Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 20, 2002 Budget & Implementation" " " 059R52 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: DATE: LOCATION: 2:30 p.m. Monday, May 20, 2002 RECORDS Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 - Conference Room A Riverside, CA 92501 uU 0 JUN 06 FRANSRIVERSIDER COUNTY VIDEO CONF SITE: City of La Quinta City Hall - 78-495 Calle Tampico - Section Room ***COMMITTEE MEMBERS*** Chris Carlson-Buydos, Chair / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto John Chlebnik, Vice Chair / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa John Hunt, / Jan Wages, City of Banning Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Placido Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Gregory S. Pettis / Sarah DeGrandi, City of Cathedral City Juan DeLara / City of Coachella Mike Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Robert Schiffner / Thomas Buckley, City of Lake Elsinore John Pena / Terry Henderson, City of La Quinta Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside Jim Venable, District Three / County of Riverside Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula ***STAFF*** Eric Haley, Executive Director Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs ***AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY*** Annual Budget Development and Oversight Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs Public Communications and Outreach Programs Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement and SB 821 -Bicycle & Pedestrian Property Management SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission 2002 ��D 2C36.4 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE http://www.rctc.org 3560 University Ave - Riverside, CA 92501 - Conference Room A PARK IN THE PARKING GARAGE ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET MONDAY, MAY 20, 2002 - 2:30 P.M. AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda City of La Quinta City Hall (Video Conference Location) 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253 - Session Room 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (April 22, 2002) 5. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 5A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT- P. 21 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending April 30, 2002; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee May 20, 2002 Page 2 5B. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT - P. 29 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Receive and file the Investment Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2002; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6. AGREEMENT #02-31-078 (AMENDMENT #6 TO AGREEMENT #RO-2042) WITH DMJM + HARRIS FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE SR -60 HOV PROJECT PS&E — P. 41 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Agreement No. 02-31-078 (Amendment #6 to RO-2042) to DMJM + Harris to provide additional Engineering Design Services for the SR -60 HOV Project PS&E, for an additional base amount of $248,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. AGREEMENT #02-31-079 (AMENDMENT #4 TO AGREEMENT # RO-9954), WITH SC ENGINEERING FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES TO THE STATE ROUTE 74 WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN 1-15 IN LAKE ELSINORE AND 7TH STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS - P. 61 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Agreement #02-31-079 (Amendment #4 to Agreement #RO-9954), for SC Engineering for additional Engineering Design Services to complete the PS&E for State Route 74 widening project between I-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, for an additional Base amount of $265,902 and an Budget and Implementation Committee May 20, 2002 Page 3 • • • additional Contingency of $26,500, for a total not to exceed Agreement amount of $292,402, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. AGREEMENT #02-33-074 (AMENDMENT #2 TO AGREEMENT #RO-9833) WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR ADDITIONAL ON CALL SURVEYING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF MEASURE "A" CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - P. 71 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Agreement # 02-33-074 (Amendment #2 to Agreement #RO-9833) with the County of Riverside, to provide additional On Call Surveying Services in support of Measure "A" Projects scheduled for construction this upcoming fiscal year, for an additional Base amount of $87,035.39 and an additional Contingency of $22,964.61, for a total not to exceed Agreement amount of $110,000.00; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. AGREEMENT #02-33-075 (AMENDMENT #5 TO AGREEMENT #RO-2027), FOR DMJM + HARRIS FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK STATION - P. 81 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Agreement #02-33-075 (Amendment #5 to Agreement # RO-2027), for DMJM + HARRIS to provide additional Engineering Design Services for the Final North Main Corona PS&E, and to provide Engineering Support for the construction of the North Main Corona Metrolink Station, for an additional Base amount of $80,000.00; Budget and Implementation Committee May 20, 2002 Page 4 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. AGREEMENT #02-33-077 (AMENDMENT #5 TO AGREEMENT #RO-9832) WITH NINYO & MOORE FOR ADDITIONAL ON CALL MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF MEASURE "A" CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - P. 85 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1► Award Agreement #02-33-077 (Amendment #5 to Agreement #RO-9832) with Ninyo & Moore, to provide additional On Call Material Testing Services in support of Measure "A" Projects scheduled for construction this upcoming fiscal year, for an additional Base amount of $177,100 and an additional Contingency of $17,710, for a total not to exceed Agreement amount of $194,810.00; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. AGREEMENT NO. 02-33-064 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK STATION AND AGREEMENT NO. 02-33-063 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SECURITY SYSTEM AT THE RIVERSIDE -LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA METROLINK STATIONS — P. 123 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Direct staff to present its award recommendations to the Commission due to time constraints for Agreement No. 02-33-064 for the construction of the North Main Corona Metrolink Station and Agreement No. 02-33-0673 for the construction of a security system at the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee May 20, 2002 Page 5 • • • 12. ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 - P. 127 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Receive input and comments on the proposed FY 2002-03 budget; 2) Close the public hearing on June 12, 2002; 3) Adopt the Proposed Budget for FY 2002-03; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. REVISED LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS (LTF) APPORTIONMENT - P. 285 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Adopt the revised LTF apportionment; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITIES OF PERRIS, RIVERSIDE AND SAN JACINTO AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - P. 291 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Grant the City of Perris a three-month extension to September 30, 2002 to complete the San Jacinto and Diana Street sidewalk project; 2) Grant the City of Riverside a nine -month extension to March 31, 2003 to complete the California Avenue and Cridge Street sidewalk projects; 3) Grant the County of Riverside a six-month extension to December 31, 2002 to complete the Coahuilla Street walkway project; Budget and implementation Committee May 20, 2002 Page 6 4) Grant the City of San Jacinto a six-month extension to December 31, 2002 to complete the Ramona Boulevard sidewalk project; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. AMENDMENT TO COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASES BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (RC SAFE) - P. 299 Overview 1) Amend the Communications Site leases between the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. AMENDMENT TO FUNDING AGREEMENT, NO. 02-45-040, BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES - P. 309 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Amend Funding Agreement No. 02-45-040 with the Depatment of California Highway Patrol to provide overtime supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol program in Riverside County; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 17. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - P. 313 This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Adopt the following bill positions: Oppose - SB 1213 (Alpert, D -Coronado) as amended 4/10/02 Support — SCA 11 (Murray, D -Los Angeles) as introduced 2/21/02; Budget and Implementation Committee May 20, 2002 Page 7 • • • 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 18. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 19. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF 20. ADJOURNMENT - The next meeting is scheduled at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, June 24, 2002. MINUTES " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, April 22, 2002 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Vice Chairperson John Chlebnik at 2:35 p.m., at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present John Chlebnik Juan DeLara* John Hunt Ameal Moore John Pena* Gregory Pettis* Ron Roberts Robert Schiffner Placido Valdivia Jim Venable Members Absent Chris Carlson-Buydos Robert Crain Harvey Gerber Mike Wilson *Attended via video conference 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  March 25, 2002 M/S/C (Moore/Hunt) to approve the March 25, 2002 minutes as written. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Moore/Hunt) to approve the Consent Calendar. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting April 22, 2002 Page 2 5A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending March 31, 2002; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 5B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1) Receive and file the quarterly financial statements for the period ending March 31, 2002; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 5C. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending January, February, and March 2002; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6. SUPPLEMENTAL COST INCREASE FOR STATE ROUTE 60 — VALLEY WAY TO UNIVERSITY AVENUE Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the request for a supplemental cost increase for SR 60 from Valley Way to University Avenue. Commissioner John Hunt requested clarification of the G12 process. Hideo Sugita explained that if costs exceed contract value, an additional $200,000 plus 10% of the construction value could be requested from the CTC. Eric Haley, Executive Director, requested confirmation that an additional cost may be incurred before the project is closed out. Garry Cohoe, Deputy District Director for Program Project Management for Caltrans District 8, indicated that there is more than $1 million in outstanding change orders from contractors that have not been agreed on and may take up to two years to resolve. M/S/C (Schiffner/Hunt) to: 1) Adjust Western County unprogrammed Regional Improvement Program fund balances, subject to CTC action in June 2002; 2) Receive and file the staff report and supplemental cost increase for the SR 60 Valley Way to University Avenue project; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting April 22, 2002 Page 3 7. FUNDING ADJUSTMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN 1-15 IN LAKE ELSINORE AND 7"' STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS Hideo Sugita reviewed the project increases for the SR 74 widening project between I-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, noting that staff is reviewing the cause of the underestimation of relocation parcels. Commissioner Ameal Moore requested clarification of the possible cause for the major underestimation. Hideo Sugita responded that the estimate was based on the Caltrans right-of-way data sheet prepared for the project. Some of the underestimation may be attributable to the County's set back requirements that may not have been taken in to consideration. Commissioner John Chlebnik asked if project requirements and standard could be frozen upon initiation of the project. Hideo Sugita responded that compliance must be maintained and he explained that as requirements change, construction of the project must comply with these requirements until project completion. M/S/C (Schiffner/Moore) to: 1) Amend the project budget for the SR 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7"' Street in the City of Perris; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Opposed: Roberts 8. ADVERTISE BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION Hideo Sugita briefly reviewed the request to advertise for bids for the construction of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station parking lot expansion. M/S/C (Roberts/Hunt) to: 1) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of the parking lot expansion at the Riverside -Downtown Station; 2) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting April 22, 2002 Page 4 9. ADVERTISE BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIVERSIDE -LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PHASE 1 PARKING LOT EXPANSION Hideo Sugita briefly reviewed the request to advertise for bids for the construction of the Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station Phase 1 parking lot expansion. Eric Haley noted that the new 91 Metrolink Line will add several hundred riders and the stations' parking lots are at capacity. M/S/C (Venable/Schiffner) to: 1) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of the parking lot expansion at the Riverside -La Sierra Station; 2) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. ADVERTISE BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THE EXISTING EMERGENCY PLATFORM AT THE PEDLEY METROLINK STATION Hideo Sugita briefly reviewed the request to advertise for the construction of an extension of the existing emergency platform at the Pedley Metrolink Station. M/S/C (Hunt/Venable) to: 1) Enter into a Project Construction Program Supplement to obligate STPL funding for construction of an extension of the existing Emergency Passenger Unloading Platform at the Pedley Metrolink Station; 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the Supplement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of an extension of the existing Emergency Passenger Unloading Platform at the Pedley Metrolink Station, contingent upon finalization of the Project Construction Program Supplement and receipt of the Authorization to Proceed with Construction from the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance; 4) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder; and, 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting April 22, 2002 Page 5 • 11. ADVERTISE BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION SECUTIRY SYSTEM AT THE PEDLEY METROLINK STATION Hideo Sugita briefly reviewed the request to advertise for bids for the construction of a closed-circuit television security system at the Pedley Metrolink Station. M/S/C (Venable/Hunt) to: • • 1) Enter into a Project Construction Program Supplement to obligate CMAQ funding for construction of a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station with a data link to the monitoring facilities at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station; 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the Supplement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station with a data link to the monitoring facilities at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station, contingent upon finalization of the Project Construction Program Supplement and receipt of the Authorization to Proceed with Construction from the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance; 4) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder; and, 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 Ivan Chand, Chief Financial Officer, reviewed the list of recurring contracts for the next fiscal year. Commissioner Ameal Moore requested clarification of the budget reduction for Valley Research and Planning for congestion management. Hideo Sugita responded that in odd years the Commission updates the Congestion Management program. Therefore, there will be less administrative requirements due to an even year. M/S/C (Moore/Roberts) to: '1) Approve the Schedule of Recurring Contract for FY 2002-03; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting April 22, 2002 Page 6 13. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 Ivan Chand reviewed the proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. He stated that public hearings will be held at the Commission's May and June meetings. M/S/C (Schiffner/Venable) to: 1) Approve the proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for public hearing and final action. 14. TDA/MEASURE "A" AUDIT RESULTS Ivan Chand reviewed staff responses to the suggestions for improvement as presented by Ernst and Young. M/S/C (Venable/Hunt) to: 1) Receive and file the responses to the suggestions for improvement as presented by Ernst and Young; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. OVERHEAD ALLOCATION POLICY AMENDMENT Ivan Chand said that the Commission previously approved a policy for Overhead Allocation. Ernst and Young had requested to amend the policy to clarify the policy. Therefore, it is proposed that the policy be as follows: "Recipients of TDA/Measure "A" funds that allocate overhead are required to true up their actual costs to the estimated or budgeted costs. This process should be completed within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year". M/S/C (Venable/Hunt) to: 1) Amend the Overhead Allocation Policy; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. CONTRACT AWARD FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, reviewed the evaluation and selection process for the Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Service. • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting April 22, 2002 Page 7 • • • Commissioner Chlebnik noted the use of evaluation committee members outside of the County and commended this practice to remove bias. Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs, added that although in the evaluation Pepe's Towing was first, they elected not to service three beats and, therefore, the contract for Beat No 4 was awarded to the No 2 ranked bidder, Tri-City Towing. Hamner Towing is the current provider for this beat. Eric Haley noted that the process has been refined numerous times to obtain a completely objective evaluation committee membership. M/S/C (Schiffner/Roberts) to: 1) Award a three-year contract, with two one-year options, to Tri- City Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 4 for the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $45.00 per hour per truck; 2) Award a three-year contract, with two one-year options, to Pepe's Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 18 for the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $42.50 per hour per truck; 3) Award a three-year contract, with two one-year options, to Pepe's Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 25 for the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $42.50 per hour per truck; 4) Authorize the Chairman to execute the agreements, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 17. STATE AND FEDRAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Eric Haley reviewed the recommended bill positions on SCA5, SB 1827, SB 1856, AB 2098, and AB 2476. He also provided a State and Federal Legislative Update. M/S/C (Venable/Hunt) to: 1) Adopt the following bill positions: No Position-SCA 5 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) as amended 2/13/02. Oppose-SB 1827 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) as introduced 2/22/02. Oppose Unless Amended-SB 1856 (Costa, D -Fresno) as introduced 2/22/02. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting April 22, 2002 Page 8 Support -AB 2098 (Bates, R -Laguna Niguel) as introduced 2/19/02. Support -AB 2476 (Pacheco, R -Riverside) as introduced 2/21/02; 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action 18. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 19. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. The next meeting will be at 2:30 p.m., on Monday, May 20, 2002, at the RCTC offices. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board • • • AGENDA ITEM SA " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending April 30, 2002; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status on contracts reported by projects, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending April 30, 2002. Attachment: Monthly Report - April 2002 1 " PROJECT DESCRIPTION ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. (2042) (3000) SUBTOTA L ROUTE 60 ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966, (R02142) (R02141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ./ROW (3003) Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 ROUTE 86 PROJECTS Avenue 58 to Avenue 66 (Segment 2) Avenue 66 to Avenue 82 (Segment 3) " (Caltrans Funded Projects) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 86 ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall design, ROW and construction (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R03008) Sndwall Landscaping (R09933,9946,2059.3601) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538) 9540, 9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629 (3401) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/R" OJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED COM MIT MENTS AGAINST AUTH, MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 04/30/02 TO DATE COMMIT MNTS TO DATE $3,111,749 $3,111,749 $15,011,132 $15,011,132 $870,049 $870 049 $20,253,000 $33,860,000 $54,113,000 $11,902,100 $2,954,000 $1,603,450 16,459, 550 $16,946,856 16,946,856' $3,021,891 $3,021,891 $15,011,132 5,011,132.1 $770,049 $770 ,04'. $19,500,000 $33,760,000 $53,260,000 $10,374,324 $2,954,000 $1,603,450 $14,931,774, $15,530,856 $15,530,856' Page 1 of 3 97.1% 97.1 % 100.0% 100.0% 88.5 % 88.5% 96.3% 99 .7 % 87.2% 100.0% 100.0% 90.7% 91.6% 91.6% $372,530 $372 ,530 $137,016 $13:7,016 .:: $11,759 $11,759 Project Complete Project Complete $0 $18,184 $0 $9,792 $27,976 $0 $0i $2,032,010 ,032,010 $7,491,667 $7,491,667;; $549,793 $549.793 $18,060,000 $31,013,510 $49,073,510 $9,448,100 $2,109,519 $820,420 $92,378,039' $14,052,042 $14,052,042 67.2% 7 .2%i 49.9% 49.9%i 71.4% 4%! 92.6% 91.9 % 92 .1"/ 0,' 91.1% 71.4% 51.2 % 82.9% 90.5% 90.5%' " 2 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTION CO MMISSION AUTHORIZED ALLOCATION CONTRACTURAL COMMITMENTS TO DATE % COMMITTED AGAINST AUTH. ALLOCATION EXPENDITURE FOR MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES 04/30/02 TO DATE % EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST COMMITMNTS TO DATE 1.215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) SUBTOTAL 1.215''. $6,726,504 ,726,504 $5,878,173 $5,878,173 87.4% 87 .4% $5,704,897 $5,704,897!' 97.1% 97. INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946) SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE) PROJECT & CONSTR. MGM T SERV. (RO 2100) SUBTOTAL BECHTEL PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES North/South Corridor study (R09936) SUBTOTAL PROGRAM PLAN & SVCS. PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101. 2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) SUBTOTAL PARK, N-RIDE COMM UTER RAIL Studies/Engineering (RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956,2028) R02031,2027,2120,2029„2128,3800-3808-3810) Station/Site ACq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2026,2056,4000-4007, 4198, 4199) SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL. • TOTALS $440,000 $440,000;; $2,300,000 $2,300,000 $25,000 $.1.15.1;0.. 0.01,1 $2,100,814 $2,100,814;; $5,218,070 $13,190,402 $18,408,472.' $136,513,126:: $400,000 $400,000: $2,223,816 $2,223,816'. $25,000 5,0001 $2,100,814 100, 81'4; $4,825,518 $13,190,402 $'18,015,,920 31,1.69,425:: 90.9 % 90.9% 96.7 % 98.7% 100.0% 00.0% 100.0 % 100% 92,5% 100.0% 96.1% $0 $128,228 $128,228 $0 $51,490 $5 $122,556 $42,792 165,348. 854 347 ) $312,519 $31 91; $1,155,326 $1,155,326;, $0 $0; $1,396,442 396,442 $4,387,338 $4,165,112 $8,552,450;1. 2,698,6951; 78.1 % 78.1% 52.0% :20% 0.0% 0 %' 66.5 % 66.5%' 90.9 % 31.6% 47 7i O�A Page 2 of 3 • • " RCTC MEASURE " A" HIGHWAY/LOCALOETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A " LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION COMMITMENT 04/30/02 ADVANCES BALANCE COMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT. CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN! CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA' CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road improvements CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improvements CITY OF HEMET Local streets & roads improvements TOTALS $1,600,000 $1600000 $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $1,500,000 $730,000 $0 $0 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $1,500,000 $730,000 $18,806,636. NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. $0 $18,806,636:; $760,735 $760,735 $3,102,867 $3,102,867' $1,271,331 $869,583 $3,344,417 $1,404,377 $1,009,297 $0 .10, 753,310 $0 $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Page 3 of 3 47.5% 47.5% 59 .5% 5% 65.7 % 65,7% 65.7% 65.7% 67,3% 0.0 % 57 .2%�': Stat us as of: 04/30/02 " 4 AGENDA ITEM 5B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report • • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Receive and file the Investment Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2002; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. The County's Investment Report for the month ending March 31, 2002 is also attached for review. Attachments 5 Investment Po r port Period Ending Ma 31, 2002 OPERATING FUNDS RATING PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED MOODYS/S&P/FITCH VALUE DATE DATE MARKET PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS) City National Bank $463,181 A3/BBB+ Cash with County Treasurer $61,918,976 AAA-MR1/AAAf-S1/AAAV1 + Agency/Treasury Securities: Fed Home Ln Banks - County Investment Fed Home Ln Banks Global Notes Fed Home Ln Banks Discount Notes Sub -Total FUNDS HELD IN TRUST Cash with County: Local Transportation Fund Sub -Total INVESTMENT WITH CITIES City of Lake Elsinore Sub -Total COM MISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE • • $5,000,000 AAA/AAA $5,000,000 12/27/01 12/27/04 4.10% $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 3,916,643 AAA/AAA 3,845,000 09/06/01 09/15/03 4.16 % 3,916,643 3,937,520 20,877 1,961,200 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 06/14/99 07/15/03 6.29% 1,961,200 2,058,750 97,550 $73,260,000 $10,845,000 $10,877,843 $10,996,270 $118,427 $22,650,022 AAA-MR1/AAAf-S1/AAAV1+ $22,650,022 Principal M aturity Date % $1,039,328 11/01/04 6.0% $1,039,328 Milestone Funds $9,574,189 AAA/AAA First American Treasury 57,762,935 AAA/AAA U.S. Treasury Notes 15,926,000 AAA/AAA First American Treasury - Held in Trust 2,097,657 AAA/AAA Sub - Total $85,360,782 TOTAL $182,310,132 SU MMARIZED INVEST MENT TYPE Banks Cash with County $463,181 84,568,998 Mutual Funds: First American Treasury - Trust 2,097,657 Milestone 9,574,189 Sub -Total Mutual Funds $11,671,847 Federal Agency Notes 10,877,843 U.S. Treasury Notes 73,688,935 Investment Agreements 1,039,328 TOTAL $182,310,132 C) Nature of Investment Othe r 1% Operating Funds 39 Trust Funds 14% Bond Project 18% Debt Reserve 28 • Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ending March 31, 2002 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on April 11, 2001. The Commission has adequate cash flows for six months of operations. • 1 Signed by Chief Financial Officer m91\o✓ 059342 County of Riverside Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund Compliance Analysis and Investment Report March 31, 2002 Paul McDonnell - Treasurer/Tax Collector Kenneth C. Kirin - Assistant Treasurer Donald R. Kent - Chief Deputy Treasurer Treasurer's Commentary "Recovery Under Way" DECEBW APR 2 92002 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Consumer confidence swelled in March, hitting its highest level since the September 11th terrorist attacks. The Confidence Board said that its index, which measures consumer opinions of the current and future economic climate, climbed to 110.2 up from 95.0 in February, and well above the low of 85 in November. The improvement provided strong evidence that the economic recovery is under way. The March FOMC meeting left the Fed Funds rate unchanged at 1.75%, but the Fed did move to a neutral bias from its past weakness bias of the last 13 FOMC meetings. Judging from recent cautious statements from Mr. Greenspan, we think he would prefer to wait longer for confirmation of the sustainability of the recovery before starting a tightening campaign. Below are reported and upcoming economic indicators of importance: Durable Goods Orders — for February 1.8% actual vs. +1.0% survey Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - 4Q preliminary 1.7% actual vs.+1.4% survey Chicago Purchasing Managers Index - March 55.7 actual vs. 54.0 survey I nstitute for Supply Mgmt. (ISM) — for March Due 3/1...55.6 actual vs. 54.7 survey Unemployment Rate — for March Due 3/8... 5.5% actual vs. 5.6 survey FOMC Rate decision —May 7th Due 5/7 1.75% survey vs.? At month's end, the Fed funds rate was 1.75%, the 2 -year T -Note was yielding 3.72% (up 66 bps.), while the 30 year T -Bond was 5.80% (up 39 bps.). For March, the Pool experienced a slight decrease of 2 bps. in the average monthly yield. At this time, the latest economic indicators continue to support that the economic recovery is under way. Accordingly, if rates continue to trend higher in yield, our highly liquid position will allow us to take advantage of potential investment opportunities that lie ahead. Paul McDonnell Treasurer -Tax Collector MARCH Month -End Book Value $ 2,038,850,399 Month -End Market Value* $ 2,039,158,900 Paper Gain or (Loss) $ 308,501 Percent of Paper Gain or Loss 0.02% Yield Based Upon Book Value** 2.01% Weighted Average Maturity (Years) 0.24 Effective Duration 0.18 Market value does not include accrued interest. PORTFOLIO STATISTICS FEBRUARY $ 1,975,270,299 $ 1,976,059,453 $ 789,154 0.08% 2.07% 0.25 0.14 JANUARY $1,910,707,399 $1,912,155,550 $ 1,448,151 0.08% 2.07% 0.22 0.11 DECEMBER $1,997,791,624 $1,999,405,145 $ 1,613,521 0.08% 2.26% 0.23 0.13 NOVEMBER $1,851,632,269 $1,853,998,779 $ 2,366,510 0.13% 2.70% 0.30 0.22 Beginning in April, the reported yield will be based upon the monthly average to more accurately reflect the portfolio's performance relative to the Benchmark. All figures have been re -stated to reflect this change in yield. OCTOBER $1,748,293,317 $1,751,229,773 $ 2,936,456 0.17% 3.05% 0.33 0.30 THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: AAA/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V1+ BY FITCH IBCA County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 4th Floor - Capital Markets Riverside, CA 92502-2205 www.countytreasurer.org (909) 955 - 3908 8 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund - Portfolio Characteristics March 31, 2002 Maturity Market Value 30 Days or Less 1,209,540,388.89 30 - 90 Days 408,023,474.54 90 Days -1 Year 323,217,895.67 I - 2 Years 40,606,640.80 2 - 3 Years 55,070,500.00 Over 3 Years - -- 2,700,000.00 Total: $2,039,158,899.90 Quality U.S. Treasury Federal Agency AAA A -I and/or P-1 N/R Total: Market Value 99,862,916.67 984,547,910.20 105,900,000.00 837,850,509.73 * 10,997,563.30 ** 2,039,158,899.90 Maturity 10.00% 80om, 59.32% sone% 4000% 3000% 2000% 10.00% 0.00% 20.01% 15.85% 1.99% 2.70% 0.13% 30 Days or less 30 - 90 Days 90 Days - 1 Year 1 - 2 Years 2-3 Years Over 3 Years Quality U.S. Treasury 4.90% N/R 0.54% A-1 and/or P-1 41.09% Federal Agency 48.28% AAA 5.19% Sector U.S. Treasury Federal Agency Cash Equiv. & MMF's Commercial Paper Bankers Acceptances Certificates of Deposit Local Agency Obligations Total: Market Value 99,862,916.67 984,547,910.20 535,500,000.00 389,372,980.56 18,877,529.17 5,000,000.00 5,997,563.30 2,039,158,899.90 Includes Repos •• Collateralized Time Deposits & Local Agency Obligations Sector Commercial Paper 19.27% Cash Equiv. & MMF's 26.26% Local Agency Certificates of Bankers Obligations Acceptances 0.29% 0.93% Deposit 0.25% U.S. Treasury 4.90% Federal Agency 48.28% U.S. Treasury Yield Curve - March 2002 6.50% 6.00% - 5.50% - 5.00% - 4.50% - 4.00% - 3.50% - 3.00% - 2.50% - 2.00%----- I S0%* . 3M 6M 1Y 2Y 3Y 5Y 7Y 10Y I5Y 20Y 30Y • 03/01/02 -*-03/31/02 Yield Change 0.60% 0.50% 0.40% 0.30% - 0. %n 0 o.1o^i4 - - 0.00% . -0.10% -0.20% -030% 3M 6M lY 2Y 3Y 5Y 7Y 10Y I5Y 20Y 30Y Yield Curve Data 03/01/02 03/31/02 Change 3 Month 1.75% 1.79% 0.04% 6 Month 1.85% 2.13% 0.28% 1 Year 2.24% 2.73% 0.49% 2 Year 3.18% 3.71% 0.53% 3 Year 3.73% 4.27% 0.54% 5 Year 4.42% 4.96% 0.54% 7 Year 4.84% 5.28% 0.44% 10 Year 4.95% 5.40% 0.45% 15Year 5.76% 6.08% 0.32% 20 Year 5.73% 6.05% 0.32% 0.26%' 30 Year 5.53% 5.79% 9 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND TREASURER'S POLICY The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund is governed by both State Law and County Policy. The County Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy is more restrictive than the California Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by the County's Investment Oversight Committee and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. As of this month end, the County Treasurer Pooled Investment Fund was in compliance with this more restrictive policy. Although we have been diligent in the prepartion of this report, we have relied upon numerous pricing and analytical sources including Bloomberg Market -Database and Capital Management Sciences, Inc. Bond Logistix LLC BOND LO GISTIXtif INSIGHT. INNOVATION INTEGRATION_ 213.612.2200 Cal. Govt. Code 53601(a) 53601(b) 53601(d) 53601(e) 53601(f) 53601(g) 53601(h) 53601(i) 53601(i) 53601 (j) 53601(k) 53601(m) 53601(n) 16429 (1,2,3) Investment Category LOCAL AGY BONDS U. S. TREASURY CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY DEBT FEDERAL AGENCIES BILLS OF EXCHANGE COMM. PAPER CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS California Government Code Maximum Maturity 5 YEARS 5 YEARS 5 YEARS 5 YEARS Authorized % Limit NO LIMIT NO LIMIT NO LIMIT NO LIMIT Quality S&P/Moodv's 270 DAYS 40%r REPOS REVERSE REPOS MED. TERM NOTES 180 DAYS 40% 5 YEARS 1 YEAR 30% NO LIMIT MUTUAL FUNDS SECURED DEPOSITS (BANK DEPOSITS) MORTGAGE PASS - THROUGH SECURITY LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS 92 DAYS 5 YEARS 90 DAYS 2 20% 30% 20% 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 5 YEARS 20% AA N/A No more than 30% of this category may be invested with any one commerrcciLIMIT al bank 2 Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 da 'Or must have an Investment Advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets u Maximum Maturity County Investment Policy Authorized % Limit Actual Quality Riverside S&P/MoodVs/Fitch Portfolio % I C./111J tb%/$15omm A/A2/A 0.000% 3 YEARS 100% 3 YEARS 2.5% N/A 4.90% 3 YEARS 100% Investment Grade 0.29% 180 DAYS o 30% N/A 48.28% A1/P1 180 DAYS 40% Al/P1/F1 0.93% 1 YEAR 25% Al/P1/F1 19.09% 31 DAYS max 30%/15% term Al/P1/F1 ° 0.00% 60 DAYS max 10% Al/P1/F1 21.07% A 2 YEARS max 20% N/A 0.00% a JW/Aaa IMMEDIATE max 20% / $200mm AA/Aa2/AA AM by 2 of 3 Rating 0.00% 1 YEAR 2% Agencies 5.19% iECURITY A ISSUER N/A max N/A 0.25% 3 YEARS 0% 0.00% max 0.00% 100.00% 10 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund March 31, 2002 PROJECTION OF FUTURE CASH FLOW The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. The Treasurer states that based upon projected cash receipts and maturing investments there are sufficient funds to meet future cash flow disbursement requirements over the next 12 months. MONTH MONTHLY MONTHLY REQUIRED ACTUAL INV. AVAIL. TO RECEIPTS DISBMNTS DIFFERENCE MAT. INVEST BALANCE MATURITIES INVEST>I YR. 04/02 88.4 04/2002 852.4 514.2 338.2 0.0 426.6 1210.5 05/2002 442.5 699.1 -256.6 0.0 170.0 288.9 06/2002 -385.T 477.6 -91.9 0.0 78.1 120.0 07/2002 360.8 458.5 -97.7 19.6 0.0 29.0 08/2002 449.6 470.2 -20.6 20.6 0.0 10.0 09/2002 440.5 413.4 27.1 0.0 27.1 10.0 10/2002 536.8 513.6 23.2 0.0 50.3 0.0 11/2002 418.7 442.4 -23.7 0.0 26.6 24.1 12/2002 857.8 446.4 411.4 0.0 438.0 173.2 01/2003 416.2 699.2 -283.0 0.0 155.0 30.0 02/2003 450.0 551.6 -101.6 0.0 53.4 52.0 03/2003 513.6 427.9 85.7 0.0 139.1 0.0 Totals: 6,124.6 6114.1 10.5 40.20 1947.7 1997.8 1.97% 95.57% 98.03% 24 Month Gross Yield Trends The yield history represents gross yields; administrative costs have not been deducted. Actual earnings on fund balances will be credited by the Auditor -Controller based upon County Treasurer calculations. Portfolio yield generally lags current trends in short-term interest rates. Yields fluctuate with changing markets and past performance is not an indication of future results. Gross Yield Trends 6.75 6.25 5.75 5.25 4.75 4.25 3.75 3.25 2.75 2.25 1 I I I I f t I } ■ 1.75 Apr- 00 t } F I i I f I f I I May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar - 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 1 -II -PORTFOLIO YIELD -U-ALL TAXABLE AVERAGE 24 Month Yield Spread (Pool Yield vs. All Taxable Average) 0.30 0.20 - Average Spread = -5.75 BP 0.10 - 0.00 -0.10 -0.20--- -0.30 - -0.40 - -0.50 Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar - 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 * The Money Fund Report -m/ All Taxable Average is compiled and reported by iMoneyNet, Inc. (formerly IBC Financial Data, Inc.) iMoneyNet, Inc. is a leading provider of independent analyses and information to the financial services industry, with a particular area of focus in money market mutual funds. All -Taxable Index tracks the yield of over 500 taxable money market funds across several categories, i.e. Treasury, Government, and Prime, and reports the average yield of those funds on a monthly basis_ For more information on the iMoneyNet, Inc. Index see www.ibcdata.cor ndex.html 11 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund - Portfolio Holdings Report March 31, 2002 • CUSIP Par(S) Issuer Acquisition Current Current Market Coupon 1 Maturity Cost Price Value w/o Accr Mt. Galn/Loss yid Mat 1 Eff, Our. 2 Ave Life 3 Government Agency 3t331LBN 10000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.750 04/01/02 10.000.000.00 100.000 10000,000.00 31331LBN 10,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1250 04/01/02 10.000,000.00 100.000 - 10.000.000.00 - 1.750. - 0.00 • 0.00 . 31331191 25,000.000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK - - 1.750 04/01/02 25,000,000.00 100.000 25,000,000.00 • 1.750 0.00 0.00 3133118N 25.000.000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.750 04/01/02 25.000.000.00 100.000 25.000,000.00 - 1.750 0.00 - 0.00 313397VA 40,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP 0.000 04/07/02 39.890,02222 09.745 39,098.022.22 - 1.750 0.00 0.00 313589VR 50,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL. MTG ASSN DN. 0.000 04/17/02 49,897,333.33 99.795 49,897,333.33 1.732 0.01 0.01 313589VX 50,000.000.00 FEDERAL NATL. MTG ASSN ON 0.000 0423/02 49,934,000.00 99.868 49,934,000.00 1.807 0.05 0.05 313589V2 20,000,000.00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN DN 0.000 0425(02 19,971,966.67 99.860 19,974,966.67 - 1.830 0.07 0.06 313311.00 10000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.720 05/25/02 10,000,000.00 100.000 10,900,000,00 - 1.805 0.07 0.07' 31331LUR - 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.720 05/01/02 25,000,000.00 100.000 25,000,000.00 - _ - . 1.720 0.09 0.08 31337.00 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.720 05/01/02 25,000000.00 100.000 25,000,000.00 - 1,720 0.09 0.08 313589WF 40,00000000 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN ON 0.000 05/01/02 39,832,000.00 99.580 - 1.720 0.09 0.08 39.832 00000 311589WG 50.000,000.00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN ON 0.000 05/02102 49.912,500.00 99.825 49,912,500.00 1.664 0.09 - 0.08 313397WM 50,000000.00. FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP 0.000 05/07/02 49,977,063.33 99.754 49,877,063.33 - 1.803 0.09 0.09 V 313385W 38,894,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS DN 0.000 05/15/02 38,782,460.65 99.713 38.782,460.65 1.774 0.10 0.10 31331L1lT 5,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.800 06/03/02 5,000,000.00 100.000 5,000,000.00 1.785 0.13 0.12 313311 UT 10;000,000,00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.800 08/03/02 10,000,000.00 100.000 • 10.000800.00 1.800 0.17 • 0.18 _ 31331LUr 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.800 06/03/02 25,000,00000 100.000 25.000,000.00 1.800 0.17 0.18 313311.01 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.800 06/03/02 25,000,000.00 100.000 25.000.000.00 - - 0'� 0.17 0.18 313397XQ 50,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP 0.000 06/03!02 49,722,500.00 99.445 49.722,500.00 - - 1.800 0.17 0.18 3133M8YW 5,000,000,00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 6.035 .06/21/02 5000000.00 100.000 _ 1.715 0.18 0.18 31331LB 5,000,000.00 P 10,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDITBANK 1.850 07/21/02 10,000,000.00 99.950 9,995,000;00 - 2.140 0.23 0.22 00 31331LUS 10,000,000. FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.830 08/01/02 10,000,000.00 99.910 . 9,991,000.00 (5,000.00) 2.057 0.25 0.25 313311UU 10,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK (9,000.00) 2.100 0.33 0.34 1.880 09/03/02 10,000,000.00 99.890 9,989,000,00 (11,000.00) 2.140 0.42 0.43 313397N5 24.100,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DN 0.000 - 11/07/02 23,744,525.00 98.612 23,785,492.00 20,967.00 2.298 0.61 0.61 313589R6 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN DN 0.000 12/02/02 24,621,000.00 98.402 24,600,450.00 313397R8 28,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP ON 0.000 12/04/02 27,557,880.00 98.382 27,546,932.00 (20.550.00) 2.383 0.88 0.67 313397R9 25,441,00050 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP ON 0.000 12/05(02 25,038,014.56 98.375 25,027,583.75 (10,948.00) 2.390 0.88 0.68 .313397R9 27,489,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DN 0.000 12/05/02 27,055,223.56 98.375 27,042,303.75 (10,430.81) 2.390 0.69 0.66 31331355 14,250,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK (12,919.83) 2.390 0.69 0.88 0.000 12/09/02 14.007,750.00 98.330 14,012,025,00 4,275.00 2.332 0.70 0.69 31358959 23,000,000,00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN DN 0.000 12/13/02 22,621,650.00 98.302 22,609,460.00 31358959 30,000,000.00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN DN 0.000 12/13/02 29,486,400.00 98.302 29,490,600,00 (14,100.00) 2.425 0.71 0.70 313588AK 5,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL. MTG ASSN DN 0.000 01/10/03 4,905,000.00 98.030 4,901,940.00 4,200.00 2.425 0.71 0.70 313588/0< 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN ON 0.000 01/10/03 24,525,000.00 98.039 24,509,700.00 �,�.00) 2.� 0.79 0.78 88387201 20.000,000.00 STUDENT LOAN MKT ASSOC (15,300.00) 2.530 0.79 0.78 313588BP 0.000 02/04/03 19,562,600.00 97.664- 19,572,600.00 10,200.00 2.540 0.85 0.85 32,000,0OO.Op FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN DN 0.000 02/07/03 31286,400.00 97.760 31,286,080.00 03133MFT2 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME IN BKS 4.410 07/10/03 25.000.000.00 99.999 24.999,750.00 (320.00) . 2.830 0.86 0.88 3133MBWN 250,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 7.050 08/14/03 250,000.00 101.813 (250.00) 4.406 1.22 1.28 3136412M 5,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 6.550 11/21/03 5,000,000.00 102.594 5,129,700.00 129,700.00 254,532.50 4,532.50 5.654 0.38 1.37 - 4.684 0.63 1.64 31364KL4 6,750,000.00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN 6.550 11/21/03 00 6,750,000.00 102.594 6,925,095. 175,095.00 4.884 0.63 1.64 3136F0LE 10.000,000.00 FEDERAL NAT. MTG ASSN 5.250 05/21/04 10,000,000.00 100.438 10,043,800.00 43,800.00 5.029 0.15 2.14 31292304 15,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME 114 MTG CORP 5.210 05/24/04 15.000,000.00 100.396 15,059,400.00 59,400.00 5.010 _ 0.25 2.15 3136F0RP 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN 5.000 07/09/04 25,000,000.00 100.063 25,015,750.00 15,750.00 4.967 0.23 2.28 3133MKJF 5.000.000.04 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS • 4.100 12/27/04 5.000,000.00 99.031 4.951.550.00 148.450.002 4.477 2.01 2.75 Sub -Total 990,174,000.00 984239.409.34 984,547,910.20 308,500.86 2.249 0.33 0.40 Cash Equivalent & Money Market Funds REPO 1,79,600,000,00 MERRILL LYNCH & CO INC 0.000 04/01/02 179,600,000.00 100.000 179,600,000.00 REPO 250,000,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY DEAN 0.000 04/01/02 250,000,000.00 100.000 250,000.000.00 1.800 0.01 0.00 AIM GAP 105,900,000.00 AIM GOVT & AGENCY PORTFOLIO 0.000 04/30/02 105,900,000.00 100.000 105,900,000.00 1.880 0.01 0.00 1880 008 O.OB Sub -Total 535,500,000,00 535,500,000.00 535,500,000,00 1.853 0.02 au - Collateralized Time Deposits 5,000,000.00 CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK Sub -Total 5,000,000.00 2.750 04/16/02 5,000,000.00 100.000 5,000,000.00 - 7.750 0_04 5,000,000.00 5.000.000.00 - 2.750 0.05 0.04 Bankers Acceptance BANKONE 19,000,00000 • BANK ONE NA 0.000 07/16/02. 18.677.529.17 99.355 18.877,529.17 1.961 9.30 0.29 Sub -IoW 19,000,000.00 18,877,529.17 18,877,529,17 _ - - 1.963 0.30 0.29 Commercial Paper 71708601 . 50,000,000.00 PFIZER INC 0.000 04/01/02 49,993,000.00 99,986 49,993,000.00 64105HD3 50,000,000.00 NESTLE CAPITAL CORP 0.000 04/03/02 49,883,333.33 99.767 49,883,333.33 1.763 0.01 0.001 16677105 50,000.000.00 CHEVRON USA 1.751 0.01 0.01 0.000 04/05/02 49,908,527.78 99.817 49,908,527.78 1.780 0.02 0.01 05581108 50,000,000.00 BNP PARtSPAS FINANCE 0.000 04/08!02 49,914,444.44 99.829 49,914,444.44 90262009 40,000,000.00 UBS FINANCE DELAWARE 0.000 04/09/02 39,935.466.67 99.839 39,935.466.67 1.760 0.02 0.02 00137FDH 50,000,000.00 AIG FUNDING INC 0.000 04/17/02 49,943,777.78 99.888 49.943,777.78 1.762 0.03 0.02 ill6959JOW 50,000,000.00 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL COR 0.000 /02 - 1.762 0.05 0.05 54W1E1 50,000,00000 SALOMON SMITH BARNEY HOLDING 0.000 05/01 49,896,930.56 99.7954 49,896,930,56 1.814 0.09 0.08 05/01/02 49,896,930.56 99.794 49 896 930 56 1.814 00=09 0_00 Sub -Total 390,000,000.00 Average weighted days for commercial paper = 13.1 389.372,980.56 389.372,980.56 1.77 0.04 0.04 Continued on reverse lade.-._ Page 1 12 Treasurer's Pooled Investment- Fund Portfolio Holdings Report March 31, 2002 •CUSIP Part;t Issuer Acquisition Current Current Market' - Coupon Maturity Cost Price Value wlo Accr Int. Gain/Loss Yld Mat 1 Etr. Our. 2 -Av Local Agency Obligation' VAULT - 3,291,563.30 ERA BAN - - - 22500 06130103 3,297,563.30 100.000 3,297,663.30 " - 2.500 275- '-125 VAULT 2,700,000.00 MARCH JPRA GAN - - - 2509 06/01/05 2,700,000.00 100.000 2,700,000.00 - - - • 2.500 2,0_3` 3.17 S 1, -Total - - 5,997,563.30 .5,997,563-30. 5,997,563.30 = . - - - : 2.500 2.79 - 2.12 Treasuries • 912795JR 50,000,000.00 LISTED STATES TREAS BILLS - 0.000' 04/25/02 49,931,555.56 99.863111 49,931,555.56 - .. - - .1762 0.07 ' 0.07 912795JR 50.000.000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS BILLS 0.000 0425/02 49,931,361.11 99.862722 .49,931,361.110 . ' - - .1.762 0i 0.07 Sub -Total " . 100,000.000,00 Grand -Totals -2.045,671,563.30 99,862,916.67 2,038,850,399.04 .99,862.916.67 . - • 1.762 0.07 . -"'-0.07 2.039.158.899.90 - - - 308,500.86. 2023 018 r -024 'The market value and yield of short4erm money market scarifies are based on purchase price. - - ' Effective Durationis a sophisticated calculation that measures price sensitivity, while taking Into consideration the possibility of securities being called before maturity. ' Average life is the number of years until principal is rehuned at maturity, weighted. by market value... ' Local. Agency ODngadons have variable rate coupons, spread to the Pool Paget 13 " AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement #02-31-078 (Amendment #6 to Agreement #RO-2042) with DMJM + Harris for Additional Engineering Design Services for the SR -60 HOV Project PS&E • • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Agreement #02-31-078 (Amendment #6 to Agreement #RO- 2042) for DMJM + Harris to provide additional Engineering Design Services for the SR -60 HOV Project PS&E, for an additional base amount of $248,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the July 1999 RCTC meeting, the Commission approved the State Route 60 HOV median -widening project. This Measure "A" and CMAQ funded widening project is located between Day Street and Redlands Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley. At the February 9, 2000, ROTC meeting, the Commission awarded a final design contract value for $2,299,400 for the subject project to Holmes & Narver Infrastructure. At the April 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment #1 for additional bridge design work for a base amount of $561,460. In addition, the Commission approved $40,000 of extra work funds. The total value of Amendment #1 approved by the Commission was for $601,460. At the June 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment #2 to delete some of the bridge work and to add the preparation of PSRs for the Indian Avenue, Nason Street and Moreno Beach Drive bridges for an additional amount of $44,290. 14 At the September 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment #3 to perform additional lead testing at the new sound wall locations and along the pavement area for a base amount of $64,712. Additionally the Commission approved an additional amount of $20,000 in extra work funds. This brought the total authorized not to exceed contract value to $3,029,862. On January 31, 2002 Amendment #4 was executed to extend the life of the contract with DMJM + Harris for continuing work on the SR -60 HOV Project. The contract was extended from February 1, 2002 to December 1, 2003. At the March 13, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment #5 to redesign the Perris Boulevard Bridge, to add landscaping to the sound walls and to prepare a comprehensive SWPPP to meet the requirements of Caltrans and the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board for a base amount of $270,000. This brought the total authorized not to exceed contract value to $3,299,862. During the March 13, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved the full bridge replacement at the Perris Boulevard undercrossing. The complete replacement of Perris Boulevard requires that traffic be temporarily detoured across the SR60 median in order to construct the eastbound and westbound portions of the bridge. Detour profiles and temporary pavement are needed because there is a vertical difference in elevation between the eastbound and westbound SR60 mainline along this segment in the existing and proposed condition. In addition, right of away mapping and right of way surveying would be required for Temporary Construction Easements (TCE's), acquisitions and permanent easements. Staff is currently negotiating with Caltrans to reduce the scope of work for right of way mapping and surveying. Additionally, potholes will be required to visually locate utility lines throughout the project area. Caltrans would perform the utility potholing and RCTC would be responsible to survey the potholes. Encroachment permit fees are required by Caltrans for field inspections for activities performed under the encroachment permits until a Cooperative Agreement between RCTC and Caltrans is signed. DMJM + Harris estimated that the cost for the additional engineering work is for a base amount of $248,000. This will bring the total authorized not to exceed contract value to $3,547,862. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 01/02 Amount: $ 248,000 Source of Funds: CMAQ and Measure "A" Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 222-31- 81102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 5/13/02 Attachment: Amendment #6 Scope and Cost • 15 DMIIvIC%HARRTS 999 Town & Country Road Orange, California 92868-4786 Tel: (714) 567-2400 Fax; (714) 567-2441 May 14, 2002 Mr. Bill Hughes, Project Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: SR 60 HOV LANES — RIV-60-KP19.6/32.8 - EA 463600 DETOUR PROFILES FOR PERRIS BLVD UC STAGE CONSTRUCTION RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AND MAPPING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES PROJECT MANAGEMENT UTILITY POTHOLE SURVEYS Dear Mr. Hughes: DMJM+HARRIS (D+H) is pleased to submit this proposal to; (1) prepare detour profiles for the stage • construction median crossovers at the Perris Boulevard UC, (2) prepare right of way maps and legal descriptions, (3) encroachment permit fees paid to Caltrans, (4) additional project management fees and (5) utility pothole location surveys. A detailed scope of work (SOW) and proposed fee to perform these tasks are included below. L DETOUR PROFILES FOR PERRIS BLVD UC STAGE CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND The staging of the Perris Boulevard UC replacement requires that traffic be temporarily detoured across the SR60 median for Stages 2 and 3 to construct the eastbound and westbound portion of the bridge, respectively. Each Temporary Detour will be in effect for approximately 6 months. A Stage Construction Technical Coordination Meeting was held on January 24, 2002 with Caltrans to discuss the median detours and other stage construction related issues. At the meeting, Bill Wasser of Caltrans Traffic Design stated that to provide sufficient detail for constructability at the median crossovers, profiles and horizontal alignments would be needed for the detours. Detour Profiles and Temporary Pavement are needed because there is a vertical difference in elevation between the eastbound and westbound SR60 mainline along this segment in the existing and proposed condition. The field survey cross -sections verify the difference in elevation. Based on the original SOW for the Perris Boulevard UC replacement, it was assumed that the horizontal layout provided on the Traffic Handling Plans, supplemented by the Special Provisions, would provide sufficient detail to construct the median crossovers. Therefore, Detour Profile and Construction Detail Sheets are not included in the current SOW. • AN AECOM COMPANY 16 SCOPE OF WORK This SOW includes 6 new Detour Profile and 13 new Construction Detail sheets for Construction Stages 2 and 3. Stages 2 and 3 will include Detour Layouts and the extent of Temporary Pavement required to accommodate the Perris Boulevard Eastbound Bridge Replacement and the Perris Boulevard Westbound Bridge Replacement, respectively. Separate Detour Profile Sheets will be prepared for each detour. Assumptions: (1) Crossover profiles will be prepared at 1:500 scale for each detour in a stacked arrangement (3 sheets for each detour). (2) Construction Details for Temporary Pavement at will be prepared at 1:200 scale based on the longest detour in Stage 3 (13 sheets). It is assumed that the extent of Temporary Pavement will suffice for traffic detours in both Stages 2 and 3. FEE PROPOSAL The proposed fee for the detour profiles is $83,007. A detailed breakdown of the proposed fee is included in Exhibit A. H. RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AND MAPPING BACKGROUND In the beginning stages of the SR60 HOV Project, it was assumed that the only right of way requirements for the project would be Temporary Construction Easements (TCE's) for the construction of the proposed soundwalls. Furthermore, it was assumed that TCE's would require only legal descriptions and exhibits based on preliminary Title Reports and Caltrans Right of Way Mapping would not be required for the TCE's_ Thus, the original SOW does not include right of way mapping or actual property right of way surveys. Through the development of the soundwall design and subsequent right of way research, it was determined that permanent right of way acquisitions are required for two proposed soundwalls and permanent easements are required for two soundwalls on retaining walls. Additionally, permanent easements will be required for two short return walls at each end of one of the soundwalls. Based on numerous discussions with Dick Beckley of Caltrans Right of Way Engineering, it was determined that Caltrans Right of Way Mapping would be required for the TCE's, acquisitions and permanent easements. The need for Right of Way Mapping for the TCE's was confirmed by Karl Sauer of RCTCfBechtel who had a similar situation with Caltrans on a recent SR91 Soundwall Project. Right of way surveys will be required for the Right of Way Mapping and accurate location of the proposed soundwalls. Dick Beckley and Karl Sauer were consulted to determine the level of detail needed for the field surveys, particularly for the TCE's. This information has been reflected in the SOW presented below. • -2 17 " SCOPE OF WORK Right of Way Mapping and Right of Way Survey All acquisitions are related to proposed sound walls. Two sound walls will require fee takes and TCE's, another two will require permanent easements, and a fifth will require a City encroachment permit for its footing within Sunnymead Blvd. Six other walls will need adjacent TCE's only. Fee Parcels: 23 Permanent Easements: 5 Encroachment Permit: 1 (Sunnymead Blvd) TCE Parcels: 126 Full landnet surveys will be done for fee parcels; block surveys, with tract boundary located adjacent to SR60 R/W, will be done for TCE parcels. All surveys will be based on Caltrans' project survey control. The centerline of improvements of SR60 has been located in the field from CDOT monuments, and will be shown on the maps. Existing R/W monuments will be searched for, and the R/W line will be developed from found monuments and, in the absence of monumentation, from existing R/W Maps. Right of Way Maps will be done in metric at 1:500 scale. Sheets will be prepared sufficient to map only those areas needing additional R/W. Approximately 32 map sheets are anticipated. Legal Descriptions Legal descriptions and plats will be prepared for acquisition of fee parcels and permanent easements. Full legal descriptions and plats will be prepared for TCE's only if one or both of the following conditions is met: (a) the property is for sale at the time of appraisal and/or (b) the property goes to condemnation. Assumptions (1) The fee proposal for TCE Legal Descriptions assumes 5 parcels will go to condemnation or are for sale. (2) TCE's that do not meet the conditions described in Assumption No. 1 will only require plats. This work is included in the original SOW and is not part of this proposal. (3) Preliminary title reports are provided by the County of Riverside. (4) The original SOW included $20,000 legal descriptions for TCE's. This amount has been included as a credit and subtracted from the proposed fee. FEE PROPOSAL The proposed fee for the right of way mapping and legal descriptions is included below. A detailed breakdown of the following fee is included in Exhibit B. Fee Breakdown by Task Right of Way Engineering and Mapping $ 138,947 Credit for Legal Descriptions $ (20,000) Total $ 118,947 -3 18 III. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES BACKGROUND Two of our Subconsultants, Earth Mechanics, Inc. (EMI) and Associated Engineers (AE), were required to pay fees directly to Caltrans to obtain encroachment permits for their respective field work within Caltrans' right of way. These fees were requested by Mr. Michael Lee of the Caltrans' Permit Department to cover direct labor fees for Caltrans' field inspections during the activities proposed under the encroachment permits. Mr. Lee required this payment as a condition of the encroachment permit because Caltrans' fees for field inspections are not covered under the active Project EA number (463601) and therefore, must be included in the Cooperative Agreement between RCTC and Caltrans. The Cooperative Agreement is currently in the draft stages and has not been fmalized for approval. AE's Project Manager and Chief Mapper were also required to attend several additional meetings with Michael Lee and other Caltrans' Permit personnel to secure the encroachment permits for surveying. These meetings and extensive coordination with Caltrans' Permits was not included in the original SOW. FEE PROPOSAL A breakdown of the encroachment permit fees that EMI and AE have incurred to date are summarized below. A copy of the payment records for the direct fees paid to Caltrans' are included in Attachment C. EMI Permit Fee Paid on April 25, 2001 $ 960 Permit Fee Paid on October 11, 2001 $ 1,600 Permit Fee Paid on April 4, 2002 $ 960 Subtotal EMI $ 3,520 AE Permit Fee Paid to Caltrans $ 4,928 Meetings and Coordination $ 3,347 Subtotal AE $ 8,275 Total $ 11,795 IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT BACKGROUND The original SOW for Project Management is based on the project schedule in Exhibit B of the Contract Agreement (Agreement No. RO-2042). This schedule shows a project completion in May 2002. Based on the current project status, we anticipate the project duration to continue through September 2002. Based on the current schedule, the project will require four additional months of Project Management duties that were not included in the original SOW. Project Management duties include attendance at monthly PDT Meetings by the Project Manager, Project Engineer and one other key project participant, attendance at project Technical Meetings by the Project Engineer, meeting preparation, project scheduling, preparation of meeting minutes and agendas, progress reports and coordination with the various participating agencies and subconsultants. For purposes of estimating the proposed fee for the additional project management duties, we have assumed the following: • • -4 19 " " Classification Duties Estimated Hours Per Month Project Manger Monthly PDT Meeting 3 Project Engineer Monthly PDT Meeting 3 Technical Meetings 2 Progress Reports 2 Agendas/Meeting Minutes 2 Coordination 2 Scheduling 2 Project Technical Director Monthly PDT Meeting 2 Total Hours Per Month 18 FEE PROPOSAL The proposed fee for additional Project Management is $10,067. A detailed breakdown of this fee is included in Attachment D. V. UTILITY POTHOLE SURVEYS BACKGROUND The original scope of work stated that pothole information including location surveys if necessary will be the responsibility of the respective utility owner. Through the development of the project, it was determined that Caltrans would be responsible for the utility coordination on the project. At the PDT Meeting on May 7, 2002, it was determined that Caltrans would perform the utility potholing and RCTC would be responsible to survey the potholes. SCOPE OF WORK This SOW includes pothole location surveys for 80 utility potholes. FEE PROPOSAL The proposed fee for pothole location surveys $23,406. A detailed breakdown of these fees is included in Attachment E. Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, DM3M+HARRIS Victor J. Martinez, P.E. Project Manager Cc: Gustavo Quintero " -5 20 COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS AMENDMENT CROSS -OVER PROFILE DESIGN DETOUR PROFILES FOR PERRIS BLVD UC STAGE CONSTRUCTION NAME OF CONSULTANT CH2MHILL TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 kIOV LANES Detail Description Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/Hour Total Estimated Cost (5) 1. DIRECT LABOR PROJECT MANAGER 76 553.00 4,028.00 SENIOR ENGINEER QA/QC REVIEWER 38 $58.00 2,204.00 PROJECT ENGINEER 152 $44.00 6,688.00 DESIGN ENGINEER 171 537.00 6,327.00 CADD TECHNICIAN 304 $27.00 8,208.00 CLERICAL 19 $20.00 380.00 TOTAL 760 • iiignj $27,835.00 2. INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead, G&A-specify) Burden Rate X Base = Burden (5) -.; °':•a u f ; q 171.10% $27,835.00 S47,625.69 $47,625.69 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of Tees 1 and 2) $75,460.69 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only) Percent X Base = Fee (5) 10.00% $75,460.69 $7,546.07 $7,546.07 $7,546.07 TOTAL try 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING TRAVEL OVERNIGHT MAIL/DELIVERY 6. TOTAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $83,006.76 DATE 5/1/2002 EXHIBIT A • • • 21 " AMENDMENT CROSS -OVER PROFILE DESIGN DETOUR PROFILES FOR PERRIS BLVD UC STAGE CONSTRUCTION " " List of Amended Tasks Traffic Handling No. of New Sheets No. of Revised Sheets Hours for New Sheets Revised Hours Total Additional Hours Stage Construction Index Sheets Detour 1 Cross -Over Profiles Detour 2 Cross -Over Profiles Construction Details Pavement Delineation 0 3 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 120 120 520 0 0 0 0 0 120 120 520 0 0 0 0 Sign Plans Sign Details 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 760 5/1/2002 22 EXHIBIT B RCTC SRO HOV PROJECT SURVEYS, MAPPING & RPM ENGINEERING 05/13/02 Task No. PROJECT MANAGER CHIEF MAPPER LS DESIGNER/ DRAFTER SURVEY TECH CHIEF OF SURVEYS PARTY CHIEF CHAINMAN CLERICAL T OTAL 0.00 Project Management Schedule/Budget Control 0 .0 0.01 0. 02 Document Control 0.0 0.03 Subcontract (Aerial Mapping) 0.0 0.04 Progress Reporting 0.0 0.05 Invoicing 0.0 0.06 Coord./Prog. Meetings 0.0 0.07 Agency Coord./PDT Mtgs. 0.0 0.08 QA/QC Plan 0,0 0. 09 QA/QC Monitoring 0.0 0.10 Encroachment Permit 0.0 0.00 Project Management 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 1.00 Control Survey & Base Data Review Data Collectlon-Surv. Rcrds, 0,0 1.01 1,02 Monument Recovery 0.0 1.03 Survey Control Mon. Dens. 0.0 1.04 Establish CL Imp Align (Metric) 0.0 1.05 Convert & plot existing RAN 0 .0 1.06 Plot Existing Property Lines 0.0 1.07 0.0 1.08 0.0 1.09 0.0 1.10 QA/QC 0.0 1.00 Co ntrol Surve y & Base Data Re view 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.01 2.02 2. 