK JCT (GLENDALE XO) $0 80 $0 S0 $0 s0 - ROSEVILLE $0 80 $0 80 $0 50 JCT-RAYM ER 10 $0 $0 i0 $0 80 TO RA YMER 50 $0 i0 s0 $0 $0 ST SIMI (STRA THERN) $0 $0 s0 s0 so s0 SIDING SO SO i0 i0 50 i0 FUNDING SOURCE PROP 118 PROP 108 TCl/TP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL MATCH/OVERM ATCH 01" "-R *0 10 50 10 $0 10 +/ s0 80 10 $0 80 50 10 �'. , $6"9791. PITOWTArfFSErrIsTOrri r $0 $0 SO SO SO $0 s0 s0 10 SO SO 30 50 SO SO 30 SO SO so $0 $0 50 20 $0 SOUTHEki. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) ($=000) LA - VENTURA LINE DESCRIPTION BUDGET ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET 03005+0► 05 -Apr -95 OFF EXPEN DITURES RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS CTC DAYTON TOWER TO BURBANK JCT TRACK IMPROVEMENTS LAUPT TO BURBANK JCT SIGNAL IMPRO VEMENTS LAUPT TO BURBANK JCT (GLENDALE XO VERS) REVISE CONTROL MACHINE - ROSEVILLE 2nd TRK/XOVERS - BUR JCT-RAYM ER CTC BURBANK JCT TO RAYMER CTC RAYMER TO EAST SIMI (STRA THERN) UPGRADE CHATSWORTH SIDING UPGRADE SIDING AT MOORPARK - TRACK UPGRADE SIDING AT MOORPARK - SIGNAL (CTC TO STRATHERN) CONSTRUCT NEW SIDING AT HASSEN LA YOVER FACILITY AT MO ORPARK LIVE TRACK TIE-INS TVM'S, VALIDATORS, SIGNAGE COMMUNICATIONS O CIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM O CO NSTRUCTION SUPPORT Ste![ LOCOMOTIVES (5) PASSENGER CARS (16) ROLLING STOCK PROCUREMENT & TESTING TOTAL $57,399 $4,624 $13,290 $1,014 $87 $11,095 $3,715 85,413 $1,276 $257 81,691 $1,325 8686 82,724 $0 $1,109 $1,549 $4,034 83,510 332,288 $11.045 $20.901 5340 $69.665 ACTUAL THROUGH JUN 94 $57,339 $4,448 $13,506 81,197 81 811,862 83,813 82,318 8996 8275 $1.748 81,478 $704 $1,026 $189 81,031 $1,132 $7,898 83,919 $32,228 811,045 820,901 8340 NOTES: > CURRENT SCHEDULES INDICATE ALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF FY 94/95. > FORECASTED OVERRUN OF *3,752,000 WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE FY 94/95 RECONCILIATION OF ACTUALS TO ME MBER AGENCY RECEIPTS . FY 94/95 06 MO ACT 06 MO F/C 83,813 $0 $768 $0 80 $0 80 8o $1,837 80 80 $179 80 $0 $84 8151 8534 8171 $110 so 80 80 $89,826 $3,812 FY 95/96 PROPOSED BUD GET $0 80 80 *0 $0 $0 $0 *0 $0 $0 $0 80 $0 $0 $0 80 80 80 *0 FY 96/97 EXPENDITURE FORECAST ESTI MATE AT COMPLETION EAC VARIANCE (OVER$ UNDER 50 ;7T - - $91;151 F17117($37g21 80 $4,446 5178 80 814,272 (8982) $0 $1,197 ($183) $0 $1 886 *0 811,862 (8787) 80 $3,813 8102 80 $2,318 83,095 80 $2,833 (81,557) 80 $275 ($18) $0 81,748 ($55) $0 81,857 (8332) 80 $704 ($18) *0 $1,028 $1,898 *0 $253 (8253) SO $1,182 ($73) $0 *1,866 ($117) 80 $8,089 ($4,035) $0 $4,029 ($519) r; a,, tsar- ,. ;Y,.'"'n1T io "" r?51EL`RC� . so so 111,045 i0 10 10 820,901 i0 80 $340 i0 80 $0 893,437 ($3.782) Los Angeles - Santa Chu-ita 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 $40,333,000. 3-11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995196 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL (sl000s) LA - SANTA CLARITA LINE DESCRIPTION RIGHT -OP -WAY IMPROVEMENTS SIDING/2nd MAIN NORTH FROM BURBANK JCT POWER SWITCH TO MAIN LINE AT SAUGUS 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 COMM UNICATIONS OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES •ROLLING STOCK LOCOMOTIVES (3) PASSENGER CARS (12) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL - SANTA CLARITA BUDFY95 04405/95 BFF TOTAL FY 95/96 PLAN LAC MT A OCT A RCTC SANBAG VCTC 50 50 s0 50 $0 50 80 $0 80 80 50 30 80 50 80 $0 30 so 80 80 50 50 s0 50 SO s0 SO SO 80 SO s0 SO $0 SO SO SO 80 30 SO $0 so SO so so so s0 s0 so s0 s0 s0 so s0 s0 so s0 so s0 s0 s0 so SO so SO S0 SO SO 30 50 s0 SO 30 50 SO : SO SO 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 30 80 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO s0 s0 so $0 so so s0 so so s0 s0 so so so so 3Tq"7' 30 s0 s0 irgrrirMilatrtilr SO SO SO s0 50 s0 $0 10 $0 so FUNDING SOURCE PROP 118 PROP 108 TCUTP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL M ATCH/O VERM ATCH OTHER SO 50 SO 80 30 50 50 so SO 50 SO $0 50 50 50 50 So' SO $0 $0 50 S0 50 S8 r 50 30 30 80 s0 80 SO 30 30 50 to so s0 0 s0 s0 s0 so so s0 1 SOUTHERn CALIF ORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELI MINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) (5=000) LA - SANTA CLARITA LINE DESCRIPTION RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS SIDING/2nd MAIN NORTH FROM BURBANK JCT POWER SWITCH TO MAIN LINE AT SAUGUS CTC-BURBANK JCT TO SAUGUS UPGRADE & EXTEND SIDING AT SYLM AR UPGRADE SIDING AT SAUG US LAYOVER FACILITY AT SAUG US TRACK/SIGNAL UPGRADE BURBANK JCT TO SAN FERNAND O TUNNEL 25 CORRECTIONS CROSSINGS/NEWHALL BRIDGE REHAB TV MS, VALIDATORS, SIGNAG E COMMUNICATIONS OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT WNd STOCK ".r LOCOMOTIVES (3) W PASSENGER CARS (12) ROLLING STOCK PROCUREMENT & TESTING TO TAL euossssA 05 -Apr -95 SFr BUDGET EXPENDITURES ESTIMATE AT C OMPLETION ADJUSTED ACTUAL FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 96/97 VARIANCE SB 1402 THROUGH 06 MO ACT PROPOSED EXPENDITURE ( OVER)/ BUDGET JUN 94 06 MO F/C BUDGET F ORECAST EAC UNDER $17,775 $15,816 $1,378 $0 "1- '-r` $U "M-$1v','i85 . _„ 7. -"_ olir� *1,714 $1,997 *0 $0 *0 *1,997 (*263) *739 $643 $0 80 *0 *643 $96 *2,770 *1,343 *253 $0 $0 $1,596 *1,174 *0 $0 *0 $0 $0 $0 $0 *0 $0 $0 *0 *0 so 80 *1,261 *1,590 *0 $0 $0 $1,590 (8329) *5,810 $5,727 *0 $0 80 $5,727 $63 *0 *0 *0 $0 *0 $0 $0 *1,277 $512 $608 $0 $0 *1,120 $157 *0 $367 $12 *0 *0 8379 (8379) *668 $498 $235 $0 *0 *733 (*65) *400 $446 $194 80 *0 $640 ($240) 81,496 $1,918 $74 $0 $0 81,992 (*496) *1,640 $775 $2 $0 $0 8777 8883 2 558 86,627 822,558 $6,627 $0 so k I" "t" ; $0: 80 .. • ,-- ? - ;. w. *0 ;,one.. ! ,: ,` i $6,627 :7' ";7; $ l.1,:41:w $0 *15,676 *15,676 so $0 80 $15,676 i0 *255 *255 $0 80 $0 *255 *0 540,333 838,374 $1,378 50 50 $39,762 5581 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 RECO NCILIATION OF ACTUALS TO MEMBER AGENCY RECEIPTS . Los Angeles - Riverside Line 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 AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL ($1000s) LA - RIVERSIDE LINE DESCRIPTION RIGHT-OF-W AY IMPROVEMENTS' UP FORCE A CCOUNT - TRACK/SIGNAUBRIDGES RIVERSIDE LA YOVER FACILITY MISSION TO WER TO SOTO ST - TRACK/SIGNAUBRIDGE OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OTHER IMPRO VEMENTS . EQUIPMENT ACTIVATION ROLIING §TOOK 7'77 LOCOM OTIVES (2) PASSENGER CARS (14) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL - LA -RIVERSIDE FUNDING SOURCE- PROP 118 PRO P 108 TCl/TP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL M ATCH/OVERMATCH OTHER TOTAL FY 95/98 PLAN LAC MT A OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC so $0 $0 SO $0 $o so 50 SO 80 50 so $0 $0 $0 so to so s0 so So S0 80 80 - $o to t0 $a s0 s0 t0 so 80 So $0 t0 to to $0 SO 10 SO •? o s0 t0 t0 $0 S0 SO t0 SO $0 $0 $0 so so PIT $0 10 SO SO 10 $0 So 10 SO SO t0 r.'SO SO SO $0 $0 71r77.- 7TO SO SO So SO 10 S0 S0 SO $0 -177177-1-70 t0 t0 $0 so so so 10 so so so so Il,.- s,;- 1111110 . Ir!'i''rp'j $0 SO SO 10 SO to so s0 SO 80 S0 SO $0 *0 80 10 SO t0 So S0 $0 80 80 80 t0 so t0 50 s0 t0 _ SO 50 s0 so t0 t0 1 SOUTH. . CALIFORNIA REGION AL R AIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT CO MPLETION (EAC) (8=000) LA - RIVERSIDE LINE DESCRIPTION RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS UP FORCE ACCOUNT - TRACK/SIGNAUBRIDGES RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY MISSION TOWER TO SO TO ST - TRACK/SIGNAUBRIDGE OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CO NSTRUCTION SUPPORT O THER IMPROVEMENTS EQUIPMENT ACTIVATION ROLLING STOCK LOCOMOTIVES (2) PASSENGER CARS (14) RO LLING STOCK PROCUREMENT & TESTING BUDGET ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET *42,635 *34,215 *2.000 *3,240 *376 *1,440 *1.364 51,800 *1,200 $600 $23;436 $4,600 *18,290 $545 TOTAL $67,870 ACTUAL THR OUGH JUN 94 840,967 *35,861 *604 *1,448 *116 *1,570 $1,358 $1,891 *1,531 $168 $22,361 *4.502 $17.277 $572 $65,005 EXPEN FY 94/95 06 MO ACT 06 MO F/C $583 *0 *0 *154 8262 $75 $62 '3337 *337 $0 _. . $1,011 $0 *1,011 $0 $1,901 DITURES FY 95/96 PROP OSED BUDGET 80 NOTES: > CURRENT SCHEDULES INDICATE ALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF FY 94/95. > ASSUMES NO ADDITIONAL TRACKWORK IN M ISSION INTERLOCKING PLANT ON EAST BANK . > FORECASTED UNDERRUN OF *964,000 WILL BE INCORPO RATED INTO THE FY 94/95 RECONCILIATION OF ACTUALS TO MEMBER AGENCY RECEIPTS . e 50 so *0 $0 *0 *0 *0 80 80 80 3I� *0 80 *0 FY 96/97 EXPENDITURE FORECAST $0 *0 80 *0 *0 *0 *0 $o *0 ' 7107 80 80 *0 *0 