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 .
R C T C M E A S U R E A H I G H W A Y / R A I L P R O J E C T S
B U D G E T R E P O R T B Y R O U T E
C O M M I S S I O N
P R O J E C T A U T H O R I Z E D
D E S C R I P T I O N A L L O C A T I O N
R O U T E 6 0 P R O J E C T S
P r e l i m i n a r y E n g r g / E n v i r o n
( R 0 9 2 1 8 , 9 2 3 2 , 9 3 0 3 , 9 3 0 4 , 9 3 0 5 , 9 3 0 6 )
S U B T O T A L R O U T 6 0
R O U T E 7 4 P R O J E C T S
C o o p e r a t i v e A g r e e m e n t
P r e l i m i n a r y E n g r g / E n v i r o n / F l n a l E n g r g
( R 0 9 0 1 2 , 9 1 0 6 , 9 1 1 5 , 9 1 1 7 , 9 1 2 2 )
C o n s t r u c t i o n &