03 2. 04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2. 08 2.09 2.10 lV W 2.00 Topo Ma pping Coord. Map. Lmts w/Des. Eng. 0 .0 Ground control (30 targets) 0 .0 Red. Cont. & supply to Aer. Map. 0 .0 Flying & Photography 0,0 Analytical Triangulation 0 .0 Digital Topo Mapping 3D 0.0 Prepare DTM`s 0 .0 Digital Orthophotography (optional) 0.0 Conv. Topo to Metric (est. 35 sheets) 0.0 QA/QC 0.0 2. 00 Topo Mapping 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 • • o:Job No12000100-13\COST-ROW E Alterr••02.XLS " " 3.01 3.02 3.03 3,04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 QA/QC 3.00 Design bata Surveys Roadway x -sect. & tie -In surv . Drainage surveys Soundwail surveys Retaining wall surveys Geotech. boring locations (40 each) Prepare grid grades by others Prepare CGS map Existing Bridge Surveys 4.01 4. 02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4. 07 4.08 4. 09 4.10 3.00 Design Data Surveys 4.00 Utility Surveys & Mapping Research & data collection Prepare rec. data base sheet Field loc. util. feat. for det. info. PH swr. & wat, for des, reloc. Prep. comp. util. map & DGN files Prepare 'U' Sheets by others 0.0 411. 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 QA/QC 4.00 Utility Surveys & Mapping 5.01 5.02 5,03 5.04 5,05 5. 06 5.07 5.08 5,09 5.10 6.01 6.02 6. 03 6.04 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 6.09 6.10 5.00 R/W Engineering & Mapping Land Net Surveys Prepare R/W Base Map Pre pare Parcel Files Prelim. R/W Maps (Alternate: 32 sheets +1-) Prepare Legals and Deeds (28 +/-) Prepare Plats Prepare Record of Survey Title reports by others 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 QA/Q 5.00 R/W Engineering & M apping 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 48 .0 74.0 48,0 30 .0 60 .0 8.0 4.0 68 .0 136.0 6. 0 4.0 302,0 202.0 16.0 8. 0 180.0 60.0 290.0 320.0 110 .0 56 .0 0 .0 812.0 238 .0 6.00 Monument Preservation Research Existing Records Recover and Tie Monuments Prepare Record of Survey 24.0 44.0 32. 0 74.0 32. 0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0 .0 394,0 338.0 520 .0 12.0 68.0 136,0 56.0 88.0 1642.0 6.00 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0 ,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Project Totals 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0,0 0. 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 44.0 74.0 l 394.0 338.0 520.0 12.0 68.0 136.0 56.0 1642.0 o;Job No12000100.131COST-ROWE Alternate" 5.13.02.XLS ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, INC_ EXHIBIT B RCTC SR60 HOV PROJECT SURVEYS, MAPPING & RIW ENGINEERING 5/13/2002 AE DIRECT LABOR Classification Project Manager Chief Mapper L.S. Designer/Drafter Survey Technician Chief of Surveys Party Chief Chainman Clerical Subtotal OTHER DIRECT COSTS Computer Charges Misc deliveries Blueline Prints Plan Size Xerox Name J. lmbiorski J. Elliott Staff Staff Staff W. Williams Staff Staff Staff TOTAL CONTRACT COST *Rate used are averages for these classifications No of Hourly Hours Rate 44.0 $167.74 74.0 $127.80 394.0 $93.19 338.0 $70.56 * 520.0 $70.22 * 12.0 $106.50 68.0 $100.34 * 136.0 $93.76 * 56.0 $46.09 * 1642.0 0 @ $10/hr 10 @ $20/ea 750 @ $.42/sht 300 @ $3.60/sht Total Other Direct Costs Subtotal $7,380.56 $9,457.20 $36,716.86 $23,849.28 $36,514.40 $1,278.00 $6,823.12 $12,751.36 $2,581.04 $137,351.82 $0.00 $200.00 $315.00 $1,080.00 $1,595.00 $138,946.82 • • o_Job Noo2000.00-131COST-ROWEAttemate.:r13-02.XLS 25 DATE: PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: Earth Mechanics, Inc. Geotechnical Si Earthquake Engineering April 30, 2002 Andy Muth / Holmes and Narver Lino Cheang / Earth MechanicS, Inc. RCTC - State Route 60 Permit Fees TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM EMI PROJECT NO: 00-138 Earth Mechanic, Inc. (EMI) applied for Caltrans encroachment permits to conduct soil borings for the subject project. We did not include any permit fees in our proposal because we assumed that a Caltrans EA number will be available for our use and the permit fee will be waived. • Based on our record, EMI was assessed the following Caltrans permit fees: Date April 25.2001 October 1I, 2001 April 4, 2002 Amount $ 960 $ 1,600 $ 960 TOTAL $ 3,520 We are requesting a change order to cover the above total permit fees of 53,250.00. 17660 Newhope Street, Suite E, Fountain Malley, California 92708 Tel: (714) 751-3826 Fax: (714) 751-3928 26 C;,..../••811• ..i I %%Iv,/n. ... `. EARTH MECHANICS INC, CALTRANS 00-138 caltrans CHECK ING EARN MECHANICS INC. CALTRANS 00-138 caltrans CHECKING • • I 10/11/01 11304 1,600.00 1,600.00 11.304 1,600.00 " EARTH MECHANICS INC . California Dcpamncril of Trar ponalion CHECKING Pcnnit EARTH MECHANICS INC. California Department of Tcansportaiion CHECKING " " r;��h r/il.iY1: Pcnnil Y�%1 i31 T 00-138 Caltra ns 00-138 Caltrans 4/4/02 11848 960 00 960.00 11848 960 .00 e-L'r\ + C kiii Associated Engineers, Inc. 3311 E. SHELBY STREET, ONTARIO, CA 91764-4872 April 29, 2002 Holmes & Narver 999 Town & Country Road P.O. Box 6240 Orange, CA 92613-6240 Attn: Victor Martinez Re: State Route 60 HOV Lanes Dear Victor. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS (909) 980-1982 FAX (909) 941-0891 OMUM + HARRIS ORANGE OFFICE Associated Engineers are nearing completion of the tasked design surveys and mapping for the referenced HOV Lanes. Currently, we have an available fee of $160,400.00. This fee does not include the unforeseen costs and fees to obtain the required encroachment permits. We hereby request a Change Order of $8,274.80 to cover these costs, which includes $4,928.00 paid directly to Caltrans. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us. JJI/ppe J.N. 00-13 W1aOC-Ww2Msu000tUUOINCR7m0Ub-0l3WOLMH a MOWER -APO 29, 2t 3. c Very truly yours, ASS IATED ENGI .: RS, I PLANNING DESIGNING SURVEYING 29 " " " COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS NAME OF CONSULTANT DMJM+HARRIS Detail Description EXHIBIT D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TITLE OF PROJECT - AMENDMENT NO.6 SR 60 HOV LANES - PROJECT MANAGEMENT Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/Hour Total Estimated 1. DIRECT LABOR (Specify) SEE CONTINUATION SHEET PROJECT MANAGER/TECHNICAL DIRECTOR PROJECT ENGINEER 24 48 $65.00 $45.50 Cost ($) SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER 0 DESIGN ENGINEER 0 $37.00 $32.00 1,560.00 2,184.00 DESIGN ENGINEER/SENIOR CADD TECHNICIAN CLERICAL 0 0 $27.00 $20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 72 2. INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead,G&A-specify) Burden Rate 144.45% X Base = $3,744.00 Burden ($) $5,408.21 $3,744.00 $5,408.21 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only) Percent 10.00% X Base = $9,152.2I Fee ($) $915.22 $9,152.21 $915.22 TOTAL 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS $915.22 PRINTING TRAVEL OVERNGHT MAIL/DELIVERY MISC (CADD CHARGES, COMPUTER USAGE, ETC.) SUBCONSULTANTS CH2MHILL (Traffic and Stage Construction) Earth Mechanics, Inc_ (Geotechnical) Associated Engineers (Surveying) Lynn Capouya, Inc. Katz Okitsu & Associates (Electrical and Communications) The Culver Group Saf-R-Dig (Potholing) 6. TOTAL CONTRACT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $10,067.00 5/13/2002 10:11 PM 30 EXHIBIT E ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, INC. AE 00-13 RCTC SR60 HOV Lane Project Design Sur veys & Mapping - Cost Proposal 05/07/02 TASKS Project Manager Chief Mapper Land Surveyor * Survey Technician * CADD Technician "_Field 3 -Man Crew ** Chief of Surveys Clerical * Proj Admin TOTAL HOURS ODC Subtotals TOTAL COST Rates: $161.33 $122.92 $89 .63 $65.73 $62.74 $276.46 $89.63 $46.09 $51.22 0 $0.00 Provide pothole location surveys (80 ea) 2 16 10 40 60 8 4 2 142 $23,406.32 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Total Hours 2 16 10 40 0 60 8 4 2 142 Total Costs $322.66 $1,966.72 $896.30 $2,629 .20 $0.00 $16,587.60 $717.04 $184.36 $102.44 $0.00 $23,406.32 • Indicates average rate •* From average rate (1) party chief ($) + (2) chainman ($ ) ODC Summary:. Photocopies Blueline Prints Plan Size Xerox Deliveries O:UobNo12001 \00.13\CostSURV-3-20. 02.xls @ $0.10/sht @ $0.42/sht @ $3.60/sht @ $20/ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Other Direct Costs: $0.00 • • AGENDA ITEM 7 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Erik Galloway, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement #02-31-079 (Amendment #4 to Agreement # RO-9954), with SC Engineering for Additional Engineering Design Services to the State Route 74 Widening Project Between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Agreement # 02-31-079 (Amendment #4 to Agreement # RO- 9954), for SC Engineering for additional Engineering Design Services to complete the PS&E for State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, for an additional Base amount of $265,902 and an additional Contingency of $26,500, for a total not to exceed Agreement amount of $292,402; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3 Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Strategic Plan includes improvements to SR 74, between 1-15 in the City of Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, a length of approximately 8.5 miles. The improvements will realign curves and widen the existing two (2) lane roadway to four (4) lanes with 8 foot shoulders and a continuous 14 foot paved median. The project is being designed in two segments. Segment 1 is from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road. Segment 11 is from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris. At the January 13, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-9954 to SC Engineering for Final PS&E Design of the Route 74 Highway Improvement Project, between 1-15 and Wasson Canyon Road near the City of Lake Elsinore. This scope of work encompasses Segment !the State Route 74 project. The Contract for these services was for a base amount of $798,014, with an extra work contingency of $101,609, for a total not to exceed value of $899,623. 32 At the October 13, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission amended the original contract, RO-9954, with SC Engineering with Amendment #1 to extend the design from Wasson Canyon to 7th Street in the City of Perris (Segment 2). This increased the base contract by the amount of $1,586,650 with an additional extra work contingency of $206,265, for a total not to exceed value of $2,692,538. The contract was further amended with Amendment #2 to perform an environmental re-evaluation and provide additional right-of-way engineering for the project. This increased the contract by $264,699 with no increase in the contingency, for a total not to exceed value of $2,957,237. At the February 14, 2001 Commission meeting, the Commission issued Amendment #3 to SC Engineering's Contract. The items included in Amendment #3 cover the development of the PS&E for the Greenwald alternative, Gnatcatcher Mitigation Site determination, revisions to the Right -of -Way limits and others. The total value of the work included in Amendment #3 was $716,344 with an increase in the contingency by $250,000, for a total not to exceed value of $3,923,581. Staff is now proposing Amendment #4 to this contract. The items included in Amendment #4 are to complete the PS&E package for Segment II and include: obtaining environmental permits, completing the second environmental revaluation and Biological Opinion to include the Hall Pit and Ramsgate grading, developing additional exhibits for closed session Commission meetings and for County Building Services to present to property owners, additional septic system investigations, additional utility relocation assistance including developing the utilities relocation plans and performing survey during the relocation activities, incorporate design changes due to issuance of the revised Caltrans Highway Design Manual, prepare Advisory Design Exceptions Fact Sheets for new Highway Design Manual requirements, and developing joint use exhibits. These items of work are described in more detail in the attached Scope of Services and Cost Estimate. The contract cost for these additional services is for a base amount of $194,797. Now that Ramsgate has signed their agreement with RCTC, the Ramsgate Alternative Right of Way item of work will no longer be required. This item of work has a budget of $31,495, which will be credited back to RCTC with this Amendment. As part of the Environmental Process for this project, RCTC entered into a Formal Section 7 Consultation with the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. This consultation resulted in the development of the Biological and Conference Opinion which RCTC entered into on October 16, 2000 and was subsequently amended on April 12, 2002. As part of this Consultation RCTC agreed to provide a Biological monitor, who shall possess a valid section 10(a)(1)(A) permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to ensure that no unauthorized take of gnatcatcher habitat occurs during all clearing and grubbing construction activities. SC Engineering's original and amended Scope of Work did not include providing a Biological Monitor. • • • 33 " " " Therefore, this amendment will provide for a Biological monitor during the clearing and grubbing activities for Segment I construction, which is estimated to take 45 days, and Segment II which is estimated to take 90 days. The additional cost for providing the Biological Monitor totals $34,200 for Segment I and $68,400 for Segment II, with a combined total of $102,600. These actions established a base amount for Amendment #4 of $265,902 with a new total not to exceed contract value of $4,189,483. In addition, eight (8) extra work authorizations have been issued for this contract. The extra work authorizations to date total $504,396. The extra work amount authorized by the Commission to manage this contract was $557,874. This leaves the contract with only $53,478 remaining in extra work. Staff believes that there will be additional future need for extra work authorizations. In order to be able to keep the project delivery on schedule. Staff is therefore requesting that an additional $26,500 of extra work be added to this contract. The total extra work amount available to the contract would then be $584,374 ($557,874 + $26,500), for a total not to exceed value of $4,215,983. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: I Y Year: Source of Funds: GLA No.: FY 01/02 Bond Proceeds, Measure A, State Amount: `$292,402 22-31-81102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Budget Adjustment: I N Date: 5/13/02 Attachment: Amendment No. 4/Authorization to Distribute Excess Budget Segment 2 Additional Design Efforts Supplemental Information 34 TRANSPORTATION- TRAFFIC - CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECT/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT April 18, 2002 (Revised May 13, 2002) Route 74 from Dexter Ave to 0.5 Km West of Wasson Canyon Rd Widen to 4 -Lanes SC File: RCTC-99-01 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attention: Mr. Bill Hughes Program Manager Subject: Amendment No. 4/Authorization to Distribute Excess Budget Segment 2 Additional Design Efforts Supplemental Information Dear Mr. Hughes: Itemized below is a detailed description of additional items that was performed or anticipated to be perform that are not covered in the scope of work: 1. Additional Environmental Services related to the Environmental Reevaluation A. Exhibits and Agency Coordination B. Project Management and Meetings C. Environmental Permits D. Biological Assessment E. Environmental Reevaluation and Cultural Resources 2. Segment 2 - Additional Design Efforts A. Right of Way Exhibits (Closed and Resolution of Necessity Sessions) for Acquisition and Condemnation of properties, not previously covered under other items. B. Prepare Drainage Plans with APN/Property Owners for RCTC/County use. C. Joint Use Exhibits and Coordination D. Septic System Investigation/Report/plan Preparation for 55 properties (13637-1, 13641-1, 13666-1, 13667-1, 13697-1, 13724-1, 13754-1, 13758-1, 13759-1, 13765-1, 13783-1, 13802-1, 13806-1, 13814-1, 13814-2, 13714-3, 13714-4, 13814-5, 13814-5, 13814-6, 13418-7, 13823-1, 13829-1, 13835-1, 13852-1, 13770-1, 13780-1, 13790-1, 13810-1, 13812-1, 13824-1, 13833-1, 13834-1, 13838-1, 13839-1, 13843-1, 13844-1, 13850-1, 13854-1, 13855-1, 13625-1, 13631-1, 13632-1, 13633-1, 13643-1, 13687-1, 13704-1, 13708-1, 13709-1, 13726-1, 13793-1). E. Utility Relocation Coordination (EdisonNerizon/Adelphia/Gas) including preparation of overhead contract plans required for securing the Caltrans Encroachment Permit F. Incorporate latest revisions due to the updated Caltrans Highway Design Manuel (December 2001 Edition) a. Revise Embankment Areas to Accommodate Clear Recovery Zone b. Revise Cut Areas to Balance Earthwork c. Revise Drainage Systems to Accommodate Clear Recovery Zone - Open Channel to Closed Drainage System (Revised the following drainage systems - System 1, 3, 17, 169, 173, 5, 6, 7, 11, Headquarters Field Construction Office 14318 California Avenue, Suite 104 3750 Bedford Canyon Road Victorville, CA 92392 Corona, CA 91719 Serving the Transportation Needs of the Inland Empire and High Desert 760-955-7712 ♦ 760 -955 -6130 -FAX 35 Mr. Bill Hughes, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission April 18, 2002 Page 2 12, 187, 15, 23, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 183, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 172, 175, 176, 178, 186, 177, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 179, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 189, 190, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 109, 112, 114, 117, 180, 181, 182, 182, 120, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 142, 143, 145) d. Revise/Update Drainage Report due to revisions in drainage systems outline in item (c). e. Revise/Update Roadway/Drainage Quantities due to revisions in drainage systems outline in item (c). f. Prepare Advisory Design Exception Fact Sheet related to Clear Recovery Zone, Superelevation Transition, and anything else that develops) g. Prepare Slope Protection Report G. Project Management/Coordination/Meetings Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to serve RCTC and assist in the process of the approval of the necessary documents and provide a safer transportation facility in Riverside County. Should you have any question, do not hesitate to call me at 760-955-7712. Sincerely, SC ENGINEERING c_ Sal Chavez, PE Principal/Project Manager cc: Project Files -55 Erik Galloway, RCTC/Bechtel • • • 36 STATE ROUTE 74, Segment 2 Additional Environmental and Design Services • • • TASK Estimated No. of Sheets Estimated . Hours/Sheet Estimated Hours Firm Cost 1. ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Exhibits and Agency CHECK SC LSA Coordination Project Management Meetings 1 100 100 LSA $8,000 100 and Environmental Permits Biological Assessment 1 1 63 63 63 63 LSA LSA $5,000 $5,000 63 63 Environmental Reevaluation Cultural 1 25 25 LSA $2,000 Y5 and Resources 25 25 LSA $2,000 25 Subtotal 4 250 LSA $22,000 250 O 250 2. RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING Segment 2 CHECK SC LSA Right of Way Maps, Legal Descriptions, and Exhibits Joint 1 - - AE $0 Use Agreements Exhibits 1 - - AE $0 Subtotal 2 - AE $0 0 0 0 3. ADDITIONAL DESIGN EFFORTS A. Right Way Exhibits CHECK SC LSA of (Closed & Resolution of Necessity Sessions) B. Prepared Drainage Plans 12 3 36 SC $2,854 36 with APN/Owners for RCTC/County C. Joint Use Agreement 25 2 50 SC $3,963 50 Exhibits and Coordination D. Septic System Investigation/Report/Plan 1 16 16 SC $1,268 16 Preparation E. Utility Relocation Coordination 50 5 250 SC $19,816 250 (EdisonA/erizon/ATTBroadband/Gas) F. Incorporate Segment 1 Design Items into Segment 2 1 400 400 SC $31,706 400 a) Revise Embankment Areas to Accommodate Clear Recovery Zone b) Revise Cut Areas to Balance 24 8 192 SC $15,219 192 Earthwork c) Revise Drainage 14 12 168 SC $13,316 168 Systems to Accommodate Clear Recovery Zone d) Revise/Update Drainage 30 16 480 SC $38,047 480 Report e) Revise Roadway/Drainage 1 64 64 SC $5,073 64 Quantities f) Prepare Advisory Fact Sheet 1 40 40 SC $3,171 40 (CRZ, Super Transition, etc.) Prepare Slope Protection Report 1 16 16 SC $1,268 16 g) G. Project ManagemenVCoordination/Meetings 1 8 8 SC $634 8 1 460 460 SC $36,462 460 Subtotal 4. CONSTRUCTION 162 2,180 SC $172,797 2.180 2,180 0 SUPPORT SERVICES (Certified Biologist & Reports) Certified Biological Monitor- Segment CHECK SC LSA 1 (45 Working Days) 45 Working Days (33 Days Clearing and Grubbing/12 Report Days) 45 8 360 LSA $34,200 360 Certified Biological Monitor - Segment 1 (90 Working Days) 90 Working Days (72 Days Clearing and Grubbing/18 Report Days) 90 8 720 LSA $68,400 720 Subtotal 135 1,080 SC+SUBS $102,600 1,080 0 1,080 SUBTOTAL 3,510 SC+SUBS $297,397 2,430 2,180 250 EXCESS BUDGET (RAMSGATE ALTERNATIVE RIGHT OF WAY) ($31,495) TOTAL $265,902 SUMMARY FIRM HOURS BUDGET PERCENT SC ENGINEERING 2,180 $172,797 65% LSA ASSOCIATES 250 $124,600 4T% ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS - $0 0% GROUP DELTA - $0 0% AEI-CASC - $0 0% EXCESS BUDGET ($31,495) TOTAL 2,430 $265,902 112% 37 STATE ROUTE 74, Segment 2 Additional Environmental and Design Services COST PROPOSAL WORKSHEET SCOPE OF WORK Final Contract Plans, Specifications, & Estimate DATE REVISION May 13, 2002 COMPANY: SC ENGINEERING PROJECT: State Route 74 MILESTONE/PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY: SUMMARY DIRECT LABOR PERSONNEL ( FUNCTION' ( HOURS (.':- 'RATB;:.(,:,AMOUNT '. Sal Chavez Carl Sosa/Staff David Jenkins/Staff John Davis/Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Project Manager 263 $ 44.38 $11,672 Senior Engineer 392 $ 38.25 $14,994 Civil Engineer 392 $ 32.50 $12,740 Civil Engineer 414 $ 26.50 $10,971 Bridge Engineer 0 $ - $0 CADD Operator/Technician 654 $ 17.25 $11,282 Landscape Architect 0 $ - $0 Project Controls 65 $ 15.00 $975 MULTIPLIERS TOTAL HOURS' 2,180 I $62,633 I 2,180 ESCALATION @ (RATE) GENERAUADMINISTRATIVE @ PAYROLL ADDITIVES @ 116.57% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) $ 73,011.80 28.43% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) $ 17,806.69 OTHER DIRECT COST 145.00% TOTAL MULTIPLIERS $90,818 I `: ITEM... . - .. :: .. (: . . . . QUANTITY : • .:: (. UNIT ( UNIT -COST : -' AMOUNT:=.. Reproduction (Bond/Blue Prints) (Actual Cost) Resource Agency Fees Edison Service Connection Fees 1 LS $ 4,000.00 $4,000 1 LS $ - $0 2 EA $ - $0 OUTSIDE SERVICES (wlo fee) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $4,000 I :..COMPANY (: AMOUNT LSA ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS GROUP DELTA TYLIN INTERNATIONAL AEI-CASC ADM $124,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FEES TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $124,600 I (SC ENGINEERING @ 10% (of Total Direct Labor + Total Multipliers) $ 15,345.19 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS SUBTOTAL COST' EXCESS BUDGET' TOTAL COST' $15,345 ' $297,397 1 ($31,495) I $265,902 I • • 38 AGENDA ITEM 8 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement #02-33-074 (Amendment #2 to Agreement #RO-9833) with the County of Riverside for additional On Call Surveying Services in support of Measure "A" Construction Projects STAFF RECOMMENDAT/ON." This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Agreement # 02-33-074 (Amendment #2 to Agreement #RO-9833) with the County of Riverside, to provide additional On Call Surveying Services in support of Measure "A" Projects scheduled for construction this upcoming fiscal year, for an additional Base amount of $87,035.39 and an additional Contingency of $22,964.61, for a total not to exceed Agreement amount of $110,000.00; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October of 1997, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-9833, to the County of Riverside, for on call surveying services, in support of, Measure "A" Construction Projects. The contract was for an amount of $109,060, with a contingency of up to $21, 812, for a total Contract amount of $130,872. In May of 2000, the Commission awarded Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-9833, to the County of Riverside, for on call surveying services, in support of, additional Measure "A" Construction Projects. Amendment #1 was for an amount of $59,000, with a contingency of up to $16,000, for a total Amendment amount of $75,000. Over the past 4 1/2 years the County of Riverside Survey Department has supported construction, as requested, for the following Measure "A" Projects: 39 1) Route 91 Phase I Sound Walls (#35, #77, #78, #149, #183 & #221) 2) Downtown Riverside Metrolink South Side Platform Project 3) Pigeon Pass Park & Ride Lot 4) La Sierra & West Corona Metrolink Pedestrian Over Crossings 5) Route 91 Phase II Sound Walls (#36, #98, #110, #121, #161, &#635) 6) 1-10/Apache Trail Interchange 7) Route 74 Right of Way Staking To date, the County has expended the contract authorized budget and allowable contingency totaling approximately $205,872, in support of construction of the above referenced Measure "A" Projects. There is now a need for additional On Call Surveying Services to support construction of the following Measure "A" Projects scheduled to start construction during the next fiscal year: 1. North Main Corona Metrolink Station Project 2. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project 3. Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project 4. Pedley Metrolink Station Emergency Platform Extension Project Staff requested a scope of services and cost of services for the County of Riverside to provide the required On Call Surveying Services for the above listed Measure "A" Construction Projects. Staff has concluded negotiations with the County of Riverside and is in concurrence with the attached scope of work and cost of services. The Agreement for the additional surveying services will be for an additional base amount of $87,035.39 and an additional extra work contingency of $22,964.61, for a total not to exceed Agreement amount of $110,000. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Amount: $45,000 $65,000 Source of Funds: FTA, STA, LTF, CMAQ and Measure Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 221-33-81105 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 5/13/02 Attachment: Letter dated April 24, 2002 from County of Riverside itemizing survey costs • • • 40 G011 OF RI\„S'Q F • \O~ NI;Ci tea' LAND t .. • • COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE W{ 0f April 24, 2002 TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department Karl Sauer, Construction Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Dear Mr. Sauer: David E. Barnhart Director of Transportation Following is information showing survey costs for upcoming projects that we previously discussed. There is also information attached itemizing the costs. 1. North Main Corona Station 2. La Sierra Station Parking Area 3. Vine Street Parking Area 4. Pedley Station Platform Extension TOTAL $56,933.72 $12,615.56 $ 8,883.26 $ 8,605.85 $87,035.39 We appreciate the opportunity to submit this information and look forward to working with you and your staff on these projects. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 955-6875. Sincere�y yours, Brian H. Hess Supervising Land Surveyor attachments 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 - (909) 955-6740 P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-6721 41 NORTH MAIN CORONA STATION Quality Assurance Cost Estimate Task/Personnel Hour Research City of Corona Survey Party Chief 9 Hourly Cost $76.50 TOTAL $688.50 Locate control and estab. horizfvert. control. Prepare Corner Records/work map. Survey Party Chief 54 $76.50 $4131.00 Principal Sur. Tech. 54 $60.53 $3268.62 Senior Land Surv. 9 $90.44 $813.96 Calculations Survey Party Chief 54 $76.50 $4131.00 Principal Sur. Tech. 54 $60.53 $3268.62 Senior Land Surv. 6 $90.44 $542.64 Check of field work Survey Party Chief 18 $76.50 $1377.00 Principal Sur. Tech 18 $60.53 $1089.54 Senior Land Surv. 3 $90.44 $271.32 Verify track work Survey Party Chief 27 $76.50 $2065.50 Principal Sur. Tech. 27 $60.53 $1634.31 Senior Land Surv. 3 $90.44 $271.32 Verify platforms, walls, ped. crossing, parking lot, etc_ Survey Party Chief 189 $76.50 $14458.50 Principal Sur. Tech. 189 $60.53 $11440.17 Senior Land Surv. 20 $90.44 $1808.80 As-builts Survey Party Chief 18 $76.50 $1377.00 Principal Sur. Tech. 18 $60.53 $1089.54 Senior Land Surv. 3 $90.44 $271.32 Pre -Construction Meeting Survey Party Chief 2 $76.50 Senior Land Surv. 2 $90.44 $153.00 $180.88 Safety Meetings Survey Party Chief 10 $76.50 $765.00 Principal Sur. Tech. 10 $60.53 $605.30 Senior Land Surv. 2 $90.44 $180.88 Truck Cost 30 $35.00 $1050.00 TOTAL $56,933.72 • • • 42 " " " LA SIERRA STATION Expansion of parking area Construction Staking Cost Estimate Task/Personnel Hour Hourly Cost TOTAL Research City of Riverside Survey Party Chief 9 $76.50 $688.50 Locate control and estab. horizlvert. control. Prepare Corner Records/work map. Survey Party Chief 18 $76.50 $1377.00 Principal Sur. Tech. 18 $60.53 $1089.54 Calculations Survey Party Chief 9 $76.50 $688.50 Set rough grade stakes Survey Party Chief 18 $76.50 $1377.00 Principal Sur. Tech 18 $60.53 $1089.54 Set finish grade stakes Survey Party Chief 27 Principal Sur. Tech. 27 $76.50 $60.53 $2065.50 $1634.31 As BuiIts . Survey Party Chief 9 $76.50 $688.50 Principal Sur. Tech. 9 $60.53 $544.77 Pre -Construction Meeting Survey Party Chief 2 $76.50 $153.00 Supervision Senior Land Surv. 10 $90.44 Truck Cost 9 $35.00 TOTAL $904.40 $315.00 $12,615.56 43 VINE STREET DOWNTOWN RIVERSIDE PARKING AREA Adjacent to 91 Freeway and Vine St. Construction Staking Cost Estimate Task/Personnel Hour Hourly Cost TOTAL Research City of Riverside Survey Party Chief 9 $76.50 $688.50 Locate control and estab. horiz/vert. control. Prepare Corner Records/work map. Survey Party Chief 18 $76.50 $1377.00 Principal Sur. Tech. I8 $60.53 $1089.54 Calculations Survey Party Chief 9 $76.50 $688.50 Set rough grade stakes Survey Party Chief 9 $76.50 $688.50 Principal Sur. Tech. 9 $60.53 $544.77 Set finish grade stakes Survey Party Chief 18 $76.50 $1377.00 Principal Sur. Tech. 18 $60.53 $1089.54 As Builts Survey Party Chief 5 $76.50 $382.50 Principal Sur. Tech. 5 $60.53 $302.65 Pre -Construction Meeting Survey Party Chief 2 $76.50 $153.00 Supervision Senior Land Surv. Truck Cost TOTAL 4 4 $90.44 $35.00 $361.76 $140.00 $8,883.26 0 • 44 " " " PEDLEY METROLINK PLATFORM EXTENSION Construction Staking Cost Estimate Task/Personnel Hour Hourly Cost TOTAL Locate control and estab. horiz/vert. control. Prepare work map. Survey Party Chief 18 $76.50 $1377.00 Principal Sur. Tech. 18 $69.53 $1089.54 Calculations Survey Party Chief 9 $76.50 $688.50 Set rough grade stakes Survey Party Chief 9 $76.50 $688.50 Principal Sur. Tech. 9 $60.53 $544.77 Set finish grade stakes Survey Party Chief 18 $76.50 $1377.00 Principal Sur. Tech. 18 $60.53 $1089.54 As Builts Survey Party Chief 5 $76.50 $382.50 Principal Sur. Tech. 5 $60.53 $302.65 Pre -Construction Meeting Survey Party Chief 2 $76.50 $153.00 Safety Meetings Survey Party Chief 3 $76.50 $229.50 Principal Sur. Tech. 3 $60.53 $181.59 Supervision Senior Land Surv. Truck Cost TOTAL 4 $90.44 $361.76 4 $35.00 $140.00 $8,605.85 45 AGENDA ITEM 9 • " I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement #02-33-075 (Amendment #5 to Agreement # RO-2027), with DMJM + HARRIS for Additional Engineering Design and Construction Support Services for the North Main Corona Metrolink Station STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Agreement #02-33-075 (Amendment #5 to Agreement # RO- 2027), for DMJM +HARRIS to provide additional Engineering Design Services for the Final North Main Corona PS&E, and to provide Engineering Support for the construction of the North Main Corona Metrolink Station, for an additional Base amount of $80,000.00; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to ROTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the November 10, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-2027 to Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM) for Phase I Conceptual Studies for the proposed new Metrolink Station to be located in Downtown Corona near Main Street and Route 91 (the Project). The scope of the Phase I Studies was to encompass all the preliminary activities to develop a master plan for the development of the station, including environmental clearance, and obtain the required approvals for the proposed station site from the City of Corona, the BNSF Railroad, and all other affected agencies. The Contract for these Phase 1 services was for a base amount of $217,909, with an extra work contingency of $27,091, for a total not to exceed value of $245,000. At the December 13, 2000 Commission meeting, the Commission awarded Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2027 to (DMJM) for final Plans, Specification & Estimate (PS&E) Design Services for the Project. The Contract for these final PS&E design services was for a base amount of $625,000, with an extra work contingency of $75,000, for a total not to exceed value of $945,000. 46 In May of 2001, the Executive Director authorized Amendment #2 to Contract No. RO- 2027 to (DMJM) to cover several administrative changes to the Contract, as requested by RCTC legal counsel. This was a no cost change and as such, the amended Contract total remained at a not to exceed value of $945,000. At the July 13, 2001 ROTC meeting, the Commission awarded Amendment #3 to contract No. RO-2027 to (DMJM) for additional final design services required by ROTC to provide for the design of an expanded station, due to the purchase of an additional 1.5 acres from the City of Corona. Amendment #3 also provided for an initial Track PS&E package for BNSF for track improvements required for the proposed station. These initial track PS&E design services were not included in DMJM ' s original scope of work. The Contract for these additional services was for a base amount of $238,100, with an extra work contingency of $61,900, for a total value of $300,000. This action established a new total not to exceed contract value of $1,245,000. At the December 12, 2001 RCTC meeting, the Commission awarded Agreement # 02- 33-036 (Amendment #4 to Contract No. RO-2027) to (DMJM) for additional rail improvements which were not within DMJM's original scope of services. The Contract for the additional railroad survey and Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Design Services, was for a not to exceed amount of $44,337. This action established a new total not exceed Contract value of $1,289,337. DMJM + HARRIS has completed the design of the project, and is in the final stages of getting the City of Corona's sign -off of the plans. There were several work tasks, required by the City, which exceeded the DMJM + Harris original estimate for the final PS&E design. Also, DMJM + Harris original scope of work did not include engineering support during construction. Staff has requested that DMJM + Harris provide a scope of services and cost of services for these two tasks. At this time staff is still negotiating with DMJM + Harris for these services. The final negotiated scope and costs will be presented at the Budget & Implementation Committee Meeting. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 02/03 Amount: $80,000 Source of Funds: FTA Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 221-33-81302 Project #3804 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 5/13/02 • 47 " " AGENDA ITEM 10 " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement #02-33-077 (Amendment #5 to Agreement #RO-9832) with Ninyo & Moore for Additional On Call Material Testing Services in support of Measure "A" Construction Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Agreement #02-33-077 (Amendment #5 to Agreement #RO-9832) with Ninyo & Moore, to provide additional On Call Material Testing Services in support of Measure "A" Projects scheduled for construction this upcoming fiscal year, for an additional Base amount of $177,100 and an additional Contingency of $17,710, for a total not to exceed Agreement amount of $194,810.00; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the October 8, 1997 meeting, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-9832 to Ninyo & Moore to provide on -call material testing services for Measure "A" Construction Projects. The following table is a summary of Ninyo & Moore's Contract to date: Date Description Base Work Changes 11/24/97 Original Agreement (97/98) $119,700 06/17/98 EW #1 - Additional Testing $4,000 07/08/98 Addendum #1 (98/99) $91,760 Extra Work Changes Total Contract Value $23,940 $143,640 ($4,000) $143,640 $0 $235,400 48 " " " 11/12/98 Addendum #2 $9,245 $0 $244,645 01/12/99 EW #2 - West Corona Repairs $4,000 ($4,000) $244,645 04/01/99 EW #3 - Additional Testing $427 ($427) $244,645 04/02/99 EW #4 - Additional Testing $15,000 ($15,000) $244,645 07/14/99 Addendum #3 (99/00) $77,185 $22,815 $344,645 07/12/00 Addendum #4 (00/01) $122,752 $0 $467,398 10/15/01 EW #5 - Additional Testing SW#36 $20,719 ($20,719) $467,398 CURRENT CONTRACT STATUS $464,789 $2,609 $467,398 TOTAL INVOICED TO DATE $443,447 FUNDS REMAINING $21,342 $2,609 $23,951 There is now a need for additional On Call Material Testing Services for the up -coming Measure "A" Projects scheduled for construction this upcoming 2002/2003 fiscal year. Staff has been working with Ninyo & Moore to develop a new scope of work and cost of services for the additional On Call Surveying Services required to support the Measure "A" Construction Projects and tasks scheduled for the next fiscal year. Staff has completed negotiations with Ninyo & Moore and is in agreement with the attached Ninyo & Moore scope of work and associated costs for the following scheduled work: Project Route 74 Initial Grading North Main Corona La Sierra - Phase I La Sierra - Phase II Downtown Riverside Pedley Platform Start July 2002 (New Work) July 2002 (New Work) July 2002 (New Work) Oct 2002 (New Work) July 2002 (New Work) Aug 2002 (New Work) 02/03 Budget Remaining Funds Additional Funds Requested Additional Contingency Requested (10%) Proposed Budget $ 21,342 $ 99,200 $ 21,000 $ 28,500 $ 13,600 $ 14,800 $198,442 $ 21,342 $177,100 $ 17,710 The proposed scope of work and cost estimates received from Ninyo and Moore are attached for your review. The existing $2,609 of extra work contingency will remain in place for future on call contingencies. 49 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Amount: $ 65,810 $129,000 Source of Funds: FTA, STA, LTF, CMAQ and Measure Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 221-33-81120 Fiscal Procedures Approved: C Date: 5/13/02 Attachment: Proposed Scope Work and Cost Estimates from Ninyo & Moore Dated April 29, 2002 • • 50 Act Summary Contract Dareilinent Original Agreement RO-9832 Extra Work No. 1 Amendment No, 1 Amendment No. 2 Extra Work No. 2 Extra Work No. 3 Extra Work No. 4 Amendment No. 3 Amendment No. 4 Extra Work No. 5 Table 'l RCTC On -Call Materials Testing Services Budget Summary and Projection Totals: Project Billing Summary Proi_s Nara Rt. 91 Sound Wall # 35 Metrolink Station Rt. 91 Phase 1 Sound Walls Pigeon Pass Park & Ride orona Pavement Repair Pdl iry "Y° West Corona Overcrossing La Sierra Overcrossing SR -91 Phase 2 Sound Wall No. 98 SR -91 Sound Wall Nos. 635A & B 1-10 and Apache Trails SR -91 S.W. Nos. 110,121 8161 SR -91 S.W. No. 36 Highway 74, Lake Elsinore Totals: Jute; authorization 11/24/97 $119,699.53 6/17/98 $4,000.00 7/8198 $91,760.86 11/12/98 $9,245,15 1/12/99 $4,000.00 4/1/99 $427.00 412/99 $15,000.00 7/14/99 577,185.00 8/1/00 $122,752.00 10/16/01 $20,719.00 Cost Accumulated $23,781.65 $109,955.15 $57,940.03 $16,500.51 $7,052.63 $9,224.61 $44,635.74 546,922.16 $16,333,02 $31,369.50 $10,472.81 $57,757.62 $11,601.61 $0.00 $443,447.24 $464,786.56 Change in X03 Work $23,940.00 ($4,000.00) $0.00 $0.00 ($4,000.00) ($427.00) ($15,000.00) $22,815.00 $0.00 $0.00 $23,326.00 Rudget Difference $23,781.65 $0.00 $109,956.15 $0.00 $57,840.03 $0.00 $16,500.51 $0.00 $7,052.63 $0.00 $9,224.61 50.00 $44,635.74 $0.00 $46,922.16 $0.00 $16,333.02 $0.00 $31,369.50 50.00 $10,472.81 $0.00 $57,757.82 $0.00 $22,976.58 $11,374.97 $9,966.35 $9,966.35 $464,788.56 $21,341.32 .. ,6112002 Currently Authorized Budget: Billed to Date: April 29, 2002. Currently Authorize& LtQU.o Exceed $119,699.53 S143,639,53 $123,699.53 S143,639.53 $215,460.41 $235,400.41 $224,705.56 $244,645.56 $228,705.56 $244,645.56 $229,132.56 $244,645.56 $244,132.56 $244,645.56 $32 1,317.56 $344,645.56 $444,069.56 $467,397.56 $464,788.56 S467,397.56 $464,788.56; $467,397.56 $464,788.56) $443,447.24 2002/2003 Project Budget Projection P.lvtectNNmm North Main Corona Metrolink Station La Sierra Station Parking Lot Expansion - Phase 1 La rra Station Parking Lot Expansion - Phase 2 D wn Riverside Station Parking Lot Expansion Pe Station Parking Lot Expansion Total Estimated Fee: Budget Surplus: 2001/2002. Budget Surplus: $21,341.3, Fstimated Fee $99,200.00 $21,000.00 $26,500.00 $13,600.00 $14,800.00 $177,100.00 521,341.32 Total 2002/2003 Contract Addendum: $155,758.68 51 *sure and £nvironrnental Sclen= COnsultana Mr. Karl Sauer Riverside County Transportation Commission -3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services North Main Corona Metrolink Station Riverside, California • April. 29, 2002 Proposal No. P -03770Q Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this proposal to provide geotecbnical and materials obser- vation and testing services during the construction of the proposed North Main Corona Metrolink Station to be located in Corona, California. We have prepared this proposal based on our discus sioris with you and our understanding of the project. We did not have the opportunity to review the approved project plans and specifications for the project in preparation of this proposal. We can modify our proposal, if requested, upon review of the approved plans and specifications and contractor's schedule when this information becomes available. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Based on our conversations with you, we understand that the proposed project includes con- struction of a new Metrolink Station, with associated passenger platforms. pedestrian overcrossing, parking, and associated facilities. We understand that the estimated construction cost is approximately $5,000,00tu.vu. PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to provide soils and materials observation and testing services during the construc- tion of the proposed project. The purpose of our observation and testing will be to document that satisfactory materiels and sound construction practices were used, and that the construction was 475 Goddard • Suite Z00 • Irvine. California 92618 • Phone 1949) 753-7070 - Fax (949) 753-7071 On Arlo. . ca., nionn ■ Inc Anoeles - Oakland • Las Vegas • Salt Lake City • Ontario 52 Riverside County Transportation Commission April 29, 2002 North Main Corona Metrolink Station Proposal No. P -03770Q conducted in conformance with t7 «Pnendations of the geotechnical report, project plans, and project specifications, - • • Based on our understanding of this project, and our experience with similar projects, we propose the following scope of services: • Attendance at preconstruction and field meetings, as requested by RCTC representatives. • Field observation, documentation, and testing during the earthwork operations. Our field services will include field density testing of fill soils during excavation and grading for the foundations, as well as during placement of structure backfill and utility trench backfill, base materials and asphalt concrete at the site. We have assumed that approximately 240 hours of field services will be requested during field testing. • Field sampling and testing of concrete, as requested by RCTC, including casting of cylinders for compressive strength and testing for slump, air content, unit weight, and temperature. We anticipate sampling and testing of concrete for the platforms, lightweight concrete deck, and crash walls, including the CI:DH piles. We have assumed that approximately 240 hours of field. services will be requested. • Performance of off -site batch plant inspection and sampling for concrete during construc- tion, as requested by RCTC. We have assumed that approximately 120 hours of plant inspection services will be requested_ • Performance of materials inspection services, including the inspection of concrete rein- forcement, field and shop welding, and high -strength bolting, as needed. We have assumed that approximately 200 hours of field inspection services will be requested. • Performance of laboratory testing of the fill, concrete, and reinforcing steel in accordance with the contract documents, specifications, and as requested by ROTC_ • Geotechnical field assistance in evaluation of the suitability of foundation materials, overex- cavation recommendations, and removal of unsuitable materials (if any). • Preparation of daily field reports and other memoranda to summarize the field operations and test results. • Preparation of a final report summarizing the results of our field and laboratory testing. • Project coordination and client`a.aison, including scheduling of personnel to provide obser- vation and materials testing services. A114n.fi / ylnr/nk*uorm 53 Riverside County Transportation Commission April 29, 2002 North Main Corona Metrolink Station Proposal No. P -03770Q FEE ESTIMATE Our geotechnical and materials testing services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis, in accordance with the direct hourly rates, indirect costs, and profit shown on the attached Break- down of Estimated Fee (Table 1), as well as the laboratory test rates presented in Tables 2 and 3. Based on the scope of services ann a,surned durations described herein, we estimate that our fee will be approximately $99,200 (ninety-nine thousand two hundred dollars). A detailed break- down of our estimated fee is presented in Tables 1 and 2_ It should be noted that this estimated fee is based on an assumed project duration and anticipated workload. As previously mentioned, our services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis and will be invoiced based on the actual amount of time spent on the project. Field time will be supported by daily reports of field observations and/or field memoranda. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and we look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, or if we might provide you with additional information, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE Jalal Vakili, Ph.D., RE. Principal Engineer MY/CAP/M.1 Attachments: Table 1— Breakdown of Estimated Fee Table 2 -- Laboratory Testing Estimated Fee Table 3 — Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing Distribution: (3) Addressee • • Riverside County Transportation Commission "Forth Main Corona Metrolink Station April 29, 2002 Proposal No. P -03770Q TABLE 1- BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED FEE Field Observatioximiltgimatairsa Senior Field Technician (incl. nuclear gauge) 480 hours @7a $ 28.22 ./hour $ 13,545.60 Field Technician/Plant Inspector 120 hours ® 5 28.22 /hour $ 3,386.40 Special Inspector 200 hours ® $ 29.60 /hour $ 5,920.00 $ 22,852.00 R.eprt Prepiai ation Principal Engineer/Geologist Project Engineer/Geologist Technical Illustrator Word Processing/Reproduction rincipal Engineer/Geologist Project Engineer/Geologist Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Direct Labor Indirect Cost ® 177% Total Direct plus Indirect cost Profit @ 10% Total Direct, Indirect, and Profit Other Direct Costs Laboratory Testing (see Table 2) Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage 4 hours @ $ 48.00 /hour $ 192.00 16 hours @ $ 38.00 /hour $ 608.00 8 hours @ $ 19.00 /hour $ 152.00 8 hours ® $ 17.50 /hour $ 1.40.00 S 1,092.00 40 hours @ $ 48.00 /hour S 1,920.00 S 3,040:00 80 hours @a $ 38.00 /hour 800 hours ® $ 6.00 /hour 4,960.00 S 28,904.00 51,160.08 $ . 80,064.08 S 8,006.41 S 88,070.49 6,316.00 4,800.00 TOTAL. S 99,186.49 03770p0 -fee f/ln atiyinnre 55 Riverside County Transportation Commission North Main Corona Metrolink Station April 29, 2002 Proposal No. P -03770Q TABLE 2 - LABORATORY TESTING ESTIMATED FEE SoilSsillituslAggregaies ASTM tl 422 Sieve Analysis ASTM D 1557 Maximum Density CT 227 Cleanness Value ASTM D 2419 Sand Equivalent Subtotal 12 tests @ $ 95.00 /test $ 1,140.00 6 tests ® $ 150.00 /test $ 900.00 6 tests @ $ 110.00 /test $ 660.00 3 tests @ $ 80.00 /test $ . - 240.00 $ 2,940.00 Portland Cement Concrete ASTM C 39 Concrete Cylinders 80 tests @ $ 19.00 /test $ 1,520.00 Subtotal. $ 1,520.00 Asphalt Constete CT 366 Bveem Stability & Unit Weight CT 382 Extraction & Gradation Subtotal 4 tests (,a7 $ 170.00 /test $ 680.00 4 tests @ $ 190.00 /test $ 760.00 1,440.00 Reinforcing Steel ASTM A 615 Bend Test, #11 or Smaller 4 tests ® $ 42.00 /test $ 168.00 ASTM A 615, Tensile Test, #11 or Smaller 4 tests @ $ 42.00 /test $ 168.00 Subtotal Structural Steel ASTM A 370, Tensile Test up to 100 kips Subtotal T( 4L 336.00 4 tests @ $ 20.00 /test 5 80.00 80.00 S 6,316.00 • • • o3770pQ-fee *Win&Minors 56 " " Riverside County Transportation Commission North Main Corona Metrolink Station April 29, 2002 Proposal No. P -03770Q TABLE 3 -- SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Test, Test Designation, and Price Per Test - Soils Atierberg Umiis, D 4318, CT 204 5 125 California Beidng Ratio (CBR), D 1863 " --" " " $ 350 Chloride and Sulfate Content, CT 417 & CT 422 -....... ...._............. S 100 Consordadon, D 2435, CT 219 5 200 Consolidation - Time Rate, D 2435, CT 219 5 50 Direct Shear-- Undisturbed, D 3080, CT 222. $ 200 Direct Shear- Remolded, D 3080, CT 222.... ...... _- ........... ....._ $ 250 Durability index. CT 229 $ 140 Expansion index, D 4629, UBC 16-2......___ ........... .......... _S 140 Expansion Potential (Method A). 0 4546 $ 130 Expansive Pressure (Method C), D 4546 S 130 Geofabric Tensile and Elongation Test, D 4632 5 150 Hydraulic ConduclMty, D 5084.-.. S 250 Hydrometer Analysis, D 422, CT 203 $ 140 Double Hydrometer Analysis, D 422, Cr 203 _5 270 Maximum Density 0 1557, D 698, CT 216, & AAShiTO T-180 $ 150 (Rode corrections add 565) Moisture, Ash, & Organic Matter of Peat/Organic Soils ..... $ 90 Moisture Only, 0 2216, CT 226 $ 18 Moisture and Density, 13 2937 5 30 Permeability, CH, D 2134, CT 220 $ 200 pH and Resistivity, CT 643 5 95 R -value, D 21444, CT 301 5 215 Sand Equivalent, D 2419, CT 217 . "7... $ 60 Sieve Analysis, D 422, CT 202 5 95 Sieve Analysis, 200 Wash, D 1140, CT 202 $ 75 Specific Gravity, D 854 S 75 Triaxial Shear, C.O.. three points, CT 230......:� ........................" S 350 Triaxial Shear, C.U., three points, 0 4767, CT 230 S. 325 Trladal Shear, U.U-, one point, D 2850, CT 230 $ 125 Unconfined Compression. D 2166, CT 221 $ 160 Wax Density,13 1168 S 75 Jtoofinq Built-up Roofing, cut-out samples. D 2829 S 150 Roofing Materials Analysis, 0 2829 5 450 Rooting Tile Absorpiion, (set of 5), UBC 15-5 $ 150 Roofing Tile Strength Test. (set of 5), UBC 15-5 S 150 Brick Absorption, 24 -hour submersion, C 67 ____ .................. -.$ 35 Brick Absorption, 5 -hour boiling, C 67 . $ 48 Brick Absorption. 7 -day, C 67 5 53 Brick Compression Test, C 67 ..... .......... --- ..... ....-........ .....-__ $ 34 Bride Efflorescence, C 67 $ 34 Brick Modulus of Rupture, C 67 S 34 Brick Moisture as received, C 67 -__- ..... ....,..... . $ 26 Brick Saturation Coefficient, C 67 5 44 Concrete Block Compression Test, 8x8x16, C 140 ____ 3 39 Concrete Block Conformance Package. c 90 5 350 Concrete Block Linear Shrinkage, C 426- ..... --- ......... ---- $ 100 Concrete Block link Weight and Absorption, C 140 S 50 Cores, Compression or Shear Bond, CA Code._. 5 34 Masonry Grout, 3x3x6 prism compression, USC k,- . ti S 19 Masonry Mortar, 2x4 cylinder oampression. USC 21-16 5 19 Masonry Prism, half size, compression, UBC 21-17 $ 90 Concrete Cement Analysis Chemical and Physical, C 109 5 1,500 Compression Tests, 6x'12 Cylinder, C 39 $ 15 Concrete Mix Design Review, Job Spec S 125 Concrete M iix Design, per Trial Batch, 6 cylinder, ACi..............-.- 5 $50 Concrete Cores, Compression (excludes sampling), C 42-.... $ 40 Drying Shrinkage, C 157._ . 5 200 Flexural Test, C 78 ..,. $ 40 Flexural Test, C 293 $ 45 Flexural Test, CT 523 5 50 GunitelShotcrete, Panels, 3 cut cores per panel end test, ACI $ 190 Jobsiie Testing Laboratory Quote Lightweight Concrete Fill, Compression, C 495 5 30 Petrographic Analysis, C 856 $ 1,000 Splitting Tensile Strength, C 496 $ 65 Reinforcing and Stn. ctural_Steel Fireproofing Density Test, UBC 7-6 5 50 Hardness Test, Rockwell, A-370 S 40 High Strength Bolt, Nut & Washer Conformance, set, A-32 5 100 Mechanically Spliced Reinforcing Tensile Test, AC1.. $ 80 Pre -Stress Stand (7 wire), A418 $ 125 Chemical Analysis, A-36, A-615 -5 100 Reinfordng Tension or Bend up to No. 11, A615 & A 706 __..._ $ 42 Structural Steel Tensile Test Up to 200,000 lbs. (machining extra), A 370 5 Welded Reinforcing Tensile Test: Up to No. 11 bars, ACI-_-._ 5 Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Mix Design, Caltrans $ 2,000 Asphalt Mix Design Review, Job Spec - $ 135 Extraction, % Asphalt, Inducting Gradation, D 2172, CT 310........ $ 190 Film Stripping. CT 302 $ 80 Hveem Stability and Unit Weight CTM or ASTM, CT 386 $ 170 Marshall Stability, Flow and Unit Weight, T-245 5 190 Maximum Theoretical Unit Weight, D 2041 $ 90 Swell, CT 305 5 150 Unit Weight sample or core, 0 2726, CT 308 5 75 52 46 AciarenAtes Absorption, Coarse, C 127 $ 25 Absorption. Fine, C 128 4 ........._.........._ $ 25 Clay Lumps and Friable Particles. C 142 5 95 Cleanness Value, CT 227 -.-.._._ ...... ........._........ -.:..........--. $ 110 Crushed Particles, CT 206_-_-____ 130 Durability, Coarse, CT 229 $ 120 Durability, Fine, CT 229 - 5 120 Los Angeles Abrasion, C 131 or C 535 $ 165 Mortar making Draperies of line aggregate, C 87. $ 245 Organic impurities, C 40 $ 50 Potential Reactivity of Aggregate (Chemical Method), C 289...._5 350 Sand Equivalent, CT 217.......... $ e0 Slave Analysts, Coarse Aggregate, C 136 $ 95 Sieve Analysis, Fine Aggregate (including wash), C136 ....---5 95 Sodium Sulfate Soundness (per size fraction), C 88._...... .......... $ 145 Specific Gravity. Coarse, C 127 --" ..$ 65. specific Gravity, Fine, C 128 . 5 75 Ninyo & Moore Is accredited to perform the AASHTO equivalent of many ASTM test procedures. /sjffyo&/oltlre 57 %r / &Niunre Beare{hNcal aril Environmental Scicncec ConSuttancs April 29, 2002 Proposal No. P -03770R Mr. Karl Sauer Riverside County Transportation 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion -- Phase I Riverside, California Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this proposal to provide geotechnical and materials obser- vation and testing services during the construction of the proposed La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion — Phase 1 project in Riverside, California. The services presented herein are based on our conversations with personnel from your office. We did not have the opportunity to review the approved project plans and specifications for the project in preparation of this pro- posal. We can modify our 4 ' if requested, upon review of the approved plans and specifications and contractor's schedule when this information becomes available. PROTECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the proposed project includes construction of a new asphalt concrete paved, at -grade parking lot to be constructed on a currently vacant lot. We understand grading opera- tions will consist of clearing and grubbing, scarification, moisture conditioning, and compaction of the near surface soils_ We further understand that the new pavement section will consist of as- phalt concrete over aggregate base materials. We understand that the estimated construction cost is approximately $725,000-00 and has an anticipated construction duration of approximately four months. • • 475 Goddard • Suite 200 • Irvine, California 97616 • Phone (949) 753-7070 Fax (9491 753-7071 - - .._ n...,.e.,, • f- C,tnrIrf • tat vrnas • Salt Lake City • Ontario - JH " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission April 29, 2002 La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Phase 1 Proposal No_ P -03770R PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to provide soils and materials observation and testing services during the construc- tion of the proposed project. The purpose of our observation and testing will be to document that satisfactory materials and sound construction practices were used, and that the construction was conducted in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, project plans, and specifications. Based on our understanding of this project, and our experience with similar projects, we propose the following scope of services; " Attendance at preconstniction and field meetings, as requested by RCTC representatives. " Field observation, documentation, and testing during the earthwork and asphalt concrete pavement operations. Our field services will include field density testing of fill, trench back - fill, subgrade, aggregate base, and asphalt concrete. We have assumed that half-time observation and testing services will be requested during rough grading and that approxi- mately, 80 hours of field services will be requested during utility trench backfill, and the placement of aggregate base and asphalt concrete. " Field sampling and testing of concrete, as needed, including casting of cylinders for com- pressive strength and testing for ball penetration, air content, unit weight, and temperature_ We have assumed that approximately 16 hours of field services will be requested. " Performance of off -site batch plant/production plant inspection and sampling for concrete and asphalt during const: "'_, have assumed that approximately 24 hours of plant in- spection services will be requested. " Geotechnical field assistance in evaluation of the suitability of foundation materials, overex- cavation recommendations, and removal of unsuitable materials (if any). " Preparation of daily field reports and other memoranda to summarize the field operations and test results. In addition, we will maintain project files in accordance with the Caltrans filing procedures for the project, " Project coordination and client liaison, including scheduling of personnel to provide obser- vation and materials testing services. 2 4thryott/ ytoura 59 p 2002 29, Riverside County Transportation Commission pro osal Na. April l 702 La Sierra Metrolinkk Station Parking Lot Expansion. — Phase 1 FEE ESTIMATE Our geotechnical and materials testing services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis ai accordance with the direct hourly rates, indirect costs, and profit shown on the attached Break- down of Estimated Fee (Table I), as well as the laboratory testing rates presented in Tables 2 and our 3. Based on the scope of services and assumed durations described herein, we estimate that our fee will be approximately S21,000 (twenty-one thousand dollars). A detailed breakdown ofestimated fee is presented in Table 1_ It should be noted that this estimated fee is based on an as- sumed jroect duration and anticipated workload. As previously mentioned, our services will be project provided on a time -and -materials basis and will be invoiced based on the actual amount of time jro the ect. Field time w� . supported by daily reports of field observations and/or spent on p field memoranda. We a preciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and we look forward to working with. you P p on this project. Should you have any questions regarding thus p proposal, or if we might provide you with additional information, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE .lalal Vakili, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer IKSY/CAP/JV/kl Attachments: Table 1— Breax ?uTe ling Estimated Fee Table 2 —Laboratory Table 3 -- Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing Distribution: (3) Addressee • • • 0377901 3 ¥n511 our 60 Riverside County Transportation Commission April 29, 2002 •1.a Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion. - Phase 1 Proposal No. P-037708 • TABLE 1'- BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED FEE Senior Field Technician (incl. nuclear gauge) 96 hours ® $ 28.22 /hour $ 2,709.12 Field Technician/Plant Inspector 24 hours ® $ 28.22 /hour $ 677.28 $ 3,386.40 Subtotal Rgor reparation Principal Engineer/Geologist 2 hours ® $ 48.00 /hour $ 96.00 Project Engineer/Geologist 8 hours @ $ 38.00 /hour $ 304.00 Technical Illustrator 4 hours ® $ 19.00 /hour $ 76.00 Word Processing/Reproduction 4 hours ® $ 17.50 /hour $ 70.00 Subtotal $ 546.00 Project Coordin�fion Meeting and ecngi a� ld aSi nc Principal Engineer/Geologist 16 hours ® $ 48.00 /hour $ 768.00 Project Engineer/Geologist 32 hours @ $ 38.00 /hour $ 1,216.00 Subtotal $ 1,984.00 Direct Labor Indirect Cost ® 177% Total Direct plus Indirect Cost Profit @ 10% Total Direct, Indirect, and Profit Other Direct Cuts Laboratory Testing (see Table 2) Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage 120 hours @ $ 6.00 /hour $ 5,916.40 $ 10,472.03 $ 16,388.43 $. 1,638.84 18,027.27 2,232.00 720.00 TOTAL S 20,979.27 p]7711pR•fee 1FIngagvtoore 61 0Q 2 29, 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission Proposal No. April P-03 2 02 La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion - Phase 1 TABLE 2 - LABORATORY TESTING ESTIMATED FEE !Snit and Aggregates ASTM D 422 Sieve Analysis 4 tests @ $ 95.00 /test $ 380.00 • ASTM D .1557 Maxirnuxn Density 4 tests @ $. 150.00 . /test $ 600.00 CT 227 Cleanness Value 2 tests @ $ 110.00 /test $ 220.00 ASTM D 2419 Sand Equivalent 2 tests @ $ 80.00 /test $ 160.00 $ 1,360.00. Portland Cememt Conctete ASTM C 39 Concrete Cylinders Subtotal Subtotal 8 tests @ $ 19.00 /test $ . 152.00 $ 152.00 A.gpbalt .Qn ate CT 366 Hveem Stability & Unit Weight 2 tests @ $ 170.00 /test $ 340.00 CT 382 Extraction & Gradation 2 tests @ $ 190.00 /test $ 380.00 Subtotal 5 720.00 $ 2,232.00 03770p4 -fee /jlefOk4hoore 62 Riverside County Transportation Commission April 29, 2002 La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion — Phase 1 Proposal No_ P-037708 1 TABLE 3 — SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Test, Test Designation, and Price Per Test Soils Atterberg Limits, D 4318, CT 204 $ California Bearing Ratio (CSR), D 1883 $ Chloride and Sulfate Content, CT 417 & CT 422 S Consolidation, ID 2435. CT 219 $ Consolidation —lime Rate, Cr 2435, Cr 219 S Direct Shear — Undisturbed, D 3080, CT 222 a Direct Shear— Remolded, D 3080, CT 222 ... $ Durability Index. CT 229 $ Expansion Index_ 0 4829, UBC 18.2 _ $ Expansion Potential (Method A), 0 4546... $ Expansive Pressure (Method C), 0 4546 $ Geofabric Tensile and Elongation Test, D 4632 S Hydraulic Conductivity, 0 5084 $ Hydrometer Analysis, p 422, CT 203 5 Double Hydrometer Analysts, 0 422, CT 203 $ Maximum Density 01557, 0 696, CT 216, & AASHTO T-180 5 (Rode correctans add $85) Moisture, Ash, & Organic Matter of Peal/Organic Soils ...._.......„ $ 90 Molslure Only, D 2216. CT 226 $ 18 Moisture and Density, D 2937 5 30 Permeability. CH, D 2434, CT 220 $ 200 pH and Resistivity, CT 643 „..._.._ 5 95 R -value, D 2844, CT 301 $ 215 Sand Equivalent, D 2419. CT 217 $ 80 •Sieve Analysis. 0 422, CT 202 5 95 Sieve Analysis, 200 Wash, D 1140, CT 202 $ 75 Specific Gravity, 0 854 $ 75 Triaxtal Shear, CD., three points, CT 230 S 350 Triaxiat Shear, C.U., three points, D 4767, CT 230 5 325 Triaxtal Shear, U.U., one point, 0 2850, CT 230 $ 125 Unconfined Cbmpression, D 2168, CT 221 5 160 Wax Density, D 1188..- $ 75 Roofing Built-up Rooting, cut-out samples, 0 2829 „ S 150 Roofing Materials Analysis, D 2829 $ 450 Roofing Tile Absorption. (set of 5), UDC 15.5 $ 150 Roofing Tile Strength Test, (set of 5), UBC 15-5 $ 150 Mao Bride Absorption, 24-hoursubmersicn, C 67 5 Brick Absorption. 5 -hour boiling, C 67.„ $ Brick Absorption, 7 -day, C 87 $ Bride Compression Test. C 67 -..„...„.._......... S Brick Efflot>ascence, C 67 $ Brick Modulus of Rupture, C 67 S Brick Moisture as received. C 67 ...............- ............ „............ _ $ Brick Saturation Coefficient, C 67 $ Concrete Black Compression Test, 8x8x16, C 140 ..............„ $ Concrete Block Conformance Package, C 90 S Concrete Block Linear Shrinkage, C 426. Concrete Block Unit Weight and Absorption. C 148 Cores, Compression or Shear Bond. CA Code $ Masonry Grout, 3x3x6 prism corripression, UBC 21-18 ....__.. 5 Masonry Mortar. 2x4 cylinder compression, UBC 21-16 $ Masonry Prism, half size, compression, UBC 21-17 $ Concrete 125 Cement Analysis Chemical and Physical, C 109.... $ 350 Compression Tests, 6x12 Cylinder, C 39 $ 100 Concrete Mix Design Review, Job Spec $ 200 Concrete Mix Design, per Trial Batch. 6 cylinder, ACI...„_,.......... „ $ 50 Concrete Cores, Compression (excludes sampling), C 42....„..._S 40 200 Drying Shrinkage, C 157... _ ..... $ 200 250 Flexural Test, C 78 5 40 140 Flexural Test: C 293 $ 45 140 Flexural Test, CT 523 5 50 130 GunitelShotcrete, Panels, 3 cut cores per panel and test, ACI $ 190 130 Jobsite Testing Laboratory Quote 150 Lightweight Concrete Fill, Compression, C 495 5 30 250 Petrographic Analysis, C 656 $ 1,000 140 Splitting Tensile Strength, C 496 $ 05 270 150 1,500 1.9 - 125 650 Relit anti Structure Steel Fireproofing Density Test, UOC7-6. S 50 Hardness Test, Rockwell, A-370 ._.. ... S 40 High Strength Boll Nut & Washer Conformance, set, A-32 $ 100 Mechanically Spliced Reinforcing Tensile Test, ACI $ 80 Pre -Stress Strand (7 wire), A 416 5 125 Chemical Analysis. A-38, A-615 _.. S 100 Reinfordng Tension or Bend up to No. 11, A 815 & A 706 $ 42 Structural Steel Tensile Test Up to 200,000 lbs. (machining extra), A 370 5 52 Welded Reinfordng Tensile Test: Up to No.11 bars, ACI _.__... $ 46 Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Mix Design, Calirans _ $ 2,000 Asphalt Mix Design Review. Job Spec $ 135 Extraction. % Asphalt. inducting Gradation, 0 2172. CT 310., 5 190 Film Stripping, CT 302 5 80 Hveem Stability and Unit Weight CTM or ASTM, CT 366 $ 170 Marshall Stability, Row and Unit Weight, T-245 $ 190 Maximum Theoretical Unit Weight 0 2041 5 90 Swell, CT 305 $ 150 Unit Weight sample or core, D 2728, CT 308 5 75 Ageresrates Absorption, Coarse, C 127 5 25 35 Absorption, Fine, C 128 — 5 25 ,d8 Clay Lumps and Friable Partides, C142....