euo9s118A 05 -Apr -95 ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION EAC `1 "'-341;610 835,861 *604 $1,602 $378 $1,845 $1,420 $t,e68 8166 1""71 7°'"'-23;312 $4,502 $18,288 $572 $85,906 VARIANCE (OVERy UNDER (*1.8481 $1,396 81 ,638 ($2) ($20e.5) (*56 77-71711 (*888) 8434 *2 (*271 $964 L9s 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 CALIF ORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995196 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL (11000!) LA - FULLERTON LINE OUDFr95 00515 OFF DESCRIPTION RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS TRACK - TERMINAL/MISSION CONSOLIDATED SIGNAL SYSTEM LA UPT STATION AND TRACK IM PROVEMENTS TVMs, VALIDATORS & SIGNAGE CROSSOVERS AT SANTA FE SPRINGS CROSSO VERS AT LA MIRADA/BUENA PA RK CROSSOVER ATBASTA 3rd TRACK AT FULLERTON REHAB TRACK -REDONDO TO HOBA RT CROSSOVER AT HOBART OCIP INSURANCE ` DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT A GENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES "."7" ..fi r LOCOMOTIVES (SPARE PARTS ONLY) PASSENGER CARS (12) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL FY 95/98 PLAN LACMTA $8,081 81.055 83,500 50 SO 10 50 10 8350 SO SO 8253 *632 8291 5275 118 $3,08 - $980 12,290 8608 ' $5,081 51,055 13,500 SO 10 10 10 80 8350 SO SO $253 5632 1291 1275 818 .T7$ 3,8T8' 8980 82,290 8608 OCTA 96SO SO SO 80 10 10 SO SO SO SO 80 SO 30 10 30 SO S0 SO RCTC 80 So So So SO So SO SO SO SO 80 80 SO 80 SO 'Y'"4 50 50 30 SANBAG VCTC 80 10 80 10 SO 10 80 SO 80 SO 80 80 r- red SO 30 50 SO 50 50 10 So So 80 So 30 SO SO So SO 30 SO 50 50 50 50 TOTAL - LA-FULLERTON $9,959- *9,959 so *0 tO FUNDING SOURCE PROP 118 PROP 108 TCl/TP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL MATCH/OVERM ATCH OTHER $9.959 58,759 10 SO 80 13,200 SO $9,959 58,759 SO SO 30 53,200 10 0. so $0 10 SO SO 30 10 10 10 10 SO 80 80 10 80 30 SO 80 SO so - 30 80 $0 $0 110 SOUTHEh,1 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTI MATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) (5=000) LA - FULLERTON LINE WIXOM 05.Opr-95 OFF DESCRIPTI ON RIGHT-OF-WAY IMF ROVEMENTS -- TRACK - TERMINAUMISSION CONSOLIDATED SIGNAL SYSTEM LAUPT STATION AND TRACK IMPROVEMENTS TVM'S, VALIDATORS & SIGNAG E CROSSOVERS AT SANTA FE SPRINGS • CROSSO VERS AT LA MIRADNBUENA PARK • CROSSOVER AT BASTA • 3rd TRACK AT FULLERTON • REHABILITATE TRACK REDONDO JCT-HOBART CROSSOVER AT HO BART TOWER OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT ROLLING STOCK LOCOM OTIVES (SPARE PARTS ONLY) PASSENGER CARS (12) ROLLING STOCK PRO CUREMENT & TESTING BUDGET ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET ACTUAL THROUGH JUN 94 TOTAL NOTES: > LINE SEGM ENT EXPENDITURES ARE CONSTRAINED BY CURRENT AUTHO RIZED FUNDING LEVEL OF *79,088,000 . > 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 LOW ITEM S (• ) ARE AT THE AMOUNTS NEGOTIATED WITH ATSF. $60,388 59,292 38,396 517,168 $420 $1,133 $843 *623 *5,288 53,640 $930 *884 $7,700 $4,071 $18,700 $1.200 817,174 $326 $79,068 EXPENDITU FY 94/95 06 MO ACT 96 MO F/C $36,237 $3,889 *3,389 516,041 $542 51,044 $779 $531 83,860 $0 $248 $4,094 $1,820 $14,336 *0 513,711 $824 650,572 $17,738 $6,167 *3,115 $96 80 $879 *644 $469 $3.931 $0 So *702 $1,263 *472 $810 $220 $479 $120 F PR B $19,657 MS ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION 95/96 FY 96/97 VARIANCE )POSED EXPENDITURE (OVERy )DGET FOREC AST E AC UNDER $6,080 ., - $0 ' ' $00,d$6 .,:_..,,.,7.43:12' $1,055 *0 $11,111 (51,819) *3,500 *0 *10,004 (51,808) *0 $0 518,137 $1,031 $0 $0 $542 ($122) $0 *0 $1,923 (5790) $0 $0 $1,423 (5580) *0 $0 $1.000 (5377) $350 *0 $8,141 ($2,853) i0 $0 *0 $3,640 $0 *0 *0 *930 $253 *0 *1.203 ($319) 5832 *0 $5,989 $1,712 $291 $0 82,584 $1,487 $3;ti71! .-. . . '"""• Sir - -t.--#i11032"•t" ''P' ' 153211 *980 $0 $1,200 $0 82,290 $0 *18,480 $894 $606 $0 *1,352 ($1,028) $9,958 $0 $79,088 ($0) 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 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SB 1402 CAPITAL ($1000s) FULLERTON-OCEANSIDE LINE DESCRIPTION �IG H1 F- WkTIMPROVEME'NT$ "' AREA k 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 & BRIDGE AREA E: SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO DOUBLE TRACK & BRIDGE STUART M ESA/LEMON GROVE MAINTENANCE FACILITY MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY FACILITY TVM s/SIGNA GE START-UP OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ROL J STOCI{ .y -:"... +. / 1" n41'1. 's ,-1.rq;irr •. - LOCOMOTIVES (7) PASSENGER CARS (7) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL - FULLERTON-OCEANSIDE FUNDING SOURCE PROP 116 PROP 108 TCVTP&D SECTION 130 LOCAL M ATCH/O VERMATCH OTHER BUDFYO5 04405/25 OFF TOTAL FY 95/96 PLAN L ACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAO VCTC '$14,622 $6 ' ' $14,622 �"•�'T - N !, � g *9,817 10 19,817 10 *0 80 1991 *0 *991 *0 10 i0 *0 80 80 10 s0 s0 *0 s0 s0 s0 80 s0 so so so *o so so $719 $0 $719 $0 *0 80 *40 80 $40 80 $0 s0 $970 $0 $970 10 $0 10 10 10 10 *0 $0 *0 $881 *0 *681 *0 i0 s0 *683 $0. $883 $0 80 *0 1741 $0 8741 •. s0 . ' a ` -1 .. • ::: : ea 1700 $0 $700 10 $0 i0 $41 $0 $41 $0 s0 i0 $5;498 .. If .�.. .$Taff ti .: , .',1, iT A $338 $0 $338 *0 $0 s0 14,543 50 $4,543 *0 s0 10 *810 $0 $810 s0 s0 *0 $20,113 $0 $20,113 $0 • *0 i0 $20,113 813,023 *0 50 $0 $7,090 $0 $13,023 $0 $0 : 'su *0 $0 $0 80 10 s0 s0 s0 so $0 $0 *0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELI MINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) ($=000) FULLERTON - OCEANSIDE LINE euooSNNA 0SApr-95 OFF DESCRIPTION RIGHT-OF-WAY MPROVEMENTS AREA A: FULLERTON TO ORANGE SECOND TRACK & BRIDGES AREA B: O RANGE TO SANTA ANA TRACK UPGR ADE & BRIDGE AREA C: SANTIAGO CREEK BRIDGE AREA D: SANTA ANA TO GALIVAN DOUBLE TRACK & BRIDGE AREA E: SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO DO UBLE TRACK & BRIDGE STUART MESA MAINTENANCE FACILITY MAINTENANCE of WAY FACILITY TVM'S, VALIDATORS & SIGNAGE START-UP OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN 6 CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT ROLLING LOCI( LOCOMOTIVES (7) PASSENGER CARS (7) ROLLING STOCK PROCUREMENT 8, TESTING TOTAL BUDGET ADJUSTED SB 1402 BUDGET EXPENDITURES ACTUAL THROUGH JUN 94 587,026 827,866 $16,287 *2,363 111,065 $947 $1,463 $0 $27,197 *13,722 $13,457 10 *2,000 *921 $2,340 $81 $2,310 $986 $270 $357 $2.209 *650 $4,022 $5,802 $4,406 82,037 534,236 522,696 *16,634 $16,116 *17,057 $5,954 1545 $624 FY 94/95 06 MO ACT 06 MO F/C FY 95/96 PR OPOSED BUDGET FY 96/97 EXPENDITURE FORECAST ESTIMATE AT CO MPLETION EAC VARIANCE (OVER}/ UNDER 534,353 *16,347 $881 $0 $10,455 $0 *360 $81 $354 10 *1,878 *2,491 $1,508 $456 $338 $0 $118 $14,622' $9,817 *991 $0 $0 $0 *719 *41 $970 10 1881 $663 $741 $5,491' $338 $4,543 *610 n :k' , $16,779 so $o $0 $0 812,880 $0 $2,137 $0 10 10 80 $762 $0 $0 $0 -w� v2v $28,527 $2,819 *0 824,177 $12,880 82,000 82,340 $2,310 *357 $3,209 $8,956 $5,048 C!77`ti`?/+" i56,04Z: $18,793 $10,497 11,352 (812,240) $8.247 11.483 13.020 $577 *0 $1 *0 ($87) (81,000 ($4,934 ($840) ($159) 38,58o ($607) NOTES: > SAN JUAN DO UBLE TRACK AND BRIDGE IS BUDGET ESTIMATE ONLY. $121,262 650,562 834,808 $20,113 515,778 5121,262 (50) Fullerton -Riverside/San Bernardino Lind 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 (sloops) FULLERTON-RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO LINE DESCRIPTION BUDFYYS ouo5M5 BFF TOTAL FY 95/96 PLAN LACMTA OCTA RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS CROSSOV ERS AT PLACENTIA 2nd TRACK LAM BERT TO ESPERANZA 2nd TRACK PRADO TO CASA BLANCA CROSSOVER AT RIVERSIDE JUNCTION CROSSOVER AT ATWO OD 2nd TRACK YORBA LINDA TO PRADO CROSSOVERS 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 M ITIGATION SANTA ANA CANYON STATION TRACK AT RIVERSIDE OLIVE SUBDIVISIO N - TRACK/SIGNAL TVM S,VALIDATORS,SIGNAGE OCIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AGENCY COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ROLLING -17 LOCOM OTIVES (5) PASSENGER CARS (7) SPECS/TESTING TOTAL - FULLERTON•RIVERSIDEISAN BERNARDINO $14,534 $431 52,335 52,208 50 $36 81,412 834 12,066 81,118 10 81,240 sa00 *1,413 $0 5587 8116 $391 $767 8724 $43 $6.859 $1,885 $4,543 $811 so 50 50 50 50 $0 $0 80 50 $0 $0 $0 10 $0 $0 50 80 80 50 $0 $0 SO 10 80 (3,683 $144 5782 3739 50 512 8473 $11 5691 $374 $0 10 $200 10 $0 80 10 50 5257 8242 $14 42703 6850 51.717 $236 RCTC $224 $1,211 $1,145 10 519 5732 $18 11,072 $580 $0 10 8200 51,413 30 5667 1116 8391 $396 5376 $22 SANBAG 883 1342 $324 10 $5 5207 15 $303 1184 10 81,240 10 SO 80 $0 80 80 112 5106 88 VCTC 50 $0 80 80 50 10 10 80 $0 80 10 80 80 $0 $0 50 •T, . So 50 80 11,035 $0 80 82,826 10 80 8375 $0 80 $21,373 $0 36,286 S1 Z321 FUNDING SOURCE PROP 116 PROP 108 TCl/TP&D SECTION 130 LOCA L MATCH/OVERMATCH O-. - -•' $21,373 $17,864 $743 1567 50 52,399 $0 10 SO 50 30 $0 10 $8,208 36,086 s0 10 $0 8200 50 7 810,052 $743 5567 30 $959 50 $2,7c6 [ so 51,528 50 $0 SO 11,240 10 50 80 $0 10 10 30 SOUTHL.. .. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1994/95 PROPOSED PRELI MINARY BUDGET SB 1402 ESTIMATES AT COMPLETION (EAC) (s=000) FULLERTON - RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO LINE DESCRIPTION RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ` " _ CROSSOVERS AT PLACENTIA • 2nd TRACK LAM BERT TO ESPERANZA • 2nd TRACK PRA DO TO CASA BLANCO • CROSSO VER AT RIVERSIDE JUNCTION • CROSSO VER AT ATWOOD - 2nd TRACK YO RBA LINDA TO PRADO • CRO SSO VERS AT MONROE • 2nd TRACK M ADISON TO WEST RIVERSIDE • 3rd TRACK WEST RIVERSIDE TO EAST RIVERSIDE • 2nd TRACK EAST RIVERSIDE TO HIGHGROV E • 3rd TRACK EMBANKMENT/BRIDGE WORK SANTA ANA CANYON ENVIRONM ENTAL MITIGATION SANTA CANYO N STATION TRACK AT RIVERSIDE OLIVE SUBDIVISION - TRACK/SIGNAL TVM 'S, VALIDATORS & SIGNAGE O CIP INSURANCE DESIGN & CM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT ROLLING STOCK - LO COMOTIVES (5) PASSENGER CARS (7) ROLLING STOCK PROCUREMENT & TESTING TOTAL B_ AD S B OUDIsIMIA 05 -Apr -95 OFF UDGET EXPENDITURES ESTIM ATE AT COMPLETION JUSTED ACTUAL FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 96/97 VARIANCE B 1402 THROUGH 06 MO ACT PROPOSED EXPENDITURE (OVERY UDGET JUN 94 06 MO F/C BUDGET . FORECAST EAC UNDER 577,284 534,723 526,154 $14,634 ..,.r #!; " "!r„ • "' ::i'l s3 4041 *1,947 8681SWAGE *622 *431 *213 *1,947 $o $10,546 $4,143 82,918 82,335 $858 $10,054 *492 *25,206 $12,748 89,162 $2,208 *1,088 $25,206 80 $468 $351 $117 80 $0 8468 80 8983 $549 $398 836 50 $983 *0 $10,111 *4,687 $3,316 *1,412 8698 $10,111 *0 $1,097 $631 8432 834 $0 81,097 $0 $7,572 $2,633 $1,856 $2,068 81,017 $7,572 ($0) *4,058 $1,395 $994 $1,118 $551 $4,058 *o *4,861 $3,743 81,607 80 *0 85,350 ($489) 81,850 $0 80 $1,240 8611 $1,850 80 $400 $0 *0 *400 *0 *400 $0 81,570 80 $157 31,413 $0 $1,570 $0 *2,000 $101 *2,399 *0 *0 *2,500 (*500) *759 $0 $828 *567 *0 *1,193 ($434) *79 $23 898 8118 *0 $235 ($156) *181 $1,098 $782 8391 80 $2,271 (82,090) 83,596 81,940 $872 $788 *245 83,823 ($27) - $2B,4S5 :11,2.62 .. *rr1• .r $iii . .�r• „ar : •' J' iIV: '�. � ... $9,440 *10,715 *0 :,. *1,685 *0 812,400 (*2,960) $18,500 85,954 $0 $4,543 *0 $10,497 $8,003 $545 $623 8118 ti *611 so $1,352 1105,769 $52,015 $26,272 521.373 $5,076 8104,737 81,032 NOTES: > ADJUSTED BASE PLUS LOW ITEM S (• ) ARE AT THE AM OUNTS NEGOTIATED WITH ATSF. > 3rd TRACK/BRIDGE WORK AND ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION THROUGH SANTA ANA CANYON ARE ADDED LINE ITEMS PER THE ATSF NEGOTIATIONS . > POTENTIAL ENVIRO NM ENTAL EXPENDITURES ABOVE THE *400,000 NEGOTIATED AMOUNT WITH ATSF ARE NOT INCLUDED . NOTES: > ADJUSTED BASE PLUS LOW ITEM S (• ) ARE AT THE AM OUNTS NEGOTIATED WITH ATSF. > 3rd TRACK/BRIDGE WORK AND ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION THROUGH SANTA ANA CANYON ARE ADDED LINE ITEMS PER THE ATSF NEGOTIATIONS . > POTENTIAL ENVIRO NM ENTAL EXPENDITURES ABOVE THE *400,000 NEGOTIATED AMOUNT WITH ATSF ARE NOT INCLUDED . 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 AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET SPECIAL PROJECTS: LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAM ($000s) LE PROGRAM/DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LACMTA OCTA SANBAG RCTC VCTC PROPOSED EXPENDITURE (1) $505.0 $203.5 $132.6 $80.4 $67.4 $21.1 FUNDING SOURCE PVEA (2) VCAPD (3) LOCAL FUNDS $158.8 $14.4 $331.8 $64.0 $139.5 $41.7 $90.9 $25.3 $55.1 $21.2 $46.2 $6.6 $14.4 $0.0 TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $505.0 $203.5 $132.6 $80.4 $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 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 1995191 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET NEW CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($000s) PROGRAM/DESCRIPTION Is;7WI IGNAL SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS (SANTA CLARITA UNE) UNE SEGMENT LA AMOUNT LACMTA OCTA SANBAG RCTC $756.0 $756.0 VCTC TOTAL ROW/SIGNAL COMMUItcATIONS ROAD RADIO AT OAT MOUNTAIN (1) ROAD RADIO AT SIERRA PEAK TOTAL COMMUNICATIONS 2/31A-Ven.1/3LA-Lan Fulls&tott.SDCoL *759.0 $50.0 $60.0 *110.0 *766.0 $38.7 *36.7 *0.0 $60.0 *60.0 *0.0 *0.0 *0.0 *0.0 10.0 $11.3 111.31 MECHANICAL (2) FUEL TRUCK CAL CAR ENGINEERING TOTAL MECHANICAL TOTAL NEW CAPITAL System System $100.0 $680.0 $780.0 $1,646.0 $64.2 $436.6 $500.8 $1,295.5 $11.7 $79.5 $91.2 $151.2 $13.0 $88.2 $101.1 $101.1 (1) SPLIT IS BY TRACK MILES (85.98% LACMTA AND 34.04% VCTC). (2) ALL SPLITS ARE THE FY 95196 TRAIN MILE ALLOCATION (64.207% LACMTA. 