— ,.. S 95 53 Cleanness Value, CT 227 $ 110 &t Crushed Particles, CT 205.... ....... —. ....... ... ............ ...—......— .......... $ 130 34 Durability, Coarse, CT 229 $ 120 34 Durability. title, CT 229 $ 120 28 Los Angeles Abrasion. C 131 or C 535 5 165 a4 Mortar malting properties of fine aggregate, C 87 ............ ...— $ 24$ 39 Organic Impurities, C 40 $ 50 350 Potential Reactivity of Aggregate (Chemical Method), •C 289 5 350 100 Sand Equivalent, CT 217 $ 80 50 Sieve Analysis, Coarse Aggregate, C 136 ... $ 95 34 Sieve Analysis, Fine Aggregate (including wash), C 130 S 95 19 Sodium Sulfate Soundness (per size fraction). C 88... ............. 5 145 19 Specific Gravity. Coarse. C 127 $ 65_ 90 • Specific Gravity, Fine. C 128 $ 75 Ninya & Moore is accredited to perform the AASI-tTO equivalent of many ASTM test procedures. *nip &A pure ca 63 *Dr 8z - Georechnicit and Environmental Sciences ConSUltant! • April 29, 2002 Proposal No. P-037705 Mr. Karl Sauer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Services Subject: Proposal for Geotec S on Parking Lot Expansion al and Materials Phase 2 La Sierra Metrolink Riverside, California Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this proposal to provide geotechnical and materials obser- vation and testing services during the construction of the proposed La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion — Phase 2 project in Riverside, California. The services presented herein are based on our conversations with personnel from your office. We did not have the opportunity to review the approved project plans and specifications for the project in preparation of this proposal. We can modify our proposal, if requested, upon review of the approved plans and specifications and contractor's schedule when this information becomes available. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the proposed project includes construction of a new asphalt concrete paved, at -grade parking lot to be constructed on a currently vacant lot. We understand grading opera- tions scarification, moisture conditioning, and compaction will consist of clearing and grubbing, of the near surface soils. We further understand that the new pavement section will consist of as- phalt concrete over aggregate base materials. We understand that the estimated construction cost is approximately 51,000,000.00 and has an anticipated construction duration of approximately six months. • 475 Goddard • Suite 200 - !wine, California 92618 • Prone (949) 753-7070 • Fax (949) 753-7071 --64 _ / r r . Catr 1 ake City • Ontario Riverside County Transportationr' April 29, 2002 La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion — Phase 2 Proposal No_ P -03770S PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to provide soils and materials observation and testing services during the construc- tion of the proposed project. The purpose of our observation and testing will be to document that satisfactory materials and sound construction practices were used, and that the construction was conducted in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, project plans, and specifications. • Based on our understanding of this project, and our experience with similar projects, we propose the following scope of services: • Attendance at preconstruction and field meetings, as requested by RCTC representatives. • Field observation, documeniai e.., and testing during the earthwork and asphalt concrete pavement operations. Our field services will include field density testing of till, trench back - fill, subgrade, aggregate base, and asphalt concrete_ We have assumed that half-time observation and testing services will be requested during rough grading and that approxi- mately 120 hours of field services will be requested during utility trench backfill, and the placement of aggregate base and asphalt concrete. • Field sampling and testing of concrete, as needed, including casting of cylinders for com- pressive strength and testing for ball penetration, air content, unit weight, and temperature_ We have assumed that approximately 24 hours of field services will be requested. • Performance of off -site batch plant/production plant inspection and sampling for concrete and asphalt during construction_ We have assumed that approximately 32 hours of plant in- spection services will be requested. • Geotechnical field assistance in evaluation of the suitability of foundation materials, overex- cavation recommendations, and removal of unsuitable materials (if any)_ • Preparation of daily field reports and other memoranda to summarize the• field operations and test results. In additi_er will maintain project files in accordance with the Caltraus filing procedures for the projeri. • Project coordination and client liaison, including scheduling of personnel to provide obser- vation and materials testing services. _e 2 «Jn//nK*care 65 2002 , Riverside County Transportation Commission Pro osal No. April 29 29, 0S La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion — Phase 2 P FEE ESTIMATE Our geotechnical and materials testing services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with the direct hourly rates, indirect costs, and -profit shown on the attached Break- down of Estimated Fee (Table 1), as well as the laboratory testing rates presented in Tables 2 and 3_ Based on the scope of services and assumed durations described herein, we estimate that our fee will be approximately %28,500 (twenty-eight thousand five .hundred dollars). A detailed breakdown of our estimated fee is presented in Table 1. It should be noted that this estimated fee is based on an assumed project duration and anticipated workload. As previously mentioned, our services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis and will be invoiced based on the actual amount of time spent on the project. Field time will be supported by daily reports of field obser- vations and/or field memoranda. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and we look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, or if we might provide you with additional information, pu$. contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE Jalal Vakili, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer KSY/CAP/JV/kl Attachments: Table 1— Breakdown of Estimated Fee Table 2 Laboratory Testing Estimated Fee Table 3 — Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing Distribution: (3) Addressee *op & *nor e 66 3 Rierside County Transportation Commission April 29, 2002 ilia Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Phase 2 Proposal No. P-037705 r ---- TABLE 1- BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED FEE Field Okfitaalitataullesting_Sertios Senior Field Technician (incl. nuclear gauge) 144 hours @ $ 28.22 /hour -$ 4,063.68 Field Technician/Plant Inspector 32 hours @ $ 28.22 /hour $ 903.04 Subtotal $ 4,966.72 Report prepaation Principal Engineer/Geologist 2 hours @ $ 48.00 /hour $ 96.00 Project Engineer/Geologist 8 hours @ $ 38.00 /hour $ 304.00 Technical Illustrator 4 hours ® $ 19.00 /hour $ 76.00 Word Processing/Reproduction 4 hours @ $ 17.50 /hour $ 70.00 Subtotal S 546.00 project ,00rd!ation Meetijg„ a d eebuicgl Fi d A �, taupe 7nncipal Engineer/Geologist roject Engineer/Geologist 20 hours @ $ 48.00 /hour $ 960.00 40- hours rY $ 38.00 /hour $ 1,520.00 Subtotal $ 2,480.00 Direct Labor $ 7,992.72 Indirect Cost ®177% $ 14,147.11 Total Direct pIus Indirect Cost S 22,139.83 Profit (a 10% S. 2,213.98 Total Direct, Indirect, and Profit S. 24,353.82 Other Di gi, DStS Laboratory Testing (see Table 2) Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage 176 hours (a $ 6.00 /hour 3,124.00 1,056.00 TOTAL $ 28,533.82 03770p&Me At///Jgaft j4©we 67 0 20 , 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission proposal No. April 29 29, 2002 La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion - Phase 2 I TABLE 2 - LABORATORY TESTING ESTIMATED FEE aO1LandAggrega es ASTM D.422 Sieve Analysis 6 tests ® $ - 95.00 /test $ ' 570.00 4 tests ® $ 150.00 !test $ 600.00 ASTM D 1557 Maximum Density 110.00 /test S 330.00 CT 227 Cleanness Value 3 tests ® $ ASTM D 2419 Sand Equivalent 3 tests a© $ 80.00 /test $ 240.00 Subtotal $ 1,740.00 korXaand eme tl one ete ASTM C 39 Concrete Cylinders Subtotal All halt onaetg CT 366 Tlveem Stability & Unit Weight CT 382 Extraction & Gradation Subtotal TOTAL. _ 16 tests a) $ 19.00 /test $ 304.00 $ 304.00 3 tests ® $ 170.00 /test $ 510.00 3 tests @ $ 190.00 /test $ 570.00 $ 1,080.00 $ 3,124.00 • • • D977op3-ree *Hp & 001re 68 Riverside County Transportation Commission •La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion - Phase 2 April 29, 2002 Proposal No. P-037705 - TABLE 3 SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Test, Test Designation, and Price Per Test Soils Atteri>erg Limits. D 4318. CT 204..„...........„ ........................„.r...„ $ 125 California Bearing Ratio (CBR), 01883 5 350 Chloride and Sulfate Content, CT 417 & CT 422 ............ ..„...... „5 100 Consolidation. 0 2435, CT 219 $ 200 Consolidation — Time Rate, 0 2435, CT 219 ._.......................... $ 50 Direct Shear— Undisturbed, 0 3080, CT 222 5 200 Direct Shear— Remolded, 0 3080, CT 222 $ 250 Durability Index, CT 229 — $ 140 Expansion index, D 4829, UBC 18-2 $ 140 Expansion Potential (Method A), D 4548-- ...... ..............— $ 130 Expansive Pressure (Method C), D 4546 S 130 GeofabricTensile and Elongation Test, D 4632 $ 150 Hydraulic Condlictivity, D 5084 S 250 HydrometerAnatysls, 0 422, CT 203 S 140 Double Hydrometer Analysis, 0 422, CT 203 5 270 Maximum Density D 1557, D 698, CT 216. & AASH , , 150 (Rock oorrectitxrs add $65) Moisture, Ash, & Organic Matter of Peat&Organb Soils 5 90 Moisture Only, D 2218, CT 226 $ 18 Moisture and Density, 0 2937 .......... ..._-.._..„............... ............... S 30 Permeability, CH, 0 2434, CT 220 5 200 pH and Resistivity, CT 643 $ 95 R value, D 2844, CT 301 $ 215 Sand Equivalent, 0 2419, CT 217 5 $0 illSieve Analysis, D 422, CT 202 $ 95 Sieve Analysis, 200 Wash, D 1140, CT 202 $ 75 Specific Gravity,13 854 5 75 Trivial Shear, C.U., three points; CT 230 $ 350 Triaxlal Shear, C.U., three points. 0 4767, CT 230........ .......... _$ 325 Triaxial Shear. U.U., one point, D 2850, CT 230 $ 125 Unconfined Compression, D 2166, CT 221 S 160 Wax Density, 011136 $ 75 Roofing Built-up Roofing, cut-out samples, D 2829 $ 150 Roofing Materials Analysis, D 2829 $ 450 Rooting i ile Absorption, (set of 5), UBC 15-5 $ 150 Roofing Tile Strength Test, (set of 5), UDC 15.5 $ 150 Masonry Brick Absorption. 24 -hour submersion. C 67..„..........„.„ $ 35 Brick Absorption, 5 -hour boiling. C 67:,. 5 48 Brick Absorption, 7 -day, C 67 $ 53 Brick Compression Test, C 67 $ 34 Bride Efflorescence, C 67 $ 34 Brick Modulus of Rupture, C 67 ............. ....._....... Brick Moisture as received, C 67 $ 28 Brick Saturalibn Coefficient, C137 $ u Concrete Block Compression Test, 8x8x16, C 140 .............„......._ $ 39 Concrete Block Conformance Package, C 90 $ 350 Concrete Block Linear Shrinkage, C 426 ....... ------ ..... _......... _$ 100 Concrete Block Unit Weight and Absorption, C 140 - $ 50 Cores, Compression or Shear Bond, CA Code ....._-_. $ 34 Masonry Grout, 3x3,6 prism compression. UBC 21-18 5 19 Masonry Mortar, 2x4 cylinder compression, UBC 21-16 $ 19 Masonry Prism, half size, compression, UBC 21-17. ...... .___ $ 90 • Concrete Cement Analysis Chemical and Physical, C 109 $ ' 1,500 Compression Tests, 6x12 Cylinder, C 39 5 19 Concrete Mix Design Review, Job Spec $ 125 Concrete Mix Design, per Trial Batch. 6 cylinder, ACi.._....„ 5 650 Concrete Cores, Compression (excludes sampling), C 42 „. S 40 Drying Shrinkage, C 157 Flexural Test, C 78 .............. ...-..........-- Flexural Test, C 293 Flexural Test, CT 523 .5 . 50 Gunite/Shotcrote, Panels, 3 cut cores per panel and test, ACi_S 190 Jobsite Testing Laboratory_ .................... _ ...,-..............„..._.__... Quote Lightweight Concrete FOI, Compression, C 495....„ ...... —_---- $ 30 Petrographic Analysis, C 858 $ 1,000 Splitting Tensile Strength, C 496 $ 65 $ 200 �...... —.$ 40 $ 45 Reinforcing and Structu►alsteel Fireproofing Density Test, 0907-8 $ 50 Hardness Test. Rockwell, A-370 $ 40 High Strength Bolt, Nut & Washer Conformance, set. A-332......._$ 100 Mechanically Spliced Reinforcing Tensile Test, ACI ............ ....„ $ 80 Pre -Suess Strand (7 wire), A 416 $ 125 Chemical Analysis. A-38, A-815 $ 100 Reinforcing Tension or Bend up in No. 11, A 615 & A 706 $ 42 Structural Steel Tensile Test Up to 200,000 lbs. (machining extra). A 370 $ 52 Welded Reinrerdng Tensile Test Up to No.11 barS, ACl -._ $ 48 Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Mix Design, Call/ens S 2,000 Asphalt Mix Design Review, Job Spec $ 135 Extraction, % Asphalt, including Gradation, 0 2172. CT 310 $ 190 Filar Stripping, CT 302 $ 80 Hveein Stability and Unit Weight CTM or ASTM, Cl' 366 $ 170 Marshall Stability, Flow and Unit Weight, T-245.. $ 190 Maximum Theoretical Unit Weight, D 2041 $ 90 Swell, CT 305 $ 150 Unit Weight sample or core, D 2726, CT 306 $ 75 Aaerenates Absorption, Coarse, C 127 $ Absorption, Fine, C 128 •- „ Clay Lumps and Friable Particles, C 142 ...................... ......„......... $ Cleanness Value, CT 227 $ Crushed Particles, CT 205 $ Durability. Coarse. CT 229 Durability. Fine, CT 229 ....„..... „.-.......... _............ „........ „...„..._ $ Los Angeles Abrasion, C 131 or C 535 $ Mortar making properties of fine aggregate. C 87 $ Organic Impurities. C 40 . $ Potential Reactivity of Aggregate (Chemical Method), C 289.„.._-S Sand Equivalent, CT 217 ........ _.......... .......... .„... „..-.....„.......- $ Sieve Analysis, Coarse Aggregate, C 136 ..... ................ __...--... -$ Sieve Anatysls, Fine Aggregate (including wash), C 136 $ Sodium Sulfate Soundness (per size fraction), C 68 _. $ Specific Gravity, Coarse, C 127 S Specific Gravity, Fine, C 128 $ Ninyo A Moore is accredited to perform the AASHTO equivalent of many ASTM test procedures. 25 25 95 110 130 120 120 165 245 50 350 130 95 95 145 65 75 mr,Lc_r, iyinyo& curb de 69 jyingo ODD 1 Get -ethnical and Envirnnmenral SclenreS CansuNranu • April 29, 2002 Proposal No. P -03770T Mr, Karl Sauer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Subject: Proposal for Geotecbnical and Materials Testing Services Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Riverside, California Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this proposal to provide geotechnical and materials obser- vation and testing services during the construction of the proposed Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion project in Riverside, California. The services presented herein are based on our conversations with personnel from your office. We did not have the op- portunity to review the approved project plans and specifications for the project in preparation of this proposal. We can modify our proposal, if requested, upon review of the approved plans and specifications and contractor's schedule when this information becomes available. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the proposed project includes construction of a new asphalt concrete paved, at -grade parking lot to be constructed on a currently vacant lot. We understand grading opera- tions will consist of clearing and grubbing, scarification, moisture conditioning, and compaction of the near surface soils. We further understand that the new pavement section will consist of as- phalt concrete over aggregate base materials. We understand that the estimated construction cost is approximately $225,000.0C a .n anticipated construction duration of approximately four months_ • • 475 Goddard • Suite 200 - Irvine, California 92619 - Phone 1949) 753-7070 • Fax 1949) 753-7071 .._ - - Annarec . Oakland • Las VeCaS * Salt Lake City • Ontario 70 " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission April 29, 2002 Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Proposal No. P -03770T PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to provide soils and observation and testing services during the construe- tion of the proposed project. The purpose of our observation and testing will be to document that satisfactory materials and sound construction practices were used, and that the construction was conducted in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, project plans, and specifications. Based on our understanding of this project, and our experience with similar projects, we propose the following scope of services: " Attendance at preconstruction and field meetings, as requested by RCTC representatives. " Field observation, documentation, and testing during the earthwork and asphalt concrete pavement operations. Our field services will include field density testing of fill, trench back - fill, subgrade, aggregate base, and asphalt concrete. We have assumed that half-time observation and testing services will be requested during rough grading and that approxi- mately 40 hours of field services will be requested during utility trench backfill, and the placement of aggregate base and asphalt concrete. " Field sampling and testing of 'Concrete, as needed, including casting of cylinders for com- pressive strength and testing for ball penetration, air content, unit weight, and temperature. We have assumed that approximately 8 hours of field services will be requested. " Performance of off -site batch plant/production plant inspection and sampling for concrete and asphalt during construction. We have assumed that approximately 16 hours of plant in- spection services will be requested. " Geotechnical field assistance in evaluation of the suitability of foundation materials, overex- cavation recommendations, and removal of unsuitable materials (if any). " Preparation of daily field reports and other memoranda to summarize the field operations and test results_ In addition, we will maintain project files in accordance with the Caltrans filing procedures for the project. " Project coordination and client liaison, including scheduling of personnel to provide obser- vation and materials testing services. 2 71 Riverside County Transportation Commission April 29, 2002 pro osal No. P -03770T Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion p FEE ESTIMATE Our g eatechnical and materials testing services will be provided on a time-and_materials basi ak ed down of Estimated Fee (Table 1), accordance with the direct hourly rates, indirect costs, and profit shown on the attach as well as the laboratory testing rates presented in Tables 2 and 3. Based on the scope of services and assumed durations described herein, we estimate that our fee will be approximately S13,60u an' .4Gtl thousand six hundred dollars). A detailed breakdown on of our estimated fee is presented in Table 1. It should be noted that this estimated fee ur services n previously mentioned, an assumed project duration and anticipated workload. As � invoiced based on the actual amount will be provided on a time -and -materials basis and will of field observationsof time spent on the project. Field time will be supported by daily reports andfor field memoranda. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and we look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, or if we might provide you with additional information, please contact me at you convenience. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE Jalal Vakili, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer KSY/CAI'/JVfkd Attachments: Table 1— Breakdown of Estimated Fee Table 2 — Laboratory Testing Estimated Fee Table 3 — Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing Distribution: (3) Addressee • 3 iViiipsIVIOr et 72 Riverside County Transportation Commission April 29, 2002 owntown Riverside Metrolink Station Parlang Lot Expansion Proposal No. P -03770T TABLE 1- BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED FEE Field QbserY tn_aild �' n►'ces Senior Field Technician (incl. nuclear gauge) 48 hours ® $ 28.22 /hour $ 1,354.56 Field Technician/Plant Inspector 16 hours @ . $ 28.22 /hour $ 451.52 S 1,806.08 • Subtotal RtportErWituttiStn Principal Engineer/Geologist 2 hours ® $ 48.00 /hour $ 96.00 Project Engineer/Geologist 8 hours @ S 38.00 /hour $ 304.00 Technical Illustrator 4 hours ® $ 19.00 /hour $ 76.00 Word Processing/Reproduction 4 hours ® $ 17.50 /hour $ 70.00 Subtotal $ 546.00 Principal Engineer/Geologist Project Engineer/Geologist 8 hours @ $ 48.00 /hour $ 384.00 24 hours @ $ 38.00 /hour $ 912.00 Subtotal $ " 1,296.00 Direct Labor $ 3,648.08 Indirect Cost © 177% S 6,457.10 Total Direct plus Indirect Cost $ 10,105.18 Profit (a 10% $ 1,010.52 Total Direct, Indirect. ' "-^fit $ 11,115.70 Other.DDirtra Costs. Laboratory Testing (see Table 2) Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage 64 hours @ $ 6.00 /hour $ 2,082,00 384.00 TOTAL $ 13,581.70 03770pT.Fee *rya at ytunre 73 Riverside County Transportation April 29, 2002 Cax ••..- �': Proposal Na. P -03770T Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion TABLE 2 - LABORATORY TESTING ESTIMATED FEE rASTM.0 422 Sieve Analysis 4 tests @ $ 95.00 /test $ 380.00' ASTM D 1557 Maximum Density 3 tests @ $ 150.00 /test. $ - . 450.00 CT 227 Cleanness Value 2 tests @ $ 110.00 /test S 220.00 ASTM D 2419 Sand Equivalent 2 tests @ $ 80.00 /test _ S 160.00 Subtotal S 1,210.00 E., �ard Cone t oncrete 1 V (111 .—.5�� ASTM C 39 Concrete Cylinders Subtotal Auhalt Concrete CT 366 Hveem Stability & Unit Weight CT 382 Extraction & Gradation Subtotal TOTAL 8 tests @ $ 19.00 /test $ 152.00 s 152.00 2 tests 2 tests @ $ 170.00 /test @ S 190.00 /test $ 340.00 380.00 720.00 S 2,082.00 • • • 0377DpT-tee eirgoslyieoce 74 Riverside County Transportation Commission Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion April 29,2002 Proposal No_ P 0377OT TABLE 3 - SCH"- FEES FOR LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Test, Test Designation, and Price Per Test So" s Atterberg Limits, D 4318, CT 204. California Bearing Ratio (CBR), D 1883 Chloride and Sulfate Content, CT 417 & CT 422._.__ ...... . Consolidation, D 2435, CT 219 Consolidation -Time Rate, 0 2435, CT219............. -_ ____.... .. $ Direct Shear - Undisturbed, D 3000, CT 222 $ Direct Shear -Remolded, D 3080, CT 222 S Durabllty index, CT 229 . $ Expansion index, D 4829, UBC 16-2 S Expansion Potential (Method A), D 4546. ....... .-............. _...... ....r $ Expansive Pressure (Method C). D 4546 $ GeofabNicTensile and Elongation Test, D 4632 - $ Hydraulic Conductivity, D 5084_ $ Hydrometer Analysts, D 422, CT 203 $ Double Hydrometer Analysis, D 422, CT 203 $ Maximum Density D 1557, D 698, CT 218, & AASHTO T-150 $ (Rack corrections add $65) Moisture_ Ash, & Organic Matter of PeaUUOrgantc Soils $ Moisture Only, D 2210, CT 226 S Moisture and Density. D 2937 $ Permeability. CH, 0 2434, CT 220 $ pH and Resistivity, CT 643 s R value. 0 2844, CT 301 $ Sand Equhrafent le 2419. CT 217 _ ._...... .. $ Sieve Anatysls, D 422, CT 202 $ Sieve Analysis, 200 Wash, D 1140, CT 202 $ Specific Gravity. D 854 .-. 5 Triaxlal Shear, C_U_, three points, CT 230 S Trfaxial Shear, C.U., three points,13 4767, CT 230 ._ $ Triaxial Shear, U.U., one point, D 2850, CT 230 S Unconfined Compression, D 2166, CT 221 $ Wax Density, D 1188 $ Concrete 5 125 Cement Analysis Chemical and Physical. C 109 $ 1,500 $ 350 Compression Tests, 6s12 Cylinder, C 39 .......... _............_........... S 19 $ 100 Concrete Mix Design Review, Job Spec »S 125 5 200 Concrete Nib( Design, per Trial Batch, 6 cylindersA6.- $ 650 50 Concrete Cores, Compression (excludes sampling). C 42..,_.-_S 40 200 Drying Shrinkage, C 157,- ..... ..151............-.................................... S 200 250 Flexural Test. C 78 S 40 140 Flexural Test, C 293 $ 45 140 Flexural Test, CT 523 $ 50 130 GunitelShotcrete, Panels, 3 sit cores per panel and test, Act -$ 190 130 Jobslte Testing Laboratory Quote 150 Lightweight Concrete Fill, Compression, C 495 $ 30 250 Petrographic Analysis. C 856 S 1,000 140 Splitting Tensile Strength, C 496 $ 65 270 150 90 18 30 200 95 215 90 95 75 75 350 325 125 160 75 Rooting Built-up Roofing, cut-out samples, D 2829 $ 150 Roofing Materials Analysis, D 2829 $ 450 Roofing Tile Absorption, (set of 5), UBC 15.5 5 150 Roofing Tile Strength Test. (set of 5), UBC 15-5 $ 150 Masonry Brick Absorption, 24 -hour submersion, C 67._ ... ______ S 35 Brick Absorption, 5 -hour balling, C 67 $ 48 Brick Absorption, 7 -day, C 67 5 53 Brick Compression Test, C 67 ._... $ 34 Brick Efflorescence, C 67 $ 34 Brick Modulus of Rupture, C 67 W 5 34 Brick Moiswre as received, C 67 5 28 Bride Saturation Coeffident, C 67 _ $ ' 44 Concrete Block Compression Test, Bx8x16, C140.— ..... ........- $ 39 Concrete Block Conformance Package, C 90 $ 350 Concrete Blbclk Linear Shrinkage, C 426 $ 100 Concrete Sloth Unit Weight and Absorption, C 140 $ 50 Cores. Compression or Shear Bond, CA Cade S 34 Masonry Grout, 3x3x6 prism compression, UBC 21-18 S 19 Masonry Mortar, 2x4 cylinder compression. UBC 21-16 ...__ 5 19 Masonry Prism, half size, compression, UBC 2;- .. . ;, 5 90 Reinforcing and Structural Steel Fireproofing Density Test, UBC 7-6 $ 50 Hardness Test, Rockwell, A-370 S 40 High Strength Bolt, Nut &Washer Conformance, set, A-32 $ 100 Mechanically Spliced Reinforcing Tensile Test, AC1............... ..._$ 110 Pre -Stress Strand (7 wire), A416 $ 125 Chemical Analysis, A-36, A-615.._ $ 100 Reinfordng Tension or Bend up to No, 11, A 615 & A708 5 42 Structural Steel Tensile Test Up to 200,000 lbs. (machining extra). A 370 5 52 Welded Reinforcing Tensile Test: Up to No.11 bars, ACI ......._ $ 48 As111_iatt Concrete Asphalt Mix Design. Caltrans 5 2.000 Asphalt Mix Design Review, Job Spec........ ........._-_..-......r S 135 Extraction, % Asphalt, inducting Gradation, D 2172, CT 371D— ..... 190 Film Stripping, CT 302 $ 80 Hveem Stability and Unit Weight CTM or ASTM, CT 366. ....... _$ 170 Marshall Stability, Flow and Unit Weight, T-245 ,...$ 190 Maximum Theoretical Unit Weight, D 2041 $ 90 Swell, CT 305 ....... .................... . ... .........,_ _,_........_ $ 150 Unit Weight sample or core, 027-2-8-, CT 308 $ 75 Apgre ,tes Absorption,q� Coarse, C 127 S 25 Absorption, Fine, C 128 $ 25 Clay Lumps and Friable Particles, C 142 $ 95 Cleanness value, CT 227 S 110 Crushed Particles, Cl 205 S 130 Durability. Coarse, CT 229 S 120 Durability, Fine, CT 229 ---.........$ 120 Los Angeles Abrasion, C131 or C 535 ......$ 165 Mortar making properties of fine aggregate, C 87 ........_....... ....,.._S 245 Organic Impurities. C 40 _ - $ 50 Potential Reactivity of Aggregate (Chemical Method), C 289._._5 350 Sand Equivalent, CT 217.... ......... .... ...... 5 80 Sieve Analysis, Coarse Aggregate, C 136 - $ 95 Sieve Analysis. Fine Aggregate (including wash), C 136. ... ....._„, 5 95 Sodium Sulfate Soundness (per she fraction), C 68 .......... ---- $ 145 Specific Gravity, Coarse, C 127 $ 65 Specific Gravity, Fine, C 129 $ 75 Nlnyo & Moore is accredited to perform the AASHTO equivalent of many ASTM test procedures. /fair qyknor r875 lying° e zilykoure Georechn1cal and Enviror+menIN Sciences Consultants • April 29, 2002 Proposal No. P-0377OU Mt Karl. Sauer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite ' " Riverside, California 92501 Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical Station Platform andMaterials Services Pedley Metrolink Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this proposal to provide geotechnical and materials obser- vation and testing services during the construction of the proposed Pedley Metrolink Station Platform Expansion project in Riverside County, California. The services presented herein are based on our conversations with personnel from your office_ We did not have the opportunity to review the approved project plans and specifications for the project in preparation of this pro- posal. We can modify our proposal, if requested, upon review of the approved plans and specifications and contractor'E. when this information becomes available. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the proposed project includes construction of a new portland.cement concrete platform extension to the existing station platform. We understand grading operations will con- sist of clearing and grubbing, scarification, moisture conditioning, and compaction of the near surface soils. We further understand that the new platform will consist of a reinforced concrete, on -grade platform_ We understand that the estimated construction cost is approximately 5250,000.00 and has an anticipated construction duration of approximately four months. • • 475 Goddard • Suite 200 - Irvine, California 92618 • Phone 1949) 753-7070 • Fax 1949) 753-7071 . 1 ac Veoas Sall- Lake City Ontario 76 Riverside County Transportation Commission April 29, 2002 Pedley Metrolink Station Platform Expansion Proposal No. P -03770U PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to provide soils and materials observation and testing services during the construc- tion of the proposed -project.. The purpose of our observation and testing will be to document that satisfactory materials and sound construction practices were used, and that the construction was conducted in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, project plans, and specifications. • Based on our understanding of this project, and our experience with similar projects, we propose the following scope of services: • Attendance at preconstruction and field meetings, as requested by RCTC representatives. • Field observation, documentation, and testing during the earthwork operations. Our field services will include field density testing of fill, trench backfill, subgrade, and aggregate base materials. We have assumed that half-time observation and testing services will be re- quested during rough grading and that approximately 16 hours of field services will be requested during grading operations. • Field sampling and testing of concrete, as needed, including casting of cylinders for com- pressive strength and.testing for ball penetration, air content, unit weight, and temperature. We have assumed that approximately 40 hours of field services will be requested. • Performance of off site batch plant/production plant inspection and sampling for concrete during construction. We have assumed that approximately 24 hours of plant inspection services will be requested. • Geotechnical field assistance in of the suitability of foundation materials, overex- cavation recommendations, and removal of unsuitable materials (if any). • Preparation of daily field reports and other memoranda to summarize the field operations and test results. In addition; we will maintain project files in accordance with the Caltrans filing procedures for the project. • Project coordination and client liaison, including scheduling of personnel to provide obser- vation and materials testing services_ FEE ESTIMATE Our geotechnical and materials testing services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with the direct hourly rates, indirect costs, and profit shown on the attached Break - 037700.7 /y/ingI v/ norms 2 77 ri124 2 Riverside County Transportation . _=..__ pion Proposal ,ApNor 2 l 29, , 2 2 000 Pedley Metrolirtk Station Platform Expansion down of Estimated Fee (Table 1), as well as the laboratory testing rates presented in Tables 2 and 3_ Based on the scope of services and assumed durations described herein, we estimate that our fee will be approximately $14,800 (fourteen thousand eight hundred dollars). A detailed break- down of our estimated fee is presented in Table 1. It should be noted that this estimated fee is based on an assumed project duration and anticipated workload. As previously mentioned, our services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis and will be invoiced based on the actual amount of time spent on the project. Field time will be supported by daily reports of field obser- vations and/or field memoranda. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and we look forward to working with you on this project. Should you haves _ ,.:estions regarding this proposal, or if we might provide you with additional information, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, INTINYO & MOORE Jalal Valdli, PhD., P.E. Principal Engineer KSY/CAP/N/kl Attachments: Table 1 —Breakdown of Estimated Fee Table 2 — Laboratory Testing Estimated Fee Table 3 — Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing Distribution: (3) Addressee • • • 63771141 3 Njnid&Ako0re 78 Riverside County Transportation Commission. April 29, 2002 •edley Metrolink Station Platform Expansion Proposal No. P -03770U TABLE 1- BRIM DOWN OF ESTIMATED FEE • • Senior Field Technician (incl. nuclear gauge) Field Technician/Plant Inspector Subtotal 56 hours . @ $ 28.22 /hour 1,580.32 24 hours @ $ 28.22 /hour $ 677.28 $ 2,257.60 Report Prepara 'on Principal Engineer/Geologist 2 hours @ $ 48.00 /hour $ 96.00 Project Engineer/Geologist 8 hours @ $ 38.00 /hour $ 304.00 Technical Illustrator 4 hours © $ 19.00 /hour $ 76.00 Word Processing/Reproduction 4 hours @ $ 17.50 /hour $ 70.00 Subtotal ination. Meetm�s. nctTechnicalField_ a Principal Engineer/Geologist Project Engineer/Geologist $ 546.00 8 hours @ $ 48-00 /hour S 384.00 24 hours ® $ 38.00 /hour $ 912.00 Subtotal $ 1,296.00 Direct Labor Indirect Cost ® 177% Total Direct plus Indirect Cost Profit @ 10% Total Direct, Indirect, and Profit Other Direct Cosh Laboratory Testing (see Table 2) Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage TOTAL. 80 hours @ $ 6.00 /hour S 4,099.60 S 7,256.29 S 11,355.89 $ 1,135.59 12,491.48 1,820.00 480.00 $ 14,791.48 03770pU-fer 79 Riverside County Transportation Commission Pedley Metrolink Station platform Expansion April 29, 2002 Proposal No. P -03770U TABLE 2 - LABORATORY TESTING ESTIMATED FEE aolLand_Aggrogatts. ASTM D 422 Sieve Analysis ASTM D 1557 Maximum Density CT 227 Cleanness Value ASTM D 241.9 Sand Equivalent Subtotal 4 tests © $ 95.00 /test $ 380.00 2 tests @ S 150.00 /test $ 300.00 2 tests @ $ 110.00 /test $ 220.00 2 tests @ $ 80.00 /test S 160.00 $ 1,060.00 Portlawl Cement .on e ASTM C 39 Concrete Cylinders 40 tests @ $ 19.00 /test $ 760.00 Subtotal S 760.00 S 1,820.00 TOTAL • • o7ropu-tee «In,c& tultswe 80 Riverside County Transportation Commission Pedley Metrolink Platform Expansion April 29, 2002 Proposal No. P -03770U TABLE 3 — SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Test, Test Designation, and Price Per Test Soil$ Atterberg Limits, p 43113, CT 204.... ,..._ $ California Bearing Ratio (CBR), D 1083 ... S Chloride and Sulfate Content, CT 417 & CT 422 $ Consolidation, 0 2435, CT 219..._.....„..-„_ S Consolidation - Tune Rate, D 2435, CT 219 Direct Shear- Undisturbed, D 3080, CT 222 Direct Shear - Remolded, D 3060. CT 222„ .................. . 5 Durability Index, CT 229 y Expansion Index, D 4829, WC 18-2 $ Expansion Potential (Method A), D 4546 Expansive Pressure (Method C), D 4546 S Geofatxic Tensile and Elongation Test, 0 4632 S Hydraulic Conductivity, 0 5084 _ $ Hydrometer Analysis, D 422, CT 203 S Double Hydrometer Analysis, 0 422. CT 203 S Maximum Density 01557, D 698, CT 216, & AASHT'O T-180 $ (Rock corrections add $65) Moisture, Ash, & Organic Matter of Peat/OrganIc Soils $ 90 Moisture Only, 0 2216, CT 226 S 18 Moisture and Density. D 2937 $ 30 Permeability. CH, D 2434. CT 220 $ 200 pH and Resistivity, CT 843 S 05 R -value, 0 2844, CT 301 5 215 Sand Equivalent, 0 2419, CT 217 S 80 Sieve Analysis, D 422, CT 202 $ 95 Sieve Analysis, 200 Wash_ D 1140, CT 202 S 75 Specific Gravity, D 854 5 75 Triaxial Shear, CD., three points, CT 230 ' - $ 350 Triaxial Shear, C_U., three points, D 4767, CT 230 $ 325 Triaxial Shear, U.U., one point, D 2850. CT 230 _ 5 125 Unconfined Compression, D 2188, CT 221 $ 180 Wax Density, 0 1168 S 75 oaf n Butit-up Roofing, Wt-aut samples, D 2829 $ 150 Roofing Materials Analysis, 0 2829 $ 450 Roofing Tile Absorption. (set of 5), UBC 15-5 S 150 z. Roofing Tee Strength Test, (set of 5), UBC 15-5 $ 150 Masonry Bride Absorption, 24 -hour submersion, C 67 -.-..- .................-..._ $ Brick Absorption, 5 -hour boning, C 67 S Brick Absorption_ 7 -day. C 07 S Brick Compression Test, C 67 S Brick Efflorescence, C 67 ti S Brick Modulus of Rupture. C 67 $ Bride Moisture as received, C 67 ^"- $ Brick Saturation Coefficient, C 67 . ...-_.----..._�......... $ Concrete Block Compreselon Test, 8x8x16. C 140 - $ Concrete Block Conformance Package, C 90 $ Concrete Block linear Shrinkage, C 426 $ Concrete Block Unit Weight and Absorption. C 140 - $ Cores, Compression or Shear Bond, CA Code $ Masonry Grout; 3x3x6 prism compression, UBC 21-18 $ Masonry Mortar, 2x4 cylinder compression, UBC 21-15 $ Masonry Prism, half size, compression, UBC 21-17 $ Concrete 125 Cement Analysis Chemical and Physical, C 109 $ 1,500 350 Compression Tests, 6x12 Cylinder, C 39 S 19 . 100 Concrete Mix Design Review, Job Spec...-- $ 125 200 Concrete Mix Design, per Trial Batch, 6 cylinder , ACI 5 650 $ 50 Concrete Cores, Compression (excludes sampling), C 42 $ 40 $ 200 Drying Shrinkage, C 157 S 200 250 Flexural Test, C 78 - $ 40 140 Flexural Test, C 293 5 45 140 Flexural Test, CT 523 $ 50 $ 130 Gunite/Shotcrete, Panels. 3 cut cores per panel and test, ACI $ 190 130 Jobsite Testing Laboratory Quote 150 lightweight Concrete Fill, Compression, C 495 $ 30 250 Petrographic Analysis. C 856 S 1,000 140 Splitting Tensile Strength, C 498 $ 65 270 150 Reinforcin4 and Structural Steel Fireproofing Density Test, UBC 7-6 $ 50 Hardness Test Rockwell, A-370 5 40 High Strength Bolt, Nut & Washer Conformance, set, A-32 5 100 Mechanically Spliced Reinforcing Tensile Test, ACI ....... $ 80 Pre -Stress Strand (7 wire), A 416 5 125 Chemical Analysis. A-36, A-615 - $ 100 Reinforcing Tension or Bend up to No. 11, A 615 & A 700 $ 42 Structural Steel Tensile Test Up to 200,000 Ibs_ (machining extra), A 370 $ 52 Welded Reinforcing Tensile Test Up to No.11 bars, ACI 5 46 Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Mix Design, Celtrans 5 2,000 Asphalt Mix Design Review, Job Spec $ 135 Extraction, % Asphalt, including Gradation, 0 2172, CT 310.._._.-5 190 . Film Stripping, CT 302 $ BO Hveem Stability and Unit Weight CTM or ASTM, CT 366 $ 170 Marshall Stability, Flaw and Unit Weight, T-245 $ 190 Maximum Theoretical Unit Weight, D 2041 $ 90 Swell, CT 305 $ 150 Unit Weight sample or core, D 2726, CT 308 $ 75 Aggreeatps Absorption, Coarse. C 127 $ 25 35 Absorption, Fine, C 128 $ 25 45 Clay Lumps and Friable Particles, C 142.......__.. W 5 95 53 Cleanness Value, CT 227 $ 110 34 Crushed Particles, CT 205 $ 130 34 Durability, Coarse, CT 229 $ 120 34 Durability, Fine, CT 229 $ 120 28 Los Angeles Abrasion, C 131 or C 535...._ $ 165 • 44 Mortar making properties of fine aggregate, C 67 _.._- $ 245 39 Organic Impurities, d 40 $ 50 350 Potential Reactivity of Aggregate (Chemical Method), C 289 $ 350 100 Sand Equivalent, CT 217 $ 130 50 Sieve Analysis, Coarse Aggregate, C 136-- ........... _.— ........ $ 95 34 Sieve Analysis, Fine Aggregate (including wash), C 136.__ $ 95 19 Sodium Sulfate Soundness (par size fraciion), C 88 $ 145 19 Specific Gravity, Coarse, C 127 $ 85, 90 Specific Gravity, Fine, C 126 $ 75 Ninyo & Moore iS accredited to perform the AASHTO equivalent of many ASTM test procedures. D]776pU•TJ % in oa*sore er 81 " " AGENDA ITEM 11 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Erik Galloway, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 02-33-064 for Construction of the North Main Corona Metrolink Station and Agreement No. 02-33-063 for Construction of a Security System at the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Direct staff to present its award recommendations directly to the Commission due to time constraints for Agreement No. 02-33-064 for the construction of the North Main Corona Metrolink Station and Agreement No. 02-33-063 for the construction of a security system at the Riverside-LaSierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the March 13, 2002 RCTC meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise the bids for construction of the new North Main Corona Metrolink Station and Pedestrian Overcrossing, located adjacent to Main Street in the City of Corona. The Corona Main Station is critical to providing adequate parking to support the the new 91 Line Metrolink service to Los Angeles. The station has been committed to be substantially complete by October of 2002. At the February 13, 2002 RCTC meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise the bids for construction of a security system at the West Corona and Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Stations including connection to the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station located in the Cities of Corona and Riverside. These projects were advertised starting on April 15, 2002 with the Bid Opening scheduled for June 6, 2002. The scheduled bid opening would require that the projects be delayed one month in order to bring the items before the Budget and Implementation Committee. Staff is proposing to present the results of the Bid Process directly to the Commission at the June 12, 2002 meeting in order to expedite the start of construction of these two projects. 82 " AGENDA ITEM 12 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of the Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2002-03 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Receive input and comments on the proposed FY 2002-03 budget; 2) Close the public hearing on June 12, 2002; 3) Adopt the Proposed Budget for FY 2002-03; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On May 8, 2002, staff presented the Proposed Budget to the Commission. This was a result of staff going through the budget process and determining the needs and resources to meet those needs. The goals and objectives approved by the Commission on March 13, 2003, were the basis of this budget. The goals and objectives considered during the preparation of the budget are mobility, goods movement, congestion relief and safety improvements, air quality, economic development, intermodalism and accessibility, technological innovation, and public and agency communications. On May 8, 2002, the Commission opened the public hearing to adopt the budget and allow for citizens to provide input into the budget process. The proposed budget outlined the needs of the Commission and the resources that were available to respond to the needs. Due to several late breaking events, staff has made several modifications to the Proposed Budget presented on May 8, 2002. They are: 1. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) requested that a small reserve be maintained for the Regional Arterial program and that all other funds by appropriated for use. As a result, staff has increased the Regional Arterial budget to include all available revenues and maintained a reserve of $500,000 for contingencies. The net effect was an increase in appropriations by $2,525,900. 2. The Western County Highway Capital expenditure appropriations have had several adjustments. After the initial appropriations were submitted, several projects were modified such as the ROW adjustments on RT 74 with 83 reductions in other areas to compensate for the increase. The net effect was an increase of appropriations by $639,734. 3. The Coachella Valley Highway Capital expenditure appropriations were adjusted to include additional expenditures for soundwalls. The net effect was an increase in appropriations by $292,000. 4. The Rail program had an increase in program management costs due to the activity involved with the construction of the Corona Main station, the CCTV installation at Pedley and the expansion at the La Sierra station. This resulted in an increase in appropriation by $598,907. Sufficient revenues or fund balances exist to cover these adjustments. Attached is Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. This document contains a summary of all departmental budgets and summarizes the information for the entire Commission. The department budgets present the goals and objectives, the resources needed to accomplish the goal and the appropriation required to accomplish the tasks. Staff has also included the fund budgets which examine the budgeted revenue and expenditures from a fund perspective. A summary of the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 is as follows: Revenues $142,800,400 Personnel salary and fringe benefits 2,528,200 Professional 2,865,600 Support 1,702,000 Projects and Operations 120,025,000 Capital Outlay 332,000 Debt Service 35,551,000 Total Expenditures $163,003,800 Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Attachments: FY 02-03 Proposed Budget $151,867,775 $131,664,375 • • • 84 " PROPOSEDBUDGET FY 02/03 " iverside County ransport-ation Commission " Honorable Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California FY 02/03 Budget Introduction The next 12 months could be the most important in Riverside County's history. In terms of public infrastructure and investment 2002 and 2003 could become the busiest years in county history. The Riverside County Transportation Commission is poised to act with the County of Riverside and the county's 24 cities to embark on an aggressive action plan to bring highway, rail and many other transportation improvements. Most of the projects that will begin in the next 12 months are a result of past actions of the Commission and the voters of Riverside County. The approval of Measure A in 1988 has, and will continue to be, the county's primary source of transportation funding until it's expiration in 2009. The half -cent sales tax program will raise more than $94 million during the upcoming fiscal year and is, by far, Riverside County's primary source of transportation funding. Looking forward to the county's long-term needs, the Commission has voted to place a 30 -year extension of Measure A on the ballot this November. Approval of the Measure by the county's electorate would generate $4.6 billion over the 30 -year period until 2039. This year's budget provides the bridge between this year's frantic construction pace and the exciting future of a Measure A extension. The successful completion of the current Measure A program, which includes the beginning of construction on many projects this year, will demonstrate the need for additional transportation investment. One option could be the extension of Measure A, and should voters take that step in November, RCTC will take action to speed additional projects into the funding and planning pipeline. PAYING FOR A BETTER FUTURE During Fiscal Year 02/03, RCTC will spend $163,003,800 on a wide variety of projects and services. This funding level includes the beginning of a number of high -profile projects including the reconstruction of the 60/91/215 interchange, the widening of Route 74, and the construction of a new Metrolink station in Downtown Corona. The widening of the 60/91/215 interchange will add new carpool lanes to portions of Route 60, construct new freeway -to -freeway connectors, and increase the overall capacity of Riverside County's most complex freeway interchange. The completion of the project will result in smoother travel in all directions. • • • 86 " " " The widening of Route 74 in the unincorporated portion of Riverside County between Lake Elsinore and Perris will bring a safer roadway to an already - burgeoning area. Being able to start this project this fiscal year is an accomplishment in itself, in that original plans called for this project to be funded more than two years later. The construction of a new rail station in Downtown Corona will further enhance Riverside County's successful Metrolink program. Already, more than 6,000 passengers per day crowd Metrolink trains from Riverside County that travels to Orange and Los Angeles Counties. The addition of a new station in Downtown Corona will offer local commuters more flexibility in their travel options. In order to serve more commuters RCTC will also begin construction at the Riverside -La Sierra and Riverside -Downtown Stations to increase the number of parking spaces. Increases in parking capacity are necessary due to the train system's growing popularity and to continue encouraging new riders. The above -mentioned efforts are the high -profile projects made possible by Measure A; however the measure also pays for a score of lesser -known projects that are also extremely important to local residents. More than $34 million will be returned to local cities and the County of Riverside for street and road needs. In addition to local turn -back funding, Measure A also provides funding for many regional street and road projects and funds the improvement of major arterial streets in the Coachella Valley. RCTC also receives and programs funding from state and federal sources. This includes the state's Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) programs that are allocated to the county's major public transit providers. Measure A also contributes to the public transit cause by funding transit fare discounts and transit programs for senior citizens and persons with disabilities. Measure A also funds a Commuter Assistance program that provides ridesharing assistance to employers and commuters. LOOKING TOWARD THE FUTURE The extension of Measure A is one of a number of significant efforts toward addressing the future needs of Riverside County. The Western Riverside Council of Governments will soon implement a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program that will require developers to pay for their share of new development. A similar TUMF program exists in the Coachella Valley and provides additional funding for regional transportation needs. With the extension of Measure A, the implementation of a TUMF program will leverage the completion of additional transportation projects. The County of Riverside is also busily completing the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) process that will generate a new General Plan, 87 establish a Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan and eventually lead to the addition of four new transportation corridors. GFOA Distinguished Budget Award The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented an award of Distinguished Budget Presentation to the Riverside County Transportation Commission for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2001. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan and as a communications device. The award is valid for a period of one year only. The Commission believes that this budget document conforms to program requirements and it will be submitted to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award. Acknowledgements The preparation of this budget has been a collaborative effort involving every member of the Commission's staff. The budget reflects the Commission's desire and effort to communicate the components of the budget in terms that are easily understandable and supportable for the general public. Staff acknowledges and appreciates the guidance and leadership of the Commission's 30 -member Board of Directors and the sense of renewal and commitment they have inspired. In addition, special recognition must be given to John Standiford and Michele Cisneros for their contributions to this document. Their efforts in preparing this document have been exceptional. Eric A. Haley, Executive Director Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer • • • 88 *LE OF CONTENTS COMMISSION INTRODUCTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BUDGET OVERVIEW Personnel Summary Department Budgets in Brief Fund Balances Budget Comparative Schedule of Budget Expenditures Highway & Rail Projects Government Funds COMMISSION POLICY GOALS & OBJECTIVES Guiding Principals Financial policies BUDGET PROCESS SUMMARY Budget Process Functional Organizational Chart Staff Organization Chart PROGRAM REVENUES Funding Sources By Department/Program Sales Tax Revenues Program Revenues Other Revenues PERSONNEL Salary and Fringe Benefits rsonnel Summary MirMISSION DEBT Debt Capacity Analysis Debt Service Schedule Program and Geographic Debt Legal Debt Margin DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM BUDGETS Budget Summary by Department Management Services: Executive Management Administration Finance NON -CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Regional Issues Planning and Programming Intermodal Programs Rail Program Property Management Specialized Transportation Transit Commuter Programs Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance CAPITAL PROGRAMS Capital Projects Development & Delivery Location of Capital Projects Capital Projects Summary FitUDGETS get Summary by Fund and Department Narrative discussion and chart of the history of the Commission Summarized narrative overview of revenues and expenditures Expenditures by Full -Time Equivalent (FTE) Major initiatives and summarized expenditures by department Fund Balances by Program & Geographic Area Schedule of budget by summarized line item Expenditures summarized by fund type Listing of budgeted capital project expenditures Summary of estimated financial sources and uses Narrative description of policy goals and objectives Description of financial policies Narrative description of various budget stages Organizational Chart Organization Chart Schedule of Program Revenues Narrative description of Measure A and TDA sales tax Tables and accompanying narrative of program revenues Narrative description of miscellaneous revenues Chart and accompanying description of benefits and changes in salary and benefits Table of personnel by expenditures and full time equivalents Charts and accompanying narrative demonstrating debt capacity Schedule of debt maturities by year Chart of debt service by program and geographic area Schedule calculating legal debt margin Schedule of expenditures by department/program Goals and objectives, key assumptions & budgeted expenditures Goals and objectives, key assumptions & budgeted expenditures Goals and objectives, key assumptions & budgeted expenditures Goals and objectives, key assumptions & budgeted expenditures Goals and objectives, key assumptions & budgeted expenditures Goals and objectives, key assumptions & budgeted expenditures Goals and objectives, key assumptions & budgeted expenditures Goals and objectives, key assumptions & budgeted expenditures Goals and objectives, key assumptions & budgeted expenditures Goals and objectives, key assumptions & budgeted expenditures Goals and objectives, key assumptions & budgeted expenditures Goals and objectives, key assumptions & budgeted expenditures Local map of major capital projects for current year Narrative description of each capital project Table summarizing fund and department revenues and expenditures 89 Authorization, Amendment, Structure General Fund Special Revenue Fund Capital Project Fund Debt Service Fund COMMUNITY PROFILE Riverside County's History Demographics APPENDICES Glossary of Acronyms Funding Definitions Program Terms General Terms Narrative description of authorization level, amendment process and fund structure Overview; narrative and charts of revenues and expenditures Overview; narrative and charts of revenues and expenditures Overview; narrative and charts of revenues and expenditures Overview; narrative and charts of revenues and expenditures Narrative discussion of the history of Riverside County Charts and tables of various demographic data Explanation of commonly used abbreviations Narrative description of various funding sources Description of Commission programs and related terms Commonly used terms in governmental accounting • • 90 " " COMMISSION INTRODUCTION State law created the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) in 1976 to oversee the funding and coordination of all public transportation services within Riverside County (County). The Commission's mission is to assume a leadership role in improving mobility in Riverside County. The governing body, consist of all five members of the County Board of Supervisors, one elected Mayor or member of the City Council in each of the County's 24 cities, and one non -voting member appointed by the Governor of California. The Commission is responsible for setting policies, establishing priorities, and coordinating activities among the County's various transportation operators and agencies. The Commission also programs and/or reviews the allocation of federal, state and local funds for highway, transit, rail, non - motorized travel (bicycle and pedestrian) and other transportation activities. The Commission serves as the tax authority and implementation agency for the voter approved Measure A Transportation Improvement Program. Measure A was approved by the County's electorate in 1988 and imposes a half -cent sales tax to fund a specific program. Measure A was approved for 20 years. Additionally, the Commission provides motorist aid services designed to expedite traffic flow. These services include the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), a program that provides call box service for motorists, and the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP), a roving tow truck service to assist motorists with disabled vehicles on the main highways of the County during peak rush hour traffic periods. These services are provided at no charge to motorist and are funded through $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations. The Commission is also legally responsible for allocating Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, the major source of funds for transit in Riverside County. The TDA provides two major sources of funding: the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which is derived from 1/4 of 1 cent State sales tax, and the State Transit Assistance (STA) fund, which is derived from statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Finally, the Commission has been designated as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Riverside County. As the CMA, the Commission coordinates with local jurisdictions in the establishment of congestion mitigation procedures for Riverside County's roadway system. 91 Name Bob Buster John F. Tavaglione James A. Venable Roy Wilson Tom Mullen John Hunt Placido L. Valdivia Robert Crain John Chlebnik Alfred W. Trembly Gregory S. Pettis Juan M. DeLara Janice L. Rudman Greg Ruppert Robin Reeser -Lowe Percy L. Byrd Mike Wilson John J. Pena Robert L. Schiffner Frank West Jack F. van Haaster Frank Hall Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Daryl Busch Harvey Gerber Ameal Moore Chris Carlson-Buydos Ron Roberts Anne Mayer Riverside County Transportation Commission List of Principal Officials Board of Commissioners Title Member Chairman (Commission) Member 2"d Vice Chairman (Commission) Member Member Member Member Vice Chairman (Budget & Implementation) Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Vice Chairman (Plans & Programs) Member Chairman (Plans & Programs) Member Member Chairman (Budget & Implementation) 1st Vice Chairman (Commission) Governor's Appointee Administrative Staff Agency County of Riverside, District 1 County of Riverside, District 2 County of Riverside, District 3 County of Riverside, District 4 County of Riverside, District 5 City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Caltrans District #8 Eric A. Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer Darren Kettle, Director of Legislative Affairs Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs • • • 92 " " " EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The budget for FY 02/03 is presented to the Commissioners and the citizens of Riverside County. The Budget outlines the projects the Commission would like to complete during the year and appropriates expenditures to accomplish these tasks. The budget also shows the revenues and fund balances that will be used to complete these projects. This document will serve as the Commission's monetary guideline. To provide the reader a better understanding of the projects to be completed, staff has included descriptive information regarding each department and major projects. The discussion in each department/program area includes a review of major initiatives and key assumptions. Though the budget is a very comprehensive document, staff believes its value and usefulness to readers has been enhanced by these features. Staff used the goals and objectives approved at the Commission meeting on March 13, 2002, to prepare the budget. In addition to the Commission's long term goals and strategic plan, the short term factors listed below were used to guide the development of the Budget: Operational " Continue planning the extension of Measure A and work on a transition plan between the two measures. " Continue the Commission mandate of a lean, non -layered staff structure. " Improve on the skills and training of all levels of staff. " Improve communication with Commissioners and educate policy makers on all issues of importance to the Commission. " Continue Commission involvement in the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) " Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving the County. " Support innovative programs which provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas. " Encourage greater department and staff involvement in budget development and accountability for budget performance. Financial " Maintain administrative costs below the policy threshold of 4%. The current Management Services budget is 3.11% of Measure A revenue. " Continue to maintain prudent reserves to provide some level of insulation for unplanned expenditures. " Maintain current positive rating with rating agencies. " Look for opportunities, funding sources, and innovative approaches to address transportation needs that extend beyond Measure A. " Move forward on Measure A projects for highways and regional arterials using both sales tax revenues and State and Federal funding. " Leverage and protect past Measure A investments in rail to obtain State and Federal funding for additional rail improvements. 93 Budget Overview Chart 1 — Revenues: Major Categories Total revenues are budgeted at $142,800,400, which is an increase of 19.3% over projected revenues and a 1.3% decrease from last year's budget. The projected fund balance at June 30, 2002 available for expenditures, (exclusive of debt service reserves of $57,138,700, loans receivables for $959,400, and prepaid lease for $981,700) is $92,788,000. Total funding sources available for the FY 02/03 budget amount to $235,588,400. Chart 2 - Commission Revenue Trend $160,000,000 $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $- FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FISCAL YEARS o Investment Income ❑ Other Revenue it Reimbursements a Sales Tax Revenues After performing a trend analysis and taking into account local economic factors, staff has projected a 6% increase in Measure A sales tax revenues. The increase is relative to the FY 01/02 Measure A budget. Staff expects FY 01/02 Measure A revenues to be 3-4% higher than projected. This projection is based on FY 01/02 receipts and trend analysis. If the Commission receives the revenue as projected, the real growth expected in FY 02/03 is 2-3%. The Commission is aware of the problems facing the State of California economy; however, Riverside County continues to grow due to population increase and a wider base in its economic engine. In this budget, the other revenue categories are budgeted at lower amounts than prior year. The revenue to the Commission from Local Transportation Funds (LTF) is lower as the Commission receives reimbursements for projects completed. The • 94 " " " LTF funds received by the County that are available for allocation, are projected to increase by 6% and these funds will be distributed to all the Transit operators in the county. Reimbursements are down as the Commission invoices Federal, State and Local agencies based on projects completed. Federal sources will fund rail capital and other capital projects. Investment Income will belower due to several factors. The current economic environment provides lower interest earnings as the Federal Reserve has lowered rates. In addition, the primary source of the interest income was interest on proceeds of the Construction fund used to fund Route 74. As the project is built, the funds are being depleted, thus resulting in lower interest revenues. Staff continues to actively manage its resources and make appropriate investments to maximize the return to the Commission without sacrificing security. The Other Revenue consists of miscellaneous revenues that the Commission receives. This revenue category is also projected to be lower. Table 1 - Operating Revenue FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Changes Changes Measure A Sales Tax $81,543,732 $88,973,617 $89,250,000 $91,035,000 $94,605,000 $5,355,000 6.0% LTF Sales Tax 5,984,234 6,654,565 8,145,645 6,931,033 6,443,500 (1,702,145) -20.9% Reimbursements 10,021,221 9,066,181 37,660,219 14,837,806 37,411,000 (249,219) -0.7% Other Revenue 3,064,255 4,086,123 3,152,448 1,146,176 375,900 (2,776,548) -88.1% Investment Income 5.193.832 9.842.472 6.474.500 5.712.394 3.965.000 (2.509.500) -38.8% Total Operating Revenues $105,807,274 $118,622,958 $144,682,812 $119,662,409 $142,800,400 ($1,882,412) -1.3% Chart 3  Expenditures: Major Categories Total expenditures are budgeted at $163,003,800, a decrease of 1.8% from the prior year budget amount of $166,030,765. The Debt Service amount for this year is $35,551,000. Administrative costs are budgeted at $4,205,300 and Program Expenditures total $123,247,500. Program costs have decreased 2.6% from $126,660,215 to $123,247,500. This decrease is minimal as the Commission continues to maintain the funding levels and programs it currently oversees. Reductions in proposed budgets for several programs are not a reflection of the service level. The Regional Arterial program shows a reduction as all 95 reserves were utilized in FY 01/02 and expenditures budgeted in FY 02/03 are for revenues received in the budgeted fiscal year. Similarly in the Transit program, transit operators used reserves from prior years in FY 01/02 and do not intend to use the same amount in FY 02/03. In addition, the State of California provides allocation for the Transit program and the funding for this budget year has been significantly reduced. This reduction is a direct result of the economy of the State and the funding available for transit. Table 2 - Program Expenditure Comparative FY 2000 - 2003 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Capital Highway & Rail $9,857,310 $12,027,403 $56,308,453 $20,113,724 $61,153,900 $4,845,447 8.6% Rail Operations 4,401,427 5,137,472 4,966,687 4,096,496 4,737,500 (229,187) -4.6% Regional Arterial 6,467,674 10,532,091 9,740,000 9,740,000 7,957,900 (1,782,100) -18.3% Streets and Roads 31,275,142 34,338,176 34,108,000 33,340,000 34,446,000 338,000 1.0% Commuter Assistance 1,116,402 1,698,814 2,451,600 1,964,405 2,395,000 (56,600) -2.3% Special Transportation 2,869,592 3,197,679 4,351,100 3,722,436 3,715,500 (635,600) -14.6% Motorist Assistance 1,757,219 2,065,094 2,875,334 2,604,020 2,024,900 (850,434) -29.6% Plans & Programs ' 3,347,476 2,645,156 6,147,872 6,043,345 3,490,000 (2,657,872) -43.2% Transit 1,602,703 3,685,976 5,298,519 5,222,170 3,023,500 (2,275,019) -42.9% Regional Issues 206,893 132,098 177,400 101,055 104,600 (72,800) -41.0% Property Management 168,535 159,278 235,250 140,101 198,700 (36,550) -15.5% Management Services 2,695,597 2,689,303 3,825,350 2,988,290 4,205,300 379,950 9.9% Debt 30.527.304 35.442.358 35.545 200 35.964.471 35.551.000 5.800 4.0% Total $96,293,274 $113,750,898 $166,030,765 $126,040,513 $163,003,800 ($3,026,965) -1.8% Note: Management Services include Executive Management, Administration and Finance. Commission Personnel The Commission's salary and fringe benefits total $2,528,200. This represents a decrease of 0.1% or $3,300 under FY 01/02 budget estimate of $2,531,500. The Commission has set aside a pool of 4% for salary increases. Staff has also set aside $100,000 for contingencies. The Commission is able to maintain the same levels of salary and benefits funding as one employee is retiring and management has decided not to recruit for this position at this time. Table 3 - Staff Summary by Department FY 2000 - 2003 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FTE FTE FTE FTE Executive Management 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 Administration 3.6 5.5 6.0 6.3 Finance 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.0 Capital Development & Delivery 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 Plans & Programs 3.0 3.9 3.6 3.8 Transit 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 Property Management 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.6 Regional Issues 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.5 Special Transportation 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 Rail Program 2.0 2.5 2.3 2.4 Commuter Assistance 1.0 1.8 1.1 1.5 Motorist Assistance 16 1_0 10 1_0 Total 22.