11.690% OCTA, 12.968% SANBAG. 5.696% RCTC. AND 5.441% VCTC). NEW CAPITAL SUMMARY woos) ROW/SIGNAL COMMUNICATIONS MECHANICAL (2) CATEGORY PROPOSED BUDGET LACMTA $756.0 $110.0 $780.0 TOTAL NEW CAPITAL $1,646.0 5756.0 $38.7 $500.8 OCTA $o.o $60.0 $91.2 SANBAG $0.0 $0.0 s101.1 $1,295.5 $151.2 $101.1 RCTC $0.0 $0.0 $44.4 $5.7 $38.7 $44.4 $44.4 VCTC $0.0 $11.3 $42.4 $44.4 $53.8 $5.4 537.0 *42.4 3-29 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 which had failed at that time. By conventional railroad standards it was a light program, and many marginal ties were left in the track. Now, seven years later, an additional set of ties have deteriorated and it is time to perform another tie replacement cycle. OTM (Turnouts) Program Replace Two No, 20 Turnouts at Burbank Jct These turnouts were installed in 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. Replace 2 Turnouts and 1 Cros,sing at East Bank Jct. 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 Jet 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 interruption 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 Design 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 CMP Liner jn Failing 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 Milepost 203.8 - 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 1940's. 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: Replacc Relay Coded Track with Electronic Coded Track (Electrocode) 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 no longer manufactured 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. Replace. Code_Line with ATCS Data Radios 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. 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 Jct, to CP Fulton fr_vm 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. Upgrade of Terminal Tower is not included in the Budget as it is currently unfunded. However, staff is actively pursuing funding for this $14 million 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 Units_ffVAC) 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 1995196 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET CAPITAL MAINTENANCE SUMMARY ($000s) IMWANAA2 05-4•695 CATEGORY PROPOSED EXPENDITURE LACMTA OCTA SANBAG RCTC VCTC ROW/SIGNAL $4,504.6 $1,474.5 - $2,362.4 $353.3 $222.0 $92.5 MECHANICAL $1,510.0 $969.5 $176.5 $195.8 $86.0 $82.2 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $6,014.6 $2,444.0 $2,538.9 S549.1 $308.0 $174.6 FUNDING SOURCE FY 94/95 LOCAL CARRYOVER (MECH) LOCAL TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $800.0 $5,214.6 $513.7 $1,930.4 $6,014.6 $2,444.0 3-35 $93.5 $2,445.4 $2,538.9 $103.7 $445.3 $549.1 $45.6 $262.4 $308.0 $43.5 $131.1 $17 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1995/96 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET PROPOSED CAPITAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES ($000s) 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 MECHANICAL (3) 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 $3.3 TOTAL MECHANICAL $1,510.0 $969.5 $176.5 $195.8 $86.0 $82.2 TOTAL CAPITAL MAINTENANCE $6,014.6 $2,444.0 $2,538.9 $549.1 1 $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, 12.968% SANBAG, 5.696% RCTC, AND 5.441% VCTC). 