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 • • • 96 " " " Department Initiatives Executive Management " Expend considerable effort educating the public on the accomplishments of the Commission. " Communicate in a public forum the Commission's achievements and future plans in preparation for a thirty year expansion/extension of Measure A. " Conduct regular one-on-one meetings with the Commissioners and senior staff. " Place a high priority on project development and delivery. " Maintain and improve on the administrative efficiency and fiscally sound practices. " Commit considerable resources to the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). " Foster the Commission's full involvement in a broad range of local, regional, state and federal government settings. Table 4 - Executive Management Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $210,483 $235,365 $302,000 $258,271 $317,000 $15,000 5.0% Professional 299,058 323,130 305,000 312,000 292,500 (12,500) -4.1% Support 54,135 74,746 58,600 57,820 51,900 (6,700) -11.4% Total $563,676 $633,240 $665,600 $628,091 $661,400 ($4,200) -0.6% Administration " Coordinate with the County of Riverside, vendors and staff on the relocation to the County of Riverside Regional Center in October 2002. " Implementation of an Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) in May 2002 will improve Commission recordkeeping capabilities. y " Monitor staff training policies and procedures that link training assessment with employee evaluations. " Conduct an extensive educational program, in the form of one-to-one settings and informational materials for the Commissioners. " Expand the Commission's Measure A public information efforts to inform citizens in Riverside County about the progress made in implementing the voter approved 1/2 cent sales tax in 1988. Table 5 - Administration Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY01/02 FY01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $285,632 $352,791 $462,500 $382,493 $453,000 Professional 121,230 121,684 449,000 166,399 676,000 227,000) 50.6% Support 721,091 688,333 904,300 561,657 935,400 31,100 3.4% Capital Outlay 50,319 63,503 237,000 237,000 332,000 95,000 40.1% Total $1,178,272 $1,226,311 $2,052,800 $1,347,549 $2,396,400 $343,600 16.7% 97 Finance • Maintain Audit fees consistent with prior years. • Continue providing accounting services to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). • Actively manage the Commission investments to protect assets and receive a good return. Table 6 - Finance Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01102 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $176,588 $369,338 $403,000 $395,000 $444,000 $41,000 10.2% Professional 733,612 424,595 632,000 570,000 643,500 11,500 1.8% Support 43.449 35.819 71,950 47,650 60.000 (11,950) -16.6% Total $953,650 $829,751 51,106,$_ I $1 012.650 $1,147,500 $40,550 3.7% Planning and Programming • Lead the CETAP effort within the county contracting for all elements of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP). • Keep local agencies apprised of the status of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) funding. • Work with the Commission and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to develop the criteria for a call for projects in anticipation of the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA -21). • Prepare for the 2004 STIP discretionary funding call for projects by developing criteria to meet CTC requirements and transportation objectives in Riverside County. • Continue the cooperative effort on the North/South Corridor Study. Table 7 - Plans & Programs Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY01/02 FY01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $381,465 $312,574 $342,000 $307,733 $364,000 $22,000 6.4% Professional 100,353 90,903 124,000 70,000 107,000 (17,000) -13.7% Support 11,473 7,359 21,000 12,240 23,000 2,000 9.5% Projects/Operations 2,854.186 2.234.321 5.660.872 5.653.372 2.996.000 (2.664.872) -47.1% Total $3,347,476 $2,645,156 $6,147,872 $6,043,345 $3,490,000 ($2,657,872) -43.2% Transit • Encourage transit operators to purchase clean fuel buses. • Ensure that all operators remain consistent with the Commission's adopted productivity improvement programs. • Monitor transit operator's Quarterly Capital Grant Reports. • • • 98 " " " Table 8 - Transit Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $69,417 $83,419 $87,000 $107,635 $98,000 $11,000 12.6% Professional 2,705 67,101 6,000 5,000 6,000 - 0 0 Support .0/o 2,920 5,671 11,500 9,535 12,500 1,000 8.7% Projects/Operations 1,527,661 3 9.784 5.194.019 5,100.000 2.907,000 (2,287.019) -44.0% Total $1,602,703 $3,685,976 $5,298,519 $5,222,170 $3,023,500 ($2,275,019) -42.9% Rail Program " Complete the alternatives analysis of the San Jacinto Branch Line/1-215 corridor. " North Main Corona Station opens in the fall of 2003. " Continue to play a proactive role in the development of a statewide, high-speed passenger rail system. " Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving the county. " Continue efforts to reduce community impacts of rail infrastructure and operation. Table 9 - Rail Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $254,466 $226,648 $213,000 $203,435 $227,000 Professional 174,049 121,375 161,500 142,000 135,000 (26,500) -16.4% Support 11,999 15,565 29,700 40,740 75,000 45,300 152.5% Projects/Operations 3,960,913 4,773,884 4,562,487 3,710,321 4,300,500 (261,987) -5.7% Operating Transfer - - 414.000 414.000 Total $4,401,427 $5,137,472 $4,966,687 $4,096,496 $5,151,500 $184,813 3- .7% Regional Issues " Plan a leadership role in the discussion of LAX expansion and consideration regional airport needs. " Manage the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Clean Fuels Opportunity fund. Table 10 - Regional Issues Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $112,321 $81,331 $114,000 $63,580 $64,000 Professional ($50,000) -43.9% 60,433 44,628 52,000 30,750 32,000 (20,000) -38.5% Support 26,639 6,138 11,400 6,725 8,600 (2,800) -24.6% Projects/Operations 7.500 - - Total - $206,893 $132,098 $177,400 $101,055 $104,600 ($72,800) -41- .0% Capital Projects Development and Delivery " Complete construction of Route 60 HOV lanes from the 60/1-215 to Redlands Blvd. " Construction of Route 74 realignment street widening from 1-15 in City of Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris. " " Advance operational improvements along Route 111 in the Coachella Valley. Continue construction of auxiliary lanes from Magnolia to Mary Street. 99 " Complete construction of the new North Main Corona station. " Construct parking lot expansions at La Sierra and Riverside Downtown Stations. " Install a security system at the Pedley rail station and construction of a station emergency platform. " Design HOV lanes on Route 91 between Mary Street and the State Route 60/91/1- 215 interchange. " Complete Route 79 realignment project report and environment document. Table 11 - Capital Projects Development & Delivery Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Operating Transfer Total $187,803 246,366 27,933 47,138,024 30,527.415 $78,127,540 $179,980 $186,000 $136,990 $191,200 $5,200 2.8% 290,880 638,000 694,695 595,600 (42,400) -6.6% 10,574 26,900 18,201 34,500 7,600 28.3% 56,416,235 99,305,553 62,343,838 102,736,500 3,430,947 3.5% 33.891.187 35.964.000 38.223 930 35,550,000 (414.000) -1.2% $90.788.657 $136,120,453 $101,417,654 $139,107,800 $2,987,347 2.2% " Special Transportation " Support innovative programs which provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs. " A call for projects covering FY02/03 and FY03/04 will provide $2.5 million to local agencies throughout western Riverside County to support ongoing specialized transit programs. III " Provide matching funds to receive Section 5310 federal grants to assure availability of funds. Table 12 - Special Transportation Program FY 99/00 Costs Actual Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total $39,718 231 3,611 2.826.031 $2,869,592 FY 00101 FY 01/02 Actual Budget $37,975 1,220 5,101 3.153,384 $3,197,679 $62,000 6,000 14,100 4,269.000 $4,351,100 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Projected Proposed Change Change $22,655 1,353 1,220 3.697708 $3,722,436 $42,000 ($20,000) -32.3% 9,000 3,000 50.0% 17,500 3,400 24.1% 3.647.000 (622.000) -14.6% $3,715,500 ($635,600) -14.6% Commuter Assistance " Continue operating its core rideshare programs; namely Club Ride, the Commuter Exchange, and bus -pool subsidies. " Inland Empire Commuter Services will continue to be managed by the Commission to support voluntary employer programs aimed at encouraging employees to rideshare. " Provide ridesharing and teleservices for Inland Empire residents. " 100 " " " Table 13 - Commuter Assistance Program FY 99/00 FY 00101 Costs Actual Actual Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Capital Outlay Total $127,423 20,753 5,187 963,038 $177,756 16,322 226,565 1,278,171 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $143,000 374,500 588,385 1,295,715 50.000 $1,116,402 $1,698,814 $2,451,600 Motorist Assistance " Professional Communications Network was awarded the new contract for call box answering and dispatching services and began accepting all the call box calls for Riverside and San Bernardino counties February 2002 resulting in a faster and more responsive service for motorists at a lower cost to the Commission. " In partnership with Caltrans and CHP, evaluate and determine if Freeway Service Patrol services are in need of changes during congestion and construction on various freeway segments in the county. Table 14 - Motorist Assistance Program FY 99/00 Costs Actual Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total $226,841 $150,000 $7,000 4.9% 419,933 251,000 (123,500) -33.0% 337,532 439,000 (149,385) -25.4% 980,099 1,555,000 259,285 20.0% (50.000) -100.0% $1,964,405 $2,395,000 ($56,600) -2.3% FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $100,186 $94,808 44,786 50,918 8,206 23,351 1.604.041 1.896.017 $1,757,219 $2,065,094 $126,000 80,000 34,900 2.634,434 $2,875,334 $93,700 49,900 28,070 2.432.350 $2,604,020 $123,000 ($3,000) -2.4% 60,000 (20,000) -25.0% 34,300 (600) -1.7% 1.807.600 (826.834) -31.4% $2,024,900 ($850,434) -29.6% Property Management " Maintain the order, safety and security of the Commission owned properties. " Generate a revenue stream to support the costs of maintaining Commission owned real property. " Support the concept of transit oriented development at Metrolink Stations. " Obtain transfer of land from Caltrans and the Base Reuse Commission for the San Jacinto Branch Line. Table 15 - Property Management Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $71,046 $43,401 $91,000 $48,330 $55,000 ($36,000) 30,349 37,705 63,000 40,047 58,000 (5,000) 6,373 4,842 9,050 963 10,300 1,250 60.767 73.330 72.200 50,761 75 400 3.200 $168,535 $159,278 $235,250 $140,101 $198,700 ($36,550) -39.6% -7.9% 13.8% 4.4% -15.5% 101 Table 16 — Fund Balances by Program and Geographic Area June 30, 2003 Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Non Measure A Other Total Reserved: Commuter Assistance $8,156,330 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,156,330 Debt Service 17,731,666 0 0 0 40,461,069 58,192,735 Highway 24,144,075 1,049,568 0 0 0 25,193,643 Loans Receivable 13,791,739 0 0 0 0 13,791,739 Prepaid Rent 937,067 0 0 0 0 937,067 Property Management 0 0 0 0 1,655,310 1,655,310 Rail 7,414,845 0 0 0 2,865,581 10,280,426 Regional Arterial 0 500,000 0 0 0 500,000 Special Transportation 4,454,919 763,885 0 0 0 5,218,804 Streets & Roads 583,421 627,560 87,701 0 0 1,298,682 TDA 0 0 0 0 12,658 12,658 Transit 0 0 0 1,675,969 0 1,675,969 Designated: Contingency 740,833 0 0 308 3,556 74.4,697 Motorist Assistance 0 0 0 2,274,042 0 2,274,042 Unreserved: 9 4 D 176.887 1.555.381 1.732.269 Total Fund Balance $77,954,895 $2,941,013 $87,701 $4,127,206 $46,553,556 $131,664,375 • • • 102 " " " Table 17 - Budget Comparative by Summarized Line Item FY 2000 - 2003 SOURCES OF REVENUE: FY 98/99 Actuals FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02103 Dollar Percent Operating Revenues Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Measure A Sales Tax $70,396,829 $81,543,732 $88,973,617 $89,250,000 $91,035,000 $94,605,000 $5,355,000 6.0% LTF Sales Tax - Planning/Admin 1,294,500 1,555,263 1,631,482 1,719,245 1,884,733 1,998,400 279.155 16.2�/ LTF Sales Tax - Transit Allocation 4,153,679 4,428,971 5,023,083 STA Transit Allocation 6,426,400 5,046,300 4,445,100 (1,981,300) X0.8% SAFE Fees 2,423,019 2,423,397 2,482,598 4,644,019 3,144,136 4,249,000 (395,019) -8.5% Reimbursement 1.118,965 1,183,364 1,297,474 1,000,000 1.100,000 1,150,000 150,000 15.0% Other Revenue 5,331,936 6,414,461 5,286,109 32,016,200 10,593,670 32,012,000 (4,200) 0.0% Investment Income 2,403,259 3,064,255 4,086,123 3,152,448 1,146,176 375,900 (2,776,548) -88.1% 5.033437 5 193 832 9 847 477 6.474 500 5.712 .394 3.965.000 Total Operating Revenues (7 509 500) -38 8% 92,155.623 105,807,274 118,622,958 144,682,812 119,662,409 142,800,400 (1.882,412) -1.3% Debt Proceeds 9 0 3.4 934 149 Total Sources of Funds 9 0 0 9 0.0% 92,155,623 105,807,274 154,557,107 144,682,812 119,662,409 142,800,400 (1,882,412) -1.3% Fund Balance, July 1 100,450,726 103,048,439 112,562,792 158,245,879 158,245.879 151,867,775 (6,378,104) -4.0% Change in accounting principal 9 9 4 876 877 Ending Fund Balance 0 9 0 0 0.0% $103,048,439 $112,562,792 $ 158,245,879 $ 136,897,926 $151,867,775 $131,664,375 ($5,233,551) -3.8% EXPENDITURES: Personnel Salary & Benefits Professional & Support Expenditures 1,808,746 2,046,310 2,195,385 2,531,500 2,246.663 2,528,200 (3,300) -0.1% General Legal 328,223 416,974 434,516 710,000 704,303 613,000 (97,000) -13. Audit Services 7% 378,870 473,915 369,936 412,000 486.000 Professional Services - Other 482,100 70,100 17.0% Total Professional Costs 684.907 773 434 736.756 1 669.009 1.281 774 1.695 500 76 500 1 6% Support Costs 1,579,199 1,833,927 1,590,461 2,891,000 2,502,077 2,865,600 (25,400) -0.9% 1 517 161 923,916 1 104 064 1 781 785 1 177 353 1 702.000 (79 785) A.5%Total Professional and Support Costs 3,096,360 2,756,943 Projects and Operations: 2,694,525 4,672,785 3,624,430 4,567,600 (105,185) 2.3% Projects -General 1,644,243 1,798,645 2,256,334 Station Operations 3,489,500 3,402,771 2,594,200 (895,300) -25.7% 441,520 551,451 631,635 672,200 650.761 � SAFE Operations 844,000 171,800 25.6/� Towing Services 662,168 697,408 943,493 1,460,519 1,452.200 682,000 (778,519) -53.3% Commuter Assistance 673,871 866,059 947,199 1,144,315 970,700 1,113,000 (31,315) -2.7% 1,203,575 963,038 1,278,171 1,295,715 980,099 1,555,000 259,285 20.0% Highway Engineering 1,123,727 2.511,044 Rail Engineering 2,212,722 6,885,618 4.173,621 3,927,000 (2,958,618) -43.0% Highway Construction 231,953 295,036 626,184 2,084,657 1,848,000 2,542,000 457,343 21.9% Rail Construction 4,785,692 1,437,415 4,660,916 18,920,426 2.807,317 15,521,000 ( 3,223,541 2.452,755 791,386 11,010,000 1,305,000 14,675,000 3,665,000) 33.3% Highway Right of Way 467,798 482,373 1,372,276 13,156,452 5,760,000 14,760,000 1,603,548 12.2% Rail Right of Way 22,353 650,083 30,353 1,421,500 1,421,500 6,200,000 4,778,500 336.2% Special Studies 5,714 2,442,541 SCRRA Contribution 1,765,150 4,008,000 3,962,500 2.743,000 (1,265,000) -31.6% 3,938,650 3,149,719 3,653,511 Regional Transportation 3,531,487 2,703,400 3,182,900 (348,587) -9.9% LTF Disbursements 30,021,569 34,101,173 37,491,560 38,377,000 37,037,208 38,093,000 (284,000) -0.7% STA Disbursements 397,295 518,322 632,361 602,872 652,872 728,000 125,128 20.8% 1,784,511 1,527,661 3,529,784 5,194,019 5,100,000 2,907,000 (2,287,019) 44.0% Regional Arterial 3 385 620 6 467.674 10 532 091 9740001) 9740 000 Total Project and Operating Costs Debt Service 79$2 800 (1 787.100) -16 3% 54,013,800 60,912,399 73,355,126 122,994,280 83,967,949 120,025,000 (2,969,280) -2.4% Principal Payments 17,629,704 18,529.107 22,478,844 24,069.000 24,455,053 24,888,000 819,000 3.4% Interest Payments Cosa of Issuance 12,896,053 11,998,197 12,530,366 11.476,200 11,509,418 10,663,000 (813.200) -7.1% 0 0 433,148 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Debt Service 30.525,757 30,527,304 35,442,358 35,545,200 35,964.471 35,551,000 5,800 0.0% Capital Outlay 113 247 50.319 63.503 2117.000 737 QOQ 332,000 45.000 15.7� Total Expenditures 89,557,911 96,293,274 113,750,898 166,030,765 126.040,513 163,003,800 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues (3,026,965) -1.8% Over Expenditures 2,597.713 9,514,000 40,806,209 (21,347,953) (6,378,104) (20,203,400) 1.144.553 -5.4% 103 Table 18 — Budget Expenditure Summarized by Fund Type June 30, 2003 Personnel Salary and Benefits General Fund $1,949,160 Special Revenue $579,040 Capital Projects Debt Service Total $0 $0 $2,528,200 Professional and Support Expenditures General Legal Services 103,300 509,700 0 0 613,000 Financial Services 70,500 4,500 0 0 75,000 Audit Services 397,150 84,950 0 0 482,100 Professional Services - Other 1.282.330 413.170 4 0 1.695.500 Total Professional Services 1,853,280 1,012,320 0 0 2,865,600 Support Costs 1.498.262 588.138 0 9 2.086.400 Total Professional and Support Services 3,351,542 1,600,458 0 0 4,952,000 Project and Operations Expenditures Program Management 0 2,183,600 0 0 2,183,600 Projects - General 768,600 130,000 0 0 898,600 SAFE Operations 0 653,600 0 0 653,600 Towing 0 1,113,000 0 0 1,113,000 Commuter Assistance 0 1,555,000 0 0 1,555,000 Highway and Rail Engineering 0 6,469,000 0 0 6,469,000 Highway and Rail Construction 0 30,196,000 0 0 30,196,000 Highway and Rail ROW 0 20,960,000 0 0 20,960,000 SCRRA Contributions 3,182,900 0 0 0 3,182,900 Special Studies 2,333,000 410,000 0 0 2,743,000 Special Transportation 0 3,647,000 0 0 3,647,000 STA Disbursements 0 2,907,000 0 0 2,907,000 Regional Arterial 0 7.957.900 0 4 7.957.900 Total Project and Operational Expenditures 6,284,500 78,182,100 0 0 84,466,600 Other Expenditures Streets and Roads 0 34,446,000 0 0 34,446,000 LTF Disbursements 728,000 0 0 0 728,000 Capital Outlay 312.080 19.920 0 0 332.000 Total Other Expenditures 1,040,080 34,465,920 0 0 35,506,000 Other Financing (Sources) Uses Operating Transfers out 414,000 36,040,600 19,000,000 0 55,454,600 Debt Service 0 9 9 35 551.000 35.551.000 Total Expenditures 13,039.282 150,868,118 19,000,000 35,551,000 218,458,400 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (182,882) (3,224,518) . (17,850,000) 1,054,000 (20,203,400) Beginning Fund Balance 6.275.368 56.300.910 Ending Fund Balance $6,092,486 $53,076,392 49.884.428 $32,034,428 39.407.070 151.867.775 $40,461,070 $131,664,375 • • • 104 " " " Table 19  State Highway & Rail Programs June 30, 2003 Project Description 81000 Project General Program Management and Contract Administration(Bechtel Corp.) Park N Ride Leases Program support costs TOTAL PROJECT GENERAL 81100 Highway Engineering Route 60 HOV 60/1-215 to Redlands Blvd Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street highway widening Route 79 Right turn lanes - Gilman Springs Rd. Route 79 Realignment PSR & Project report Route 91 HOV Mary St. to 7th Street Route 91 Material Testing Services Route 91 Surveying Support Services Route 111 San Luis Rey design Route 111 El Paseo/Cabrillo design Route 111 Town Central/El Paseo design SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY 81100 Rail Engineering San Jacinto Branch line Preliminary engineering Material Testing Services Surveying Support Services La Sierra Station Expansion - Phase II North Main Corona Station Parking Structure SUBTOTAL RAIL $2.138,600 54.000 45.000 2,237,600 1.000.000 900,000 200,000 900.000 850.000 12.000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 3.927,000 500,000 117,000 50,000 375,000 1,500,000 2,542,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL ENGINEERING 6,469,000 81300 Highway Construction Route 60 HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd Route 60 HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd Construction Management Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street widening Project Route 74 I-15 to 7th Street widening Construction Management Route 91 PH II Landscaping and Plant establishment Route 111 El Paseo/Cabrillo Route 111 Town Center/E1 Paseo Route 111 San Luis Rey Landscape Management - several projects Construction Support Services SUBTOTAL HIGHWAYS 81300 Rail Construction Pedley Station security system installation Pedley Station emergency platform North Main Corona Station La Sierra Station Overcrossing & CCTV West Corona Station Overcrossing & CCTV La Sierra Station Expansion Riverside -Downtown Station Expansion SUBTOTAL RAIL TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL CONSTRUCTION 81400 Highway Right of Way Route 60 HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. Route 60 HOV Right of Way Support Service Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street advance Right of Way acquisitions Route 74 Right of Way Support Services Route 91 Right of way appraisals and engineering - Van Buren I/C Route 111 Acquisitions and Support Services SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY 81500 Rail Studies San Jacinto Branchline Alternative Analysis Studies 400,000 400,000 2.500,000 500,000 10,000.000 1.000.000 90,000 397,000 511,000 508,000 5,000 10.000 15,521 ,000 290.000 300.000 11,600,000 130,000 130,000 1,950,000 275,000 14,675,000 30,196,000 3,500.000 200,000 9.000.000 500,000 1.500.000 60,000 14,760,000 81400 Rail Right of Way La Sierra Station expansion Right of Way acquisition 6.200,000 6.200,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL RIGHT OF WAY 21,360,000 GRAND TOTAL HIGHWAY AND RAIL PROGRAMS $60,262,600 105 Table 20 • Governmental Fund s FY 2001 - 2003 Summary of Estimated Financial Source s and Uses General Fund Special Revenue Fund Capital Projects Fund Debt Service Fund Totals FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Actual Projected Proposed Actual Projected Proposed Actual Project ed Proposed Actual Pr ojected Proposed Actual Projected Propos ed Financial Sources: M easure A Sales Tax $1,998,207 $2,500,000 $3,250,000 $86,975,410 $88,535,000 $91,355,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $88,973,617 $91,035,000 $94,605,000 LTF Sales Tax 6,654,565 6,931,033 6,443,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,654,565 6,931,033 6,443,500 State Fu ndin g 1.146,850 1,083,397 1,297,300 4,121,013 5,379,989 16,455,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,267,863 6,443,386 17,752,300 Fe deral Funding 0 1,439,500 0 298,866 2,700,000 14,719,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 298,866 4,139,500 14,719,000 O ther Reimbursements 1,662,883 634,168 1,277,700 2,785,883 2,520,752 2,512,000 568 ,138 0 0 0 0 0 5,026,904 3,154,920 3,789,700 All Other Revenue 327,800 948,652 216,800 123,495 21,812 3,000 643,294 0 0 0 0 0 1,094,589 970,464 219,900 User Fees 260,537 175,712 156,000 1,240,728 1,100,000 1,150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,501,265 1,275,712 1,306,000 Debt Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,934,149 0 0 0 0 0 35,934,149 0 0 Operating Transfer In 2,940 0 0 7,730,773 5,256,927 19,904,600 0 0 0 36 ,280,972 63,027,295 35,550,000 44,014,685 68 ,284,222 55,454,600 Interest Earnings 289,604 303,665 215,000 3,741,749 1,224,032 1,545,000 4,508,432 2,567,738 1,150,000 1,265,504 1,616,959 1,055,000 9,805,290 5,712,394 3,965,000 Total Estimated Financial Sources $12,343,386 513,996,127 $12,856,400 $107,027,917 $106,738,512 $147,643,600 $41,654,013 $2,567,738 $1,150,000 $37,546,476 $64,644,254 $36,605,000 $198,571,792 $187,946,631 $198,255,000 Expenditures: Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits $1,649,366 $1,704,330 $1,949,160 $546,017 $542,332 $579,040 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,195,383 $2,246,662 $2,528,200 ProfessionalServlces 1,162,474 1,273,294 1,853,280 398,183 1,228,785 1,012,320 0 0 0 29,804 0 0 1,590,461 2,502,079 2,865,600 Support Costs 1,165,955 1,019,983 1,498,262 915,493 1,547,601 588,138 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,081,448 2,567,584 2,088,400 Gen er al Projects 780,662 725,000 768,600 1,716,097 1,917,500 2,313,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,496,760 2,642,500 3,082,200 SAFE Operations 0 0 0 346,435 318,000 653,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 346,435 318,000 653,600 Towing 0 0 0 947,189 970,700 1,113,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 947,199 970,700 1,113,000 Commuter Assistance 0 0 0 1,278,171 980,099 1,555,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,278,171 980,098 1,555,000 Engineering 0 0 0 2,838,906 6,021,621 6,469,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,838,906 6,021,621 6,469,000 Construction 10,000 1,100,000 0 5,452,303 4,112,317. 30,186,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,482,303 5,212,317 30,196,000 Right of Way 0 0 0 1,402,629 7,181,500 20,960,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,402,629 7,181,500 20,960,000 SCRRAConbibufon 3,653,511 2,703,400 3,182,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,653,511 2,703,400 3,182,900 Special Studies 1,753,680 3,910,500 2,333,000 11,471 52,000 410,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,765,150 3,962,500 2,743,000 Special Transportation 0 0 0 3,153,384 3,697,208 3,647,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,153,384 3,697,208 3,647,000 StateTransltAssistance 0 0 0 3,529,784 5,100,000 2,907,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,529,784 5,100,000 2,907,000 Local Streets & Roads 0 0 0 34,338,178 33,340,000 34,446,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,338,176 33,340,000 34,446,000 Regional Arterial 0 0 0 10,532,091 9,740,000 7,957,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,532,091 9,740,000 7,957,900 LTF Disbursements 632,361 652,872 728,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 632,361 652,872 728,000 Capital Outlay 59,693 222,780 312,080 3,810 14,220 19,920 0 0 0 0 0 0 63,503 237,000 332,000 Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,009,210 35,984,471 35,551,000 35,009,210 35,964,471 35,551,000 Cost of issuance 0 0 0 0 0 0 433,148 0 0 0 0 0 433,148 0 0 Operating Transfer Out 4,128 0 414,000 35,575,877 38,434,330 36,040,600 8,435,566 29,849,892 19,000,000 0 0 0 44,015,571 68,284,222 55,454,600 Total Budge t $10,871,830 $13,312,160 $13,039,282 $102,986,025 $115,198,212 $150,888,118 $8,868,714 $29,849,692 $19,000,000 $35,039,014 $35,964,471 $35,551,000 $157,765,582 $194,324,735 $218,458,400 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over 1,471,556 683,967 (182,882) 4,041,892 (8,459,700) (3,224,518) 32,785,299 (27,282,154) (17,850,000) 2,507,462 28,679,783 1,054,000 40,806,210 (6,378,104) (20,203,400) Expenditures Fund Balance, July 1 4,119,844 5,591,400 6,275,368 55,841,841 64,760,610 56,300,910 44,381,283 77,166,582 49,884,428 8,219,824 10,727,286 39,407,089 112,582,792 158,245,879 151,867,775 Change In accounting principal 0 0 0 4,876,877 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,876,877 0 0 Ending Fund Balance $5,591,400 $8,275,368 $6,092,486 $ 64,760,610 $56,300,910 $53,076,392 $77,166,582 $49,884,428 $32,034,428 $10,727,286 $39,407,069 $40,461,069 $158,245,879 $151,867,775 $131,664,375 " COMMISSION POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following material outlines those adopted policy goals and objectives as well as financial policies that have served as the framework for the work plan presented in the FY 02/03 Budget. Mobility The Riverside County Transportation Commission, in cooperation with local, state and federal agencies, will strive to create a transportation system that promotes efficient mobility both within the county and regionally. Develop and approve an expanded countywide funding program for the renewal of the Measure A half -cent sales tax through 2039. Assuming voter approval in November, prepare a transitional plan to coordinate the two voter -approved sales tax measures. Support the CETAP process that examines and selects route alternatives to relieve congested corridors. Support innovative financing strategies that provide funding for transportation improvements, (e.g., TUMF). Assure the ongoing effectiveness of a Commission -approved performance -based short-range transit plan process and work with transit operators to assure operator efficiency and effectiveness. Coordinate regional transit connections among commuter rail, buses, and paratransit services to ensure convenient service for passengers. Goods Movement RCTC will work with federal, state and local governments to facilitate the movement of goods and services, within and through the county, recognizing the vital role mobility plays in the economic health of the county, the state, and the nation. Work with SCAG and other stakeholders towards the implementation of a coordinated regional approach to facilitate goods movement. Seek funding to implement the Commission's approved railroad grade separation project list. Promote the use of rail corridors (including the Riverside -Perris -Hemet -San Jacinto Line within funding constraints) as an alternative to trucks for the movement of freight within the County and the region. Pursue the continued development of highway corridors, including truck lanes where appropriate, to facilitate goods movement including international trade and 107 tourism. Support the efficient use of March Air Reserve Base to address regional air freight demand. Advocate inclusion of goods movement policies and projects for Southern California in the reauthorization of the federal transportation act. Congestion Relief and Safety Improvements Selection of projects and programming of funds by RCTC will be done with a view toward promoting traffic flow, improved safety, and reducing congested traffic corridors. Work with local jurisdictions to develop mitigation measures and strategies to address congested corridors. Provide innovative commuter rideshare programs with the goal of reducing single occupant vehicle trips. Continue to work with state and federal agencies to program and construct projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program and the completion of the Measure A Strategic Plan and other high priority projects. Work with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol to provide a motorist aid system which includes a call box program and freeway service patrol program. Air Quality RCTC's transportation planning will be designed to achieve clean air standards while fostering economic growth and improving quality of life. Work with the metropolitan planning organization, sub -regional agencies, and local jurisdictions to develop and implement a regional transportation plan that meets conformity guidelines. Work with the SCAQMD to coordinate our project implementation with its regional air quality goals. Support outreach and educational programs that promote voluntary ridesharing. Facilitate private/public use of clean fuels technology. Encourage the purchase of clean fuel buses by transit operators and the conversion to clean fuels for other transit vehicles. Promote the reduction of mobile source emissions through proactive participation in various air quality forums. • • • 108 " " " Economic Development Transportation decisions will consider the economic benefits derived from any improvement, and where feasible and practical, will pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development. Support local agencies in the design and construction of interchanges that are in proximity to regional economic centers and developments. Foster the development of transportation technology research, education and training efforts of public institutions within Riverside County Support local projects, consistent with countywide transportation goals, which enhance business development, local employment and area tourism. Intermodalism and Accessibility Serve county residents, where economically feasible, by developing transportation alternatives that consider the needs of a wide range of citizens. Participate in the study of high-speed rail options and support efforts to devise strategies for eventual implementation of a statewide high-speed rail system with emphasis on the pilot project being in Southern California and including the integration of existing rail passenger services. Work with transit providers and local social service agencies to provide specialized transit service to meet a broad spectrum of socio-economic transit needs. Implement the Commission's commuter rail short-range transit plan and the SCRRA long-range strategic plan for expansion of the commuter rail system benefiting Riverside County constituents. Expand commuter rail accessibility by constructing new commuter rail stations and parking. Technological Innovation Advocate the development and use of advanced technologies for transportation applications that are affordable and practical. Promote and increase of state and federal funding for advanced technology and support coordinated deployment of such technologies and advanced technology strategies. Public and Agency Communications Provide timely, informative and accurate information to encourage informed public and agency participation in the Commission's decision -making processes. 109 Promote a close working relationship with news and civic entities to increase interest in, and understanding of, transportation and related issues. Enhance the provision of public information through various forms of communications (e.g., Internet, cable TV, speakers' bureau, print media, etc). FINANCIAL POLICIES Operating Budget Policies The Commission will budget no more than one percent of Measure A sales tax revenue for administrative salaries and benefits. Administration costs will be budgeted at whatever is reasonable and necessary, but not to exceed four percent of Measure A sales tax revenues (inclusive of the one - percent salary limitation). Amounts will be budgeted by fiscal year for multi -year projects based on best estimates, with the understanding that to the extent actuals vary from those estimates, and the project is ongoing, adjustments will be made on an ongoing basis. The fiscal capital budget should be consistent with the strategic plan with deviations appropriately noted, explained, and justified. Revenue Policies Sales tax revenue projections will be revised bi-annually to ensure use of current and relevant data. Staff may adjust annual amounts to reflect the most current economic trends. Federal and state matching funds will be used where possible to supplement the use of local funding sources. Debt Management Policies The Commission will maintain 2x -debt ratio coverage on all senior debt. Debt issuance will be for major capital projects including engineering, construction, and right of way. Operating requirements must be from current ongoing revenues. Costs of issuance including the standard underwriter's discount will not exceed 2%. While it is the intent of the Commission to establish a cash debt reserve for long term bond issuance, obtaining surety bonds can be obtained when beneficial to the Commission. • • • 110 " " " Auditing, Accounting, and Financial Reporting Policies The Commission will issue a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. An audit is to be conducted annually on Commission accounting books and records. As long as the Commission has outstanding bonds, an independent, national accounting firm must conduct the audit. Capital Planning and Programming Policies Established priorities will be reviewed annually via a series of workshops and/or policy maker retreat. Reserve Policies The Commission will maintain a cash reserve at least equal to five percent of annual revenues (exclusive of reimbursements/matching funds). Cash Management/Investment Policies Where possible, the Commission will encourage receipt of funds by wire transfer to its accounts. Balances in the bank operating account will be maintained at the amount necessary to meet monthly expenditures. Idle funds will be invested per the Commission's established investment policy emphasizing in order of priority: 1) safety, 2) liquidity, and 3) yield. Cash disbursements to local jurisdictions and vendors/consultants will be completed in an expeditious and timely manner. Human Resources Management Commission staffing levels will be consistent with the intent of its enabling legislation, which envisioned a small, but effective staff. Consultants will be used to augment staff efforts as much as possible to support programs or work loads, which do not appear to be of a permanent nature. State of the art technology will be maintained to improve the efficiency of a small staff and to encourage working "smarter". 111 BUDGET PROCESS SUMMARY The budget is the primary performance tool used to measure and control accountability of public agencies for taxpayer dollars. The budget communicates to all stakeholders (i.e., elected officials, regional agencies and citizens) how the investment they made will be put to use by providing detailed information on the specifics of resource allocation and expenditures. Progress is monitored on a monthly basis and revisions and updates are made as deemed necessary to reflect changing dynamics and accommodating unplanned requests. This results in a budget document that is useful and meaningful as a benchmark against which to evaluate government accomplishments and/or challenges, and to assess compliance with fiscal accountability. Chart 4 — Budget Process ID Task Name Duration 2001 2002 J J A S O N D J F M A M J' J A 1 Short Term Strategic Direct Phase 105 days 2 Resource Identification & Allocation Phase 80 days 3 Needs Assessment Phase 90 days 4 Development & Review Phase 110 days Adoption & Implementation Phase 40 days MINI 5 6 Budget Roles & Responsibilities 225 days SHORT TERM STRATEGIC DIRECTION PHASE The first phase of the budget process is to determine the direction of the Commission in the short term and to integrate this with the Commission's long-term goals and objectives. Annually a seminar is held for the policy makers to evaluate and determine where the Commission plans to be and what it desires to accomplish over the next ten years. Annual reviews allow for timely responsiveness to any significant political, legislative, or economic developments that may occur locally, statewide, or nationally. Staff then adjusts its course based on the long-term strategic direction of the policy makers. Staff convenes in early January to both assess actual results, compared to the current year budget, and to map changes in strategy for the ensuing fiscal year by reviewing and, if necessary, redefining departmental mission statements and setting goals. Those goals, upon review by the Board, become the Commission's short-term strategic direction. Chart 5 - Functional Organization Chart FY 02/03 OA ,C HERE • • • 112 " " " Board of C ommissioners Executive Committee Po licy Committees (" ) Plans & Programs Committee Budget & Implmentabon Committee i Advisory Committees ( 0*) Technical Advisory Committee Citizens Advisory Committee i Legal Counsel Exe cu tive Management In te rgovernmenta l & Legislativ e Affairs Legislative Advo cacy  �� Legislative Analysis �� Lo cal Governmen t Affairs Administrative Services & Clerk of the Board Bo ard Relations  Human Resource s - Community Affairs Office & Rec ords M anageme nt -- Disadvantage d Bus ines s Enterprise �% Citizen s Advisory & Property Co mmittee Regio nal Programs & Public Affairs f  Air Quality  Pu blic In formation & Outrea ch  Media Relatio ns  Staff D evelopment & Communications Budget & Imple mentations Commitee Support Support Majo r. Capital & Other Programs Financ e & Ma nagement Servic es  Highway & Rail  Financial Manag ement Capital Programs "  Tra nsit Funding & Administ ration  Co mmuter Assistance Progr ams Rail Operation s & Support  Prope rty Manage men t Motorist Assistance Transportation Plan ni ng & Programming �� State Transportation Improv eme nts Program  Regi onal Transportation Plan  New Corridor Planning Congestion Man agem ent  Plans & Programs Commite e S upp ort RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND ALLOCATION PHASE Simultaneous with the short-term strategic direction phase, staff focuses on what funding sources are available, and what monies are estimated as carryover from the current year. In actuality, resource identification occurs throughout the year, but is 'finalized' in the upcoming fiscal year budget. Amounts to be borrowed are determined as part of the long term strategic planning process, but are adjusted in the annual budget to reflect more current information. NEEDS ASSESSMENT PHASE Staff and consultants evaluate what projects and studies need to be accomplished. Project priority and sequencing set in the long-term strategic plan are the top candidates for budget submission. However, priorities may have changed due to economic necessities or political realities, resulting in projects being rescheduled by acceleration or postponement. New projects may be added or existing priorities deleted based on Commission direction. DEVELOPMENT/REVIEW PHASE Using all the data and information gathered from the previously mentioned stages, department heads submit their desired budgets to the Finance department. The information, along with staff and overhead allocations, is compiled into a preliminary or draft budget. After review by the Executive Director and inclusion of the desired changes, the draft budget is presented to the Board of Commissioners for input into the mission and goal statements and review of initial resource allocation. ADOPTION/IMPLEMENTATION PHASE The Proposed Budget is submitted to the Commission at its May meeting. A hearing is scheduled to allow for public comment on the proposed budget. The Commission may choose, after public hearing, to adopt the budget or to request additional information and/or changes to the budget. The budget must be adopted no later than June 15th of each year. If the need arises during the year, staff may transfer part or all of any budgeted balance within financial responsibility units by function. Control of the budget is maintained by monthly status reports to department heads. Corrective action must be documented and submitted to Finance for any significant budget variations. Commission approval is sought for any expenditure that will exceed those amounts allocated to each financial responsibility unit (e.g., Measure A) by broad classification (i.e., administration, programs, capital outlay, and other financing uses). BUDGET, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Involvement in the budget permeates all staffing levels at the Commission from clerical support staff to policy makers. Each program/project manager develops a detailed line item capital budget. Those budgets by program are submitted to the department head for review and approval. The department heads will submit their budgets to the financial officer by March 1st. Finance compiles the department budgets, and completes the operating budget (administrative) with input from the Clerk of the Board. Both the capital and operating budgets are combined into the draft budget for the entire Commission. The Executive Director reviews the entire budget for overall consistency with both the short and long term • • 114 Alistrategic direction of the Commission, the appropriateness of funding sources for the dentified projects and studies, and that the operating budget expenditures are reasonable and complementary to the capital budget. Chart 6 — Staff Organization Chart FY 02/03 INSERT: CHART::<HERE • 115 Board of Commissioners Executive Committee Policy Committees (*) Plans & Programs Committee Budget & Impimentation Commitee Advisory Committees (**) Technical Advisory Committee Citizens Advisory Committee Legal Counsel Executive Management Director of Intergovernmental & Legislative Affairs (.5) Director of Adm inistrative Services Executive Assistant Senior Administrative Assistant Administrative Support Specialist (2) Research and Contracts Chief Financial Officer Accounting Supervisor Accounting Technician (2) Senior Accounting Assistant Deputy Executive Director Director of Regional Programs & Public Affairs Public Information & Media Relations Officer Program Manager Staff Analyst Property Agent i Director of Transportation Planning & Policy Development Measure "A" Capital Program Progra m Manager (3) Staff Analyst (2) Administrative Support Specialist Table 21 - Funding Sources by Department/Program June 30, 2003 Department and Program Management Serv ices Property M anagement MEASURE A AND OTHER CAPITAL PROGRAMS Capital Projects Development and Delivery Highways 29,079,000 0 0 0 4,000,000 0 1,000,000 0 0 Rail 10,899,000 0 1,342,000 0 6,711,000 250,000 472,000 12,997,000 0 0 0 0 34,079,000 Regional Arterial 9,725,000 0 0 0 0 32,671,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,430,000 0 11,155,000 Local Streets and Roads 35,919,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,919,000 Sales Tax State Fede ral Measure A LTF STA STIP Operating Other STP CMAQ FTA Other D MV Fees Local Cities/Agencies Local/Private Revenues $3,250,000 $600,000 0 0 $0 so so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $1,000 $3,911,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156,000 156,000 NON CAPITAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES Planning and Programming Regional Issues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Transit Assistance 0 0 2,907,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,907,000 Planning and Programming 0 1,398,400 0 1,297,300 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 640,500 0 3,836,200 Intermodat Programs Rail Program 0 4,445,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seniors and Persons w/DisabillUes 2,431,000 p 0 0 0 0 0 131,200 161,900 4,738,200 Paratransit 1,651,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,651,000 Total Funding Sources $94,605,000 $6,443,500 $4,249,000 $1,297,300 $12,206,000 $250,000 $1,472,000 $12,997,000 $500,000 $1,150,000 $3,322,700 $342,900 $138,835,400 Commuter Programs SAF Comm uter Assistance 1,651,000 0 0 0 430,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 1,061,000 21,000 3,163,000 Q a Freeway Serv ice Patrol 0 0 0 0 1,150,000 0 3,000 1,153,000 0 1.065.000 a a Q 0 a a 4 1,065 ,000 REVENUES • Total revenues are budgeted at $142,800,400 consisting of Measure A sales tax amounting to $94,605,000 which is 66% of the overall revenue, Federal and State reimbursements totaling $32,971,300 which is 23% of the overall revenues and Other revenues amounting to $15,224,100 which is 11% of the overall revenue. Shown in the table below is the specific revenue funding sources and their relative percentage of total revenues. Table 22 — Revenue Sources Revenue Sources Federal State Measure A Local Transportation Fund (LTF) State Transit Assistance (STA) State Highway Account (STIP) State Other Surface Transportation Program (STP) Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Rail/Highway Leases Coachella Valley Association of Governments Southern California Association of Governments Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies CALTRANS-Freeway Service Patrol Investment Income Local/Private Total $0 $0 O 0 O 4,249,000 0 1,297,300 O 11,141,000 250,000 0 1,472,000 0 12,997,000 0 O 0 O 0 500,000 0 0 0 O 1,065,000 O 0 4 4 $15,219,000 $17,752,300 Local $94,605,000 6,443,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,430,000 0 0 0 0 640.500 $103,119,000 Other Total $0 $94,605,000 O 6,443,500 0 4,249,000 0 1,297,300 0 11,141,000 0 250,000 O 1,472,000 0 12,997,000 156,000 156,000 O 1,430,000 0 500,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 0 1,065,000 3,965,000 3,965,000 1.439.100 7.079,600 $6,710,100 $142,800,400 Percent 66.2% 4.5% 3.0% 0.9% 7.8% 0.2% 1.0% 9.1% 0.1% 1.0% 0.4% 0.8% 0.7% 2.8% 1.5% 100.0% • Revenue Sources — Definitions and Background Measure A: Measure A was approved by Riverside County voters in 1988. More than 78 percent of the electorate voted to impose a half -cent sales tax over a 20 -year period to pay for transportation improvements. Measure A requires that all sales taxes collected may only be used for transportation purposes including administration and the construction, capital acquisition, maintenance, and operation of streets, roads, highways, including state highways and public transit systems and for related purposes. These purposes include expenditures for planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right of way acquisition. The amount raised by this levy is growing as the county grows. Overall, Measure A is expected to raise $1.5 billion during its lifespan. Measure A will expire in 2009. Transportation Development Act: The Transportation Development Act, often referred to as Local Transportation Funds (LTF) was established in state law and is funded through the state sales tax. The intent of the legislation was to provide a dependable revenue stream for public transportation operations. The vast majority of TDA revenue in Riverside County is allocated to transit operators such as the Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine. The Commission also receives a portion for its share of Metrolink operations costs. Much like Measure A revenue, TDA will grow with the growth of the county. • 118 ��tate Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): The STIP is funded through state and federal as tax dollars and is California's primary transportation fund. Dollars are allocated to each county based on a formula that takes into consideration population and highway centerline miles. Actual funding decisions for 75 percent of STIP dollars are made by local transportation agencies such as RCTC. State Transit Assistance: Additional state funding of transit operations for urban counties. The funding source is similar to TDA and remains quite stable. These funds are allocated to RTA, SunLine and Metrolink. Surface Transportation Program (STP): The Commission receives funding from this federal program for various transportation projects. The STP is one funding source from the federal transportation omnibus legislation commonly known as TEA -21. The Act and its resultant funding expire in 2003. Congress is expected to pass yet another act to authorize additional federal transportation funding in the future. The Commission has primarily used this funding source for building highway projects. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ): The CMAQ program is also funded and created via TEA -21 and is targeted for transportation improvements in areas with air quality problems. This program pays for improvements such as High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes and transit projects that reduce congestion while improving air quality. The Commission has also used CMAQ dollars to fund clean fuel and commuter assistance programs. Given the air quality challenges in the Inland Empire, the Commission will actively support the continuation of CMAQ dollars with the reauthorization of the Oeral transportation program. Federal Transit Administration (FTA): The federal government provides funding for qualified capital investments in transit facilities and vehicles. With the construction of a new rail station in Corona the Commission is using FTA funds to assist in paying for the construction of new rail station. Rail/Highway Leases: The Commission owns parcels of land and rail right of way in selected areas throughout the county. The ownership provides leasing opportunities for fiber-optic cable, advertising signs and business tenants. The amount of funding received from the leases provides revenue to support the cost of owning and maintaining the Commission's land and facilities. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): As the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for Southern California, SCAG often works closely with agencies such as RCTC in the development of regional transportation and air quality plans and programs. One notable area of partnership has been with the County's CETAP process which has received funding from SCAG due to its regional importance. Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE): This motorist assistance program places freeway call boxes throughout the county's freeway and state highways. Additionally, the Commission allocated a portion of the SAFE revenue to support the Freeway Service Patrol. The call boxes enable motorists to summon help should they encounter mechanical or emergency problems while on the road. This program is established through state law that allows county SAFE's to pose a $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations within the county to pay for call box purchases and ration. The Commission is working with other SAFE agencies throughout the state to seek gislation to ensure that counties receive enough funding to ensure comprehensive service. 119 Caltrans Freeway Service Patrol: Caltrans is the primary sponsor of the Freeway Service Patrak and provides the majority of funding for the program. The Commission administers and implement the program along with the California Highway Patrol. Investment Income: The Commission has established a prudent investment policy for cash on hand that is intended to maximize return while providing absolute safeguards on principle and liquidity. A more detailed explanation of the Commission's investment policy is discussed in another section of this document. Measure A Sales Tax Revenues Revenue Projections - The most recent update of those projections was completed in September 2001 performed by the auditing firm of Ernst & Young, LLP which was retained by the Commission to develop and run a model that predicts changes in taxable sales. The econometric model uses personal income and the unemployment rate for the Riverside -San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Ernst & Young, LLP obtained projections on these two variables from Regional Financial Associates (RFA) a consulting firm specializing in the development of comprehensive regional economic models for all MSA's in the United States. RFA's forecasts uses several factors including demographic, employment, and financial data. The following additional assumptions were also used in the development of the Commission's revenue forecast: • • The state does not change mix of items subject to the sales tax from what has been included historically. • The relative sales and property tax rates of Riverside and surrounding counties do not change from historical levels. • Internet sales will have minimal impact on revenue. • Historical income was balanced against Ernst and Young projections to project revenues These revenue estimates will be reviewed again in the next fiscal year. Chart 7 - Measure A Sales Tax Revenues 2002 - 2009 • 120 Aipeographic allocation - Riverside County is comprised of three geographic areas: Western iverside County, the Coachella Valley and the Palo Verde Valley. The percentage of revenues allocated to each of these areas based on return to source is approximately 72.3% for Western County, 26.6% for the Coachella Valley, and 1.1% for the Palo Verde Valley. These percentages will experience some variations from year to year based on changes in levels of taxable sales. Chart 8— Geographic Allocation Table 23 - Geographic Allocation - Program Administration Administration $3,250,000 Highway Rail Regional Arterial "pm, mnuter Assistance 'al Transportation oval Streets and Roads Total $3,250,000 Western County. $0 25,432,000 10,899,000 1,651,000 1,651,000 26,422,000 $66,055,000 Coachella Valley $0 $3,647,000 9,725,000 2,431,000 8,509,000 Program allocation --The Transportation Improvement in which the sales tax revenues are to be spent. Table 24 - Program Allocation Western County Highway Rail Local Streets & Roads Special Transportation Commuter Assistance Seniors & Persons with Disabilities Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Local Streets & Roads Highway Transit Palo Verde Valley 1110 Local Streets & Roads Percent 38.5% 16.5% 40.0% 2.5% 2.5% 40.0% 35.0% 15.0% 10.0% 100% $24,312,000 Palo Verde Valley Total $0 $3,250,000 29,079,000 - 10,899,000 9,725,000 - 1,651,000 4,082,000 988,000 35,919,000 $988,000 $94,605,000 Plan (TIP) of Measure A defines the manner 121 Other Sales Tax Revenues • Revenues received from Transportation Development Act (TDA) totaling $8,733,456 are allocated for regional and local transportation planning, program administration, and transit services, in Western Riverside. TDA revenues consist principally of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) which derives from one quarter of one cent (1/4) of the state sales tax. The Commission administers these funds on behalf of the County of Riverside. The County is projected to receive $46,613,000 in LTF revenues. The majority of LTF revenues, $37,879,544, are reserved for and disbursed to the other transit providers within Riverside County. Program Revenues Measure A sales tax, reimbursements, and TDA funding are allocated to the various Commission programs as follows: Highway Funding Total funding for the highway program includes Measure A sales tax revenues and interest from loans to Cities to advance their local streets and roads programs. Federal and State funding will assist with the construction of HOV lanes on Route 60, Route 91 and highway widening on Route 74. Table 25 — Highway Program Revenues FY01/02 FY02/03 Budget Proposed Variance Pecentage Measure A $27,612,000 $29,079,000 $1,467,000 5.3% CMAQ 2,301,000 1,000,000 (1,301,000) -56.5% State - Other 4,259,000 4,000,000 (259,000) -6.1% Local/Private 933,220 - (933,220) -100.0% Total $35,105,220 $34,079,000 ($1,026,220) -2.9% Rail Program Funding Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 9 transit capital funding will be used for the design, right of way and construction of the new North Main Corona Station, La Sierra Phase Parking Lot Expansion and completion of the Alternative Analysis study for the San Jacinto Branch line. FTA funding is allocated annually by the government and is based on calculated miles of service. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding will be used for the Pedley Station Security Surveillance System. The CMAQ funding program is also funded and created via TEA -21. The emergency platform at Pedley station will be extended with Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding. STP, a category of the federal transportation funding program, is allocated to the state based on ninety percent of gas tax generated. The County is then• allocated its share by the state using relative population and highway miles. 122 " " STIP will provide funding for the completion of track work at the new North Main Corona Station. STIP funding is allocated by county based on a formula of population and highway centerline miles. Rail operations, which include SCRRA and capital contributions, station maintenance, support costs and rail right of way purchases will be funded with an allocation of TDA (i.e., Local Transportation Fund) sales tax revenues. The estimate for TDA for rail assumes the TDA apportionment formula (based on population estimates for the County's three major geographic areas provided by the State Department of Finance), calculates twenty percent (established for planning purposes by Commission policy) of the amount available for Western Riverside County, and then compares that with budgeted expenditures. Fare revenues are anticipated from special train events and are based on expected ticket prices and ridership estimates determined using historical trends. Table 26  Rail Program Revenues FY01 /02 Budget Measure A LTF STA State - Other STP FTA CMAQ Federal - Other Local/Private Fare Revenues Total Commuter Assistance " $10,350,000 6,426,400 450,000 5,200,000 250,000 12,200,000 1,276,000 646,403 1,125,780 130,000 $38,054,583 FY02/03 Proposed $10,899,000 4,445,100 1,342,000 6,711,000 250,000 12,997,000 472,000 137,200 155,900 $37,409,200 Variance Pecentage $549,000 (1,981,300) 892,000 1,511,000 0 797,000 (804,000) (646,403) (988,580) 25.900 ($645,383) 5.3%- -30.8% 198.2% 29.1% 0.0% 6.5% -63.0% 100.0% -87.8% 19.9% -1.7% The Commuter Assistance program will receive funding from local, state and other agencies to assist in implementing services to commuters and employers in promoting ridesharing. Table 27  Commuter Assistance Revenues FY01 /02 Budget Measure A SB 836 State - Other Local Cities/Agencies/Other Total FY02/03 Proposed Variance Percent $1,568,000 $1,651,000 $83,000 5.3% 12,000 (12,000) -100.0% 482,400 430,000 (52,400) -10.9% 874,700 1,082,000 207.300 23.7% $2,937,100 $3,163,000 $225,900 7.7% 123 Special Transportation • Measure A (see Measure A sales tax revenue projections) allocates funding to programs that are designed to improve the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities. The funds are also intended to subsidize transportation costs of the economically disadvantaged. No other revenue sources are anticipated. Table 28 — Special Transportation Revenues FY01/02 FY02/03 Budget Proposed Variance Percent Western County Measure A $1,568,000 $1,651,000 $83,000 5.3% Coachella Valley Measure A 2,309.000 2.431.000 122,000 azza Total $3,877,000 $4,082,000 $205,000 5.3% Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies The Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies is funded from revenues received by way of a one dollar fee included with the Department of Motor Vehicles registration fees. Since the growth in these fees historically has not been substantial, the budget amount has remained relatively constant. The increase shown assumes a relationship to population growth. Table 29 — SAFE Revenues DMV Fees FY01/02 FY02/03 Budget Proposed Variance Percent $1,000,000 $1,150,000 $150,000 15% • Freeway Service Patrol Caltrans will allocate out of the State Highway account funds to cover the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP). The state provides nearly 80% of the funding for the FSP program. The allocation of funding throughout the state is based on population, freeway miles, and level of congestion. The state's contribution is matched with an operating transfer of $240,600, or 20% of total FSP expenditures, from the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). Table 30 — FSP Revenues FY01/02 FY02/03 Budget Proposed Variance Percent State Budgetary Allocation $891,900 $1,065,000 $173,100 19.4% State Transit Assistance The State Transit Assistance (STA) allocation is based on an estimate received from the State Controller's Office. For FY 02/03, the state's estimated allocation to Riverside County is $2,907,000. This estimate reflects a 30.7% decrease which is a direct result of the state economy. This estimate was received prior to finalization of the state's budget, which may result in revisions. Any changes to the revenues will be incorporated during ongoing budge tW 124 " reviews for FY 02/03. Table 31  STA Revenues FY01 /02 FY02/03 Budget Proposed Variance Percent State Transit Assistance $4,194,019 $2,907,000 ($1,287,019) -30.7% Local Streets and Roads Measure A (see Measure A sales tax projections) Local Streets and Roads program is distributed to the cities and the County to use for local street repairs, maintenance and construction. Table 32 - Local Streets & Roads Revenues FY01 /02 FY02/03 Budget Proposed Variance Pecentage Measure A $34,108,000 $35,919,000 $1,811,000 5.3% Regional Arterial " The Measure A (see Measure A sales tax revenue projections) Regional Arterial program will be used to reduce debt service on the 1993 sales tax revenue bonds and to continue construction and improvements of the regional arterial system in the Coachella Valley. Table 33  Regional Arterial Measure A Local Cities/Agencies Total FY01/02 Budget $9,235,000 1.430.000 $10,665,000 FY02/03 Proposed $9,725,000 1.430.000 $11,155,000 Variance $490,000 $490,000 Pecentage 5.3% 0.0% 4.6% Plans and Programs Transportation planning studies are funded with an LTF off the top allocation equal to three percent (3%) of estimated revenues. State Transportation Improvement Program (SB45) Planning & Programming Monitoring (PP&M) funds are two percent of the total available County funding as estimated by the California Transportation Commission. These PP&M funds will also support staff and consultant costs associated with CETAP. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is providing federal funding for the CETAP study as well as various cities within Riverside and San Bernardino Counties providing local funding. " 125 Table 34 — Planning & Programming Revenues FY01/02 FY02/03 Budget Proposed Variance Percent TDA $1,319,245 $1,398,400 $79,155 6.0% State - Other 500,000 0 (500,000) -100.0% STIP 659,297 1,297,300 638,003 96.8% Federal - Other 0 500,000 500,000 100.0% Local Cities/Agencies/Other 2.339 500 640.500 (1.699.000) -72.6% Total $4,818,042 $3,836,200 ($981,842) -20.4% • Other Revenues A total of $156,000 in revenues is expected from property management for licenses and leases from the San Jacinto and San Bernardino subdivision rail program of which 24% of the total or $38,000 is from leased revenues for facilities located on highway properties. These amounts are based on existing contract provisions and historical results. In the Coachella Valley, revenues totaling $1,430,000 will be used to cover Coachella Valley's share of debt service for the sales tax revenue bonds 1993 Series A. Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF), collected and maintained by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), are the source for these funds. A total of $394,000 in revenues is budgeted as interest only, earned from loan reimbursement agreements with the Cities of Canyon Lake, Corona, Norco, Perris, Sa Those funds are used to pay debt service on the 1997 Series B Junior. Jacinto, and Temecula. Bonds. In addition, Western Riverside Council of Governments will reimburse the Commission $60,000 for financial services. Investment Income Interest earnings on the County pool are estimated around 2.0%. The earnings on funds held by the trustee for debt service in money market funds is also assumed to be at 2.0%, except for the 1993 Debt Reserve Fund which contractually pays 6.87%. The Commission's operating funds are held in various mutual funds and U.S. guaranteed agency notes. Interest rates for the mutual funds are assumed to be 2.0%, while the treasury notes yield approximately 3.5%. Total earnings are projected to be $3,965,000 for FY 02/03. • 126 " " " PERSONNEL Personnel salary and fringe benefits The Commission provides a comprehensive package of benefits to all permanent, salaried employees. The package includes: " Health, dental, vision and life insurance " Short and long term disability " Workers compensation " Tuition assistance " Sick and vacation leave " Retirement benefits in the form of participation in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) " Deferred compensation Chart 9  Personnel Salary & Benefits In 1988, when Measure A was approved, one of the requirements of the Measure was for the Commission to not budget more than one percent of Measure A sales tax revenue for administrative salaries and benefits. In this budget, the Commission is utilizing 85% of this capacity and other administrative salaries and benefits are being funded by specific programs and other Federal and State funds. As a result of this requirement, the Commission has a small staff to provide the transportation services to the county of Riverside. The Commission's salary and fringe benefits totals $2,528,200. This represents a decrease of 0.1% under the FY 01/02 budget of $2,531,500 and is for the following reasons: " Per Commission action, no COLA will be given to employees, rather every two years a salary analysis will be performed to readjust the salary ranges; " Employees will be eligible for 0-6% performance merit increases; " Contingencies are set aside for vacation, holiday and administrative leave buyouts and other personnel needs. 127 Chart 10 - Personnel and Benefits Costs Over the past two years, the Commission has maintained it's current staff with no increases in salaried personnel. In FY 01/02, one staff member retired and management has no current plans to replace that position. Management is spreading the job duties to other personnel and expects to complete the tasks covered by that employees. Management is keeping that position on it's roster in case it needs to fill the position. Management continues to be firmly committed to the intent of the Commission's enabling legislation that called for a small staff. Staff will continue to be provided the tools needed, including state of the art technology to ensure working smarter (i.e., more productively). However, it must be recognized that small is not viewed in an absolute context, but is relative to the required tasks to be performed and the demands to be met. Table 35 - Personnel Summary FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FTE FTE FTE FTE Executive Management 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 Administration 3.6 5.5 6.0 6.3 Finance 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.0 Capital Development & Delivery 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 Plans & Programs 3.0 3.9 3.6 3.8 Transit 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 Property Management 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.6 Regional Issues 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.5 Special Transportation 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 Rail Program 2.0 2.5 2.3 2.4 Commuter Assistance 1.0 1.8 1.1 1.5 Motorist Assistance 1.6 14 :1_,Q 1.0 Total 22.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 *Note: the Director of Intergovernmental & Legislative Affairs is employed by SANBAG, but by contract also serves the Commission. The position costs are classified under professional services, but would in effect add another .5 FTE to the Commission's staff for a total FTE of 25.5. • • • 128 " " COMMISSION DEBT At June 30, 2002, the Commission will have $248,348,351 outstanding in sales tax revenue bonds. During the year, $25,115,000 in principal will be retired, along with $10,365,957 in interest payments. The Commission's cost of funds is estimated to be 5.9%. The Commission has maintained an excellent credit rating and is one of the highest rated Self -Help counties in the State of California. The Commission has been able to maintain its rating because of the high level of voter approval on its measure, the higher standard of 2x on debt service and good financial management. The Commission currently maintains a Aa3/AA- rating from Standard and Poors and Moody's rating agencies. Other costs associated with debt management include trustee processing fees budgeted at $20,000. Debt Capacity Analysis The Commission is legally prohibited from issuing additional debt if its debt coverage ratio is less than 1.5 to 1 on all senior debt. The Commission has adopted a higher standard of 2 to 1 as part of its Debt Service policy. As the chart shows, the Commission has successfully met its policy standard. Any coverage less than 2 to 1 would necessitate using other program funding to cover all debt service expenditures. Chart 11 Debt Capacity Analysis Table 36 - Debt Capacity Sales Tax Revenues Senior Debt Service Coverage Ratio - Senior Debt Subordinate Debt Coverage Ratio - All Debt Debt Rating Analysis FY98'99 $70,396,829 $29,997,964 2.35 $1,468,440 2.24 Aa3/AA FY99/00 FY00/01 FY01/02 FY02/03 $81,543,732 $88,973,617 $91,035,000 $94,605,000 $28,989,523 $33,473,332 $34,008,306 $34,008,032 2.81 2.66 2.68 278 $1,473,213 $1,470,013 $1,470,413 $1,472,925 2.68 2.55 2.57 2.67 Aa3/AA- Aa3/AA- Aa3/AA. Aa3/AA- 129 Chart 12 — Available Revenue/Debt Service Debt Service Schedule Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Table 37 — Commission Debt Fiscal Year Principal Interest Total 2003 $25,115,000 $10,365,957 $35,480,957 2004 21,606,959 13,870,260 35,477,219 2005 27,200,000 8,285,530 35,485,530 2006 28,640,000 6,843,222 35,483,222 2007-2009 95.695.000 10.726.423 106.421.423 Total $198,256,959 $50,091,392 $248,348,351 Under the provisions of Measure A, as amended by Ordinance No. 92-1 (Measure AA), the Commission has the authority to issue bonds subject to a bond debt limitation of $525,000,000. The following is a summary of bonds issued and secured by Measure A revenues: 2000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In July 2000, the Commission issued $35,825,000 principal amount of serial bonds to finance the widening and construction improvement to enhance the accessibility and safety of California State Route 74 and other Western County projects. 1997 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: The Commission issued $47,910,000 principal amount of serial bonds to refund $41,000,000 of the outstanding commercial paper notes along with $6,910,000 in new debt proceeds to fund various major highway projects. 1997 Sales Tax Revenue Junior Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series B: The Commission issued $13,245,000 principal amount of subordinated (junior) serial bonds to refund $3,000,000 of the outstanding commercial paper notes along with $10,245,000 in new debt proceeds to fund various streets and roads projects for local cities. • • • 130 " " " 1996 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In January 1996, the Commission issued $61,765,000 principal amount of serial bonds to refund a portion of the 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A. The bonds refunded were the serial maturities due in 2002 and 2003 for $6,945,000 and $7,405,000, respectively, and the term bonds due in 2009 for $44,975,000, for a total refunded amount of $59,325,000. The refunding resulted in total present value savings of $1,862,750. 1993 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In February 1993, the Commission issued $136,610,000 principal amount of serial bonds to finance the purchase of the Santa Fe use rights and other rail properties, improvements to Routes 86 and 111, as well as major regional arterials in the Coachella Valley. 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In January 1991, the Commission issued $112,996,959 principal amount of long term debt in the form of serial, term, and capital appreciation bonds to finance improvements to Route 91 and Route 86, purchase of rail properties for station sites, and engineering and/or construction for various other routes in the County, including 1-215, Routes 74 and 79. See description of 1996 Series A Refunding Bonds. The bond agreements require the trustee to hold all bond proceeds and sales tax revenues and to segregate all funds into separate accounts including project proceeds, sales tax revenues, interest payments and principal payments and a reserve fund equal to the maximum annual debt service of $35,480,957. Chart 13  Program Debt 131 Outstanding Debt and Legal Debt Margin June 30, 2002 Authorized Debt $525,000,000 1991 Series A 3,216,959 1993 Series A 73,355,000 1996 Series A Refunding Bonds 52,465,000 1997 Series A 31,280,000 1997 Junior Series B 8,610,000 2000 Series A 29,330,000 Other 64,418 Total Outstanding Debt 198,321,377 Legal Debt Margin Chart 14 - Debt by Geographic Area Chart 15 - Highway Program Debt: $22,281,522 $326,678,623 • • • 132 " " " Table 38 - Budget Comparison By Line Item FY 2000 - 2003 SOURCES OF REVENUE: Operating Revenues Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax - Planning/Administrative LTF Sales Tax - Transit Allocation STA Transit Allocation SAFE Fees Reimbursement Other Revenue Investment Income Total Operating Revenues EXPENDITURES: Management Services Executive Management Administration Finance Total Management Services Capital Program Services Debt Service Principal Payments Interest Payments Cost of Issuance Total Debt Service Non Capital Transportation Programs Planning and Programming Transit Regional Issues Special Transportation Property Management Rail Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance Total Non Capital Transportation Programs Total Expenditures Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Debt Proceeds Net Financing Sources (Uses) Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures Fund Balance, July 1 Change in accounting principal Ending Fund Balance FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 Actual Actual Budget Projected $81,543,732 $88,973,617 $89,250,000 $91,035,000 1,555,263 1,631,482 1,719,245 1,884,733 4,428,971 5,023,083 6,426,400 5,046,300 2,423,397 2,482,598 4,644,019 3,144,136 1,183,364 1,297,474 1,000,000 1,100,000 6,414,461 5,286,109 32,016,200 10,593,670 3,064,255 4,086,123 3,152,448 1,146,176 5.193.832 9.842.472 6,474 500 5112394 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Proposed Change Change $94,605,000 1,998,400 4,445,100 4,249,000 1,150,000 32,012,000 375,900 3.005,1104 $5,355,000 279,155 (1,981,300) (395,019) 150,000 (4,200) (31,640,300) (2 509 500) 6.0% 16.2% -30.8% -8.5% 15.0% 0.0% -98.8% -38 8% 105,807,274 118,622,958 144,682,812 119,662,409 142,800,400 (1,882,412) -1.3% 563,676 633,240 665,600 1,178,272 1,226,311 2,052,800 953.650 829.751 1.106.950 2,695,597 2,689,303 3,825,350 47,600,126 56,897,670 100,156,453 18,529,107 22,478,844 24,069,000 11,998,197 12, 530,366 11, 476, 200 4 433.148 0 0 30,527,304 35,442,358 35,545,200 35,964,471 3,347,476 2,645,156 6,147,872 1,602,703 3,685,976 5,298,519 206,893 132,098 177,400 2,869,592 3,197,679 4,351,100 168,535 159,278 235,250 4,401,427 5,137,472 4,966,687 1,116,402 1,698,814 2,451,600 1.757.219 2.065 044 2.875.334 15,470,247 18,721,567 26,503,762 96,293,274 113,750,898 166,030,765 9,514,000 4,872,060 (21,347,953) 628,091 1,347,549 1.012.650 2,988,290 661,400 2,396,400 1.147.500 4,205,300 (4,200) 343,600 40 550 379,950 -0.6% 16.7% 3.7% 9.9% 63,193,724 103,557,800 3,401,347 3.4% 24,455,053 24,888,000 819,000 11,509,418 10,663,000 (813,200) 0 0 35,551,000 5,800 3.4% -7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 6,043,345 3,490,000 (2,657,872) -43.2% 5,222,170 3,023,500 (2,275,019) -42.9% 101,055 104,600 (72,800) -41.0% 3,722,436 3,715,500 (635,600) -14.6% 140,101 198,700 (36,550) -15.5% 4,096,496 4,737,500 (229,187) -4.6% 1,964,405 2,395,000 (56,600) -2.3% 2,604,020 2,024.900 (850.434) -29.6% 23,894,028 19,689,700 (6,814,062) -25.7% 126,040,513 163,003,800 (3,026,965) -1.8% (6,378,104) (20,203,400) 1,144,553 -5.4% 0 35.934.149 0 0 0 35,934,149 0 0 9,514,000 40,806,209 (21,347,953) (6,378,104) 103,048,439 112,562,792 ' 158,245,879 158,245,879 0 4.876.877 0 0 $112,562,792 $158,245,879 $136,897,926 $151,867,775 0 0 00% 0 0 0.0% (20,203,400) 1,144,553 -5.4% 151,867,775 (6,378,104) -4.0% 0 0 0.0% $131,664,375 ($5,233,551) -3.8% 133 Executive Management Mission Statement: "To manage the activities of the agency with a small staff, complemented with consultants, to effectuate sound transportation policies and legislation compatible with air quality standards and accomplish the expeditious delivery of cost- effective transportation programs and projects consistent with Commission direction." Chart 16 - Executive Management Support 8% Professional 44% Personnel 48% Expenditures Executive Management has a budget of $661,400 for oversight of all Commission functions. Professional and support costs include legal fees for $25,000, legislative analysis and advocacy for $267,500 of which $245,000 is contracted services with SANBAG for shared Director of Intergovernmental & Legislative Affairs. Table 39 - Expenditure Detail FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02103 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Salaries and Benefits $210,483 $235,365 $302,000 $258,271 $317,000 $15,000 5.0% Professional Costs General Legal Services 77,746 82,211 55,000 53,000 25,000 (30,000) -54.5% Other Professional Services 221.312 240.919 250.000 259.000 267.500 17 500 7.0% Total Professional Costs 299,058 323,130 305,000 312,000 292,500 (12,500) -4.1% Support Costs 54.1 a5 74.746 58.600 57.820 51.900 (6.700) -11.4% Total Executive Management $563,676 $M3,240 $665,600 $628,091 $661,400 ($4,200) -0.6% • • • 134 " " " Executive Management Staffing Summary Department Overview Department Description The Executive Director is responsible for and provides strong leadership in developing and implementing new strategies, assuring project delivery and providing guidance to promote the long-term interests of transportation improvements throughout Riverside County. Furthermore, executive management is committed to fostering a positive and supportive work environment for staff that emphasizes quality work, encourages teamwork and open communication while recognizing individual achievement. Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs It is the function of the intergovernmental and legislative affairs section to ensure the Commission takes full advantage of developments at both the federal and state when there is a potential impact to Commission programs. In so doing, this effort seeks to establish RCTC as a major legislative force and a statewide leader on a selective number of issues such as project delivery and enhanced funding. Recognizing that the Inland Empire (consisting of Riverside and San Bernardino counties) has a multitude of commonly shared transportation concerns, and a significant combined legislative delegation in Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, the Commission works cooperatively with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) through a shared staff position to manage its common intergovernmental and legislative interests. This shared position has resulted in significant savings in staff costs for the Commission. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions " Executive compensation package as granted will remain the same up to January 1, 2003. The contract currently extended to December 2003 is subject to review and revision in the summer of 2002. 135 " Legislative analysis and liaison functions will continue to be on a shared basis with SANBAG. The Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs will technically remain a SANBAG employee promoting both agencies' programs at the state and federal levels. If a conflict should arise, the ROTC Executive Director will represent the Commission's interests. " The Commission and SANBAG will continue to share state and federal legislative consultants to generate cost savings and more effectively collaborate on mutual interests. Major Initiatives The Executive Director will expend considerable effort educating the public on the accomplishments of the Commission and growing transportation needs of the County. Through meetings with community leaders, elected officials and various citizen interest groups the goal will be to communicate the Commission's achievements and its plans and aspirations for the future. The extension and expansion of Measure A will be the focal point of these presentations. It is anticipated that a new thirty year expenditure plan will be placed on the ballot for the November 2002 election date, extending the sales tax program to 2039. Regional cooperation and collaboration will continue to be given significant effort consistent with the philosophy and mission of this Commission. Working closely with the Executive Director in this endeavor will be the Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs. Issue briefings will be accomplished through a series of workshops and face-to-face meetings with the Executive Director and senior staff, as well as through the use of printed material. Enhanced external communications will remain a top Commission priority. Media relations will continue to be formally cultivated and press releases will remain a major effort along with the Commission Connection newsletter. An expanding and systematic outreach to business and civic groups continues as a central feature of the program. Project development and delivery will continue as the key Measure A priority. Work efforts are ongoing for Routes 60, 74, 79, 91, and Coachella Valley Measure A commitments in partnership with CVAG. Improvements to commuter rail stations, the San Jacinto Branch Line and the 60/91/1-215 freeway interchange will be major efforts in FY 02/03. The Executive Director and the Deputy Executive Director will focus on completing the commitment made to our voters with the passage of Measure A. While overseeing and actively participating in all of these major endeavors, the Executive Director will maintain and improve on the administrative efficiency and fiscally sound practices characteristic of this agency. Staff training and development will continue to be intensified enabling our small and dedicated staff to enhance their skills, productivity, and value. The Commission will continue to be competitive in the employment market and will retain capable staff as well as attract high quality " " " 136 " " applicants. The Director of Administrative Services has been charged with oversight for this activity. The Commission's budget continues its commitment of considerable resources to the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). CETAP is jointly funded by the Commission, the County of Riverside, Western Riverside County Cities, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and has received federal and state funding appropriations. The purpose of CETAP is to shorten the time frame for construction of new transportation corridors by ten to fifteen years and to develop a comprehensive, balanced transportation system for the next 25 years. The Executive Director serves on a steering committee with the County Director of Transportation and Land Management. The Commission is responsible for the transportation element of the plan, an effort led by the Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development. Department Goals Maximize funding for transportation improvements in Riverside County through legislative advocacy and locally controlled funding options such as sales taxes (e.g., expansion/extension of Measure A). Objectives: " Finalize and present a thirty-year transportation expenditure plan for voter consideration in November 2002. " Support the completion of the CETAP new corridor adoption process. " Support ongoing efforts to create a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) throughout Western Riverside County. " Following the November 2002 election, develop a transitional strategic plan to "blend" the 1988 Measure A program with the new 2009-2039 expenditure plan. Support regional transportation solutions in cooperation with surrounding counties that are of benefit to Riverside County. Objectives: " Continue as a recognized participant in the regional debate over the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) expansion. " Participate in the AB 2928 Alameda Corridor East capital improvement planning process, with a goal of gaining state and federal funding for goods movement related improvements. Particularly focusing on the reauthorization of the federal TEA 21 program in 2003. Maintain effective working relationships with Commissioners to strengthen and expand RCTC's leadership in transportation policy decision -making at all levels of government. 137 Objectives: • Facilitate Commissioner participation at the regional, state and federal levels to raise the interests of RCTC and seek favorable action. • Through public speeches and presentations, raise the public profile of the necessity of re -authorization of Measure A in November 2002. • Continue the regular one-on-one meetings between the Executive Director and all Commissioners. While maintaining a relatively 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 individual and team effort. Objectives: • Continue to maintain a well -documented employee appraisal process that provides clear, understandable, and measurable performance criteria for all employees. • Continue to refine RCTC's performance based compensation system. Develop the framework for a Commission culture that enhances productivity, encourages regular and open communication among staff, and promotes the mutual achievement of individual and organizational goals and objectives. Objectives: • Conduct a quarterly review of organization accomplishments as measured against planned objectives to determine progress in meeting those objectives and to determine action steps needed. • Facilitate open communications and coordination between management, professional and support staff through regular meetings. intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs Foster the Commission's full involvement in a broad range of local, regional, state and federal government settings. Objectives: • Participation in the Self -Help Counties Coalition, the California Transit Association, state and federal transportation agencies and community/business organizations including the Monday Morning Group, Inland Empire Economic Partnership, the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, Temecula/Murrieta Group, Hemet/San Jacinto Group and the Valley Group. • Work with the California Transportation Commission and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies to protect and enhance project funding for Riverside County through influencing policy decisions. • • • 138 " " " Implement the RCTC/SANBAG State and Federal Legislative Program to maximize flexibility in the use of existing transportation revenues by supporting legislation to protect and increase current funding levels, insuring an equitable distribution of available resources, streamlining administrative procedures to reduce costs and time of project development and accelerating the allocation and use of existing resources. Objectives: " Coordinate legislative activities of federal and state legislative consultants. Obtain monthly reports on activities performed. " Work with board members to establish policy positions, draft legislation, and take positions on pending legislation. " Review and analyze legislation, recommend positions for the Commission to adopt on specific legislative proposals. " Effectively represent the Commission before the state and federal legislative bodies, the California Transportation Commission and other agencies in funding, programming, and policy matters. " Maintain contact and good working relationships with state and federal lawmakers and their staffs. Regularly meet and inform them of County transportation issues, policy positions and project priorities. " Convene meetings with state, federal and legislative staff members, including hosting federal staff, for an annual full -day briefing and tour of projects. Executive Management Performance/Workload Indicators Budgeted Expenditures Public Speeches Staffing Levels Adoption of Strategic Plan Administration costs as percentage of expenditures FY99/00 Actual FY00/01 Actual FY01/02 Estimated FY02/03 Projected $96,293,274 8 22.0 1 2.79% $113,750,898 16 25.0 N/A 2.36% $126,040,513 20 25.0 N/A 2.37% $163,003,800 40 25.0 N/A 2.57% 139 Administration Mission Statement: "To develop a diverse, collaborative and supportive work environment to enhance the day to day operations of the Commission, its staff and external customers, comply with applicable federal and state requirements, provide training and professional development opportunities to members of the Commission and its staff, and facilitate interactive communications with the public and transportation stakeholders." Chart 17 - Administration Capital Outlay 14% Support 39% Personnel 19% Professional 28% Expenditures Administrations total budget is $2,396,400 for office administration, Clerk of the Board activities, human resources and communications and training. Professional costs of $676,000 cover various services including, but not limited to Commissioners' per diem, legal fess, information systems, web site design and maintenance, graphic design and temporary help services. Support costs covers administrative overhead. Table 40 - Expenditure Detail FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Salaries and Benefits $285,av $352,791 $462,500 $382,493 $453,000 ($9,500) -2.1% Professional fs Comrissioner - Per Diem 58,700 65,500 60,000 48,384 60,000 - 0.0% General Legal Services 5,170 3,952 10,000 - 10,000 - 0.0% Other Pi vfessional Services 57.361 52.232 379.000 118.015 606.000 227.000 59.9% Total Professional Cns►s 121,230 121,684 449,000 166,399 676,000 227,000 50.6% Support Costs 721,091 688,333 904,300 561,667 935,400 31,100 3.4% Capital Outlay 50,319 63,503 237,000 237,000 117,000 95,000 40.1% Total Administration $1,178,272 $1,226,311 $2,052,800 $1,347,549 $2,396,400 $343,600 16.7% • • 140 " " " Administrative Staffing Summary Department Overview Department Description ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Administrative Services Department manages centralized information systems, support services and purchasing activities for the Commission. It provides administrative and staff support to the 30 -member Board of Commissioners, to members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, and to Commission staff. It oversees the maintenance and retention of the Commission's records and documents; update human resources and employees benefits policies and procedures; recruitment and performance assessment system; processing and tracking of contracts and agreements; procurement and disposal of office supplies equipment and furniture; development and tracking disadvantaged business enterprise program and contracts; compliance of Conflict of Interest Codes; posting of legal notices; maintenance of Commission offices; and, planning and coordination of Commission special events. The Department continues to operate with a small staff consisting of the Director of Administrative Services, Senior Administrative Assistant, Administrative Support Specialists and is assisted by one Bechtel staff with its recordkeeping function. The Director of Administrative Services is also the Commission's Clerk of the Board. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions " Support costs assume 25 full time staff and 10 in-house consultants. " The Commission will relocate its offices and meeting locations to the Riverside County Regional Center in October 2002. " Office furniture and systems will be updated. 141 " Meeting agenda, legal notices, request for proposals, and employment opportunities will be accessible through the Commission's web page. Major Initiatives Coordination with the County of Riverside, internal staff, and vendors will continue until the Commission's scheduled office move to the County of Riverside Regional Center in October, 2002. It is anticipated that starting December 2002, Commission and Committee meetings will be held in the Board Room of the County of Riverside. Until that time, the Commission offices will remain at its current location and Commission meetings will continue to be held at the University of California @ Riverside's Chancellor's Conference Room. This year, a number of construction projects will be started and completed. This Department will work with appropriate staff members to plan the events to commemorate start and completion of the projects. The California Unified Certification Program (CAUCP) was approved by the Federal Transportation Administration in March 2002. The Director of Administrative Services acts as the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Liaison Officer. With the CAUCP in place, DBE consultants and contractors applications will be able to be processed by identified certifying agencies in a timely manner. The Department will continue to review and expand its DBE mailing list to advertise for federally funded projects. An Electronic Document Management System was put in place in May 2002. The system will improve the Commission staff recordkeeping capability for incoming and internally created records, reports will be filed and categorized in a timely manner, with documents forwarded to and accessed by staff electronically. Training sessions will continue to reinforce the Commission's policies regarding performance evaluation, sexual harassment, drug and alcohol free workplace, personnel policies and procedures, tuition reimbursement program and other office procedures. Personnel policies and procedures will be updated in compliance with state and federal requirements. Informative meetings will be scheduled on an "as needed" basis to provide update on health insurance providers, deferred compensation, and retirement benefits. The Administrative Department will continue to provide high quality support services to the Board of Commissioners and to internal and external customers, by maintaining effective and professional human resource, maintaining the quality and integrity of the procurement system, and providing a working environment that enhances the overall mission of the Commission. " " 142 " Department Goals Develop innovative solutions, products, services and processes to provide excellent service to internal and external customers through shared leadership, and employee recognition and support. Objectives: " Provide opportunities and information to enhance the employee's knowledge of current personnel policies and procedures by scheduling workshop on Commission's personnel policies and employee benefits. " Stay abreast of employee relations issues and be prepared to offer recommendations for problem solving. " Ensure employee personnel records are maintained electronically in order to provide easy access to appropriate staff. " Review and update personnel policies and procedures to comply with federal and state requirements, and provide employees with changes to the policies and procedures. " Develop a mechanism to alert supervisors and staff on the timeline to process and complete employee performance evaluations. " Continue to recognize employees at Commission meetings upon reaching Commission service tenure. " Coordinate with administrative staff to develop a new employee orientation packet. " Schedule Administrative Department staff to attend training sessions and workshops to increase their knowledge in the areas of human resources, record management, procurement, and office management. " Provide products and services to promote a safe working environment and a competent, diverse and productive workforce. Foster quality purchasing services through the use of automation to increase efficiency and good relations with departments and the business community. Objectives: " Continually review and update the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) mailing list. " Post request for proposals on the Commission's web page on a timely basis. " Provide information on DBE certification on the Commission's web page. " Obtain goods and services consistent with intended quality and capabilities at the most advantageous price afforded in the market. " Work with administrative staff, develop a unified format and process for request for proposals. " Update, when necessary, agreement formats to comply with federal and state requirements. Prepare, publish and maintain timely official records of Commission meetings and facilitate access of information to Commission records. 143 " Objectives: " Ensure that meeting agenda are posted on agenda bulletin board and the web page and mailed in compliance to state and federal requirements. " Update Commissioners on transportation -related information on a timely basis. " Continue to support and develop agenda for the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council and present topics for discussion and input as directed by the Commission. " Continue to improve the Commission's recordkeeping practices by implementation and installation of electronic document management system. " Maintain and index Commission resolutions, ordinance, agreements and contracts. " Coordinate special activities, meetings, events, and conferences as requested by the Executive Director and the Commission. COMMUNICATIONS AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT The Commission is committed to communicating with and educating a broad arena of interested parties on the roles and responsibilities of the agency. As managed by the Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs, emphasis is placed on informing Riverside County residents and businesses about transportation projects and services, and maintaining open communication with other allied entities. Various forms of media and communication tools are used in these outreach efforts with the overall objectives being to provide accurate, informative and easily accessible information, facilitate public participation in the Commission processes, and increase inter -agency coordination and cooperation. Focusing on the organization itself, training of Board members and staff alike are considered essential to maintaining and advancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency. Reflecting their policy role, in-house continuing education for Commissioners is generally developed and presented in a topical format to quickly and succinctly provide information in a framework that fosters inter -active discussion and consensus. decision -making. Emphasis is also placed on developing strong working relationships between Commissioners and staff. The training program for staff is designed and funded to fully encourage participation in both technical and professional development courses. Training options are identified as part of an employee's annual evaluation process. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions " " 144 S • All staff will attend at least one training course in support of professional development. Training emphasis will be placed on computer and technology applications in the workplace. • The annual newspaper report to the public will be expanded in size to feature 25 years of transportation progress since inception of the Commission. • The Commission Connection will be published monthly. • The Speakers Bureau effort will continue to seek local community opportunities to expand outreach regarding the Commission's activities. Major Initiatives New Commissioner orientation will be provided by the Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs in a one-to-one setting. To supplement individual Commissioner meetings with the Executive Director, continuing education opportunities at the small group level will also be provided to Commissioners which focus on timely issues. Broad distribution of the "Commission Connection," a monthly one -page, two-sided newsletter highlighting actions of the Commission and emerging topics, will continue as part of the Commission's communications efforts. A specific focus will be placed on updating and expanding the Commission's contact database including e-mail addresses to support distribution of the agency's public information materials. The staff training program policies and procedures that link training assessment with employee evaluations will be monitored for effectiveness and amended as appropriate based on feedback from staff. The Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs will work closely with supervisors at the time of individual employee evaluations to identify and budget specific training options that relate to employee goals for the new review period. The identification of courses remains a priority to build resources and expand training options for staff. Efforts will be made to update and enhance the Commission's public information program to citizens and businesses within Riverside County as well as a broad array of public and private entities involved in the world of transportation. The Commission's outreach will include a proactive effort to work closely with various media formats such as print, radio and television to increase their understanding of and interest in transportation issues and generate a higher level of media coverage. The Commission provides information to the public through various channels including: 1) participation at service clubs and public meetings; 2) production and provision of resource materials and fact sheets; 3) maintenance and enhancement of the Commission's web site; and 4) development of newspaper press releases, radio public service announcements and cable television spots. In recognition of the Commission's 25th anniversary, an enlarged annual report will be published in the county's major newspapers this year to focus on the agency's history and accomplishments. 145 The expanded Measure A public information program begun in last fiscal year will be continued this year. The program, designed as a direct mail outreach effort, seeks to inform citizens about the progress made to date in implementing the voter approved %2 cent sales tax list of projects and programs approved by the voters in 1988. Department Goals Support the continuing education of Commissioners to increase their understanding of transportation -related issues at local, state, and federal levels to maximize the effectiveness of RCTC in affecting policy and funding actions. Objectives: • Provide individual orientation training for new Commissioners. • Update the format and produce a monthly one -page fact sheet, "Commission Connection", highlighting actions and activities of the agency. • Provide periodic educational workshops/study sessions for Commissioners. Develop and maintain an information program which educates the public and other stakeholders on the roles and responsibilities of the Commission as it relates to accomplishments achieved through Measure A or other funding sources controlled or administered by the Commission. Objectives: • Create a stock of video footage for use in production of cable TV spots that features transportation projects funded and or implemented by the Commission. • Expand, maintain, and update information on the Commission's website. • Periodically use cable television and other forms of media such as billboards, if appropriate, to communicate information to the public regarding the Commission's activities and services. • Annually produce an insert in all major County newspapers that informs the public regarding Measure A progress and other Commission programs. • Issue news releases to the local media announcing significant achievements and providing information on Commission actions and activities. • Develop and maintain open line of communication with news reporters to facilitate adequate and accurate news coverage. • Schedule periodic media information briefings or news conferences when a particular issue warrants it. • Coordinate and oversee message content of all Commission publications and communications to provide a uniformity of message and direction. • Require the use of Measure A project/program signage by funding recipients to increase public awareness of Measure A accomplishments. • • • 146 " " " " Continue to administer and expand the use of a Speaker's Bureau to reach community members in service and other organizations. " Monitor and distribute media coverage from various outlets in the county and throughout the region to Commissioners and staff to enable them to keep close track of transportation policy trends. Foster and maintain effective communications with other agencies to heighten their understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and increase inter -agency coordination and cooperation. Objective: " Assign designated staff members to attend other agency meetings and require staff to provide written/verbal communication on topics of discussion during regular staff meetings. Ensure a consistent and coordinated training program that develops management, leadership, and technical skills to improve overall staff expertise. Objectives: " Develop and implement training programs to support and enhance individual staff performance within the various classification levels. " Encourage participation in seminars and classes related to Commission activities that complement job responsibilities. " Facilitate cross -training opportunities to ensure adequate staff coverage in case of staff vacancies, illnesses or vacations. " Support supervisors during the evaluation process in identification of training options based on an employee's defined goals. Administration Performance/Workload Indicators FY 99/00 Actual FY 00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Estimated FY 02/03 Projected Employee Introduction Sessions 4 3 3 3 Records Microfilmed 4,516 5,200 3,179' N/A2 Vacant Position Recruitment 10 12 10 11 Agreements Processed 127 160 239 150 Legal Notices 12 15 35 20 Commission/Committee/Ad Hoc Meetings 42 47 50 55 Hits on RCTC Web Page 47,305 45,000 40,000 43,000 RCTC Sponsored Events 3 2 3 5 Staff Training Hours 456 507 400 400 1 From July 1, 2001 through March 31, 2002. 2 As of April 1, 2002 electronic document management system was implemented. Records will no longer be microfilmed. 147 Finance Mission Statement: "Seek financing alternatives that complement the Commission's strategic direction. Safeguard the Commission's assets and maintain strong and prudent fiscal controls in investing, accounting, budgeting and financial reporting including ongoing disclosure to all interest parties." Chart 18 - Finance Professional 56% Support 5% Personnel 39% Expenditures Finance's total budget is $1,147,500. Department staffing costs will total $444,000, an increase of $41,000 or 10.2% due to merit increases. Professional costs of $643,500 include various services related to general legal fees, bond counsel fees for debt maintenance issues, financial advisory services, audit services, rating agency fees and other consulting services. Table 41 - Expenditure Detail FY 99100 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Salaries and Benefits $176,588 $369,338 $403,000 $395,000 $444,000 $41,000 10.2% Professional Costs Legal Services 5,340 13,802 12,000 2,000 10,000 (2,000) -16.7% Special Legal Services 10,000 - - (10,000) -100.0% Financial Services 219,604 49,253 100,000 30,000 75,000 (25,000) -25.0% Audit Services 445,920 282,580 345,000 430,000 422,500 77,500 22.5% Other Professional Services 62,748 78,960 165,000 108,000 136,000 (29,000) -17.6% Total Professional Costs 733,612 424,595 632,000 570,000 643,500 11,500 1.8% Support Costs 43,449 35,819 71,950 47,650 60,000 (11,950) -16.6% Total Finance $953,650 $829,751 $1,106,950 $1,012,650 $1,147,500 $40,550 3.7% e e e 148 " " " Finance Staffing Summary Department Overview Department Description Finance activities include investing the Commission's cash resources, planning and directing financial transactions, and subsequent maintenance of legal and regulatory requirements. 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, budget preparation and monitoring. Commission resources are allocated to assure financial stability and fiscal accountability. Adequate cash flow must be maintained while at the same time prudently investing idle funds. Borrowing needs are carefully planned using both short and long term debt. Once debt is issued there are ongoing responsibilities including interaction with financial advisors, bankers, bond insurance companies, and rating agencies, and regular and consistent information disclosure to investors. Fiscal accountability requires coordination of budget planning and close budget monitoring, and accurate and timely accounting for all funding sources, including compliance with all applicable laws and regulations governing those funds. Accounting encompasses cash receipt and disbursement functions, maintenance of the general ledger including project cost accounting, retention of and coordination with independent auditors, payroll processing and quarterly and annual financial reporting. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions " Audit fees remain consistent with the prior year. " The Investment advisory contract will be bid to evaluate services provided by the industry. " Audit Services will be bid to evaluate costs and services provided by the industry 149 " The Commission will continue to provide accounting services to the Western Riverside Council of Governments. " Staff will continue to provide information pertaining to the renewal of the Measure. Major Initiatives Investment activities will receive greater attention to assure the Commission is maximizing its revenue potential from invested funds. Staff will continue to pursue prudent investment strategies and instruments that will provide strong principal protection while improving on the Commission's investment return. The Commission has approved the use of an investment advisor to assist staff with investment strategy and decisions. Staff expects the economy and rates to remain low requiring greater effort for maximizing the return on investment. In addition, the Commission has joined the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and hopes to obtain a better return on its liquid cash. Budgeting has been an evolving process at the Commission. The past year improvements have been made to ensure greater participation and accountability at the department/program level. A comprehensive approach to budgeting was implemented, and this will be built upon and improved in the FY 02/03. Directors and Program managers have been given greater autonomy in developing their budget thus generating greater participation in the financial operation of their programs. Staff has also implemented changes that eliminated the mid -year budget adjustment process and departments are required to initiate budget adjustments on an ongoing basis. Changes to the department reports will be explored, and appropriate suggestions implemented to improve on their readability and usefulness to department/program managers. Department Goals Protect the Commission's cash resources by regular monitoring of investment practices to ensure consistency with established investment policy. Objective: " Achieve a rate or return at least equal to the County of Riverside Treasury Pool rate. Manage the Commission's outstanding debt ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations and continued investor awareness and receptivity to the Commission's program. Objective: " Annual update and review of program with rating agencies to occur no later than April 2003. " " " 150 " " " Ensure the Commission complies with Measure A laws and regulations as they relate to the annual financial and compliance audits as well as close cooperation and coordination with independent auditors. Objective: " Minimize the number of substantive RCTC management letter comments directly and solely applicable to accounting and requiring corrective action (exclusive of those applicable to other jurisdictions). Maintain fiscal and budgetary control through monitoring or periodic results and consistency with the Commission's strategic direction. Objectives: " Coordinate the completion of a study of performance benchmarks to measure the Commission's consistency with industry standards and to assure appropriate administrative and fiscal performance. " Obtain GFOA Distinguished Budget Award for the FY 02/03 budget and strive for at least two outstanding categories. " Provide monthly notification to department heads on budget performance, and work with department managers to explain and resolve unfavorable budget variances. " Facilitate a comprehensive budgeting approach that effectively involves management staff, requiring full accountability for all department expenditures. Assure fiscal accountability for Commission funds with general ledger accounting and financial reporting consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. Objectives: " Provide monthly activity reports to all Program Managers ensuring timely responses to any noted errors and corrections. " Obtain an unqualified opinion on general-purpose financial statements and the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the GFOA. " Work with training coordinator to ensure that department employees receive at least 20 hours of training and instruction in accounting or areas applicable to job duties. " Update and maintain complete accounting desk procedures manual. " Assist local governments with Measure A funding by providing timely allocation of funds for eligible projects and financing opportunities to the extent funding does not impact other programs and is financially feasible and prudent. " Prepare the FY 01/02 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report using methodology prescribed in GASB 34. 151 Finance Performance/Workload Indicators FY 99/00 Actual FY00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Estimated FY 02/03 Projected Debt Rating Aa3/AA- Aa3/AA- Aa3/AA- Aa3/AA- GFOA Certificate of Achievement Awarded Awarded Awarded Expected GFOA Distinguished Budget Award Outstanding Proficient Proficient Outstanding Invoices Processed 5,179 4,681 4,728 4,900 Checks Processed 2,990 3,030 3,145 3,100 Audit Adjustments 2 2 1 1 • • • 152 " " " Regional Issues Mission Statement: "To strive to improve the lives of Riverside County residents through the promotion of clean air policies, strategies and standards, and the facilitation of inter -agency and inter jurisdictional relationships in support of a coordinated regional approach to transportation solutions." Chart 19 - Regional Issues Professional 31% Personnel 61% Expenditures Total budgeted expenditures are $104,600. Staffing costs make up 61% of the total program expenditure. Professional services and support costs include legal and consultant technical support. Table 42 - Expenditure Detail FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Salaries and Benefits $112,321 $81,331 $114,000 $63,580 $64,000 ($50,000) -43.9% Professional Costs Legal Services 4,256 7,822 5,000 750 2,000 Other Professional Services 56,177 36,806 47,000 30,000 30,000 (3,000) -36. {17,000). -36.2%% Total Professional Costs 60,433 44,628 52,000 30,750 32,000 (20,000) -38.5% Support Costs 26,639 6,138 11,400 6,725 8,600 (2,800) -24.6% Projects and Operations Projects -General 7,500 0% Total Regional Issues $206,893 $132,098 $177400 $101,055 $104,600 ($72800) -41.0% 153 Regional Issues Staffing Summary Department Overview Department Description Transportation issues and system enhancements typically affect a number of local jurisdictions and stakeholders. To facilitate development of a linked, efficient transportation system that is responsive to the continued demands placed on it as a result of local and regional growth, staff resources are specifically dedicated to addressing joint city and/or county issues impacting the development of the transportation system. Through increased participation, the Commission is able to play a stronger leadership role within the County and regionally to ensure the interests and policy goals of the Commission , are affected. The Regional Issues work effort focuses on long standing priorities of the Commission including air quality, clean fuels technology, inter -jurisdictional coordination, and regional project development. The success of the region in meeting air quality mandates through strategies such as implementation of clean fuels technology and reduction of vehicle miles traveled is directly linked to local and regional efforts to enhance the transportation systems serving a growing population. Of particular department importance is the promotion and maintenance of interregional cooperation to ensure that the interests of the Commission are disseminated in a proactive, informative manner. Within that context, partnership development, public and private, is viewed as critical to the Commission's continued success in affecting positive transportation decisions to meet future demands. Departmental Budget Review Key Assumptions • One-third of the budgeted hours for the Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs will be devoted to enhancing the Commission's involvement and participation in regional transportation issues. • • • 154 " " " " Supplemental staff support will be provided by the Public Information Officer and Staff Analyst positions. " The Commission will continue to use consultant services to assist in the development of clean fuel strategies and alternatives. Major Initiatives The Commission's Regional Issues work effort will remain focused on facilitating on -going commitments as well as being responsive to various emerging issues. Los Angeles International Airport expansion issues will be monitored with focus placed on supporting and facilitating processes most likely to result in the redistribution of passengers and cargo from LAX to existing underutilized airports in the region. An emerging issue relates to High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and their effectiveness. Various legislative and study efforts have been initiated which the Commission has interest in including implementation of an HOV demonstration project to test mixed flow use of such lanes in off peak hours. Management of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund call for projects for the western Riverside County area will be a high priority. Staff resources are dedicated to support project development and ensure successful project implementation. Upon execution of individual Memorandum of Understandings (MOU's) with grant recipients, staff will monitor their progress in fulfilling reporting and operating requirements. Consultants will be used to continue development of alternative fuels projects on specific corridors, seek grant funds from various resources, and assist with outreach efforts to build public/private sector involvement in clean fuel strategies. The 1-15 in the Temecula area has been identified as a priority corridor to eliminate an identified gap area in the alternative fuel infrastructure network. Department Goals Facilitate development of regional transportation solutions that benefit Riverside County. Objectives: " Participate and influence the regional discussions on meeting air passenger and freight growth demands for the future, encouraging the use of other regional airport facilities such as March Air Reserve Base over Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). " Participate in various forums and processes to assess the effectiveness of high occupancy vehicle lanes and seek opportunities to implement a peak hour only demonstration project where feasible. Facilitate public and private investments in clean air technology in support of the broader air quality programs for the Southern California Association of 155 Governments, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Riverside County local entities. Objectives: • Actively participate on the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee at both the policy and staff levels to provide leadership in the development of its work program disbursing $12 million annually to reduce mobile source emissions. • Influence implementation of the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor plan to facilitate the location of clean fuel infrastructure and deployment of clean fuel equipment along designated corridors in Riverside County and the greater region through financial support and participation. • Continue to manage the CMAQ "Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund" within western Riverside County to provide seed funds for development of public/private clean fuels partnerships. Regional Issues Performance/Workload Indicators FY 99/00 Actual FY 00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Estimated FY 02/03 Projected Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor Projects initiated and/or supported: 3 2 2 1 Air quality/clean fuels partnership projects developed and/or grant sought: 3 1 2 1 CMAQ Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund projects awarded: N/A 8 2 0 Regional Issues projects co -sponsored and/or advocacy provided: 3 2 1 2 • • • 156 " " " Support Costs Planning and Programming Mission Statement: "To exert leadership in planning and programming transportation improvements resulting in improved mobility and air quality while leveraging maximum return of federal and state funding on local investment." Chart 20 - Planning and Programming Personnel 10% Special Studies 65% Professional & Support 4% LTF Disbursement 13% Expenditures Planning and Programming expenditures have decreased 43.2% from last year's budget due to the projected completion of the internal corridor work on CETAP in FY02/03 and the completion of The Smart Call Box project in FY01/02. Professional Services of $107,000 include a consultant contract to assist the Commission with management of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and programming assistance. Support costs of $23,000 consist of direct expenditures. Table 43 - Expenditure Detail FY 99/00 FY 00101 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Salaries and Benefits $381,465 $312,574 $342,000 $307,733 $364,000 $22,000 6.4% Professional Costs Legal Services 3,548 12,741 9,000 10,000 17,000 8,000 88.9% Other Professional Services 96,806 78,162 115,000 60,000 90,000 (25,000) -21.7% Total Professional Costs 100,353 90,903 124,000 70,000 107,000 (17,000) -13.7% 11,473 7,359 21,000 12,240 23,000 2,000 9.5% Projects and Operations Construction - Smart Call Box 1,100,000 1,100,000 Special Studies 2,335,863 1,601,960 3,958,000 3,900,500 2,268,000 (1,100,000) -42.7 (1,690,000) -42.7% LTF Disbursements 518,322 632,361 602,872 652,872 728,000 125,1128 20.8% Total Projects and Operations 2,854,186 Total Planning and Programming $3,347,476 2,234,321 4,560,872 4,553,372 2,996,000 (1,564,872) -34.3% $2,645,156 $6,147,872 $6,043,345 $3,490,000 ($2,657,872) -43.2% 157 Planning and Programming Staffing Summary Department Overview The Commission is responsible for short-range transportation planning and programming. Planning includes coordination and input to long range transportation planning efforts throughout the County and Southern California Region. These efforts include participation in local and regional corridor studies, including the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Commission also serves as 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 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The Commission is responsible for the following local, state, and federal fund programs: Measure A programs/projects, Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Intercity Rail, Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA), Surface Transportation Program (STP), and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). Department Budget Review Key Assumptions • The Commission will lead the CETAP effort with the County contracting for all elements of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RC1P). • A significant part of the CETAP effort is funded with state planning funds. • The consultant contract for CMP services is maintained to provide assistance with the traffic counter equipment installations and monitoring efforts. Major Initiatives With the signing of SB 45, increased funding authority and responsibility was placed on the Commission as it relates to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). SB 45 provides for distribution of federal and state highway funds, noted above, into the following categories: Regional Improvement • • • 158 " " " Program (RIP), Interregional Improvement Program (HP), and Intercity Rail. Each County Transportation Commission throughout the state is responsible for programming RIP funds, which represents 75% of the total STIP. As a result of SB 45, the Commission is now responsible to ensure projects funded with STIP funding are implemented consistent with California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans policies. Two percent of RIP funding available to Riverside County has been allocated for additional staff support to carry out planning, programming, monitoring activities and planning projects. Transportation Planning The Commission's role in regional decision making and planning throughout the year will involve working with local, regional, state and federal agencies to ensure local agency(s) project(s) are included in the 2004 RTP update scheduled for adoption by the SCAG Regional Council in April 2004. The 2004 RTP update is the long-range transportation plan for the SCAG six -county region spanning over the next 30 years. Information will be shared with local agencies on regional discussions regarding the RTP update and conformity with the adopted Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Commission along with the County of Riverside will continue work on the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). This involves the integrated development of a Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) in Western county, the update of the Riverside County General Plan and, the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) which will identify future transportation corridors/systems, primarily in Western county. In July 2002, two Tier I environmental documents will be circulated on two intra-county transportation corridors with the goal of preserving rights -of -way for future development of a preferred alternative in each of the two corridors. This year's Congestion Management Program (CMP) effort will focus on the Enhanced Transportation Monitoring System element. This will include the installation of traffic counter equipment along the urban and rural highway systems. This effort will provide an improved method of reporting traffic count data to meet federal and state monitoring requirements as well as local data needs. Transportation Programming During the FY 01/02, staff has worked on the development of the 2002 RTIP that is anticipated for federal approval in October 2002. The 2002 RTIP is the short- term transportation program covering FY 02/03 through FY 07/08. The 2002 RTIP will be amended on a continuous basis (approximately quarterly) to incorporate changes to projects that do not require transportation modeling. The 159 next modeling update will be the 2004 RTIP scheduled for development and processing in 2003. Annually, Commission staff administers SB 821 bicycle and pedestrian funds. The Commission is responsible for the selection and ranking of eligible projects that meet established criteria. A Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued in the month of April with project recommendations approved at the June Commission meeting. This year staff will be preparing for future calls for projects in anticipation of the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA -21). Previous transportation acts have allocated funds in six -year increments. Therefore, the reauthorization is expected to cover FY 03/04 through FY 08/09. Fund source categories will include CMAQ, STP, TEA, and demonstration projects (DEMO). Staff will work with the Commission and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in the development of criteria for the next call for projects anticipated in summer 2003. The criteria will be reviewed for each fund source as the eligible project types vary for each fund source. Additionally, staff will be preparing for the 2004 STIP discretionary funding call for projects also anticipated to be issued in summer 2003. The criteria will be developed to meet CTC requirements and transportation objectives in Riverside County. The 2004 STIP proposal for Riverside County is statutorily required to be submitted to Caltrans and the CTC by December 2003. Department Goals - Planning Build upon relationships with local, state, and federal agencies to coordinate short and long range planning to ensure that transportation projects receive funding and approvals. Objectives: • Work with CVAG, WRCOG, and Caltrans to coordinate projects to be included in the RTP. • Provide policy input and coordination through our Commissioners in advocating RCTC projects. • Direct CETAP in the integrated planning process and continue inter- and intra- county corridor studies. Continue to seek a stronger role for County Transportation Commissions in state and regional transportation and air quality programs to direct funding for programs and projects that will improve air quality in Riverside County. • • • 160 " " " Objectives: " Participate in statewide efforts to maintain SB 45 STIP percentage of 75% RIP funding. " Participate in the development of the 2002 AQMP. " Participate in the development of the 2004 RTP. Continue implementation of the CMP in cooperation with SCAG, WRCOG, CVAG and local agencies and maintain federal certification for the Congestion Management Program. Objectives: " Provide data collected on the CMP System to SCAG for reporting on the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). " Provide data collected on the CMP system to local agencies, sub -regions, and other interested parties " Continue monitoring of the CMP system to ensure level of service threshold is met. Work with Caltrans and local governments including transit operators to seek opportunities to develop and implement Intelligent Transportation System applications which improve the accessibility of highway and transit information to the public as well achieve operational efficiencies. Objective: " Seek federal and state funding sources to support implementation of ITS strategies and projects consistent with the Inland Empire ITS Strategic Plan. Continue to advocate for jobs/housing balance and attracting high -income jobs to Riverside County in addition to addressing intercounty congestion. Objectives: " Participate in ongoing studies that are reviewing the jobs/housing imbalance between Orange and Riverside Counties and San Diego and Riverside Counties. " Represent Riverside County interests as population, job, and housing forecasts are developed by SCAG and the state. Department Goals - Programming Improve project databases to allow for efficient processing of RTIP updates and amendments. Objectives: " Work with SCAG and other commissions to refine and maintain the SCAG regional database. 161 " Coordinate with Caltrans to assure database compatibility among the regional and state databases. Ensure maximum funding and flexibility for projects programmed in the STIP and under the reauthorization of the federal transportation act. Objectives: " Through SB 45, continue to strategically program projects and obligate funds in an expeditious manner for the maximum use of all available funding. " Continue monitoring STIP project implementation (e.g. allocations, amendments, and extensions) to obtain/maintain maximum funding levels for projects in Riverside County. " Develop criteria to meet fund program guidelines under the federal transportation act. Provide assistance to local agencies with all project components to ensure milestones are met. Objectives: " Provide project tracking information to project sponsors on a quarterly basis. " Participate in meetings to resolve any issues regarding local agency project delays or other problems with project implementation. Continue to work with state and federal agencies to streamline processes for funding and project approvals. Objectives: " Establish relationships with key staff at state and federal agencies. " Identify problematic areas with project programming and develop solutions for streamlining and clarification. Planning & Programming Performance/Workload Indicators FY 99/00 Actual FY00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Estimated FY 02/03 Projected Federal Projects Monitored CMAQ/STP/TEA 313 374 374 400 Number of STIP Projects Monitored 42 45 45 60 Number of Traffic Counters at Call Boxes 20 20 40 45 Number of Traffic Counters at TMC Sites 0 0 30 35 " " " 162 " " " Rail Program Development, Operations and Support Mission Statement: "To develop and support rail transportation options for increased mobility within Riverside County and the region." Chart 21  Rail Program SCRRA Contribution 67% Personnel 5% Project/Operations 24% Expenditures Rail Program expenditures include Metrolink support and the five Commission owned and operated rail stations. The SCRRA contribution (i.e. Metrolink support) consists of an operating contribution $3,139,000 and new capital maintenance of $43,900. RCTC's subsidy to SCRRA's operating budget has increased by 16% from last year due primarily to the new 91 Line which provides direct service from downtown Riverside, La Sierra and West Corona to Fullerton, Norwalk, Commerce and Los Angeles. Station Maintenance includes utilities, grounds maintenance, repairs and cleaning of RCTC's rail stations. Support costs include media ads, printing services and event support. 163 Table 44 - Expenditure Detail FY 99100 FY 00101 FY 01102 FY 01102 FY 02103 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Salaries and Benefits $254,466 $226,648 $213,000 $203,435 $227,000 $14,000 6.6% Professional Costs Legal Services 53,045 16,534 25,000 5,000 5,000 (20,000) -80.0% Other Professional Services 121,004 104,841 136,500 137,000 130,000 (6,500) -4.8% Total Professional Costs Support Costs 174,049 121,375 161,500 142,000 135,000 (26,500) -16.4% 11,999 15,565 29,700 40,740 75,000 45,300 152.5% Projects and Operations Station Maintenance 320,509 535,348 421,000 396,921 309,000 (112,000) -26.6% Special Studies 26,720 10,000 10,000 40,000 30,000 300.0% Station Security 490,685 558,305 600,000 600,000 768,600 168,600 28.1% SCRRA Maintenance of Way - 181,684 - - (181,684) -100.0% SCRRA Capital Maintenance 249,619 504,611 646,403 - 43,900 (602,503) -93.2% SCRRA Operating Subsidy 2,900,100 3,148,900 2,703,400 2,703,400 3,139,000 435,600 16.1% Total Projects and Operations Operating Transfer Out Total Rail Program 3,960,913 4,773,884 4,562,487 3,710,321 4,300,500 (261,987) -5.7% 414,000 414,000 100.0% $4,401,427 $5,137,472 $4,966,687 $4,096,496 $5,151,500 $184,813 3.7% Rail Program Staffing Summary Department Overview Department Description The Riverside County Transportation Commission has•directed efforts in the areas of regional commuter rail, intercity passenger rail, high-speed rail, and capital improvements to support enhanced passenger and freight rail service. The entire program includes elements of planning, programming, commuter rail development and support, station and corridor management, mitigation of community and environmental impacts, legislative and regulatory advocacy, and construction of capital projects. Many elements are managed or supported by other Commission departments, by Bechtel project management, and by legal counsel and consultants. Departmental efforts contributing to the rail program are found throughout the budget document. • • 164 " " " Coordination and consultation also occurs with a variety of public and private entities including: the California Transportation Commission, Caltrans, California Public Utilities Commission, California High Speed Rail Authority, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Amtrak, environmental agencies, the University of California, transit providers, SCAG, WRCOG, CVAG, local governments, private freight railroads, businesses and property owners: Commuter Rail The Commission participates in the ongoing funding and governance of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), a joint powers authority consisting of the transportation commissions of Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura counties. The Commission holds two voting positions on SCRRA's eleven member Board. RCTC staff serves on the five -county Technical Advisory Committee which negotiates service and funding levels, based upon the county's established priorities, and provides technical assistance, coordination between various SCRRA and RCTC departments, and linkages to local communities. Of the seven commuter rail lines operated by Metrolink, three routes, the Riverside, Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC), and 91 Lines, directly serve western Riverside County. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions " Metrolink Preliminary FY 02/03 Budget is adopted by the Commission and the SCRRA. " Ridership and fare revenues continue to grow on the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 Lines. " The Commission manages the station security guard contract. Estimated costs are based on the actual contract terms with a portion to be reimbursed by SCRRA. " Parking expansion projects are completed at the La Sierra and Riverside -Downtown Rail Stations. " The new North Main Corona Station opens in Fall 2002. Major Initiatives Over the last 10 years, significant capital improvements have been made on the private freight corridors over which the Commission's rail services operate. Currentmajor initiatives include the construction of Phase 1 of the North Main Corona Station, preliminary engineering on Phase 2 of the North Main Corona Station Parking Structure, and completion of an Alternatives Analysis of the San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor. 165 Chart 22 — Metrolink Ridership 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2001 2002 2003 1999 2000 E91 Line ■ Riverside/LA ®Inland Empire/Orange County Intercity Passenger Rail In recent years the rail program has also focused attention on the creation of intercity passenger rail service between the Coachella Valley, Riverside and the Los Angeles basin (with future extension to the Mexican border at Calexico) through advocacy efforts with state, federal, and local government entities and negotiation with the freight railroads. The Commission's current efforts include seeking capital and operating funds and coordinating with Amtrak West and Caltrans. High Speed Passenger Rail The Commission continues to play a proactive role in the development of a statewide, high-speed passenger rail system, including routing of the backbone corridor through the Inland Empire with possible stations in Downtown Riverside, UC Riverside, March ARB, Murrieta, and Temecula. The California High Speed Rail Authority is preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 700 -mile high speed train system Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. Rail -related Properties and San Jacinto Corridor Unlike the other SCRRA county agencies, the Commission owns and operates the commuter rail stations serving Riverside County: Riverside -Downtown, Pedley, La Sierra, and West Corona. Station operation and maintenance costs are included in this rail program budget with services coordinated by the Commission's property management department. New this year will be the pro -rated operating expenses related to the opening of the North Main Corona Station in the fall of 2002, bringing the • 166 total number of owned and operated stations to five. New and ongoing construction projects at these stations are described in the capital budget. Chart 23 — Station Operation & Maintenance • • Station Operating & Maintenance Costs $1,077,600 Utilities 10% Security 71% General Maintenance 12% Grounds Maintenance 7% The Commission holds title to and manages the 38 -mile San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) and several adjacent properties, preserved for future passenger rail service. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) holds the freight rights in the corridor, providing service to local shippers, and performs maintenance on the line, though, in June 2000, the Commission allocated $20 million of Measure A funds for capital and operating expenses related to the implementation of passenger rail service on Segment 1 of the SJBL (Riverside to Romoland), however project cost estimates total $80 million. Staff is seeking a full funding grant agreement from the FTA and private funding from BNSF to fund the balance of the project cost. The FY 02/03 budget in the Capital Development and Delivery Section includes $900,000 for the completion of the Alternatives Analysis and start of preliminary engineering. Facilitating efficient freight service on the line continues to be a priority. Department Goals Commuter Rail Goals Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving Riverside County. Objectives: • Increase peak period patronage on the Riverside Line by 4%, IEOC Line by 10%, and the new 91 Line average daily ridership to 800. 167 " Increase off-peak and reverse -peak patronage by 10 percent in FY 02/03 by aggressively marketing unused capacity for business, recreational, and school trips. " Reduce public subsidy per passenger mile traveled on lines currently serving Riverside County through economies of scale, efficient use of train sets and crew hours, and increased passenger fares. Maximize opportunities for public use of rail -related investment. Objectives: " Support transit operator efforts to expand availability and use of connecting transit in order to improve access and reduce demand on parking capacity. " Administer self-supporting or chartered special train service (i.e. Beach Trains, special event service, etc.) " Expand opportunities for inter -line travel through coordination of schedules with Amtrak intercity and long distance trains and other Metrolink lines. Encourage joint ticketing options. Identify and plan for capital improvements necessary to increase the scope, appeal, and reliability of commuter rail operations. Objectives: " Continue work to fully fund segment 1: San Jacinto Branchline (Riverside to Romoland extension). " Continue to work with Metrolink to ensure the enforcement of priority treatment of the Riverside Line trains contained in the Riverside Operating Agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad. Intercity Rail Goal Maintain efforts with local agencies, other Southern California counties, the state and federal governments to expand intercity passenger rail service into Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. High Speed Rail Goal Continue to support and influence state efforts in the creation of a high-speed passenger rail system along an Inland Empire alignment, through sponsorship of the Inland Empire High Speed Rail Task Force. Rail Corridor Goals Continue efforts to reduce community impacts of rail infrastructure and operation. " " " 168 " " " Objectives: " Support further research and investigation into clean -fuel, alternative rail technology for both passenger and freight rail service in the region. " Work toward reduction of grade crossing conflicts by advocating that additional grade separation funding be available for projects in Riverside County identified on the Alameda Corridor -East Trade Corridor Grade Separation Priority List. Seek capital improvements, operating practices, and institutional arrangements which improve the viability of corridors, serve shippers and alleviate freight rail conflicts. Plan for the incremental improvement of the San Jacinto Branch Line and maintain and operate RCTC-owned rail infrastructure in a safe and cost effective manner (see Property Management Goals). Objective: " Secure full funding for the upgrade of passenger service from Riverside to Romoland on the San Jacinto Branch Line. Rail Operations Performance/Workload Indicators Growth on existing commuter lines " Riverside Line " IEOC Line " 91 Line Farebox Recovery Ratio " Riverside Line " 1EOC Line " 91 Line Special Event Trains Saturday Service on Riverside Line  Average Ridership FY 99/00 Actual FY00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Estimated FY 02/03 Projected 4,311 4,521 4,581 4,600 1,985 2,757 3,042 3,200 N/A N/A 300 800 53.1% 50.9% 52.0% 54.8% 39.0% 50.4% 51.7% 51.4% N/A N/A N/A 49.7% 17 17 17 20 N/A 232 250 N/A 169 Property Management Mission Statement: Support the Commission's policy goals and objectives as they relate to real property assets. Chart 24 - Property Management Expenditures Property Management expenditures are budgeted for $198,700 to maintain Commission -owned Highway and Rail property. Professional and support costs include legal and overhead. Projects and Operations include maintenance, security and utilities. Table 45 - Expenditure Detail Salaries and Benefits FY 99100 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02103 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $71,046 $43,401 $91,000 $48,330 $55,000 ($36,000) -39.6% Professional Costs Legal Services 28,449 22,131 32,000 4,047 32,000 0.0% Other Professional Services 1,900 15,574 31,000 36,000 26,000 (5,000) -16.1% Total Professional Costs 30,349 37,705 63,000 40,047 58,000 (5,000) -7.9% Support Costs 6,373 4,842 9,050 963 10,300 1,250 13.8% Projects and Operations Maintenance 45,364 57,645 51,850 38,082 55,400 3,550 6.8% Security 1,404 1,401 1,700 1,654 2,000 300 17.6% Utilities 13,999 14,284 18,650 11,025 18,000 (650) -3.5% Total Projects and Operations Total Property Management 60,767 73,330 72,200 50,761 75,400 3,200 4.4% $168,535 $159,278 $235,250 $140,101 $198,700 ($36,550) -15.5% • • • 170 " " " Property Management Staffing Summary Department Goals Maintain RCTC operating and non -operating properties in a manner which is safe, clean and pleasing to the general public and tenants. Objectives: " Insure undeveloped properties are properly abated. " Direct the deployment of contractors to maintain serviceability, safety and appearance of RCTC owned operating and non -operating properties, and if necessary, secure contractors through a selection process to provide services as needed. Generate revenue to offset maintenance cost of non -operating rail & highway properties. Objectives: " Work with City of Riverside Utilities Department to implement use of solar power panels to offset electricity costs at La Sierra & Riverside Downtown Stations. " Secure, as needed, new tenant(s) for the RCTC owned office building referred to as the Annex. " Research disposition of and work with parties interested in RCTC owned properties for possible sale. " Develop and implement a review of current lease valuations on or across RCTC owned properties and recommend a process, if appropriate, to increase lease valuations and assessments on existing and future lease holders. (e.g. billboards, land and building leases, licenses, etc.) " Continue to work with private developers and the BNSF to promote the use of the San Jacinto Branch line. Maintain or improve safety and security at RCTC owned Metrolink Stations. Objectives: " Conduct trend analysis with information contained in station activity database. " Support and become knowledgeable of the installation of CCTV systems at RCTC Metrolink Stations and understand the CCTV systems capabilities in order to coordinate the re -deployment security guards at stations. 171 Obtain transfer of land from Caltrans and the Base Reuse Commission to RCTC for the San Jacinto Branch Line which was displaced during the construction of the 1-215 freeway. Objective: • Coordinate with Caltrans and March. JPA on the potential exchange of RCTC owned land adjacent to Old 215 in order the RCTC may own and control the land where the San Jacinto Branch Line tracks are currently located. Property Management Performance!Workload Indicators FY 99/00 Actual FY00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Estimated FY02/03 Projected License Agreements 1 22 13 11 Lease Agreements 2 1 4 5 Appraisals 1 5 4 5 • • • 172 specialized Transportation (Paratransit) Mission Statement: "To maintain and enhance, as resources allow, transportation options for seniors, persons with disabilities and the truly needy through innovation and community interaction." Chart 25 — Specialized Transportation Personnel 1% Regional Transportation Coachella Valley 64% Professional & Support 1% Regional Transportation Western County 34% Expenditures Western County special transportation expenditures are allocated based on a competitive process among qualified social service providers within western Riverside County. The last awn ll for projects was made FY01IO2 and was for a two-year period. The Coachella Valley location is disbursed monthly to the SunLine Transit Agency, the major transit provider in eastern Riverside County. Table 46 — Expenditure Detail Salaries and Benefits Professional Costs 1,220 5,000 353 5,000 Other Professional Services Legal Services 231 - 0.0% 1,000 1,000 4,000 3,000 300.0% Total Professional Costs 231 1,220 6,000 1,353 9,000 3,000 50.0% Support Costs 3,611 5,101 14,100 1,220 17,500 3,400 24.1% Projects and Operations Regional Transportation 2,826,031 3,153,384 4,269,000 3,697,208 3,647,000 (622,000) -14.6% Total Projects and Operations 2,826,031 3,153,384 4,269,000 3,697,208 3,647,000 (622,000) -14.6% FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $39,718 $37,975 $62,000 $22,655 $42,000 ($20,000) -32.3% Total Special Transportation $2,869,592 $3,197,679 $4,351,100 $3,722,436 $3,715,500 ($635,600) -14.6% • 173 Specialized Transportation Staffing Summary Department Overview Department Description Often characterized as some of the "soft" programs of Measure A, these programs provide a valuable service to the community. Substantial support is furnished to social service and public transit agencies, which serve special and unique needs of seniors and persons with disabilities. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions • Western County disbursements are based on the program established in FY 01/02. • The Coachella Valley Association of Governments allocates its discretionary five -percent of funding to the Sunline Transit Agency for transit. • The Sunline Transit Agency oversees the social services program for the Coachella Valley. Major Initiatives The Commission has long demonstrated a strong commitment to assisting in the mobility of those with specialized transit needs. Through its Specialized Transit Program, the Commission has provided millions of dollars to public and non-profit transit operators to assist in the provision of special transit services to improve the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities. Along with support of traditional dial -a -ride services, the Commission supports innovative programs which provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs. For over eight years the Commission has provided operating grants to a number of non-profit agencies in the western county to assist in the provision of very specialized transit service. The riders, many frail elderly, have come to depend on these services which provide a higher level of assistance than can be provided by the public providers and/or operate in areas not served by public transit. In 2002, a call for projects covering FY 02/03 and FY 03/04 was released for Specialized Transit Programs. Funding in the amount of $2.5 million will be provided to local agencies throughout western Riverside County to support ongoing and new programs. • • • 174 order to assure the availability of funds to support matching of Section 5310 federal capital rants, $150,000 on an annual basis, will be budgeted to meet the 20% local matching requirements. Department Goals Provide timely information to the public regarding Commission implemented projects and support public relations activities of Measure A funded programs by grant recipients. Objective: • Produce and distribute public information materials as needed including fliers, brochures, marketing materials, and newspaper ads. press releases, Provide Measure A Specialized Transit Funds and technical assistance to support services which will maintain and/or enhance mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities, and the truly needy. Objectives: • Monitor performance of Specialized Grant recipients through analysis of their quarterly performance reports. • Continue discussions with the Office on Aging and the United Way to encourage funding of transportation projects by these agencies. Assistance will be offered to screen eligible •transportation programs and monitor the cost effectiveness of these proposals. Support Section 5310 federal grant process for the purchase mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities. p se of capital projects to improve • Provide technical assistance and program support to agencies offering specialized transit programs to ensure the maximum benefit of funding for improved mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities, and the economically disadvantaged. • Continue implementation of training programs for non-profit providers. Continue to provide staff resources to assist and support the coordination of transit services, within the County and throughout the State. Objective: • Regularly participate in meetings that focus on the coordination of transit services, such as the California Association for Coordinated Transportation, the SunLine Access Committee and the Riverside Transit Agency's ADA Committee. Specialized Transportation (Paratransit) Performance/ Workload Indicators Number of Specialized Transit grants awarded Number of one-way trips provided by Measure A fund non-profit operators Number of one-way trips reimbursed through Th Transportation Reimbursement and Information Proje (TRIP) Western County Number of transit tickets provided through th Transportation Access Program (TAP) Number of clients served through Blindness Suppo Services ed rt FY 99/00 Actual FY00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Estimated FY 02/03 Projected 11 8 8 75,667 36,019 35,912 8 35,965 e ct 19,637 27,092 23,846 e 108,029 69,530 58,800 25,469 N/A 41 42 64,165 45 175 TRANSIT Mission Statement: "To coordinate the operation of all public transportation services within the county with a goal towards promoting program efficiency and effectiveness between transit operators". Chart 26 - Transit Personnel 3% STA Disbursements 96% Professional & Support 1% Expenditures State Transit Assistance expenditures have decreased 42.9% from last year's budget. The 42.9% decrease is attributable to revenues from the STA funds projected to be lower than prior year projections. Support costs consisting of $12,500 is attributable to an effort to increase public awareness of unmet needs as well as increased coordination efforts among the public operators. Table 47 Expenditure Detail FY 99/00 FY 00►01 FY 01/02 FY 01►02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Salaries and Benefits $69,417 $83,419 $87,000 $107,635 $98,000 $11,000 12.6% Professional Costs Legal Services 2,705 870 5,000 5,000 5,000 0.0% Audit Services 66,231 0.0% Other Professional Services 1,000 1,000 - 0.0% Total Professional Costs 2,705 67,101 6,000 5,000 6,000 0.0% Support Costs 2,920 5,671 11,500 9,535 12,500 1,000 8.7% Projects and Operations STA Disbursements 1,527,661 3,529,784 5,194,019 5,100,000 2,907,000 (2,287,019) -44.0% Total Projects and Operations 1,527,661 3,529,784 5,194,019 5,100,000 2,907,000 (2,287,019) -44.0% Total Transit $1,602,703 $3,685,976 $5,298,519 $5,222,170 $3,023,500 ($2,275,019) -42.9% • • • 176 0 Transit Staffing Summary Department Overview Department Description The Commission is responsible for short-range transportation planning and programming. Planning includes the development of the countywide short-range transit plan for eight public transit operators which consists of the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, Southern California Regional Rail Authority's commuter rail, Palo Verde Valley, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency In FY 02/03, the Commission will conduct an unmet needs hearing in Palo Verde Valley, assist in coordinating the development, review and approval of the annual countywide Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and allocate transit -funding resources. The Commission has responsibility for funding transit programs using Measure A funds, •Local Transportation Funds (LTF), State Transit Assistance (STA) funds, and Federal Transit Assistance funds which consist of Section 5307, 5309, and 5311 funds. Annually, the Commission facilitates a competitive call for projects to allocate FTA Section 5310 funds available to non-profit transportation and social service agencies and public operators under special circumstances. Departmental Budget Review Key Assumptions • LTF, STA and Measure A disbursements are based on projected budgetary allocation but will be adjusted after the Commission has made actual allocations. Department Goals Objectives: • Review transit planning, resource allocation and service implementation policy requirements, including appropriate coordination of commuter rail, inter -county and inter -city bus, local bus and paratransit, and social service transportation services. • Review the short-range transit plans of all operators ensuring consistency with 0 the Commission's adopted productivity improvement programs. 177 " Work with Ca!trans, public operators and social service agencies to ensure a competitive process statewide for the allocation of Federal transportation dollars for social service programs. " Monitor transit operators' Quarterly Capital Grants Reports. " Monitor performance of transit operators' performance through analysis of their quarterly performance reports. " Encourage transit operators to purchase clean fuel buses. " " 178 " " " Commuter Assistance Mission Statement: "To encourage and promote transportation alternatives for commuters, through innovation, education and community interaction" Chart 27 - Commuter Assistance Projects/Operations 66% Expenditures Commuter Assistance project and operating expenditures are for consultant services totaling $1,240,000 to manage the program and merchant vouchers valued at $315,000. Support costs include mail and printing services, computer and vehicle maintenance, communications, and other office expenditures (i.e. Spruce Street Annex). The total program costs (exclusive of personnel, professional services, and support costs) amount $1,555,000, an increase of 20% from last year's budget. Table 48 - Expenditure Detail Salaries and Benefits Professional Costs Legal Services Audit Services Other Professional Services Total Professional Costs Support Costs Projects and Operations Regional Transportation Total Projects and Operations Capital Outlay Total Commuter Assistance FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $127,423 $177,756 $143,000 $226,841 " $150,000 $7,000 4.9% 14,303 9,561 6,450 - 6,761 20,753 16,322 5,187 226,565 963,038 1,278,171 963,038 1,278,171 $t116,402 $t698,814 11,000 363,500 374,500 588,385 19,208 13,000 2,000 18.2% 0 0.0% 400,725 238,000 (125,500) -34.5% 419,933 251,000 (123,500) -33.0% 337,532 439,000 (149,385) -25.4% 1,295,715 980,099 1,555,000 259,285 20.0% 1,295,715 980,099 1,555,000 259,285 20.0% 50,000 (50,000) -100.0% $2,451,600 $1,964,405 $2,395,000 ($56,600) -2.3% 179 Commuter Assistance Staffing Summary Department Overview Department Description While much of the Commission's efforts revolve around increasing transportation infrastructure and capacity, there is significant value in efforts to manage transportation demand. The Commission's Commuter Assistance Program addresses the issue by encouraging residents to seek alternatives to commuting alone. This is promoted through various technical assistance, incentive and educational programs offered to commuters and employers to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and improve air quality. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions The Commission will continue to use the existing consulting firm to manage the program. The current consultant was awarded an 18 -month contract for FY 01/02 with two one-year options. Staff is recommending exercising the second and final option year of the contract. The Commission's core rideshare incentive programs and other services will continue with no significant changes. The program continues to reduce single occupant car trips and provides welcome assistance to local employers. Major Initiatives A cornerstone of the Commuter Assistance Program is the continued partnership between commuters, employers, and government. The partnership based on voluntary efforts, makes a collective difference in increasing the efficiency of our transportation system —local roads, freeways, commuter rail and public bus. The combined effort results in less congestion, decreased vehicle miles traveled and an improvement in air quality. • • • 180 " " While the Commission's Program was implemented as a specific requirement under Measure A to address congestion mitigation, two factors have continued over the last few years to impact its voluntary, business friendly approach in marketing to commuters directly and through their employers. First, the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 2202 was amended to allow employers to select options other than rideshare programs to reduce air pollution. Second, the implementation of SB 836 in January 1997 exempted all employers having 100 to 249 employees at a work site from meeting Rule 2202 requirements. The value of the Commuter Assistance Program should be seen in its inherent capability in easing traffic congestion. While ridesharing has a beneficial impact on air quality, it should first be seen as a strategy in addressing traffic congestion and in providing an attractive commuter option to local residents who can use alternative forms of transportation including freeway carpool lanes, public buses or Metrolink. The Commission has been successful in working with local employers to continue participating in rideshare programs through an attention to customer service and to having a commitment in improving the county's transportation system. Given that the highest percentage of rideshare arrangements are formed at work sites, voluntary employer participation is critical to addressing congestion and air quality goals as employers are the conduit to directly influencing their employees' personal transportation choices. The Program's annual Performance/Workload Indicators serve as a good indicator of employer participation rates over time. To assist staff with the administration and ongoing operation of the Program and its multiple projects, a consulting firm has been retained annually by the Commission. The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) contracts with the Commission for administration and implementation of its Commuter Assistance Program. By working closely together, the positive impact of the Commuter Assistance Program is enhanced because it serves employers and commuters throughout the Inland Empire. The service to local employers will be enhanced this year through the local implementation of ridematching services and teleservices. RCTC has purchased ridematching software from a national vendor to provide ridematching services. Ridematching service generates lists of potential carpoolers to those who seek to form carpools. The key to providing the service is the implementation of a commuter database. This information is provided in a document known as a RideGuide and can be considered a basic building block in providing an effective ridesharing program. Heretofore, the Commission has contracted with the Southern California Association of Governments for ridematching services. Along with ridematching, the Commission will provide teleservices assistance to callers who contact the Commission via its toll -free 1-866-RIDESHARE number. Callers will be provided with personalized assistance in joining carpools and vanpools as well as receive information on public transit opportunities. Both of these 181 services will be implemented by the Commission's private sector contractor based in Riverside. Also, this program will be co -funded by San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) thus providing seamless service to businesses and residents throughout the Inland Empire. Since thousands of residents work in neighboring counties, serving these commuters is a priority for the Commission, RCTC will target residents commuting to Orange, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties. While the cost of reaching out to employers in adjoining counties is prohibitive, the Commission will offer limited outreach to major employers in neighboring counties, which employ large numbers of Inland Empire residents. The Commission will reach out to these employers as well as marketing to commuters at home. One prominent program will feature financial incentives for new vanpools that will also feature wrapped advertising on the vans to encourage additional participation. Working with major employers in neighboring counties complements the Commission's new teleservices function and the operation of the toll free 1-866-RIDESHARE number. This combination of outreach strategies will provide a comprehensive array of commuter assistance programs An ongoing initiative for the program this year will be the implementation of a survey tool to provide continuing feedback on the effectiveness of the program in establishing and sustaining rideshare behavior. This will also enable the Commission to closely monitor consultant performance in serving employers and enhance the Commission's efforts. The FY02/03 Commuter Assistance Program consists of the following core and supplemental projects. Project budgets have been developed based on experience, current trends, scope of work, goals, estimated staff hours, marketing tasks, and estimated participation rates. Core Projects Advantage Rideshare: To reduce single occupant vehicle trips, this short term incentive project offers up to $2/day for each day new ridesharers use an alternate mode of transportation in a three month period. Commuters must live in western Riverside County and travel to work within the county. Club Ride: To recognize the contribution of long term ridesharers, this project offers discounts of 20% at various restaurant locations and up to a 50% savings at various entertainment venues. In addition, Club Ride members receive a quarterly newsletter and special discount offerings. Commuter Exchange: To provide information and materials regarding the importance and ease of using alternate modes of transportation, the 40' mobile resource center attends various events including employer transportation fairs, community activities and schools. The mobile unit brings a field trip experience to • • • 182 elementary schools through creative and interactive lessons about the importance of continuing their ridesharing activities when they become drivers. Customized take- home newsletters help students share what they have learned with their parents. Inland Empire Commuter Services (IECS): This program supports voluntary efforts by local employers in maintaining and implementing rideshare activities at work sites. This project provides services and tools to Riverside County employers including: technical assistance; continuing education through transportation forums and Rideshare Connection, a broadcast fax; theme marketing campaign materials including State Rideshare Week; ride matching and AVR survey services; and other specialized efforts as determined by changing conditions. Staff actively participates with other regional and state rideshare entities to provide leadership and coordination of services to Riverside County employers. This particular service is primarily funded through federal grant funds. This project also includes employer transportation forums, which provide continuing education and employer networking opportunities. Ridematching: The establishment of a commuter database will enable RCTC to provide RideGuides to commuters seeking carpool matches. Service will be provided to local employers as well as to individual residents seeking information on carpool arrangements. • • Teleservices: The Commission and SANBAG administer and operate a toll -free number (1-866-RIDESHARE). The number will provide live assistance to callers on transit information and will provide individualized assistance in joining or forming carpools and vanpools. This service will also provide callers with a broad range of transportation information including locations of park and ride lots and HOV lanes, the availability of commuter incentives and the location of transit routes, stations and services. Buspool Subsidies: These subsidies facilitate the use of buspools originating in Riverside County, this project offers a $25 per seat per month subsidy ($1,175/bus/month) to employer and/or commuter operated buspools. The budget supports three existing buspools and reserves funding for one new buspool. Special Project Development/Contingencies: To provide flexibility in addressing changing conditions or needs in providing transportation demand management services to employers and commuters within a fiscal year this project allocates funds for work efforts not anticipated such as special promotions, transportation fairs, studies, reduced funds, etc. Southern California Rideshare: Southern California Rideshare supports the provision of core regional rideshare services as defined through the Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition annual process. This year, funding to Southern California Rideshare will be reduced because ridematching and the maintenance of 183 a rideshare database will be implemented locally. Still, RCTC will retain a relationship with Southern California Rideshare for regional rideshare marketing. Department Goals Operate a cost-effective commuter assistance program within Riverside County that results in a demonstrable reduction in single occuppnt car trips thus assisting with congestion mitigation and a reduction in harmful emissions: Objectives: • Offer short-term incentives for commuters to try a commute mode other than driving alone. • Operate an affinity program for long-term ridesharers to encourage alternative travel modes and in doing so, create positive support for the program among local merchants. • Work with employers to offer these programs to their employees as a way of attracting employees to Riverside County businesses. • Ensure the effectiveness of the program through recurrent assessments of participation and retention of ridesharers. • Provide ridematching information through the implementation of a ridematching database. Ensure the coordination of ridesharing programs throughout the Inland Empire and the Southern California region. Objectives: • Implement a similar commuter assistance program in San Bernardino County on a contract basis, thus expanding the reach and effectiveness of commuter programs throughout the Inland Empire area. • Partially fund and participate in regional rideshare marketing programs to enhance awareness of and encourage participation in commute modes that provide an alternative to driving alone. Enhance and pursue educational activities that encourage alternatives to driving alone and that encourage employers to assist employees in seeking commute methods other than driving alone. Objectives: • Make full use of the Commuter Exchange program at local schools and major public events. • Publish a quarterly newsletter for Club Ride members and send out regular fax information bulletins to local employers regarding commuter issues. • Advocate through the Commission's legislative program for commuter -friendly tax breaks for employers who assist residents by paying for transit passes and vanpool costs. • • • 184 " Publicize the participation of local employers in RCTC Commuter Assistance Programs through an awards program. Table 49  Funding Sources Core Projects Advantage Rideshare Out of County Advantage Rideshare In County Buspool Subsidies Club Ride Commuter Exchange Inland Empire Commuter Services  Riverside Ridematching Southern California Rideshare Special Project Development/Contingencies Teleservices SANBAG Total Project Type FY 02/03 Measure A STIP Other Budget Commuter Incentive $130,872 Commuter Incentive 260,071 Commuter Incentive 56,400 Commuter Incentive 173,634 Public Education 120,911 Employer Services Employer Services Employer Services Employer Services Employer Services $0 0 0 0 0 O 218,506 O 161,490 0 8,535 59,200 0 0 119,697 O 0 $0 0 0 0 $130,872 260,071 56,400 173,634 120,911 0 218,506 0 161,490 0 8,535 0 0 1,085,684 59,200 119,697 1,085,684 $801,088 $508,228 $1 085,684 $2 395 000 San Bernardino County's Rideshare program is contracted to RCTC to administer and is funded 100% by " SANBAG. Chart 28  Commuter Assistance Program Budget " 185 Commuter Assistance Performance/Workload Indicators FY 99/00 Actual FY00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Estimated FY 02/03 Projected Number of one-way single occupant vehicle trips reduced as a result of Advantage Rideshare incentives: 43,568 50,000 42,000 44,000 Number of Club Ride Members 1,901 2005 2200 2300 Number of Club Ride business discount partnerships 160 200 210 225 Provisions of Employer Transportation Forums 7 8 8 8 Number of services provided by Inland Empire Commuter Services to support employer trip reduction efforts at work sites: • Survey/Ride Guide Services 120 106 120 120 • Technical Assistance Services 150 184 150 160 • Ride Guides produced 12,000 14,000 14000 14,000 Number of events participated in by the Commuter Exchange: • Public Events 10 9 10 12 • Employer Work Sites 10 12 10 12 • Elementary Schools 43 35 40 40 Delivery of "Rideshare Connection" broadcast/fax information bulletin to employers 19 16 20 20 Development and distribution of rideshare marketing campaigns for implementation by employers 3 2 2 2 • • • 186 " " " Motorist Assistance Mission Statement: "To improve safety and convenience to motorists who experience mechanical difficulty on the roadway." Chart 29 - Motorist Assistance Personnel 6% Projects/Operations 66% Professional 10% Support 18% Expenditures Budgeted expenditures for project operations include $1,113,000 in towing contract costs for the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program, and $653,600 for the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) to cover cellular access charges, knockdowns, vandalism, miscellaneous repairs and maintenance and call answering services. Professional service costs of $60,000 include legal services and contracted consultants to monitor the Commission's call box program, and provide monthly operating and statistical reports for the program. Table 50 - Expenditure Detail Salaries and Benefits FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $100,186 $94,808 $126,000 $93,700 $123,000 ($3,000) -2.4% Professional Costs Legal Services 5,833 9,887 5,000 4,500 8,000 3,000 60.0% Other Professional Services 38,954 41,031 75,000 45,400 52,000 (23,000) -30.7% Total Professional Costs 44,786 50,918 80,000 49,900 60,000 (20,000) -25.0% Support Costs 8,206 23,351 34,900 28,070 34,300 (600) -1.7% Projects and Operations Projects General 40,574 5,325 14,600 9,450 2,600 (12,000) -82.2% Towing Access Charges 866,059 947,199 1,144,315 970,700 1,113,000 (31,315) -2.7% Equipment Maintenance 147.105 112,357 107,000 112,500 111,000 4,000 3.7% Knockdowns 193,550 597,058 1,112,250 1,113,300 407,000 (705,250) -63.4% Vandalism 135,060 9,706 24,000 10.000 26,000 2,000 8.3% 27,215 1,253 1,600 800 4,000 2,400 CHP Operating Costs 194,478 223,119 215,669 215,600 134,000 (81,669) 150.0% Special Studies -37.9% 15,000 10,000 (5,000) -33.3% Total Projects and Operations 1,604,041 1,896,017 2,634,434 2,432,350 1,807,600 (826,834) -31.4% Total Motorist Assistance $1,757,219 $2,065,094 $2,875,334 $2,604,020 $2,024,900 ($850,434) -29.6% 187 Motorist Assistance Staffing Summary Department Overview Department Description The Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) is the call box system that allows motorists to call for assistance in the event of a mechanical breakdown or accident on the freeway. Additionally, the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) assists stranded motorists on certain segments of the freeway by towing, changing tires, providing a gallon of fuel, etc., at no charge to the motorists. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions • Existing levels of vandalism, knockdowns, and miscellaneous repairs will remain consistent with the past year. • Maintenance costs are based on a "flat -fee" maintenance contract with Comarco Wireless Technologies. • Call box operating costs are based on estimates from the CHP and the call answering center contract through SANBAG. • Cellular service charges are based on a five-year agreement with AT&T Wireless Services. • Tow truck contractor costs for three of the five existing beats are estimated at the highest current hourly rate since the Commission is presently out to bid on these three beats and the actual rate will not be know until May 2002 when the contracts are awarded. • In conjunction with CHP and Caltrans, staff will evaluate the possibility of expanding FSP service hours on existing beats should additional State funding become available. Major Initiatives The California Highway Patrol had been handling call box call answering and dispatching services since the inception of the program in 1990. RCTC, along with San Bernardino County SAFE, issued a request for proposal (RFP) to contract with a private firm to answer the call box calls. A contract was awarded to Professional Communications Network (PCN) to provide the service and the transition began on July 1, 2001. PCN began accepting all of the call box calls for Riverside and San • 188 " " " Bernardino counties in February 2002. The benefits will be faster and more responsive services for motorists at a lower cost to the Commission. In partnership with Caltrans and CHP, determine if Freeway Service Patrol services are required during construction projects on various freeway segments in the County. The agencies will also evaluate congestion on existing Freeway Service Patrol beats to determine if additional hours or changes in service hours are needed. Department Goals Maintain the integrity of the call box system and service levels. Objective: " Along with San Bernardino County SAFE, monitor the transition of the call answering center from the CHP to PCN, the private sector contractor. Continue the Freeway Service Patrol as long as state -funding support is available. Examine the possibilities of expanding FSP service hours on the existing five beats if increased funding is available, and assist Caltrans to provide similar construction tow service in highway areas where construction is under way. Objectives: " Consult with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol to evaluate existing beats and determine if expanded service hours are justified if additional funding is made available. " Review proposed construction projects with Caltrans and coordinate the use of temporary tow service to mitigate congestion. " Work cooperatively with Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, and other FSP program managers to gain increased funding for the program and review the funding allocation formula to attain a more equitable distribution of program funds. Explore cost effective ways to provide access to call boxes for persons with disabilities. Objective: " Continue to review with Caltrans, the CHP, and other SAFE's the feasibility of various options available to assist hearing impaired and physically challenged motorists to include a cost analysis of each option and its potential financial impact on the program. Motorist Assistance Performance/Workload Indicators FY 99/00 Actual FY00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Estimated FY 02/03 Projected Number of Call Boxes (at 6/30) 1,118 947 1,088 1,088 Number of Call Box Calls 55,780 44,158 40,000 36,000 Number of Vehicle Assists 24,532 25,679 26,000 27,000 Review of Motorist's Satisfaction 97% 98% 98% 100% 189 Capital Project Development and Delivery Mission Statement: To keep the Commission's compact with the voters of Riverside County by accelerating the planning, programming, and implementation of projects and programs in the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan to the extent that funds are available. To ensure that capital projects are environmentally acceptable, technically sound and designed in a manner that is cost effective. Chart 30 — Capital Project Development and Delivery Local Streets & Roads 33% Regional Arterial 8% Rail Expenditures The Budgeted expenditures total $103,557,800 to cover all of the Commission's major projects. Rail expenditures amount to $24,990,900 primarily for the completion of the new North Main Corona station and parking lot expansions at the La Sierra and Riverside Downtown stations. Highway expenditures of $35,341,700 are for engineering construction and right of way on Routes 60, 74, 79, 91 and 111. Disbursements to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) for the Regional Arterial program are budgeted at $7,957,900. Payments to cities and the County for local streets and roads repair, maintenance and construction amount to $34,446,000. Repayment of bond debt amounts to $35,550,000. Other costs of $821,300 include salary and fringe benefits, legal fees, professional services and support. • • 190 " " " Table 51- Expenditure Detail Salaries and Benefits Professional Costs Legal Services Audit Services Other Professional Services Total Professional Costs Support Costs FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $187,803 $179,980 $186,000 $136,990 $191,200 $5,200 2.8% 216,349 253,785 526,000 600,445 481,000 (45,000) -8.6% 21,545 21,125 67,000 56,000 59,600 (7,400) -11.0% 8,472 15,970 45,000 38,250 55.000 10,000 22.2% 246.366 290,880 638,000 694.695 595,600 (42,400) -6.6% 27.933 10,574 26,900 18,201 34,500 7,600 28.3% Projects and Operations Projects -General 1,459,824 1,715,660 1.953,900 1,896,409 2,282,600 328,700 16.8% Highway and Rail Engineering 2,806,081 2,838,906 8,970,275 6,021.621 6,469,000 (2,501,275) -27.9% Highway and Rail Construction 3,890,170 5,452,303 29,930,426 4,112,317 30,196,000 265,574 0.9% Highway and Rail ROW 1,132,456 1,402,629 14,577,952 7,181,500 20,960,000 6,382,048 43.8% Highway and Rail Special Study 106,678 136,471 25,000 52,000 425,000 400,000 1600.0% Regional Transportation 31,275,142 34.338,176 34.108,000 33,340,000 34,446,000 338,000 1.0% Regional Arterial 6.467,674 10,532,091 9,740,000 9,740,000 7,957,900 (1,782,100) -18.3% Total Projects and Operations 47,138,024 56,416,235 99,305,553 62,343,838 102,736,500 3,430,947 3.5% 30,527,415 33,891.187 35,964.000 38,223,930 35,550,000 (2,673,930) -7.0% Total Capital Project Development/Delivery $78,127,540 $90,788,857 $136,120,453 $101,417,654 $139,107,800 $2,987,347 2.2% Operating Transfers Capital Project Development & Delivery Staffing Summary Department Overview Department Description The Capital Projects Department is responsible for the development and delivery of major highway and rail capital projects where RCTC is identified as the lead agency. The delivery of a capital project can include tasks such as feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, environmental clearance, final design, right of way acquisition, and construction. Nearly 63% of the Commission's budget originates in this department managed by the Deputy Executive Director. The primary goal of the department is to accelerate delivery of the Measure A and STIP funded highway and rail capital improvement projects throughout the County of Riverside. Highway improvements currently being worked on include the addition of car pool lanes, widening and realignment projects and interchange improvements. The Commission will continue its efforts to protect and purchase right of way for the identified highway improvements as 191 funding permits. Commuter Rail capital improvements include: the purchase of • equipment and construction of a new rail station along with the necessary track improvements design of a parking structure and expansion of the existing La Sierra and Riverside Downtown rail stations. In addition to the Measure "A" projects constructed directly by RCTC, this department provides the necessary coordination between RCTC and Caltrans for the development of scope, cost, and project delivery schedules for Measure "A" projects that are funded by the STIP. For these projects, Caltrans is assigned the responsibility for design and construction. The Capital Projects Department also has lead agency status over certain demonstration projects identified in the federal legislation, the Transportation Enhancement Act of the 21st Century (TEA21). Department Budget Review Key Assumptions • Commission will continue its emphasis on completion of the Measure A program. • The January 2000 Strategic Plan Phase I serves as the basis for defining project selection and prioritization. • Bond proceeds are only used for major highway projects. • New Rail projects are completed with federal, state and Measure A funding. • Project costs are based on engineer's estimates and scope agreements with Caltrans. • Projects are competitively bid to minimize costs. • All projects will be built to existing required and applicable standards. Major Initiatives Measure A Strategic Plan The Chief Financial Officer updates state and federal STIP, and Measure A revenues projected through the year 2008 for each area of the county based on formulas approved by the Commission. Those projections allow the Commission to identify specific projects, priorities, and funding sources for each year of the Strategic Plan period. The construction projects identified in the FY 02/03 Budget, funded by Measure A or rail funds, require the continued support of the Bechtel Program Management team which includes: program managers, project engineers, construction engineers, inspectors and support staff through this next fiscal year. Since the passage of SB 45 the Commission is responsible for STIP fund programming and project delivery. The Commission is also responsible for project delivery of federal demonstration projects and the Governor's Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) • 192 " project on SR 91. Further, the Commission has agreed to provide continuing assistance through Bechtel consultants to Caltrans staff to assist in the advanced completion of the Riverside Measure "A" 1-215 highway projects through the "Design Sequencing Process" allowed by AB 405. Highway and Rail Project Development and Implementation The major rail construction projects are: " Video Surveillance System at the Pedley rail station. " Completion of emergency platform extension at the Pedley rail station. " Completion of the new North Main Corona station. " Expansion of parking lots at the La Sierra and Riverside Downtown stations. The major highway construction projects are: " Realignment and widening of State Route 74 highway from 1-15 in the City of Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris. " Addition of HOV lanes on State Route 60 from East junction Route 60/1-215 to Redlands Boulevard. " Construction of auxiliary lanes project between Magnolia and Mary Street. " Operational improvements along Highway 111 in the Coachella Valley. The major highway design projects are: " Complete PS & E design for the 1-215 projects. " Route 79 realignment project Project Report and Environmental document. " Working in conjunction with SCAG a Countywide origin and destination study will be completed. " Preliminary Engineering of HOV lanes on State Route 91 between Mary Street and the State Route 60/91/1-215 Interchange. (See the Projects Summary for a brief synopsis on each project included in the Commissions capital program for FY 02/03). STIP Funded Projects Interstate 215 60/91/1-215 Interchange to 60/1-215 East Junction " Continue final design and begin right of way acquisition for the project to provide: two direct connectors at the 60/91/1-215 Interchange; HOV lanes and a truck climbing lane from University Avenue to the 60/1-215 East Junction; a truck bypass at the 60/1-215 East Junction; new interchanges at Spruce Street on Route 91, and new interchanges at Martin Luther King on 1-215. Interstate 10 Ramon Road Interchange " Programmed funds for widening the interchange. 193 Demonstration Projects Funded Under TEA 21 that have other agencies acting as "Lead Agencies": Highway Projects 1-15 Construct new interchange at Galena Street and 1-215 for Job Development 1-215 Construct Oleander Street Interchange and Circulation Improvements 1-15 Construct Overcrossing at Overland Drive and 1-15 1-10 Construct interstate 10 interchanges in the Coachella Valley Route 71 Construct new improvements on ramps at Route 91 Route 91 Widen Green River Road Interchange Route 60 Construct Nason Street Interchange Transit Projects: PERRIS Multi -modal Facility March Inland Port Ground Access Transit Vehicle Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Local Streets and Roads The Commission disburses Measure A local streets and roads funds directly to the Cities and County for their use. The budgeted amount is set by formula established in the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Local jurisdictions will receive $35,919,000 for local streets and roads maintenance, repair, and construction. Each jurisdiction's respective allocation is based on population and the amount of sales tax generated. A number of jurisdictions in the Western County have entered into loan agreements with the Commission for advance acceleration of Measure A local streets and roads revenue. 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, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, Lake Elsinore and Temecula. La Quinta is the only city in the Coachella Valley, which does not participate in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program. The Measure A allocations of these cities 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 $641,000. 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. The local street and road money for the Palo Verde Valley Area is divided proportionately • • • 194 " " " between the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside based on population and sales tax generated. Western County Area Local Streets Banning Beaumont Calimesa Canyon Lake Corona Hemet Lake. Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Perris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula Riverside County Total Western County and Road Funding $554,000 239,000 146,000 210,000 3,075,000 1,461,000 725,000 2,843,000 963,000 670,000 720,000 6,308,000 485,000 1,653,000 6,368,000 $26,420,000 Coachella Valley Area Local Streets and Cathedral City Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Palm Springs Palm Desert Rancho Mirage Riverside County Coachella Valley Association of Governments Total Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Area Blythe Riverside County Total Palo Verde Valley Department Goals Road Funding $1,177,000 262,000 235,000 170,000 861,000 0 1,418,000 2,014,000 624,000 1,109,000 641,000 $8,511000 Local Streets & Road Funding $799,000 189,000 $988,000 Continue prudent rights of way protection and preservation activities for Measure A projects to control long range project costs and project feasibility. 195 Objectives: • Purchase right of way to protect right-of-way required along Routes 60, 74, 79 and 91 for future projects if funding is available. • Develop agreements with private property owners/developers, where practical, to coordinate the design of Measure A funded highway improvements with improvements required for development approval. Build upon and strengthen the partnership with Caltrans toward timely delivery of identified Measure A and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects. Objectives: • Develop agreements with Caltrans, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as may be required, to finalize project scoping and cost issues for the STIP, TEA -21, Federal Demonstration Projects, and Measure A funded highway projects on Routes 1-215, 91, 74 , 79 and 60 in Riverside County. • Provide monthly contract status and cost schedule reports to the Commission and to Caltrans. In coordination with SANBAG and Caltrans District 08, provide the FHWA Regional Administrator and his key staff members with a briefing on the overall Measure A and I Highway Programs, the status of various projects, and identify and discuss issues which need resolution in order to keep current projects on schedule. To the extent permitted by law, pursue reasonable involvement of local firms and minority and women business enterprises in contract work. Objective: • Maintain goal for a minimum DBE participation in all federally funded contracts. Continue to review quarterly report on DBE participation levels. FY 01/02 goal is currently 11.4% Provide effective communication of project progress to the Commission board members, Caltrans, and FHWA. Objective: • Develop a strategy with Caltrans District 08 that would allow RCTC to advance specific projects identified in the Strategic Plan to take advantage of any unexpected state or federal funding which may become available through increased state/federal budget authorizations or potential loan programs to advance construction. Work with Caltrans and other agencies toward completion of Preliminary Engineering and Environmental clearance of all projects. • • Objectives: • Work with Caltrans, the County of Riverside and the cities of Riverside County to complete preliminary design and environmental clearance for Measure "A" projects that could be eligible to receive additional or early funding from various sources that • could become available if a project is sufficiently developed. 