3-36 SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1996196 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET CAPITAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES ($000s) PROGRAMIDESCRiPTION ROW/SIGNAL 110.R. -15O -AA IN REPLACE FAILED WOOD TIES FULLERTON-SANTA ANA O11YI (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 SLIP SNATCHES (1) BRIDGE PROGRAM - REPLACE FAILED OPEN DECK AT PACOIMA CREEK WITH BALLAST DECK AND IMPROVE SEISMIC DESIGN INSTALL CMP LINER IN FAILING CONCRETE ARCH MP 188.7 IN IRVINE. CROSSING PROGRAM ROAD CROSSING REHAB - BONITA AND SAN DIMAS EROSION PROTECTION = - INSTALL 4 FT HIGH x 6 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 SUBDIVISION 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 OIGICON WORK STATION (2) TOTAL ROW/SIGNAL LINE SEGMENT LACMTA OCTA Fu8ertonSDCoL SANBAG RCTC 51,350.0 , 1 LA -Lancaster 5300.0 River Corridor 5210.0 River Corridor 5100.0 LA -Lancaster Fullerton-SDCoL Pisa Sub- LA Co Fullerton-SDCoL Olive Sub River Corridor River Corridor River Corridor LA -San Ber 5300.0 584.0 540.0 40. 5125.0 5125.0 5100.0 51,350.0 VCTC 552.5 525.0 5100.0 ; :5m0A_� �5b0.0:aae �00 5280.0 5280.0 ;i :=_3D-0 5200.0 5200,0 5200.0 537.8 525.2 518.0 512.0 104/17'7 sox • `„ "x'30:0 $0.0 $1,839.6 � 44��'''--,` 0, $184.8 5250.0 5575.0 5214.6 5750.0 550.0 5230.0 585.8 5300.0 529.6 5250.0 5143.8 553.7 5187.5 5103.5 569.0 538.6 525.8 5135.0 590.0 520.4 '51&5 510.5 55.0 _.. _ 50.0 50.0 50.0 $77.0 528.8 510.7 537.5 $4,504.6 (1) SPLIT IS ORIGINAL ALL SHARE (40% LACMTA, 25% OCTA, 18% SANBAG, 12% RCTC, AND 5% VCTC). (2) SPLIT IS BY TRACK MILE (59.29% LACMTA AND 40.71% SANBAG). 3-37 51,474.5 52,362.4 5353.3 5222.0 592.5 J GENDA ITEM #8B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Tom Horkan, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorization to Advertise for Construction the Expansion of the Riverside -Downtown Commuter Rail Station Parking Lot At the March 8, 1995 RCTC meeting, the Commission approved a contract amendment with Miralles and Associates to prepare final design drawings for an expansion of the Riverside -Downtown Commuter Rail Station parking lot. The lot expansion will add approximately 350 spaces on property directly adjacent and south of the existing parking lot. The parking lot is being developed as a temporary facility, which could easily be converted to a permanent facility. The lot expansion is being designed as a temporary lot at the request of the City of Riverside staff, who envision the property to be ultimately developed as a commercial use which would be more cohesive with the Marketplace Specific Plan. The City staff would like RCTC to look toward eventually consolidating parking in a structure on the property where the existing lot is located, or look to property across the Santa Fe Railroad tracks from the existing station as an area for future parking. To be responsive to the City concerns, Staff has worked with Miralles and Associates to prepare a parking lot design with the following design elements: - Integrated access and connectivity with the existing commuter rail parking lot. - A temporary facility with no internal curbing, landscaping or curbing. - The same lighting treatment as the existing parking lot, that could be re -used at the ultimate permanent facility. - A reduced pavement section that could be easily overlaid to extend the life of the parking lot, if the lot is made permanent. - Adequate space provision so that curbing, landscaping, and irrigation may be added later, with no access reconfiguration to make the lot permanent. Staff believes that the current design meets all of the City staff concerns and allows RCTC the flexibility to approach the City in the future, and at a low cost, make the lot permanent, if no other parking location (structure or alternative site) is feasible. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\ADVERTIS.TH Page 2 Estimates provided by Miralles and Associates indicate the temporary lot construction will be in the order of $435,000. Miralles estimates the construction of the permanent lot to City standards would be $868,500. The savings for the temporary lot are in landscaping, irrigation, curbing, and reduced pavement section. The cost for conversion to a permanent lot at a future date would be very close to the initial cost difference ($433,500), since their would be very minimal throw away work in the temporary lot construction. There would be some additional cost devoted to administration, overhead and contractor mobilization. The design package is estimated to be ready for advertisement for construction around June 20, 1995. Staff is requesting authorization to advertise that package when complete and returning to the Commission in July with a recommendation for selection of the lowest qualified bidder. Funds for completion of the Parking Lot expansion will come from State Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) funds previously approved by the State for use on the parking lot expansion. The current estimated cost of construction is $433,500. Staff will hope to complete the bidding cycle and bring forward the lowest qualified bidder to the July RCTC meeting. The parking lot expansion should substantially complete in time for the October 2 service opening. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize staff to advertise for receipt of construction bids the temporary expansion of the Riverside -Downtown parking lot. The funds will come from State Transit Capital Improvement grants and the estimated construction cost is $433,500. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\ADVERTIS.TH AGENDA ITEM #8C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: RCTC Participation in Colton Railroad Grade Crossing Engineering A letter received from Santa Fe dated March 3, 1995 was inadvertently left off agendas for the past two months. Santa Fe is soliciting RCTC's financial participation in a $285,000 engineering design contract for a grade separation at Colton. The request is for 25% participation, or $72,500. Santa Fe indicates that they will fund the remaining 75% with financial participation by Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads: Under the provisions of the ATSF Capital Improvement Construction Agreement, the "county agencies", including RCTC, would bear future financial responsibility for a Colton grade separation improvements for future, higher case commuter rail services between San Bernardino and Riverside. If RCTC participates provision would be made in the design for a high-speed connection between the Santa Fe San Bernardino subdivision and the Southern Pacific Yuma mainline which would be necessary to provide for future rail service to the Coachella Valley. Santa Fe indicates that no capital commitment is required at this time, but that participation in the engineering is necessary to accommodate a future high-speed connection. Santa Fe has also indicated that its willingness to support a demonstration service to the Coachella Valley may be influenced by RCTC's willingness to participate in this engineering effort. To date, Southern Pacific objections has been the major obstacle in moving the concept of a demonstration train forward. However, a recent meeting with Gilbert Mallory, Chief Executive Officer of AMTRAK West has resulted in unexpected expression of interest by AMTRAK. Mr. Mallery has indicated that he may be able to influence Southern Pacific to be more receptive. But receptivity of the railroads may depend upon RCTC's exhibition of good faith to resolve the current problem all three railroads face at the Colton crossing. At the present time, RCTC has no Measure A, rail bond, or Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) funds available for this purpose. The Commission's Ad Hoc Committee for Surface Transportation Discretionary funds has recommended allocating $2.7 million for engineering and/or improvements on the San Jacinto branch line. It might be possible for the Commission to take $72,500 of those funds and divert it for engineering at Colton. Santa Fe has indicated that federal funding would F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\COLTONRRR.JR Page 2 be acceptable. A condition of such funding might be relief from future financial participation to repay the railroad's investments in their assigned share of the engineering. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Consider allocating $72,500 of the $2.7 million of STP funds for participation in the Colton railroad grade separation engineering to design for a high-speed Santa Fe to Southern Pacific connection. 2) Consider conditioning such participation of agreement by Santa Fe to exclude any additional engineering cost from some future financial participation in the Colton grade separation reimbursements in relation to commuter rail service. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINT\JUN.95\COLTONRRR.JR