196 " " " " Complete the construction of the highway projects identified in the FY 01/02 Budget. Objectives: " Complete Landscaping and plant establishment for soundwall projects Phase II on Route 91. " Complete construction of Route 111 projects in the Cities of Palm Desert " Complete the right -turn lanes at Gilman Springs along Route 79. " Construct Phase I of the Measure "A" State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 and Wasson Canyon Road. " Continue right-of-way acquisition of Phase II of the Measure "A" State Route 74 widening project between Wasson Canyon Road and 7th Street in the City of Perris. In coordination with the Rail Program manager, construct capital improvements at existing rail stations as identified in the FY 02/03 Budget. Objectives: " Install video surveillance equipment at the La Sierra, West Corona, and Pedley Rail Stations with the control station at the Riverside Downtown Station. " Construct emergency platform extension at the Pedley rail station " Construct the North Main Corona rail station " Seek FTA approval to enter into Preliminary engineering on Segment I of the San Jacinto Branch Line (Riverside to Romoland) " Construct additional surface parking at the La Sierra and Riverside Downtown rail stations Location of Projects within the County Budgeted for the Current Fiscal Year I:NSERTy AP HERE Park and Ride Lots Route 60 Route 74 Route 79 Route 79 Route 91 Lease Park and Ride Lots at various locations on Route 60, 91, 1-15 and 1-215. Design and Construction of HOV lanes between East Junction 60/1-215 and Redlands Boulevard. Dexter Avenue to just East of Wasson Canyon first Segment of highway widening includes engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction. Realignment between Ramona Expressway and East Valley Reservoir  task will include development of Project Report and environmental studies. Right turn lanes on Route 79 at Gilman Springs Road. Phase II soundwall landscaping and plant establishment. Auxiliary lane construction between Magnolia and Mary Streets to be funded by Caltrans. 197 Route 91 Route 111 San Jacinto Branch Line Pedley Station North Main Corona Station La Sierra rail station Downtown Riverside station Local Streets and Roads Preliminary engineering and Environmental for HOV • lanes from Mary Street to 7th Street. Intersection improvements San Luis Rey construction, El Paseo/Cabrillo construction, Town Center to El Paseo construction, Monterey Ave. construction completion, (City of Palm Desert). Complete Alternative Analysis and begin Preliminary engineering on Segment I from Riverside to Romoland. Security system design and installation. Construction of station emergency platform. Complete station construction Purchase of right of way and parking lot expansion for Phase I and Phase II Completion of parking lot expansion Provide Measure A revenues to each city and the county to improve, maintain, and repair high priority local streets and roads. Performance/Workload Indicators Design or Construction Projects to be Undertaken and/or Completed: Highway Projects: • Route 91 Magnolia to Mary - Complete preliminary engineering and environmental. • Operational improvements on Route 111 in the City of Palm Desert - Continue to provide assistance to the cities to complete these projects. • Route 74 — Complete design, right of way acquisition and start construction from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to Wasson Canyon. Complete design and continue ROW Acquisition for Segment II. • Route 60 Complete design, environmental clearance and ROW Acquisition for the addition of HOV lanes between 60/1-215 to Redlands Boulevard. • TEA 21 Demonstration Projects - act as lead agency for the Route 79 realignment project and, provide assistance to the cities, the county, and Caltrans to see that specific highway and transit projects identified in the federal TEA 21 Legislation are complete as soon as possible. Rail Projects: • Video Security Surveillance System at Pedley rail station - Complete design and installation. • Complete construction North Main Corona station • Pedley Station Emergency platform extension - Complete construction • Complete design and construction of parking lot expansion at La Sierra rail station (Phase I and Phase II) Riverside Downtown station • 198 " " Projects Summary Western County Projects Route 60 -- Design Engineering and Construction HOV Lanes Complete design and start of construction of the Route 60 Measure A HOV lane project between the East Junction of Route 60 with 1-215 and Redlands Boulevard. Cost for FY02/03 $ 1,000,000 Design $ 3,000,000 Construction and CM $ 3,500,000 Right of way acquisitions and TCE's $ 200,000 Right of way support services Operating Budget Impact: None. Caltrans will have construction and maintenance responsibility. Strategic Plan Impact: This is a Measure A project funded with CMAQ funds. The construction will commence in FY 02/03 and continue through FY 03/04. Route 74 - Design Engineering and Construction on Route 74 RCTC will complete final design, acquire the necessary Right of Way, and construct a new realigned 4 -lane roadway between Interstate 15 in the City of Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris. Cost for FY 02/03 Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $ 9,000,000 Right of Way Acquisition $ 900,000 Engineering $ 500,000 Right of Way support services $ 10,000,000 Construction None. Caltrans will have maintenance responsibility. This Measure A project is being advanced to take advantage of $4.5 million that will be made available by Caltrans. These funds were to be used for several safety projects and will now be offered to RCTC by Caltrans for advancing the Measure A project. Construction is scheduled to start in the summer of FY 02/03. Route 79 - Realignment - Gilman Springs Road to East Valley Reservoir and Right Turn Lanes @ Gilman Springs Road Complete the engineering and construction of the right turn lane along Route 79. Perform realignment environmental and preliminary engineering services from Gilman Springs Road to East Valley reservoir. 199 Cost: FY 02/03 Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $900,000 (Environmental and engineering • services) $200,000 (Right -turn lanes engineering and construction) There are no long-term operational budget impacts. Caltrans will assume maintenance responsibility. The FY 01/02 budget included funding of $100,000 for the right -turn lanes with the county matching an equal share; however, work will now be performed in FY 02/03. The realignment of Route 79 will be performed as a Demonstration Project and funded through TEA 21 program dollars. The realignment of Route 79 will be performed as a Demonstration Project and funded through TEA 21 programs dollars. The local match will come from SB45 2% planning funds. Route 91 - Van Buren Interchange Design/Construction (Phase II) Phase II of this project is to complete design and right-of-way appraisals and acquisition of the future interchange improvements on Van Buren Boulevard. This phase of the project will improve the local circulation element, widen, heighten and lengthen that span of the bridge from 6 to 10 lanes and improve ramp access. This interchange is currently the most congested interchange along Route 91. The first phase (Phase I) which added a new eastbound off ramp was completed in 1996. The construction of the interchange improvement will commence in FY 03/04. Cost: FY 02/03 Operating budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $1,500,000 Engineering/Right-of-way Appraisals and Acquisition None. Caltrans and City of Riverside will share responsibilities for the maintenance, signaling and landscaping. One of the aspects of Measure A is construction of interchanges, which improve local circulation or promote job development. Van Buren is one of the interchanges to relieve local congestion and promote job development.. Current funding in addition to the balance of authorized Measure A for this project will come from CMAQ funds. The remaining $7.6 million of Measure A funds identified in the Strategic Plan, along with $1.681 million of STP funds has not been obligated. • 200 " " " Route 91- Soundwall Plant Establishment and Auxiliary Lanes Construction The intent of the project is to improve traffic operations and safety on the freeway between adjacent interchanges within this segment of Route 91. The proposed improvements primarily involve construction of 3.6 meter wide auxiliary lanes at various locations along Route 91 within the project limits. Cost: FY02/03 Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $ 30,000 (Design support to construction) $ 60,000 (plant establishment) $ 5,000 (Construction support services (Construction costs will be the responsibility of Caltrans) The Commission will be responsible for plant establishment for the first three years. The Commission will contract for these services - Caltrans will then assume maintenance responsibility. The Strategic Plan allows for staged implementation of soundwalls and auxiliary lanes along Route 91. These soundwalls are required mitigation for HOV lanes constructed on Route 91. Route 91 HOV lanes between Mary Street and 7t' Street This initial phase of work is for the preparation of the Project Report and Environmental Document which proposes widening for HOV' lanes and interchange modifications between Mary Street and 7 Street. Cost FY 02/03 Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: Coachella Valley Projects Route 111 $ 850,000 (Preliminary Engineering/environmental) None. Caltrans will have construction and maintenance responsibilities. This is a Measure A Project indicated in the Strategic Plan that will be funded using Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TRCP) and STIP funds. This project will complete the mitigation commitment of Measure A to complete one HOV lane on Route 91 from the Orange County Line to the 60/91 215 interchange. The Commission and CVAG cooperatively programmed Measure A highway program funds to complete signal improvements and local intersection widening improvements along State Route 111 in the City of Palm Desert. 201 Cost: - FY 02/03 Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $397,000 El Paseo/Cabrillo construction $511,000 Town Center/El Paseo construction $508,000 San Luis Rey construction $ 50,000 Complete Design $60,000 Right of Way Acquisition & support services None. Caltrans will be responsible for maintenance. The projects that are completed or will be completed as part of this initial amount are identified as Tier I in the Strategic Plan. Rail Projects San Jacinto Branch Line Segment I (Riverside to Romoland) The Track improvement study proposes $80,000,000 for improvements along segment of the San Jacinto Branchline of which $900,000 of federal and state funds is for completion of the study and start of preliminary engineering. Cost: FY02/03 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $900,000 Complete Alternative Analysis study and seek FTA approval to start preliminary engineering. None. All costs will be reimbursed by FTA 5309 earmark Section 5307 and STA rail allocated funds. This is consistent with Commission's long term policy goals. While not specifically in the Strategic Plan, the completion of the study and the start of preliminary engineering are necessary for future commuter rail service on the San Jacinto Branch Line. Pedley Station Security Surveillance System Cost: FY02/03 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $290,000 (Construction) None. All costs will be reimbursed by CMAQ funds. Local match will be satisfied by rail allocated Local Transportation Funds (LTF). Not included in the Strategic Plan. These improvements are being funded by CMAQ and rail allocated LTF. Pedley Station Emergency Platform Extension Cost: FY02/03 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $300,000 (Construction) None. All costs will be reimbursed by STP funds. Not included in the Strategic Plan. These improvements are being entirely funded by Surface Transportation Program grant along with matching funds from rail allocated LTF. • • 202 " " " New Station (North Main Corona) Cost: FY02/03 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: La Sierra Station Expansion Cost FY02/03 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: La Sierra Station Expansion Cost: FY02/03 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $11,600,000 (Trackwork and Station Construction) None. All costs will be reimbursed with STIP and Federal Section 5307 funds . Not included in the Strategic Plan. This new station is being funded by STIP and Federal section 5307 funds. (Phase I) $7,070,000 (Right of Way and Construction) None. All costs will be reimbursed with Federal Section 5307 funds and rail allocated State Transit Assistance (STA) funds. Not included in the Strategic Plan. These improvements are being funded with Federal 5307 funds and rail allocated STA funds. (Phase II) $1,525,000 (Design and Construction) All costs will be funded using Measure A rail allocated funds. Not included in the Strategic Plan. These improvements are being funded with Measure A rail allocated funds. Riverside Downtown Station Parking Lot Expansion Cost: FY02/03 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: North Main Corona Station Cost: FY02/03 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $297,000 (Construction) None. All construction costs will be reimbursed using rail allocated Local Transportation Funds (LTF) Not included in the Strategic Plan. These improvements are being funded with rail allocated LTF Parking Structure $1,575,000 (Design and Environmental) None. All costs to be reimbursed using Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) funds. Not included in the Strategic Plan. These improvements are being funded using Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) funds. " 203 West Corona/La Sierra Station Overcrossing & CCTV Cost: FY02/03 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $260,000 (Construction) None. All costs to be reimbursed with Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds Not included in the Strategic plan. These improvements are being funded using CMAQ funds. • • 204 Table 52 • Budget Summary By Fund and Department June 30, 2003 • DESCRIPTION MEASURE A PALO STATE WESTERN GENERAL RCTC FSP OUNETRIN COACHELLA VA VERDE EY ASS STANCE CONSTRUCTION SERVICE DEB CO MBINING REVENUES TOTAL Measure A Sales Tax $3,250,000 LTF Sales Tax $0 $0 $0 $66,055,000 $24,312,000 $988,000 Federal, State, Local & Other Gov't Revenues 0 6,443,500 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $00 $94,605,000 Other Revenues 0 2,069,000 1,065,000 1,150,000 28,284,000 1,430,000 0 0 6,443,500 Interest Income 760 878,080 19 3,041 0 0 0 2,907,000 0 0 36,905,000 15,000 200,580 2,500 100,000 765,000 450,000 2,500 225,000 1,150,000 1,055,000 3,965,000 TOTAL REVENUES 3,265,760 9,590,580 1,067,519 1,253,041 95,104,000 26,192,000 990,500 3,132,000 1,150,000 1,055,000 142,800,400 502,664 119,052 12,699 26,985 0 1,821,264 431,352 46,011 97,773 0 0 0 0 0 661,400 872,100 206,550 22,032 46,818 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,396,400 80,742 171,576 3,196,028 756,954 0 0 0 0 Q 0 1,147,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,205,300 Other Financing Sources (Uses) Operating Transfers 0 j414,000) 410 60Q (410. 600) (8 .238.000) 17.898 .000) Si 0 j19 000 000) 3.5 550.000 Net Financing Sources (Uses) � 0 (414,000) 410,600 (410,600) (8,238,000) (7,898,000) 0 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenue Over Expenditures 69,732 (252,674) 171,777 0 (19,000,000) 35,550,000 0 (128,435) (1,352,800) (2,142,500) 2,500 225,000 (17,850,000) 1,054,000 (20,203,400) Fund Balance Beginning Year 1,081,177 5,194,251 178,556 1,889,858 47,311,267 5,083,514 85,201 1,790,451 49,846,428 39,407070 151 .867 725 Fund Balance Ending Year $1,150,909 $4,941,577 $350,333 $1,761,422 $45,958,467 $2,941,014 $87,701 $2,015,451 $31,996,428 $40,461,070 $131,664,375 EXPENDITURES MANAGEMENT SERVICES Executive Management Administration Finance TOTAL MANAGEM ENT SERVICES MEASURE A & OTHER CAPITAL PGRMS Capital Projects Development & Delivery 0 TOTAL MEASURE A PROGRAMS 25,000 0 0 84,505 300 18,039,500 988,000 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 103,557,800 DEBT SERVICE 84,505,300 18,039,500 988,000 0 0 0 103,557,800 Principal Payments 0 Interest Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 24,888,000 24,888,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,663,000 10 .663 00Q NON -CAPITAL TRANSP PROGRAMS 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,551,000 35,551,000 Property Management 0 198,700 Planning and Programming 0 3,490,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 198,700 Regionalransit Issues 0 116,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,490,000 Paratransit 0 104,600 0 00 2,907,000 0 0 3,023,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104,600 Rail 0 4,737,500 0 1,318,500 2,397,000 0 0 0 Commuter Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,715,500 Motorist Assistance 0 0 0 2,395,000 p 0 0 0 4,737,500 TOTAL NON -CAPITAL TRANSP PGRMS 0 0 1,225,600 799,300 p 0 0 0 0 2,395,000 0 8,647,300 1,225,600 799,300 3,713,500 2,397,000 Q 0 0 0 2,024,900 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 0 2,907,000 0 0 19,689,700 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenue Over Expenditures 3,196,028 9,429,254 1,306,342 970,876 88,218,800 20,436,500 988,000 2,907,000 69,732 161,326 (238,823) 282,165 6,885,200 5,755,500 2,500 225,000 1,150,000 35,551,000 163,003,800 (34,496,000) (20,203,400) FUND BUDGETS Budgetary Basis The Commission accounts for its twenty budgeted funds primarily using governmental accounting. Governmental accounting differs from full accrual accounting in that there are a number of expenditures that are recorded when cash is disbursed. This is known as the modified accrual basis of accounting, and is the basis for the Commission's FY 02/03 budget and its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when received and available to meet current year obligations. Only those revenues which are guaranteed as to receipt, based on expenditure of funds (i.e., government matching funds), or certain to be received within ninety days of the end of the fiscal year (e.g., interest earnings due from the County of Riverside; SAFE fees due from the State of California), are recorded as revenues. Chart 31 — Total Fund Expenditures Total Fund Expenditures Debt Service Fund 16% Capital Projects Funds 9% General Fund 6% Special Revenue Funds 69% Budget Authorization and Amendment Process The Commission authorizes expenditures according to administration, programs, capital outlay, debt service and other financing uses. As long as management does not exceed budgeted amounts in these broad classifications, it may transfer amounts among individual line items according to function and between financial responsibility units defined as the General Fund, Measure A Funds, Motorist Assistance Funds, and the State Transit Assistant Fund. Any other budget changes require the authorization of the Commission. The Commission may take action at any monthly meeting to amend the budget. Those amendments are incorporated into the budget as they occur and are reflected in the CAFR by adjusting budget vs. actual statements. Fund Structure There are a total of twenty funds which account for the Commission's budgeted resources categorized into the four primary fund types: the General Fund, the Special Revenue Funds, Capital Projects Funds and Debt Service Fund. There are five funds reported in the General Fund, thirteen funds in the Special Revenue Funds and one Capital Projects fund. In addition, the Commission has one Debt Service fund to account for debt related activity. • • 206 Non -Budgeted Funds addition to the twenty budgeted funds, the Commission uses two fiduciar y fund types -agency funds and expendable trust funds and one proprietary fund. The Commission does not adopt budgets for the Fiduciary Funds, or the Proprietary Fund. The monies in the expendable trust fund are monitored and controlled by means of an annual allocation process and by legal and statutory requirements. The resources for the Internal Service Fund are budgeted in the General and Special Revenue funds. GENERAL FUND Overview The General Fund of the Commission is used to account for all activities not legally required or designated by Board action to be accounted for separately. For many public agencies the General Fund is the largest fund. The Commission's largest revenue source is a locally levied sales tax, which legally must be separately accounted for. For the Commission this results in the Special Revenue, and when bonds are issued against those sales taxes, the Capital Projects Funds, accounting for the significant portion of the Commission's programs and projects. The Commission's commuter rail operations, short range transit planning, fund programming, property management, clean fuel and air quality, and a portion of administration are accounted for in the General Fund. Capital programs not funded with Measure A sales tax revenues or not requiring significant up front expenditures (i.e., expenditures to be reimbursed), are also •ountecl for in the General Fund. The revenue sources for the General Fund are Measure A sales tax for administration (accounted for separately but combined with the RCTC General Fund for reporting purposes); Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax for administration and planning; TDA Article 4 funds for transit operations and capital; user fees from licenses and leases; state highway account (SB45) funding for project planning; various other state and federal reimbursements not accounted for in the other funds; and investment income. Chart 32 — General Fund State Reimbursements 10% • LTF 50% 207 Table 53 - General Fund Revenue Sources FY 2000 - 2003 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 % Change % Change Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Actual Estimated MEASURE A SALES TAX $2,000,000 $1,998,207 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $3,250,000 62.6% 30.0% LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (LTF) SALES TAX Article 3 Administration 375,000 375,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 60.0% 50.0% Article 3 Planning 1,180,263 1,256,482 1,319,245 1,384,733 1,398,400 11.3% 6.0% Article 4 Transit 4,428,971 5,023,083 6,426,400 5,046,300 4,445,100 -11.5% -30.8% STATE FUNDING State Dept of Transportation 1,326,742 1,146,850 0 0 0 -100.0% 0.0% STIP 0 0 659,297 531,397 1,297,300 100.0% 96.8% Other 0 0 500,000 532,000 0 0.0% -100.0% FEDERAL FUNDING Other 0 0 2,085,903 1,439,500 0 100.0% -100.0% OTHER REIMBURSEMENTS SCAG (CETAP) 1,536,935 1,088,994 480,000 621,150 500,000 -54.1% 4.2% Local 529,375 0 0 771,700 45.8% 100.0% Miscellaneous 42,297 44,514 28,200 13,018 6,000 -86.5% -78.7% USER FEES Licenses and Leases 268,442 260,537 195,198 175,712 156,000 -40.1% -20.1% OPERATING TRANSFER IN 6,297 2,940 0 0 0 -100.0% 0.0% OTHER 309,377 327,800 1,016,635 948,652 216,900 -33.8% -78.7% INTEREST 169,378 289.604 171,000 303,665 215.000 -25.8% 25.7% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $11,643,703 $12,343,386 $15,781,878 $13,996,127 $12,856,400 4.2% -18.5% Measure A sales tax revenues are used for administration. The increase over the prior year reflects support staff increases, costs associated with the strategic plan effort, Commission requested actions to improve and increase staff training and external communications. The administrative allocation is adjusted at midyear based on needed expenditures, but in no event will exceed four percent of total Measure A revenues (including administrative salaries and benefits). LTF sales tax revenues fund administration, planning staff and studies, and transit operations and capital for rail services. The increases are for the following reasons: • The allocation for administration reflects the increased levels of administrative support necessary for an expanded board, increased training, and expanded media and public agency outreach and communication. • Planning money is set by law at three percent of estimated Local Transportation Fund LTF) sales tax revenues. A combination of the estimated growth in sales tax revenues and higher than expected carryover funds (also as a result of strong revenue growth), has yielded a much higher allocation for planning than the prior year. • Transit funding is also tied to sales tax revenue growth. The allocation of funding to transit operators, however, is based on need. State Highway Account monies are expected to be derived from the Commission's two - percent share of Regional Choice funding. This will be used to pay for staff STIP activities and the CETAP effort. • • • 208 Table 54 - General Fund Expenditures FY 2000 - 2003 • Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits Professional & Support General Legal Services 175,300 154,302 148,380 76,497 103,300 -33.1% -30.4% Special Legal Services 400 0 0 9, Financial Services 0 0 0.0% -100.0% Audit Services 217,608 47,021 94,000 28,200 70,500 0 -25.0% Professional Services -Other 338,400 408,900 397,150 16.0% 17.44 % Lease/Utilities 437,833 342,429 49.9 /° 633,512 618,723 1,119,160 759,697 1,282,330 107.3% 14.6% General Expenses 294,314 293,110 320,450 306,104 452,320 54.3% 41.2% 221,863 199,352 272,489 233,578 320,898 61.0% 17.8% Communications 54,999 59,059 72,215 47,826 Maintenance 86,200 46.0% 19.4% 236,824 334,786 304,318 268,362 296,760 -11.4%0 Insurance 79,564 86,854 2.0% Data Processing 25,983 84,224 565 89,300 2.8% 6.0% 26,309 39,480 0 0 -100.0% -100.0% Staff Related Expenses 133,033 94,211 152,733 76,408 127,904 35.8% -16.3% Information/Publicity 68,933 72,274 152,700 2% 87,140 124,880 72.8% -18.2% SUBTOTAL 2,579,766 2,328,429 3,107,949 2,293,277 3,351,542 43.9% 7.8% Other LTF Disbursements 518,609 632,361 602,872 "'Capital Outlay 652,872 322,080 15.1% 20.8% 47,300 59,693 222,780 222,780 312,080 422.8% 40.1% Project and Operations Miscellaneous Projects Engineering 593,224 780,662 750,000 725,000 768,600 -1.5% 2.5% Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 10,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 Right of Way 627,730 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 -100.0% 0.0% -100.0% Special Studies 2,424,179 SCRRA Contribution 1,753,680 3,993,000 3,910,500 2,333,000 33.0% -41.6% 3,149,719 3,653,511 3,531,487 2,703,400 3,182,900 -12.9% -9.9% SUBTOTAL 6,794,853 6,197,853 9,374,487 8,438,900 6,284,500 1.4% -33.0% Other Financing (Sources) Uses Operating Transfer Out 8,125 4,128 0 0 414,000 9928.7% 100.0% SUBTOTAL 8,125 4,128 0 0 414,000 9928.7% 100.0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $11,458,227 $10,871,830 $15,252,538 $13,312,160 $13,039,282 19.9% -14.5% FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 Actual FY 02/03 % Change % Change Actual Budget Projected Proposed Actual Estimated 0. /0 2 $1,509,574 $1,649,366 $1,944,450 $1,704,330 $1,949,160 18.2% o 565,909 692,054 825,652 875,652 1,040,080 50.3% 26.0% Personnel salary and fringe benefits have increased from the Revised Budget by 0.2%. The Commission continues to maintain the same levels of salary and benefits. (See Personnel Section) Professional and Support Costs have increased $243,593 due to heightened communication and public outreach programs. Project and Operations Costs have decreased by $3,089,987 primarily due to the projected completion of the internal corridor work on CETAP. Other Costs (including other financing uses) has increased by $214,428 for capital outlay due to preparation for the new Commission offices at the County Regional Complex. • 209 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Overview The Commission's Special Revenue Funds are legally restricted as to use. Measure A sales tax, a number of state budgetary allocations, and vehicle users fees are all accounted for in six Special Revenue Funds. Significant state and federal reimbursements and project matching funds are used to supplement the Measure A sales tax. The Special Revenue Fund resources are expended on highway, rail, and regional arterial design and construction, local streets and roads maintenance; repair, and construction; education and incentive programs to encourage ridesharing; special social service transportation programs, fixed route transit operation and capital needs; and motorist towing and freeway call box assistance. Chart 33 — Special Revenue Funds Special Revenue Funds Other Interest 16% 1% Federal Reimbursements 10% State Reimbursements 11% Measure A 62% • • • 210 Table 55 - Special Revenue Fund Source FY 2000 - 2003 • Local Streets & Roads 31,275,142 34,141,867 34,108,000 34,811,000 35,919,000 5.2% Special Transportation/Transit 4,992,629 5,476,368 5,445,000 5,556,000 5,733,000 4.7% TOTAL MEASURE A 79,543,732 86,975,410 86,750,000 88,535,000 91,355,000 5.0% STATE FUNDING SB 836 78,681 68,970 12,000 State Dept of Transportation 55,453 0 100.0% 100.0% FSP Budget Allocation 770,803 893,299 891,900 State Rail Bonds 848. 1,065,000 19.2% 19.4% State Transit Grant 2,247,212 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 2,423,397 2,482,598 4,644,019 3,144,136 4,249,000 71.2% -8.5% FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 % Change % Change Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Actual Estimated MEASURE A SALES TAX Highways $25,477,082 $27,818,250 Commuter Rail $27,612,000 $28,180,000 $29,079,000 4.5% Regional Arterial 9,331,277 10,169,569 10,350,000 10,563,000 10,899,000 7.2% 8,467,603 9,369,356 9,235,000 9,425,000 9,725,000 3.8% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% State Other 0 676,146 9,941,400 1,332,400 11,141,000 1547.7% 12.1% FEDERAL FUNDING Federal Transit Administration 0 0 12,200,000 750,000 12,997,000 100.0% 6.5% Surface Transportation Program 0 0 250,000 75,000 0 250,000 392.5 /0 0.0% Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality 0 298,866 3,577,000 1,875,000 1,472,000 392.5% -58.8% OTHER REIMBURSEMENTS Local 1,430,084 2146,923 1,388,700 2,520,000 2,491,000 16.0% 79.4% Miscellaneous 928,231 648,961 1,800 752 21,000 -96.8% 1066.7% �R FEES Vehicle Registration Fees 1,183,364 1,240,728 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,150,000 -7.3% 15.0% OPERATING TRANSFER IN 1,530,332 7,730,773 23,210,400 5,256,927 19,904,600 157.5% -14.2% OTHER 57,949 123,495 1,940,615 INTEREST 21,812 3,000 -97.6% -99.8% 2,109,994 3,741,749 2,292,500 1,224,032 1,545,000 -58,7% -32.6% TOTAL SPECIAL FUND REVENUES $92,303,779 $107,027,917 $148,100,334 $106,738,512 $147,643,600 37.9% -0.3% Measure A Special Revenue Of the Special Revenue Funds, ten are funded primarily with Measure A sales tax revenue: the Western County Operating Fund, the Palo Verde Valley Operating Fund, and the Coachella Valley Operating Fund. These ten funds account for all Measure A expenditures that are not paid from debt proceeds. Chart 34 - Measure A Sales Tax Coachella Valley 27% • Palo Verde Valley 1% Western County 72% 211 Western County Measure A Operating Fund This special revenue fund accounts for Western Riverside County's 72% share of the Measure A sales tax. Since the sales tax leverages state and federal dollars, the largest shares of the Commission's reimbursements flow through this fund. Chart 35 —Western County Percentage of Total Commission Revenues Other Funds 33% Table 56 — Western County Revenue Sources FY 2002 - 2003 Western County Operating 67% FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar % Change Budget Proposed Variance Estimated Measure A Sales Tax Highways $24,149,000 $25,432,000 $1,283,000 5.3% Rail 10,350,000 10,899,000 549,000 5.3% Local Streets & Roads 25,090,000 26,422,000 1,332,000 5.3% Commuter Assistance 1,568,000 1,651,000 83,000 5.3% Special Transportation 1,568,000 1,651,000. 83,000 5.3% Total Measure A 62,725,000 66,055,000 3,330,000 5.3% State Funding SB 836 12,000 0 (12,000) -100.0% State Transit Assistance 450,000 1,342,000 892,000 198.2% State Other 9,941,400 11,141,000 1,199,600 12.1% Federal Funding Federal Transit Administration 12,200,000 12,997,000 797,000 6.5% Surface Transportation Program 250,000 250,000 - 0.0% Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality 3,577,000 1,472,000 (2,105,000) -58.8% Other Reimbursements 1,888,700 1,082,000 (806,700) -42.7% Operating Transfer In 23,000,000 19,414,000 (3,586,000) -15.6% Interest 1.500.000 765.000 (735.000) -49.0% Total Western County Measure A Operating $115,544,100 $114,518,000 ($1,026,100) -0.9% As the above table demonstrates, total revenues for the Western County Operating Fund are down 0.9%, principally due to a decrease in Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality funds. For the most part, the Commission has replaced the state funding for rail with Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 funding. The decrease in interest income reflects the investment earnings on highway construction funds. These funds are being used in the Route 74 widening project. • 212 Coachella Valley Operating Fund es special revenue fund accounts for Coachella Valley's 27% share of the Measure A sales Chart 36 — Coachella Valley Percentage of Total Commission Revenues Coachella Valley Operating 18% Other Funds 82% Table 57 — Coachella Valley Revenue Sources FY 2002 - 2003 Measure A Sales Tax Highways $3,463,000 $3,647,000 $184,000 Regional Arterial 5.3% 9,235,000 9,725,000 490,000 5.3% Local Streets & Roads 8,080,000 8,509,000 429,000 5.3% ilk cial Transportation 2,309,000 2,431,000 122,000 5.3% otal Measure A 23,087,000 24,312,000 1,225,000 5.3% FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar % Change Budget Proposed Variance Estimated Other Reimbursements Interest Total Coachella Valley Operating 1,430,000 1,430,000 0.0% 475,000 450,000 (25,000) -5.3% $24,992,000 $26,192,000 $1,200,000 4.8% Other reimbursements represent the Coachella Valley's TUMF program share of the debt service on the 1993 Series A bonds used to fund regional arterial improvements. Palo Verde Valley Operating Fund This special revenue fund accounts for Palo Verde Valley's 1% share of Measure A Sales Tax. Chart 37 — Palo Verde Valley Percentages of Total Commission Revenue Palo Verde Valley Operating 1% • 213 Table 58 — Palo Verde Revenue Sources FY 2002 - 2003 REVENUE SOURCES Measure A Local Streets & Roads Interest Total Palo Verde Valley Operating FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar % Change Budget Proposed Variance Estimated $938,000 $988,000 $50,000 5.3% 2,500 2,500 0 0.0% $940,500 $990,500 $50,000 5.3% NON MEASURE A SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Freeway Service Patrol Fund The Freeway Service Patrol Fund accounts for the state and local resources provided to cover the costs of servicing stranded motorists by means of towing, changing tires, and providing fuel. Chart 38 — FSP & SAFE Revenues FSP 46% Table 59 — Freeway Service Patrol Revenue Sources FY 2002 - 2003 SAFE 54% FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar % Change Budget Proposed Variance Estimated State Allocation $891,900 $1,065,000 $173,100 19.4% Operating Transfer from SAFE 210,400 320,600 110,200 52.4% Other Reimbursements 1,732 0 (1,732) -100.0% Interest 5,000 2,500 (2,500) -50.0% Total Freeway Service Patrol $1,109,032 $1,388,100 $279,068 25.2% Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) The SAFE fund accounts for the $1 per vehicle user fee levied on all registered vehicles within the County. It funds emergency aid call boxes located strategically on the highways throughout the County. • 214 Table 60 — Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Revenue Sources 2002 - 2003 DMV User Fees Other Reimbursements Operating Transfer In Interest FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Budget Proposed Dollar % Change Variance Estimated $1,000,000 $1,150,000 $150,000 15.0% 10,682 3,000 (7,682) -71.9% 0 170,000 170,000 100.0% 105,000 100,000 (5,000) -4.8% Total SAFE $1,115,682 $1,423,000 0 $307,318 27./o 5 State Transit Assistance Fund State transit assistance funds rail and bus transit operations and capital requirements. Table 61 — State Transit Assistance Revenue Source FY 2002 - 2003 State Budgetary Allocation Interest Total State Transit Assistance FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Budget Proposed $4,194,019 205,000 Dollar Variance $2,907,000 ($1,287,019) 225,000 20,000 % Change Estimated -30.7% 9.8% $4,399,019 $3,132,000 ($1,267,019) o -28.8 /o e allocation is strictly based on estimates of gas tax revenues and is provided by the troller of the State of California. It is subject to annual state budget appropriation. EXPENDITURES Chart 39 — Special Revenue Expenditures Debt 24% Streets & Roads 23% • Other 1% Project & Operations 52% 215 Table 62 - Special Revenue Expenditures FY 2000 - 2003 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 % Change % Change Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Actual Estimated Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits $379,552 $546,017 $587,050 $542,332 $579,040 6.0% -1.4% Professional & Support General Legal Services 226,677 280.214 551,620 627,806 509,700 81.9% -7.6% Financial Services 1,996 2,231 6,600 1,800 4,500 101.7% -31.8% Audit Services 29,632 27,508 88,600 82,100 84,950 208.8% -4.1% Professional Services -Other 70,216 88,230 534,840 517,079 413,170 368.3% -22.7% Lease/Utilities 24,849 16,092 21,000 20,432 23,680 47.2% 12.8% General Expenses 39,807 99,305 290,011 203,336 265,002 166.9% -8.6% Communications 6,071 20,973 34,595 26,013 43,800 108.8% 26.6% Maintenance 22,316 610,972 1,127,282 1,126,558 50,640 -91.7% -95.5% Insurance 5,079 5,544 5,376 36 5,700 2.8% 6.0% Data Processing 1,658 1,679 2,520 0 0 -100.0% -100.0% Staff Related Expenses 11,931 13,824 33,642 18,626 45,996 232.7% 36.7% Information/Publicity 14,402 147,104 330,800 152,600 153,320 4.2% -53.7% SUBTOTAL 454,635 1,313,676 3,026,886 2,776,386 1,600,458 21.8% -47.1% Project and Operations Program Management 1,425,924 1,681,310 1,750,000 1,750,000 2,183,600 29.9% 24.8% Park & Ride Lease Payments 33,900 33,900 53,900 53,900 54,000 59.3% 0.2% Litigation Settlement 0 450 90,000 90,000 45,000 9895.1% -50.0% Projects - General 3,010 437 60,000 23,600 31,000 6993.8% -48.3% SAFE Operations 697,408 346,435 356,269 318,000 653,600 88.7% 83.5% Towing 866,059 947,199 1,144,315 970,700 1,113,000 17.5% -2.7% Commuter Assistance 1,116,402 1,278.171 1,295,715 980,099 1,555,000 21.7% 20.0% Engineering 378,996 2,838,906 8,970,275 6,021,621 6,469,000 127.9% -27.9% Construction 3,754,410 5,452,303 29,930,426 4,112,317 30,196,000 453.8% 0.9% Right of Way 503,996 1,402,629 14,577,952 7,181,500 20,960,000 1394.3% 43.8% Special Studies 18,075 11,471 15,000 52,000 410,000 3474.4% 2633.3% Special Transportation/Transit 2,826,031 3,153,384 4,269,000 3,697,208 3,647,000 15.7% -14.6% State Transit Assistance 1,527,661 3,529,784 5,194,019 5,100,000 2,907,000 -17.6% -44.0% Regional Arterial 6,467,674 10,532,091 9,740,000 9,740,000 7,957,900 -24.4% -18.3% SUBTOTAL 19,619,546 31,208,469 77,446,871 40,090,945 78,182,100 150.5% 0.9% Other Local Streets & Roads Capital Outlay SUBTOTAL 31,275.142 3.019 34,338,176 3,810 34,108,000 64,220 33,340,000 14,220 34,446.000 0.3% 1.0% 19,920 422 8% -69.0% 31,278,161 34,341,986 34,172,220 33,354,220 34,465,920 0.4% 0.9% Other Financing (Sources) Uses Operating Transfer Out 30.729.915 35.575.877 36.174.400 38.434.330 36.040.600 1.3% -0.4% SUBTOTAL 30,729,915 35.575,877 36,174,400 38,434,330 36,040,600 1.3% -0.4% TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES $82,461,808 $102,986,025 $151,407,427 $115,198,212 $150,868,118 46.5% -0®4% Measure A Special Revenue --The Measure A Special Revenue Funds are expended on capital construction and improvements to highways, commuter rail, regional arterials, and local streets and roads. Funding is also reserved for commuter assistance and specialized transit programs. All revenues from the Measure A sales tax have been pledged as security for the Commission's senior debt and commercial paper notes. (Note: Currently there are no outstanding commercial paper notes). Although debt service is recorded in the Debt Service Fund, most of the resources for the cash payments are provided by the Measure A Special Revenue Funds (See section on Capital Projects Funds). • • 216 Table 63 — Western County Expenditures FY 2002 - 2003 • FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar % Change Budget Proposed Variance Estimated Personnel, Professional & Support $1,192,800 $1,062,200 0 Measure A Program Management ($130,600) 26.1% 9 9 1,700,000 2,143,600 443,600 26.1% Projects - General 203,900 99,000 (104,900) -51.4% Highway Engineering 6,743,997 3,877,000 (2,866,997) -42.5% Highway Construction 18,285,000 14,105,000 (4,180,000) -22.9% Highway Right of Way 13,096,452 14,700,000 1,603,548 12.2% Rail Engineering 2,084,657 2,542,000 457,343 21.9% Rail Construction 11,010,000 14,675,000 3,665,000 33.3% Rail Right of Way 1,421,500 6,200,000 4,778,500 336.2% Commuter Assistance 2,118,600 2,216,000 97,400 4.6% Special Transportation 2,000,000 1,250,000 (750,000) -37.5% Local Streets & Roads 25,090,000 24,949,000 (141,000) -0.6% Special Studies 50,000 400,000 350,000 700.0% Debt 28,066,085 27,652,000 (414,085) -1.5% TOTAL WESTERN COUNTY $113,062,991 $115,870,800 0 $2,807,809 2./05 Table 64 — Coachella Valley Expenditures FY 2002 - 2003 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar % Change Budget Proposed Variance Estimated Personnel, Professional & Support $23,200 Measure A Program Management $6,600 ($16,600) 28.4% 50,000 40,000 (10,000) -20.0% Highway Engineering 141,621 50,000 (91,621) -64.7% Highway Construction 635,426 1,416,000 780,574 122.8% way Right of Way 60,000 60,000 0 0.0% ional Arterial 9,740,000 7,957,900 (1,782,100) -18.3% pecial Transportation 2,269,000 2,397,000 128,000 5.6% Local Streets & Roads 8,080,000 8,509,000 429,000 5.3% Debt 7,897,915 7,898,000 85 0.0% TOTAL COACHELLA VALLEY $28,897,162 $28,334,500 0 ($562,662) -1. /09 NON MEASURE A SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS The non Measure A Special Revenue funds account for motorist assistance expenditures including freeway call boxes and towing service, as well as transit disbursements from the State Transit Assistance Program. These activities are budgeted in the Freeway Service Patrol Fund, the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies, and the State Transit Assistance Fund. Freeway Service Patrol Fund accounts for the Commission's towing service, which is jointly funded by Caltrans and the Commission. The state has significantly increased its allocation for this service. The state has requested that two trucks be added to Route 60 as a congestion mitigation measure during the construction of additional lanes. • 217 Table 65 - Freeway Service Patrol Expenditures FY 2002 - 2003 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar % Change Budget Proposed Variance Estimated Personnel, Professional & Support $120,428 $150,968 $30,540 25.4% Towing 1,144,315 1,113,000 (31,315) -2.7% Project - General 27,719 36,000 8,281 29.9% Capital Outlay 28,219 6,374 (21,845) -77.4% Operating Transfer Out 0 80.000 80.000 100.0% TOTAL FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL $1,320,681 $1,386,342 $65,661 5.0% Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Fund accounts for the installation and maintenance of a freeway call box system within Riverside County. Table 66 - SAFE Expenditures FY 2002 - 2003 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar % Change Budget Proposed Variance Estimated Personnel, Professional & Support $322,374 $307,276 ($15,098) -4.7% Access Charges 107,000 111,000 4,000 3.7% Preventive Maintenance 4,000 4,000 0 0.0% Corrective Maintenance 4,000 4,000 0 0.0% Knockdowns 24,000 26,000 2,000 8.3% CHP Operating Costs 192,000 103,000 (89,000) -46.4% Vandalism 1,600 4,000 2,400 150.0% Equipment Maintenance - Call Boxes 1,111,000 399,000 (712,000) -64.1% Operating Transfer 210,400 410,600 200,200 95.2% Projects - General 18,200 12,600 (5,600) -30.8% TOTAL SAFE $1,994,574 $1,381,476 ($613,098) -30.7% State Transit Assistance Fund is used to account for the state budgetary allocation of gas tax revenues designated for transit purposes. The increase assumes expenditure of all current year funding, and a portion of prior year reserves. Table 67 - State Transit Assistance Expenditures FY 2002 - 2003 Claimant Allocations FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar % Change Budget Proposed Variance Estimated $5,194,019 $2,907,000 ($2,287,019) -44.0% The budget assumes that the entire state grant is allocated to claimants. The actual allocation will not occur until early summer. At mid year, the budget is adjusted to reflect the actual allocations. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Overview The Capital Projects funds account for all debt proceeds from senior bonds, including debt reserve funds, and commercial paper notes. Major expenditures are for highways (including • • 218 interchanges). The last debt issued by the Commission was in July 2000. Over the next two ears, these funds will diminish in activity since no further debt issuance is anticipated. art 40 - Capital Project Fund Investm ent Incom e 100% Other revenues consist of interest payments from Temecula, Canyon Lake, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, Corona and Lake Elsinore for outstanding loans. Table 68 - Capital Project Revenue Source FY 2000 - 2003 STATE FUNDING Caltrans OTHER REIMBURSEMENTS Local FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 % Change % Change Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Actual Estimated $323,106 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (68,744) 568,138 0 0 0 -100.0% 0.0% OTHER FINANCING SOURCES BT PROCEEDS nior Bond Proceeds 0 35,934,149 nior Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 -100.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% OTHER 232,480 643,294 INTEREST 0 0 0 -100.0% 0.0% 1,577,880 4,508,432 3,007,000 2,567,738 1,150,000 -74.5% -61.8% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS $2,064,722 $41,654,013 $3,007,000 $2,567,738 $1,150,000 -97.2% -61.8% Table 69 - Capital Project Expenditures FY 2000 - 2003 EXPENDITURES Professional and Support Costs FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 % Change % Change Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Actual Estimated $694 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 0.0% PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS Engineering 2,427,085 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Construction 135,760 Right of Way 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 730 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% SUBTOTAL 2,563,575 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% OTHER FINANCING (SOURCES) USES Issuance Cost 0 433,148 0 0 0 -100.0% 0.0% Operating Transfers Out 1.325.652 8.435.566 23 000.000 29.849,892 19.000.000 125.2% -17.4% SUBTOTAL 1,325,652 8,868,714 23,000,000 29,849,892 19,000,000 114.2% -17.4% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS $3,889,920 $8,868,714 $23,000,000 $29,849,892 $19,000,000 114.2% -17.4% • 219 Table 70 — Western County Construction Expenditures FY 2002 - 2003 Highway Engineering Highway Construction Highway Right of Way Operating Transfer Out TOTAL WESTERN COUNTY CONST. FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Budget Proposed $0 0 0 23.000.000 $0 0 0 19.000.000 $23,000,000 $19,000,000 Dollar Variance $0 0 0 (4,000,000) % Change Estimated 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -17.4% ($4,000,000) 100.0% With the use of the remaining debt proceeds from the 1997 bond issue, most of the highway projects for FY 02/03 will be funded from the Western County Measure A Operating Fund. The intent is to exhaust those funds as quickly as possible. DEBT SERVICE FUND Overview The Debt Service Fund of the Commission is used to account for all activities related to the debt incurred by the Commission. The Commission's largest expenditure is debt service. The Commission has made a conscious decision to issue debt to complete projects in the earlier years. This strategy brought quick relief to the transportation needs of the County of Riverside. As a result, the Commission has issued five outstanding bond issues. In past years, the Commission has made transfers from the operating fund and directly paid the debt. This year, the Commission is going to transfer the funds to a debt service fund and pay debt from the budgeted debt service fund. Under the provisions of Measure A as amended by Ordinance No. 92-1 (Measure AA), the Commission has the authority to issue bonds subject to a bond debt limitation of $525,000,000. The Commission has an internal policy of maintaining a 2X coverage of debt. Based on the provisions listed above, the Commission has issued the following bonds secured by Measure A revenues: 2000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In July 2000, the Commission issued serial bonds in the principal amount of $35,825,000 to fund various major highway projects. Net proceeds amounted to $35,501,000 inclusive of premium of $109,148 and net of accrued interest. The bonds mature in annual installments of $3,520,000 to $4,785,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 4.25% to 5.25%. 1997 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds ( Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In August 1997, the Commission issued serial bonds in the principal amount of $47,910,000 to retire outstanding commercial paper notes of $41,200,000 and to fund various major highway projects. Net proceeds amounted to $48,055,659, inclusive of premium of $263,196 and net of accrued interest. The bonds mature in annual installments of $2,490,000 to $5,115,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 3.7% to 5.25%. Portions of the bonds are subject to early redemption, at the option of the Commission, beginning June 1, 2007. 1997 Junior Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series B: In August 1997, the Commission issued subordinated serial bonds in the principal amount of $13,245,000 to retire outstanding commercial paper notes of $2,800,000 and to fund various local streets and roads • • 220 projects. Net proceeds amounted to $13,223,717, inclusive of ccrued interest. The bonds mature in annual installments ious dates through June 1, 2209 with interest rates ranging e bonds are subject to early redemption, at the option of the 2007. premium of $11,016 and net of of $745,000 to $1,405,000 on from 3.75% to 5%. Portions of Commission, beginning June 1, 1996 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In January 1996, the Commission issued $61,765,000 principal amount of serial bonds to refund a portion of the 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A. Net proceeds amounted to $66,252,576, inclusive of premium of $4,487,576 and net of accrued interest. The bonds mature in annual installments of $305,000 to $10,030,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 3.75% to 6.0%. The proceeds from the refunding bonds and a forward float contract provided by a major bank in the amount of $16,186,000 have been placed in an irrevocable escrow fund consisting of United States Treasury obligations. The escrow fund will be used to meet all annual maturing payments through 2009 for the refunded portion of the 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A. 1993 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In February 1993, the Commission issued $136,610,000 principal amount of serial bonds to finance certain highway and rail projects and Coachella Valley regional arterial projects. Net proceeds after original issue discount amounted to $135,448,305. The bonds mature in annual installments and require sinking fund payments of $6,940,000 to $12,295,000 on various dates through June 1, 09 09 with interest rates ranging from 4.625% to 6.0%. 91 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In January 1991, the Commission issued $112,996,959 principal amount of long-term debt in the form of serial, term, and capital appreciation bonds to finance certain transportation capital projects pursuant to the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan. Net proceeds after original issue discount amounted to $110,303,215. The bonds mature in annual installments and require sinking fund payments of $5,410,000 to $ 10,160,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 6.3% to 6.85%. Portions of the bonds are subjects to early redemption, at the option of the Commission, beginning June 1, 2000. The bond agreements require the trustee to hold all bond proceeds and sales tax revenues and to segregate all funds into separate amounts including project proceeds, sales tax revenues, interest payments, and principal payments and a reserve fund equal to the maximum annual debt service of $35,480,957. These monies are included in the restricted investments held by trustee in the Capital Projects and Debt Service funds. A portion of the Debt Reserve Requirement has been satisfied with surety policies company and held by the trustee. Under the agreements, urchased from a major insurance revenues for any lawful purpose related to Rivrside County Transportation Improvement Plan after the trustee has satisfied debt service requirements. Note: Debt Service includes $68,522 for principal and interest payments to the City of Riverside in lieu of rail property fees. • 221 Listed below are the principal and interest payments for the fiscal year and a table outlining the Commission's debt in future years: Table 71 — Debt Obligation Bonds Issued Principal Interest Total ;; 1991 Bonds $0 $0 $0 1993 Bonds 8,855,000 4,143,608 12,998,608 1996 Bonds 7,615,000 3,023,482 10,638,482 1997 Bonds 3,900,000 1,458,250 5,358,250 1997 Jr. Bonds 1,075,000 397,925 1,472,925 2000 Bonds 3.670.000 1.342.693 5.012.693 Total $25,115,000 $10,365,957 $35,480,957 ilia) :. • - _ _ Fiscal Year _ Principal .: - Interest , Total FY02/03 $25,115,000 $10,365,957 $35,480,957 FY03/04 21,606,959 13,870,260 35,477,219 FY04/05 27,200,000 8,285,530 35,485,530 FY05/06 28,640,000 6,843,222 35,483,222 FY06/07 30,200,000 5,274,945 35,474,945 FY07/08 31,865,000 3,608,120 35,473,120 FY08/09 33.630.000 1.843.358 35.473.358 Total $198,256,959 $50,091,392 $248,348,351 Chart 41— Debt Service Fund Operating Transfer 97% Table 72 — Debt Service Revenue Source FY 2000 - 2003 REVENUES Interest Operating Transfer In FY 99/00 Actual FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Actual Budget $1,331,699 $1,265,504 30.527.415 36.280.972 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND $31,859,114 Table 73 — Debt Service Expenditures FY 2000 - 2003 FY 99/00 Actual EXPENDITURES Professional & Support Principal Payments Interest Payments Cost of Issuance $19,706 18,529,107 11,998,197 0 Investment Income 3% FY 01/02 FY 02/03 % Change % Change Projected Proposed Actual Estimated $1,004,000 $1,616,959 $1,055,000 -16.6% 5.1% 35.964.000 63.027.295 35.550.000 -2.0% -1.2% $37,546,476 $36,968,000 $64,644,254 $36,605,000 -2.5% -1.0% FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 % Change % Change Actual Budget Projected Proposed Actual Estimated $29,804 $0 $0 $0 -100.0% 22,478,844 24,069,000 24,455,053 24,888,000 10.7% 12,530,366 11,476,200 11,509,418 10,663,000 -14.9% 433.148 0 0 0 -100.0% 0.0% 3.4% -7.1% 0.0% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND $30,547,010 $35,472,162 $35,545,200 $35,964,471 $35,551,000 0.2% 0.0% 222 " " " COMMUNITY PROFILE Riverside County is the fourth largest county in California, stretching westward nearly 200 miles from the Colorado River and comprising more than 7200 square miles that include 24 incorporated cities. Riverside County can trace its beginning back to 1893 when voters approved the formation of a new county. The area was carved from had previously been part of San Bernardino and San Diego counties. In its 100+ years of existence, the county's economy has diversified and prospered. Originally, Riverside County was a very agricultural area, known for a wide variety of crops grown on its fertile soils. The county remains a strong agricultural area, but is increasingly becoming a leader in manufacturing, transportation, construction and tourism. The success of the area has brought dramatic population growth to Riverside County. During the 1980's the county was the fastest growing county in the state. While it's population growth continues, jobs are also increasing as many firms relocate to the area, as they move away from older communities. The economic outlook for Riverside County remains bright with more firms moving into the area, while existing employers expand. At the same time, the area is preparing for its future as well, in supporting better education. The county is home to a number of colleges and universities including the University of California, Riverside. DATE OF INCORPORATION: OCTOBER 11, 1883 FORM OF GOVERNMENT: COUNCIL-MANAGER Chart 42 - Population 223 Chart 43 — Age Composition (%) Chart 44 — Gender Composition (%) Chart 45 — Racial Composition (%) • • • 224 " " " Chart 46 - New Home Sales Chart 47 - Unemployment Rate Chart 48 - Retail Sales (%) $12.1 Billion Other 13% Autom otive 32% Apparel Store 4% Building Material 11% General M erchand. Household 4% 18% Food Stores 7% Eating & Drinking 11% 225 Chart 49 - Household Income 2000(%) • • • 226 " " " Glossary of Acronyms AAA  Automobile Association of America ADA  Americans with Disabilities Act AQMD  Air Quality Management District AQMP  Air Quality Management Plan AVR  Average Vehicle Ridership CAC  RCTC Citizen Advisory Committee (Social Service Advisory Council) Caltrans  California Department of Transportation CETAP  Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process CEQA  California Environmental Quality Act CHP  California Highway Patrol CMA  Congestion Management Agency CMAQ*  Congestion Mitigation Air Quality CMP  Congestion Management Program CMS  Congestion Management System CNG  Compressed Natural Gas COG  Council of Governments CTC  California Transportation Commission CTS  Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. CVAG  Coachella Valley Association of Governments DMV  Department of Motor Vehicles DOT  Federal Department of Transportation EIR  Environmental Impact Report EIS  Environmental Impact Study EPA  Federal Environmental Protection Agency EV  Electric Vehicle FCR*  Flexible Congestion Relief FHWA  Federal Highway Administration FSP  Freeway Service Patrol FTA  Federal Transit Administration GFOA  Government Finance Officers Association HOV  High Occupancy Vehicle (Carpool Lane) IECS  Inland Empire Commuter Service ITS  Intelligent Transportation System JPA  Joint Powers Authority LACMTA  Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority LNG  Liquid Natural Gas LTF*  Local Transportation Fund MOU  Memorandum of Understanding MSA  Metropolitan Statistical Area MSRC  Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (AB 2766) OCTA  Orange County Transportation Authority PERS  Public Employees Retirement System PP&M  Planning & Programming Monitoring RCTC  Riverside County Transportation Commission RTA  Riverside Transit Agency RTAC  Riverside Technical Advisory Committee RTIP  Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTP  Regional Transportation Planning SAFE  Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies SANBAG  San Bernardino Associated Governments SB 821  LTF Bicycle and Pedestrian Funds SCAG  Southern California Association of Governments SCAGRD  Southern California Association of Governments Rideshare Department SCAQMD  South Coast Air Quality Management District SCRRA  Southern California Regional Rail Authority SEC  Securities Exchange Commission SHOP?  State Highway Operation and Protection Program SOV  Single Occupant Vehicle SRTP  Short Range Transit Plan STA*  State Transit Assistance STIP  State Transportation Improvement Program STP*  Surface Transportation Program 227 SunLine SunLine Transit Agency TAC — RCTC Technical Advisory Committee TCI* — Transit Capital Improvement Program TDA* — Transportation Development Act TEA* — Transportation Enhancement Activities TEA21 — Transportation Enhancement Act of the 21st Century TIP — Transportation Improvement Program TMS — Traffic Monitoring System TSM* — Transportation Systems Management TUMF — Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee Program VCTC — Ventura County Transportation Commission WRCOG — Western Riverside Council of Governments * Additional information provided in Funding Definitions. • • 228 " " " Funding Definitions Federal Fund Sources Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Discretionary funds generally provided to urbanized areas for funding new start rail projects, major bus fleet replacement, transit facility construction. Matching ratios range from 50/50 to 80 (federal)/20 (local). Formula funds made available to urbanized areas for operating subsidy, capital projects and planning. Operating match is up to 50% of the net operating cost, capital and planning match is 80% federal, 20% local. Funds made available to states for the purpose of providing capital support to private non-profit and, in certain circumstances, public transit operators. This is a state administered discretionary program providing funds on an 80% federal, 20% local basis. Federal funds provided to support rural transit operating subsidies and capital projects. Operating match is up to 50% of the net operating cost, capital match is 80% federal 20% local. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) State and Local Fund Sources Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) Funds made available to RCTC through the California Transportation Commission for state highway capacity improvements. FCR funds are used by RCTC to provide the 50% state/federal match required to deliver the specific Measure A highway projects. Transportation System Management (TSM) Funds provided to Caltrans to implement system operation tools and improvements such as, ramp meters, bypass lanes, changeable message signs, closed circuit cameras, fiber optics etc. In addition, under SB 1435, funds can be provided to match Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funded projects which qualify as Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Transportation Control Measures (TCM). Generally these projects include traffic signals, signal synchronization, and qualified park and ride lots, etc. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds allocated by RCTC and administered by Caltrans. Provides funding for local street and road improvements. Current matching rate is 88.5% federal and 11.5% local. Certain projects can qualify for TSM matching funds from the state. Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds allocated by RCTC for transportation related air quality improvement projects in air quality non -attainment areas. Current matching rate is 88.5% federal and 11.5% local. Certain projects can qualify for TSM matching funds from the state. Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) The amount of funds made available under this program is 10% of the state apportionment of STP funds. Projects are qualified and prioritized by RCTC and submitted to the California Transportation Commission for final approval. The basic definition of a transportation enhancement project is an improvement that is over and above the base transportation project. Project categories are: pedestrian and bicycle facilities, scenic or historic highways, scenic beautification, historic preservation, rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities, preservation of abandoned railway corridors, control/removal of outdoor advertising, archaeological planning and research, mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. Transportation Development Act (TDA) The TDA is comprised of two elements. LTF funds and State Transit Assistance Funds (STA). LTF funds are derived from 1/4 of one cent of the state sales tax. There are three areas of apportionment within Riverside County. They are; Western County, Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley (Blythe). RCTC administers the LTF. Funds are provided for program administration, SCAG regional planning, local transportation planning, and support transit services in Western Riverside and the Coachella Valley. In the Palo Verde Valley funds support transit services and street and road improvements. Additionally, under SB 821, 2% of LTF funds are made available for bicycle and pedestrian projects. 229 State Transit Assistance Funds (STA) are allocated by the State to RCTC on the basis of population and as a percentage of transit fare revenue. RCTC has generally used these funds to support capital purchases and improvements as these funds have been subject to state budgetary actions. Transit Capital Improvement Program (TCI) Capital funds made available by the California Transportation Commission for rail planning, purchase of railroad rights of way, construction of passenger rail stations, purchase of passenger rail equipment, rehabilitation of buses and rehabilitation of short line railroads, construction of grade separations, etc. The program is administered by Caltrans and requires a 50% local match. This fund, as with STA has been subject to state budgetary actions. Program Terms The following explanation of terms are presented to aid in understanding the various program terms used and discussed in the narrative and generally used in outlining the Commission's functions for auditing, governmental accounting, financial reporting and budgeting. Measure A A proposal to help fund key transportation improvements. in Riverside County. It provides funds to improve highways and local roadways. To initiate commuter rail services on exiting tracks, expand dial -a -ride services and commuter programs and guarantee half-price bus fares for seniors and persons with disabilities. These types of improvements are needed to control traffic, increase safety and maintain the quality of life within the County. But existing state and federal sources provide only a limited amount of funding for a limited number of projects. Measure A will cover the shortfall for key projects with a funding source that is under local control. It will use the revenue generated in Western County, Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley to meet the unique transportation needs of each of those areas. Measure A provides these benefits through voter approval of a half -cent local retail transaction and use tax. Transportation Improvement Plan This plan also acts as the County's expenditure plan, prepared by the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the proposed 1/2% local transactions for use tax for transportation to be collected for the next 20 years after approved by voters in November 1988. This was proposed by the Commission as a means to fill the funding shortfall to implement needed highway and commuter rail projects, local street and road programs and transit improvements for the senior and disabled people. Highways Measure A provides revenues to widen existing highways, expand interchanges, and improve remote freeways. These improvements are needed to control traffic congestion in Western County and improve access and safety in Coachella Valley. Costs of these improvements will be covered by funds from state and federal sources. Measure A revenue will be used to supplement — not replace — these other sources and to accelerate work on projects deferred for lack of funding. Commuter Rail Measure A provides revenue for commuter rail service to Orange County on existing tracks parallel to State route 91 and potentially in other corridors. Service to Orange County provides a travel alternative in one of the busiest corridor in all of Southern California and is linked with rail lines to San Bernardino and Los Angeles. Specialized Transit Measure A provides revenues to improve transit services for seniors, persons with disabilities and commuters. For seniors and persons with disabilities, it provides dial -a -ride cab service at night for emergency purposes, guarantee half-price bus fares and assist centers with their transit programs. For commuters, it improves express bus service and expands ridesharing programs. In the Coachella Valley, revenues also are available for bus replacement and local bus service. Commuter Assistance The purpose of this program is to provide short term incentives to encourage single occupant vehicle (SOV) drivers to use alternate modes of transportation including carpools, vanpools, buspools, public bus, commuter rail, walking and bicycling. Metrolink The Riverside County Transportation Commission commuter rail program is part of the regional network operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) operating under the name of Metrolink, a five -county joint powers agency composed of the transportation commissions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside and Ventura. The purpose of this agency is to manage the development and maintenance of commuter rail operations in the five -county metropolitan area. The service is operated under contract by Amtrak. • • • 230 " " " Regional Arterial Fifty-five percent of the Measure A funds generated within the Coachella Valley are used for state highways and major regional road projects. The Coachella Valley area is served by few state highways. The Regional Arterial systems developed through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) function much like state highways to address future needs for the area. The system is to be implemented with a mix of existing funding required from new development, a Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee, which would also be paid by developers from new development, and Measure A funds returned to the Coachella Valley area. The Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee schedule shall be established in order to generate at least the equivalent of Measure A funding toward the regional arterial system. Motorist Assistance The Motorist Assistance program has two elements. The Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) which is a special team of tow trucks that travel on selected Riverside County freeways during peak commuter hours to assist drivers when their cars break down. The other element is the call box system. The installation and operation of the call box system is made possible with revenue provided by the public. One dollar per year from motor vehicle registration pays for the call boxes and their operation and maintenance. Call boxes are being provided by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, which services as the County's Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). General Terms The following explanations of terms are presented to aid in understanding the narrative discussions and illustrations included in this budget document and the terminology generally used in governmental accounting, auditing, financial reporting and budgeting. Accountability The state of being obliged to explain one's actions, to justify what one does. Accountability requires governments to answer to the citizenry to justify the raising of public resources and the purposes for which they are used. Account Groups Accounting entities used to establish control over and accountability for the government's general fixed assets and the unmatured principal of its general long-term debt, including special assessment debt for which the government is obligated in some manner. Current authoritative literature provides for two such account groups: the general fixed assets account group (GFAAG) and the general long-term debt account group (GLTDAG). The long-term portions of claims, judgments, compensated absences and unfunded pension contributions not reported in proprietary or trust funds are also usually reported in the GLTDAG. Account groups are dissimilar to funds in that they are not used to account for sources, uses and balances of expendable available financial resources. Accounting System The methods and records established to identify, assemble, analyze, classify, record and report a government's transactions and to maintain accountability for the related assets and liabilities. Accrual Basis The recording of the financial effects on a government of transactions and other events and circumstances that have cash consequences for the government in the periods in which those transactions, events and circumstances occur, rather than only in the periods in which cash is received or paid by the government. Advance Refunding Bonds Bonds issued to refinance an outstanding bond issue before the date the outstanding bonds become due or callable. Proceeds of the advance refunding bonds are deposited in escrow with a fiduciary, invested in U.S. Treasury Bonds or other authorized securities and used to redeem the underlying bonds at their maturity or call date, to pay interest on the bonds being refunded, or to pay interest on the advance refunding bonds. Agency Fund A fund normally used to account for assets held by a government as an agent for individuals, private organizations or other governments and/or other funds. The agency fund also is used to report the assets and liabilities of Internal Revenue Code, Section 457, deferred compensation plans. Annual Budget A budget applicable to a single fiscal year. See Budget and Operating Budget. Audit A systematic collection of the sufficient, competent evidential matter needed to attest to the fairness of management's assertions in the financial statements or to evaluate whether management has efficiently and effectively carried out its responsibilities. The auditor obtains this evidential matter through inspection, observation, inquiries and confirmations with third parties. See Internal Auditing and Financial Audit. 231 Basis of Accounting A term used to refer to when revenues, expenditures, expenses, and transfers — and the related assets and liabilities — are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Specifically, it relates to the timing of the measurements made, regardless of the nature of the measurement, on either the cash or the accrual method. Bond Most often, a written promise to pay a specified sum of money (called the face value or principal amount), at a specified date or dates in the future, called the maturity date(s), together with periodic interest at a specified rate. Budget A plan of financial operation embodying an estimate of proposed expenditures for a given period and the proposed means of financing them. Used without any modifier, the term usually indicates a financial plan for a single fiscal year. The term "budget" is used in two senses in practice. Sometimes it designates the financial plan presented to the appropriating governing body for adoption, and sometimes, the plan finally approved by that body. See Annual Budget. Budgetary Control The control or management of a government or enterprise in accordance with an approved budget to keep expenditures within the limitations of available appropriations and available revenues. Budget Document The instrument used by the budget -making authority to present a comprehensive financial program to the appropriating governing body. Capital Outlay Expenditures resulting in the acquisition of or addition to the government's general fixed assets. Capital Projects Fund A fund created to account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities (other than those financed by proprietary funds and trust funds). Commercial Paper An unsecured promissory note issued primarily by corporations for a specific amount and maturing on a specific day. The maximum maturity for commercial paper is 270 days, but most are sold with maturities of up to 30 days. The credit risk of almost all commercial paper is rated by a rating service. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) The official annual report of a government. It includes (a) the five combined financial statements in the combined statements overview and their related notes (the "liftable" GPFS) and (b) combining statements by fund type and individual fund and account group financial statements prepared in conformity with GAAP and organized into a financial reporting pyramid. It also includes supporting schedules necessary to demonstrate compliance with finance - related legal and contractual provisions, required supplementary information, extensive introductory material and a detailed statistical section. Every government reporting entity should prepare a CAFR. Coverage The ratio of pledged revenues to related debt service for a given year. Debt An obligation resulting from the borrowing of money or from the purchase of goods and services. Debts of governments include bonds, time warrants and notes. Debt Limit The maximum amount of outstanding gross or net debt legally permitted. Debt Proceeds The difference between the face amount of debt and the issuance discount or the sum of the face amount and the issuance premium. Debt proceeds differ from cash receipts to the extent issuance costs, such as underwriters' fees, are withheld by the underwriter. Debt Ratios Comparative statistics illustrating the relation between the issuer's outstanding debt and such factors as its tax base, income or population. These ratios often are used as part of the process of determining the credit rating of an issue, especially with general obligation bonds. • • 232 " " " Enterprise Fund (1) A fund established to account for operations financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises (e.g., water, gas and electric utilities; airports; parking garages; or transit systems). In this case the governing body intends that costs (i.e., expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges. (2) A fund established because the governing body has decided that periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred and/or net income is appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management control, accountability or other purposes. Expendable Trust Fund A trust fund whose resources, including both principal and earnings, may be expended. Expendable trust funds are accounted for in essentially the same manner as governmental funds_ Expenditures Decreases in net financial resources. Expenditures include current operating expenses requiring the present or future use of net current assets, debt service and capital outlays, and intergovernmental grants, entitlements and shared revenues. Financial Advisor In the context of bond issuance, a consultant who advises the issuer on any of a variety of matters related to the issuance. The financial advisor sometimes also is referred to as the fiscal consultant. Financial Audit An audit made to determine whether the financial statements of a government are presented fairly in conformity with GAAP. Fiscal Year A 12 -month period to which the annual operating budget applies and at the end of which a government determines its financial position and the results of its operations. Flow of Current Financial Resources A measurement focus that recognizes the net effect of transactions on current financial resources by recording accruals for those revenue and expenditure transactions which have occurred by year end that are normally expected to result in case receipt or disbursement early enough in the following year either (a) to provide financial resources to liquidate liabilities recorded in the fund at year end or (b) to require the use of available expendable financial resources reported at year end. Flow of Economic Resources The measurement focus used in the commercial model and in proprietary and similar trust funds to measure economic resources, the claims to those economic resources and the effects of transactions, events and circumstances that change economic resources and claims to those resources. This focus includes depreciation of fixed assets, deferral of unearned revenues and prepaid expenses, and amortization of the resulting liabilities and assets. Under this measurement focus, all assets and liabilities are reported on the balance sheet, whether current or noncurrent. Also, the accrual basis of accounting is used, with the result that operating statements report expenses rather than expenditures. Flow of Financial Resources Measurement Focus A new measurement focus proposed for governmental funds in the GASB's exposure draft Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting  Governmental Funds (December 1987). It is a measure of the extent to which financial resources obtained during a period are sufficient to cover claims incurred during that period against financial resources, and the net financial resources available for future periods. This is accomplished by measuring the increases and decreases in net financial resources and the balances of and claims against financial resources using an accrual basis of accounting. This definition uses the term "financial resources" in a way that differs from its current use. In this instance, the term means cash, claims to cash (e.g., accounts and taxes receivable), and claims to goods or services (e.g., prepaid items) obtained or controlled as a result of past transactions or events. See Flow of Current Financial Resources. Fund A fiscal and accounting entity with a self -balancing set of accounts in which cash and other financial resources, all related liabilities and residual equities, or balances, and changes therein, are recorded and segregated to cany on specific activities or attain certain objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions or limitations. Fund Balance The difference between fund assets and fund liabilities of governmental and similar trust funds. Fund Balance  Reserved for Advance to Other Funds 233 An account used to segregate a portion of fund balance to indicate that noncurrent portions of long-term interfund receivables do not represent expendable available financial resources_ Fund Balance — Reserved for Debt Service An account used to segregate a portion of fund balance for resources legally restricted to the payment of general long- term debt principal and interest maturing in future years. Fund Balance — Reserved for Noncurrent Loans Receivable An account used to segregate a portion of fund balance to indicate that noncurrent portions of long-term loan receivable do not represent expendable available financial resources. Fund Balance — Reserved for Prepaid Items An account used to segregate a portion of fund balance to indicate that prepaid items do not represent expendable available financial resources even though they are a component of net current assets. Fund Type Any one of seven categories into which all funds are classified in governmental accounting. The seven fund types are: general, special revenue, debt service, capital projects, enterprise, internal service, and trust and agency. General Fund The fund used to account for all financial resources, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. General Ledger A record containing the accounts needed to reflect the financial position and the results of operations of a government. In double -entry bookkeeping, the debits and credits in the general ledger are equal (i.e., the debit balances equal the credit balances). General Long-term Debt Long-term debt expected to be repaid from governmental funds. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Uniform minimum standards and guidelines for financial accounting and reporting. They govern the form and content of the financial statements of an entity. GAAP encompass the conventions, rules and procedures necessary to define accepted accounting practice at a particular time. They include not only broad guidelines of general application, but also detailed practices and procedures. GAAP provide a standard by which to measure financial presentations. The primary authoritative body on the application of GAAP to state and local governments is the GASB. Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) Standards established by the AICPA for the conduct and reporting of financial audits. There are 10 basic GAAS, classed into three broad categories: general standards, standards of field work and standards of reporting. The Auditing Standards Board of the AICPA publishes SAS to comment and expand upon these basic standards. These SAS, together with the 10 basic standards, constitute GAAS. These GAAS set forth the objectives of the audit and establish measures that can be applied to judge the quality of its performance. Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) Standards established by the GAO in its publication Standards for Audit of Governmental Organizations, Programs, Activities and Functions ("yellow book") for the conduct and reporting of both financial and performance audits. GAGAS set forth general standards applicable to both types of audits and separate standards of field work and reporting for financial and performance audits. The GAGAS standards of field work and reporting for financial audits incorporate and build upon GAAS. Governmental Fund Types Funds used to account for the acquisition, use and balances of expendable financial resources and the related current liabilities — except those accounted for in proprietary funds and fiduciary funds. In essence, these funds are accounting segregation of financial resources. Expendable assets are assigned to a particular governmental fund type according to the purposes for which they may or must be used. Current liabilities are assigned to the fund type from which they are to be paid. The difference between the assets and liabilities of governmental fund types is referred to as fund balance. The measurement focus in these fund types is on the determination of financial position and changes in financial position (sources, uses and balances of financial resources), rather than on net income determination. The statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance is the primary governmental fund type operating statement. It may be supported or supplemented by more detailed schedules of revenues, expenditures, transfers and other changes in fund balance. Under current GAAP, there are four governmental fund types: general, special revenue, debt service and capital projects. • • • 234 " Independent Auditor An auditor meeting the independence criteria set forth in GAAS or GAGAS. Internal Auditing An independent appraisal of the diverse operations and controls within a government entity to determine whether acceptable policies and procedures are followed, established standards are met, resources are used efficiently and economically and the organization's objectives are being achieved. The term covers all forms of appraisal of activities undertaken by auditors working for and within an organization. Internal Control Structure Policies and procedures established to provide reasonable assurance that specific government objectives will be achieved. Internal Service Fund A fund used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies of a government, or to other governments, on a cost -reimbursement basis. Joint Venture A legal entity or other contractual arrangement in which a government participates as a separate and specific activity for the benefit of the public or service recipients and in which the government retains an ongoing financial interest. Legal Debt Limit See Debt Limit. Level of Budgetary Control One of the three possible levels of budgetary control and authority to which organizations, programs, activities and functions may be subject. These levels of budgetary control are (a) appropriated budget, (b) legally authorized nonappropriated budget review and approval process, which is outside the appropriated budget process, or (c) nonbudgeted financial activities, which are not subject to the appropriated budget and the appropriation process or to any legally authorized nonappropriated budget review and approval process, but still are relevant for sound financial management and oversight. Loans Receivable An asset account reflecting amounts loaned to individuals or organizations external to the Commission, including notes taken as security for such loans. - Measurement Focus The accounting convention that determines (1) which assets and which liabilities are included on a government's balance sheet and where they are reported there, and (2) whether an operating statement presents information on the flow of financial resources (revenues and expenditures) or information on the flow of economic resources (revenues and expenses). Modified Accrual Basis The accrual basis of accounting adapted to the governmental fund -type measurement focus. Under it, revenues and other financial resource increments (e.g., bond issue proceeds) are recognized when they become susceptible to accrual, that is when they become both "measurable" and "available to finance expenditures of the current period." "Available" means collectible in the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. Expenditures are recognized when the fund liability is incurred except for (1) inventories of materials and supplies that may be considered expenditures either when purchased or when used, and (2) prepaid insurance and similar items that may be considered expenditures either when paid for or when consumed. All governmental funds, expendable trust funds and agency funds are accounted for using the modified accrual basis of accounting. Operating Budget Plans of current expenditures and the proposed means of financing them. The annual operating budget (or, in the case of some state governments, the biennial operating budget) is the primary means by which most of the financing, acquisition, spending and service delivery activities of a government are controlled. The use of annual operating budgets is usually required by law. Even when not required by law, however, annual operating budgets are essential to sound financial management and should be adopted by every government. See Budget. Operating Transfers All interfund transfers other than residual equity transfers (e.g., legally authorized transfers from a fund receiving revenue to the fund through which the resources are to be expended). 235 Other Financing Sources Governmental fund general long-term debt proceeds, amounts equal to the present value of minimum lease payments arising from capital leases, proceeds from the sale of general fixed assets, and operating transfers in. Such amounts are classified separately from revenues on the governmental operating statement. Other Financing Uses Governmental fund operating transfers out and the amount of refunding bond proceeds deposited with the escrow agent. Such amounts are classified separately from expenditures on the governmental operating statement. Overhead Those elements of cost necessary in the production of a good or service which are not directly traceable to the product or service. Usually these costs relate to objects of expenditure that do not become an integral part of the finished product or service, such as rent, heat, light, supplies, management and supervision. Prepaid Items Payment in advance of the receipt of goods and services in an exchange transaction. Prepaid items (e.g., prepaid rent and unexpired insurance premiums) differ from deferred charges (e.g., unamortized issuance costs) in that they are spread over a shorter period of time than deferred charges and are regularly recurring costs of operations. Principal In the context of bonds other than deep -discount debt, the face value or par value of a bond or issue of bonds payable on stated dates of maturity. Program Group activities, operations or organizational units directed to attaining specific purposes or objectives. Program Budget A budget wherein expenditures are based primarily on programs of work and secondarily on character and object class, on the one hand, and performance, on the other. Proprietary Fund Types Sometimes referred to as income determination or commercial -type funds, the classification used to account for a government's ongoing organizations and activities that are similar to those often found in the private sector (i.e., enterprise and internal service funds). All assets, liabilities, equities, revenues, expenses and transfers relating to the government's business and quasi -business activities are accounted for through proprietary funds. The GAAP used are generally those applicable to similar businesses in the private sector and the measurement focus is on determination of net income, financial position and changes in financial position. However, where the GASB has issued pronouncements applicable to those entities and activities, they should be guided by these pronouncements. Purchase Order A document authorizing the delivery of specified merchandise or the rendering of certain services and the making of a charge for them. Refunding Bonds Bonds issued to retire bonds already outstanding. The refunding bonds may be used to provide the resources for redeeming outstanding bonds, or the refunding bonds may be exchanged with the holders of the outstanding bonds. See Advance Refunding Bonds. Reserved Fund Balance Those portions of fund balance that are not appropriable for expenditure or that are legally segregated for a specific future use. Special Revenue Fund A fund used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources (other than expendable trusts or major capital projects) that are legally restricted to expenditure for specified purposes. GAAP only require the use of special revenue funds when legally mandated. Trust and Agency Fund One of the seven fund types in governmental accounting. See Trust Funds and Agency Fund. Trustee A fiduciary holding property on behalf of another. • • • 236 " " " Trust Funds Funds used to account for assets held by a government in a trustee capacity for individuals, private organizations, other governments and/or other funds. See Expendable Trust Fund. 237 " AGENDA ITEM 13 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Revised Local Transportation Funds (LTF) Apportionment STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Adopt the revised LTF apportionment; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On February 13, 2002, the Commission approved the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment for FY 2002-03. Staff needs to make three revisions to the original apportionment. When the original apportionment was done, staff mistakenly excluded the prison population from the calculations in Palo Verde Valley. As a result, Palo Verde Valley was apportioned a lesser amount and the Western County and Coachella Valley were apportioned slightly higher amounts. Staff is revising the population numbers to reflect the correct apportionment. The second revision relates to the projection in growth. Due to the events of last year, the economy slowed considerably during the last quarter of the calendar year. Based on the slowdown, staff projected a 4% growth for FY 2002-03. Staff tracks Sales tax and LTF revenues on a monthly basis and since the beginning of the year, we have seen a slow but steady growth in sales tax revenues in Riverside County. In the Proposed Budget, staff projected a 6% growth in Measure A revenues and is recommending the LTF revenues projection be increased to reflect 6% growth as well. The third revision is the adjustment in the amount claimed by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG receives TDA planning funds for regional planning. The original estimate of their effort was $94,700, however on January 30, 2002, the Commission received a letter from SCAG outlining the Commission share as being $101,000. Attached is a schedule outlining the effect of these changes and the new apportionments. 238 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND 2002-2003 APPORTIONMENT Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) Est. Receipts TOTAL Auditor RCTC Administration RCTC Planning (3%) SCAG Planning BALANCE SB 821 (2%) BALANCE AVAILABLE Western Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley With Revisio ns Western Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Population 1,236,036 340,576 18,964 1.595,576 Co rrected Polpulation 1,240,834 340,576 27,160 1,608,570 Population % of Total 77.47% 21.35% 1. 19% 100.00% Po pulation % of Total 77.14% 21.17% 1.69% 100.00% NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change 5/14/2002 N W Budget FY 2002-2003 Orig. Pr oj. $0 $45,734,000 $45,734,000 $12,000 $600,000 $1,372,020 $94.700 $43,655,280 $873,106 $42.782,174 Budget FY 2002-2003 Apporti onment $33,141,829 $9,131,863 $508.482 $42,782,174 Budget FY 2002.2003 Revised Proj. $0 $46,613,000 $46,613,000 $12,000 $600,000 $1,398,390 $101.000 $44,501,610 $890.032 $43,611,578 FY 2002-03 Re vised Apportionment $33,641,513 $9,233,702 $736.362 $43,611.578 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 t (213) 236-180o f (213) 236-1825 www.scag.ca.gov "-ern President. Supervisor Jon Mikels. County n Bernardino • First Vice President: abnember Hal Bernsot% Los Angeles • Second Vice President: Counolmember Bev Perry. Brea • immediate Past President: Mayor Pro Tun Ron Bates. Los Alamitos Imperial County: Hank Kuiper, Imperial Conroy • David Dhillon, El Centro Los Angeles County: Yvonne Brathweitc Burke, Los Angeles County • lee Yeroslayskp Los Angeles County - Harry Baldwin. San Gabriel • Bruce Barrows. Cerritos • George Bass, Bell • Hal Bernson. Las Angeles • Robert Brunch. Rosemead • Gene Daniels. Paramount • Jo tome Darcy" Santa Garin • Ruth Galante, Los Angeles • Eric Gercetti, Los Angeles - Ray Grabinski. Long Beach • lames Halm, Los Angeles - Janice Hahn. Los Angeles • Dee Hardison,Torrance • Nate Holden, Los Angeles • Sandra Jacobs. H Segundo • Lawrence Kirkley, Inglewood • Bonnie Lowenthal. Long Beach • Keith McCarcby. Downey • Cindy Miscikowski, Lot Angeles • Stacey Murphy Burbank • Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica • Nick Pacheco. Los Angeles • Ales Padilla. Los Angeles • Jan Perris. Los Angelo. Beatrice Proo. Pico Rivera • Mark Ridley - Thomas. Los Angeles • Ed Reyes. los Angeles • Karen Rosenthal, Gacemone • Dick Stanford, Azusa • Torn Sykes, Walnut - Paul Talbot. Albambn • SidneyTylet; Jr.. Pasadena • Joel Wachs. Los Angeles - ileums Washburn. Calabasas • Jack Weiss. Los Angeles • Dennis P. line, los Angeles Orange County: Charles Smith, Orange County - Ron Bates. Los Alamitos • Ralph Bauer. Huntington Beach - Art Brown, Buena Park - Lou Bone. Tustin • Elizabeth Cowen, Costa Mesa • Cathryn DeYoung. Laguna Niguel • Richard Dixon, Lake Forest - Alta Duke. La Palma • Shirley McCracken. Anaheim • Bev Perry. Brea •Tod Ridgeway. Newport Beach Riverside County: Bob Buster. Riverside County - Ron Loveridge. Riverside • Greg Penis, Cathedral City • Ron Roberts. Temecula • Jan Rudman. Corona • Charles White, Moreno Valley San Bernardino County: Jon Mikels. San Bernardino County • Bill Alexander, Rancho Cucamonga - David Fshianan. Fontana • Lee Ann Grand Terrace • Bob Hunter, Victorville • Norton -Perry. "Chino Hills • Judith Velles, .emardino V Tura County: Judy Mikels, Ventura County • Glen Becerra, Simi Valley • Donna De Paola, San Buenaventura -Toni Young. Port Hueneme Riverside County Transportation Commission Robin Lowe. Hemet Ventura County Transportation Commission: Bill Davis. Simi Valley January 28, 2002 Mr. Carlos Monroy, LAMTA Mr. Jerry Diekmann, OCTA Mr. Ivan Chand, RCTC Ms. Victoria Baker, SANBAG p©EDWIE -111 JAN 3 0 2002 J TRANRIVERSIDE IOR A IONCOMMISSION Subject: 2002-2003 Claim and Allocation for SCAG's TDA Planning Funds I have spoken to each of you in connection with the needed estimates for the 2002-2003 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) receipts, in order to calculate your respective share of SCAG's TDA planning allocation. Shown below is your LTF estimate for next year, and the allocation to each jurisdiction of the $1.0 million cap to support our regional planning work. Your cash allocation needs to be paid to SCAG on July 1, 2002. Jurisdiction MTA-Los Angeles Co. OCTA- Orange Co. SANBAG- San Bernardino Co. RCTC-Riverside Co. Total MTA-Los Angeles Co. OCTA-Orange Co. SANBAG-San Bernardino Co. RCTC-Riverside Co_ Total 2002-2003 LTF EST $ (000's) $ 274,300 $ 84,185 $ 50,490 $ 45,734 $ 454,709 2002-2003 Allocation $ 603,000 $ 185,000 $ 111,000 $ 101,000 $1,000,000 Please send me a copy of the approved apportionment as they are adopted by your governing boards. Please call me immediately, if you have any questions at (213) 236- 1865. Very}rtly yours, Ricardo J. Olivarez, CPA Acting Manager and Controller J 240 " AGENDA ITEM 14 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning & Policy Development SUBJECT: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Extension for the Cities of Perris, Riverside and San Jacinto and the County of Riverside STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Grant the City of Perris a three-month extension to September 30, 2002 to complete the San Jacinto and Diana Street sidewalk project; 2) Grant the City of Riverside a nine -month extension to March 31, 2003 to complete the California Avenue and Cridge Street sidewalk projects; 3) Grant the County of Riverside a six-month extension to December 31, 2002 to complete the Coahuilla Street walkway project; 4) Grant the City of San Jacinto a six-month extension to December 31, 2002 to complete the Ramona Boulevard sidewalk project; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: City of Perris The City of Perris was allocated $48,500 in FY 2001-02 SB 821 funds for construction of the San Jacinto and Diana Street (Enchanted Heights) sidewalk project. This project is part of a much larger school district street improvement project. The plans for the sidewalk have been completed, must still acquire some additional ri ht of way. Therefore, the butCit e isscrequestingo al district gY three-month extension to September 30, 2002 to complete the project. City of Riverside The City of Riverside was allocated $22,370 in FY 2001-02 SB 821 funds for the construction of the California Avenue sidewalk project and $48,055 for the construction of the Cridge Street sidewalk project. The design for both projects is underway and is expected to be completed in June. However, right-of-way is needed for both projects, and it appears that it will take several months to acquire all the necessary right-of-way. Therefore, the City is requesting a nine -month extension to March 31, 2003 to complete both projects. 241 County of Riverside The County of Riverside was allocated $22,000 in FY 2001-02 SB 821 funds for the construction of the Coahuilla Street walkway project. The environmental clearance process has been completed and the design work is approximately 85% complete. The project is a relatively small project in a remote area of the Coachella Valley, and the County intends to include it as part of a larger project to enable them to obtain several competitive bids prior to the project award. Therefore, the County is requesting a six-month extension to December 31, 2002 to complete the project. City of San Jacinto The City of San Jacinto was allocated $62,500 in FY 2001-02 SB 821 funds for the construction of the San Jacinto High School (Ramona Blvd.) sidewalk project. The design work has been completed, but since part of the project is located within Caltrans right-of-way, the City is in the process of receiving an encroachment permit from Caltrans prior to advertisement for bids. Therefore, the City is requesting a six-month extension to December 31, 2002 to complete the project. Attachments: 1) Letter from the City of Perris 2) Letter from the City of Riverside 3) Letter from the City of San Jacinto 4) Letter from the County of Riverside • • • 242 May 1, 2002 • Habib .Motlagh City Engineer 09435 CITY QF PE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING ' 170 WILKERSON AVE., SUITE A, PERRIS, CA 92570-2200 TEL_: (909) 943-6504 FAX. (909) 943-8416 HABIB MOTLAGH, CITY ENGINEER Mr. Jerry Rivera, Project Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, a 92501 Re: Enchanted Heights Sidewalk, SB 821-2001-2002 Please extencl the time table to award the contract for construction of Enchanted Heights Sidewalk to September of 2002. As you may know, this sidewalk is part of a much larger project, which includes signalization and other street improvements and acquisition of right of way for street improvements. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter and ask you to contact me if you have any questions or need any further information. �CC�f�PM� MAY. 0 3 2002 TRANSPORTATIONRIVERSIDE COUNTY PJ 243 "People Serving People" CITY OF RIVERSIDE April 22, 2002 Cathy Bechtel RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 SB821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities - Time Extension Request 0-S9nos Riverside All-America 1 II 11 City 1998 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The Riverside County Transportation Commission has approved funding under the fiscal year 2001/2002 SB821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program for sidewalk construction projects on California Avenue between Van Buren boulevard and Mac Arthur Road and Cridge Street between Boyd Court and Commerce Street. The design for both projects is underway and is expected to be completed in June. However, right-of-way is needed for both projects, and it appears that it will take several months to acquire all the necessary right of way. We will not be able to award the projects by June 30, 2002. Therefore, we are requesting a nine - month time extension for both projects. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 826-5575 or Philip Hannawi at (909) 826- 5706. Sincerely, Thomas Boyd Interim Public Works Director • PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3900 MAIN STREET • RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92522 • (909) 826-5341 FAX: (909) 826-5542 • www.riverside-ca.org 244 April 16, 2002 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 V,8 David E. Barnhart Director of Transportation 09432 Attention: Mr. Jerry Rivera, Program Manager RE: Extension of Time Request for.(2-004-02,SB 821 Project - Coahuilla Street Walkway, Mecca Area Dear Mr. Haley: / The County of Riverside KarmP Department PPro�ea on was a � ` »j� �o� � �ve $22,000 in FY 2001-02 SB 821 fundt e Coahuilla Street Walkway project i e ljcca Area_ 1 —11fe la e com le eel the e tronmental clearance • rocess for this pro"et and �e.ap rAax m-atel 85% complete wit the de '" P s ; � � €� bs f ewhat ote portion of the Coachella Val y�n • a itpis :` are E ' c }� e ' `� _ } g inytidedotaspart ofa larger bid document for another-project„•to en `` , s to obtain-severalompet tiye construction bids prior to project a.-,ar�t ABM � r_< As we need additi n m'e to select a sult ble s ro e for inclusion wi Q C zi huilla Street Walkway project, ww r pe tfully request; h Extension of T nail December X2002. X ;' v= , 31, �4, � If you Ewa u Stlon 4 ar® Isiswest, please c i to Division Engineer, at (90-90 9 20 0 r Se B. Wijesinha (909) 955-6828. s Si ce ely, avid E. Barnhart Director of Transportation /sbw cc: Scott Staley Tayfun Saglam/Neil Nilchian Roy Null ,#4,27,71, to ti s•7 o . a ion annex, a MAY o s 2002 TRANSPORTATION RIVERSIDE COMMISSION 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 955-6740 P.O. Box 1090 - Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-6721 245 City Engineer's - Office . April:30; 2002 Mr. Jerry Rivera Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission. 3560 University Avenue, Suite .100. Rierside, Ca 92501 RE: Ramona Boulevard.Sidewalks —. SB 8-21 FY 2001-2002 Dear Mr. Rivera:. 'RIVERSIDE cut - • TRANSPORTATION Thisletter is to request a six-month extension of time for the award of the contract for construction of Ramona Boulevard. Sidewalk project. Since part of this project is located within Caltrans right -of way, the city of San Jacinto is in the process. of receiving an . encroachment permit from Caltrans prior to advertisement forbids.. • Sincerely, `T kfib Motla City Engineer 20.1 E. Main Street - - San Jacinto, CA 92583 Tel: 909/654-7337 - Fax: 909/654-3728 • F-ma knan r,nm 246 " AGENDA ITEM 15 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Amendment to Communications Site Leases between the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Amend the Communications Site leases between the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) to transfer all responsibilities held by the RC SAFE to the County; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In August 1990, the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) authorized staff to develop and execute agreements for the lease of three County owned/leased communications sites in order to provide timely cellular coverage from Indio to the Arizona border. The cellular coverage was necessary so that call box service could be provided on 1-10 east of Indio. At that time, it was the County's desire to lease the sites to RC SAFE and then have RC SAFE sublease the sites to the appropriate tower site operating company. RC SAFE entered into subleases with L. A. Cellular through Sigma Communications to allow L. A. Cellular equipment to be housed within the county owned mountain top communications sites at Black Rock, Cactus City, and Chuckawalla. The 1990 leases were for three years with two one-year continuation options, or a total of five years, at no cost to RC SAFE. The leases and subleases were subsequently amended on January 10, 1996, on January 8, 1997, on January 13, 1999, and on July 12, 2000. During this period, Sigma Communications was replaced by Lodestar Towers California, Inc., which in turn was replaced by SpectraSite Communications as the tower site operating company. 247 The attached fourth amendment to the lease for Black Rock and fifth amendment to the leases for Cactus City and Chuckawalla transfer all responsibility, including cost and revenues of the leases and any subleases that may exist to the Riverside County Department of Information Technology. RC SAFE will no longer be involved with either the leases or subleases of the County communications sites, and this transfer of responsibility should have no impact on the Commission's call box program. Attachments: 1) Fourth Amendment to Lease for the Black Rock Communication Site 2) Fifth Amendment to Lease for the Cactus City Communication Site 3) Fifth Amendment to Lease for the Chuckwalla Communication Site • • • 248 Agreement No. 02-45-083 • • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE (Black Rock Communications Site) THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Lessor, and RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES, Lessee, together hereinafter referred to as the Parties, hereby agree to amend that certain lease dated December 11, 1990, and amended on December 11, 1993, December 11, 1994, January 10, 1996, December 31, 1999, and December 13, 2000, on this day of subject to the terms and conditions contained herein. 1. Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies hereby agrees that on July 1, 2002, the Riverside County Department of Information Technology shall assume all responsibility, including cost and revenues of this lease and any sublease(s) that may exist. 2. Department of Facilities Management Director's Authority. The authority for the Director of the Department of Facilities Management to execute this lease is contained in Resolution No. 97-252. 3. Counterparts. This Fourth Amendment to Lease may be signed in counterpart or duplicate copies and any signed counterpart or duplicate copy shall be equivalent to a signed original for all purposes. 4. Approval. This Fourth Amendment to Lease shall not be binding or consummated until its approval by the Director of the Department of Facilities Management. 111 /// /// Page 1 of 2 49 1 DE:js 3/13/02 BLOO7 7.370 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. All other provisions of the lease not otherwise affected by thi Fourth Amendment to Lease shall remain the same. Date: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By: STEVE RENEKER, Chief Information Officer Department of Information Technology By: MICHAEL J. SYLVESTER, Director Department of Facilities Management REVIEWED AND RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL By: County Counsel RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE) By: Page 2 of 2 50 Agreement No. 02-45-084 • • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE (Cactus City Communication Site) THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, herein called County, and RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY. EMERGENCIES, herein called Lessee, hereby agree to amend that certain Lease dated December 11, 1990, extended on December 11„ 1993, December 11, 1994, January 10, 1996 and amended on November 27, 1996, January 13, 1999, and November 16, 2000 on this day of subject to the terms and conditions contained herein. 1. Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies hereby agrees that on July 1, 2002, the Riverside County Department of Information Technology shall assume all responsibility, including cost and revenues of this lease and any sublease(s) that may exist. 2. The rent of this lease is subject to increase upon the establishment of a fee schedule by the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Land Management, for the ground permit granted to County with respect to the site. Lessee shall pay any fees incurred by subleasing to commercial carriers. Lessee shall furnish information on equipment and carriers on site annually at the request of County on forms to be provided. 3. All other provisions of the Lease remain the same. 4. This Fifth Amendment to Lease shall not be binding or consummated until the Fourth Amendment to Lease is fully executed. 5. This Fifth Amendment to Lease shall not be binding or consummated until its approval by the Director of the Department of Facilities Management. /// /// /// Page 1 of 2 51 DE:js IN014 5/13/02 7.586 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. The authority for the Director of the Department of Facilitif Management to execute this Fifth Amendment to Lease is contained in Resolution No. 9 252. Dated: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By: STEVE RENEKER, Chief Information Officer Department of Information Technology By: MICHAEL J. SYLVESTER, Director Department of Facilities Management RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES By: By: Page 2 of 2 252 Agreement No. 02-45-085 • • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE (Chuckawalla Communication Site) THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, herein called County, and RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES, herein called Lessee, hereby agree to amend that certain Lease dated December 11, 1990, extended on December 11, 1993, December 11, 1994, January 10, 1996 and amended on November 27, 1996, January 13, 1999 and November 16, 2000, on this day of , subject to the terms and conditions contained herein. 1. Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies hereby agrees that on July 1, 2002, the Riverside County Department of Information Technology shall assume all responsibility, including cost and revenues of this lease and any sublease(s) that may exist. 2. The rent of this lease is subject to increase upon the establishment of a fee schedule by the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Land Management, for the ground permit granted to County with respect to the site. Lessee shall pay any fees incurred by subleasing to commercial carriers. Lessee shall furnish information on equipment and carriers on site annually at the request of County on forms to be provided. 3. All other provisions of the lease remain the same. 4. This Fifth Amendment to Lease shall not be binding or consummated until the Fifth Amendment to Lease is fully executed. 5. This Fifth Amendment to Lease shall not be binding or consummated until its approval by the Director of the Department of Facilities Management. /// /// /// Page 1 of 2 263 1 DE:js DC002 3/13/02 7.371 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. The authority for the Director of the Department of Facilities Management to execute this Fifth Amendment to Lease is contained in Resolution No. 97- 252. Dated: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By: STEVE RENEKER, Chief Information Officer Department of Information Technology By: MICHAEL J. SYLVESTER, Director Department of Facilities Management REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: County Counsel RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE) By: Page 2 of 2 4 " " AGENDA ITEM 16 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Amendment to Funding Agreement, No. 02-45-040, between the Department of California Highway Patrol and Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Amend Funding Agreement No. 02-45-040 with the Department of California Highway Patrol to provide overtime supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol program in Riverside County; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program is operated as a joint venture between the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE). RC SAFE is responsible for administering the program, and Caltrans and the CHP jointly provide daily field supervision to ensure service performance. The CHP has assigned two full-time traffic officers for the dedicated purpose of supporting the Riverside County FSP program. However, the nature of the FSP program (5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) may require the CHP officers to work overtime. The Commission approved Funding Agreement No. 02-45-040 at its January 9, 2002 meeting. The agreement provides for a maximum of 480 overtime hours for FY 01-02 at the State established rate of $49.31 per hour. However, it appears the number of overtime hours was underestimated and staff is requesting an amendment to the agreement to increase the maximum overtime hours to 680 for the fiscal year. This increases the total amount of the agreement to $33,530.08, or an additional $9,862.00. In the event the CHP is granted a rate increase by the State, RC SAFE would be required to reimburse the CHP at the new hourly rate, 255 but in no event shall the total amount exceed the amended contract maximum of $33,530.08. It should be noted that not less than 80% of the cost of this agreement will be financed by State FSP funds. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: 2001-02 Amount: $ 9,862 Source of Funds: State of California Dept. of Transp. Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 201-45-81016 Fiscal Procedures Approved: v Date: 5/13/02 • • • 256 " " AGENDA ITEM 17 " " " " I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs Eric Haley, Executive Director State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Adopt the following bill positions: Oppose - SB 1213 (Alpert, D -Coronado) as amended 4/10/02 Support - SCA 11 (Murray, D -Los Angeles) as introduced 2/21/02; and 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update The budget and what is now being reported as a $20 + billion deficit continues to receive most of the attention from legislators and bills with fiscal implications are finding their way to either the Senate or Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense file pending the release and understanding of the Governor's May Budget Revision. The May budget revise, to be released during the week of May 14, may provide answers to the question of how the State will address the enormous financial challenge. SB 1262 (Torlakson), the bill requiring a minimum 10% set -aside of transportation Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds for a transit -oriented development and housing incentives program was amended reducing the set -aside to 5% after it passed out of the Senate Transportation Committee on April 2, 2002 on an 8-3 vote. The bill was to be heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 29, 2002 but was instead placed in the Suspense file, likely until at least late June of this year. The attached report from the SANBAG/RCTC lobbyists reference their efforts to defeat the bill. 257 Staff has analyzed and recommends the following bill positions for approval: SB 1213 (Alpert, D -Coronado) — SB 1213 is the legislative vehicle being used to seek the Legislature's approval of a labor contract between the state and CALTRANS engineers giving the engineers a 5% salary increase but also prohibits the state from contracting with private engineers in any year the workload is not higher than it was in 2000. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis is attached. SCA11 (Murray, D -Los Angeles) - SCA 11 requires any loan of motor vehicle - related revenues or trust funds not repaid within the same fiscal year in which the loan was made, or by a date not more than 30 days after the enactment of the budget bill for the subsequent fiscal year, be repaid with interest (at the rate paid on the money in the Pooled Money Investment Account). Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. Federal Update The House version of the Highway Funding Restoration Acts (H.R. 3694) underwent "emergency mark-up" in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in early May. As introduced, the measure restores the highway program from the $23.3 billion level of the president's budget to $27.7 billion, the FY 2003 level of highway authorizations found in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century (TEA -21). House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R -Alaska) called for the special session to head off an alternative bill introduced by the House Appropriations Committee that would eliminate the use of revenue -aligned budget authority (RABA) for the FY 2003. Retaining RABA is an element of the SANBAG/RCTC TEA -21 reauthorization strategy because it provides a direct linkage of trust fund income to highway spending. Attachments: 1) SB 1213 - Bill Analysis 2) SCA 11 — Bill Analysis 3) Legislative Update from Smith, Kempton & Watts 4) Congressional Activity from David Turch & Associates • • • 258 " " " Date of Analysis: May 7, 2002 Bill Number/Author: SB 1213 (Dede Alpert, D -Coronado) As amended April 10, 2002 Subject: Status: Summary: Labor contract approval between the state and CALTRANS engineers giving the engineers a 5% salary increase but also prohibits the state from contracting with private engineers in any year the workload is not higher than it was in 2000. Amended April 10, 2002 Referred to Senate Public Employee and Retirement Committee - Suspended Existing law provides that if any provision of a memorandum of understanding reached between the state employer and a recognized employee organization representing state civil service employees requires the expenditure of funds, those provisions of the memorandum of understanding shall not become effective unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. Existing law also requires the Department of Transportation to include in its annual budget request permanent and temporary capital outlay support staffing at specified levels, as compared to its 1986-87 authorized permanent and temporary capital outlay support staffing level, and authorizes the department to contract out for staffing in excess of the 1986- 87 authorized levels. SB 1213 implements a labor agreement between the State and CALTRANS engineers increasing the annual salary of CALTRANS engineers by 5%. This bill would require CALTRANS, not to contract our for services, except for specialized services, if workload for any year is equal to or less than the authorized staffing for the previous year and may not exceed the amount of actual personnel year equivalents of specialized services contracted for in the 2000-01 fiscal year. The bill would require CALTRAN, if the department's capital outlay support workload for any year, excluding contracted specialized services up to the amount of specialized services contracted for in the 2000-01 fiscal year, exceeds the authorized capital outlay support staffing for the previous year, to accomplish 1/2 or more of the difference by capital outlay support staffing, and would authorize the department to accomplish 1/2 or less of the difference by contracting out. However, the bill would authorize the department to contract out more than 1/2 of the 259 difference if the department has hired to its maximum staffing and is nevertheless unable to meet its construction project delivery schedules. The bill would require contracting out for other than specialized services to be limited to firms that are participants in programs approved by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards for surveyors, materials testers, or materials inspectors. Staff Comments: In November 2000, California voters passed by a 56% to 44% margin Proposition 35, which amended the state constitution to eliminate restrictions on government's ability to contract with private firms for engineering and design work on roads and highways. Prop. 35 makes sense as it recognizes the cyclical nature of transportation projects, based on funding availability, and permits the State to use contract forces rather than hiring new state employees only to lay-off those same new -hires when the workload drops. SB 1213 is the legislative vehicle being used to seek the Legislature's approval of a labor contract between the state and CALTRANS engineers giving the engineers a 5% salary increase, which by itself is reasonable in light of the competitiveness in the engineering job market in California. However, SB 1213 also unravels Prop. 35 by prohibiting the state from contracting with private engineers in any year the workload is not higher than it was in 2000. Should the workload exceed the 2000 level, only half the extra work can be contracted out with the other half to be done by CALTRANS. This proposal is diametrically counter to the voters wishes and may very well slow the delivery of vital transportation projects. Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE • • • 260 " Date of Analysis: May 9, 2002 Bill Number/Author: SCA 11 (Kevin Murray, D -Los Angeles) As introduced February 21, 2002 Subject: Status: Summary: Requires any loan of motor vehicle -related revenues or trust funds not repaid within the same fiscal year in which the loan was made, or by a date not more than 30 days after the enactment of the budget bill for the subsequent fiscal year, be repaid with interest. Introduced February 21, 2002 Passed 10-0 out of Senate Transportation Committee Passed 4-0 out of Senate Constitutional Amendments Committee The California Constitution restricts the expenditure of certain motor vehicle fuel and vehicle -related revenues to specified transportation purposes, but authorizes these revenues to be loaned to the General Fund under certain conditions. The California Constitution further provides that the trust funds in the Public Transportation Account in the State Transportation Fund may be loaned to the General Fund under certain conditions. SCA 11 requires any loan of motor vehicle -related revenues or trust funds not repaid within the same fiscal year in which the loan was made, or by a date not more than 30 days after the enactment of the budget bill for the subsequent fiscal year, be repaid with interest (at the rate paid on the money in the Pooled Money Investment Account). It provides that a loan of these funds may be made to other state funds or accounts under the conditions applicable to loans to the General Fund. As a Constitutional Amendment, the measure must be approved by 2/3 of the membership of each house and approved by the voters of California. Staff Comments: This measure is in response to recent budget shell games where loans between transportation programs were used to circumvent state 261 constitutional requirements under Article 19 for timely repayment and the payment of interest on those loans. The Governor's January 2002-03 budget proposal would loan transportation funds to the General Fund in a way that avoids the constitutional provisions and conditions on such loans. The constitutional conditions adopted as part of Proposition 2 approved by California voters in November 1998 apply to gas tax and registration fee loans to the General Fund, but the budget proposal would make loans from the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund to the General Fund and backfill the TCRF with Article 19 (State gas tax revenue) transportation funds. SCA 11 would extend the constitutional loan conditions to Article 19 funds loaned to any state account in order to avoid the "laundering" of such funds for condition -free loans. The intent also is to capture interest on multi -year loans of transportation funds so that transportation funds do not subsidize other state accounts and do not suffer lost interest income which would otherwise have been credited to the transportation accounts. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT • • 262 Smith, Kempton & Watts Consulting and Governmental Relations MEMORANDUM To: Darren Kettle RCTC/SANBAG From: DJ Smith, Mark Watts & Delaney Hunter Date: May 3, 2002 Subject: Monthly Legislative Update The Legislature is fast approaching fiscal committee deadlines and facing a long summer of budget debate. State Budget The state budget is the real focus of transportation related issues this year. The budget contains many provisions to try and fix the ever-growing deficit. For transportation, these include (1) a possible $42 million in lost interest to the SHA due the proposed loans to aid in the rebalancing of the state Budget and (2) closing the loophole in Proposition 2 that permits SHA loans to be "washed" through other transportation accounts, thus avoiding Proposition 2's loan repayment timeframes. We would recommend (1) supporting SCA 11 (Murray) which is the vehicle for tightening the Proposition 2 provisions and (2) persuading the Budget Subcommittee to take appropriate action to recapture lost interest. Mark Watts recently met with Sub -Committee Chair Manny Diaz and gained his support for this position. 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1560 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-5508 ,. Fax: (916) 446-1499 263 Legislation of Interest SB 1262 (Torlakson) SB 1262 would require local regional transportation authorities and entities to dedicate a minimum of 10% of the local RTIP's for new regional smart growth programs. By amending the requirements in the statutes relating to the STIP, this bill effectively runs contrary to the voter's approval of Proposition 42, which dedicated sales tax on gas for specific purposes. We are actively opposing this bill for RCTC and SANBAG. SB 1262 was placed on the Senate Appropriations Suspense File on April 29, 2002. We will continue to lobby members to ensure its defeat. Other Transportation Items Planning and Conservation League (PCL) Initiative The PCL is currently circulating an initiative for the November 2002 ballot that would dedicate one third of the sales tax revenues the state derives for transportation and environmental purposes. PCL has now turned in well over the number of signatures needed to qualify. We anticipate that they will be on the November ballot. The initiative would generate $950 million to $1 billion annually, growing with vehicle sales and price inflation. A review of the programs funded by the program indicates that approximately one third of the program would fund highway oriented transportation projects, with the balance reserved for transit, school bus replacement and a host of natural conservancies, the latter justified as generic mitigation for transportation improvement impacts. 2003 Federal Reauthorization This year is the "development" phase for establishing the principles to guide California interests in the reauthorization of the Federal surface transportation funding act, which is due for consideration in 2003. The Administration has provided leadership on forging guiding principles and has made several presentations to Congress and federal authorities on the state's views on funding and program components that California supports. • 264 " " The California Legislature has also involved itself in the related activities concerning the 2002 federal budget, urging Congress, via SJR 36 (Murray), to adopt higher funding levels under the current federal act, a key step in establishing appropriate funding levels in the reauthorization process. 265 " TO: FROM: DATE: RE: David lurch and Ylssociates Darren Kettle Marilyn Campbell May 15, 2002 Congressional Activity Appropriations We have been working with Congressional offices to follow-up on RCTC/SANBAG project requests for FY 2003 funding. Transportation appropriations requests were due in the House on March 29 and in the Senate on April 12. All requests were submitted before the deadlines. The following offices have been contacted: Congressman Jerry Lewis Congressman Gary Miller Congressman Buck McKeon Congresswoman Mary Bono Senator Barbara Boxer Congressman David Dreier Congressman Joe Baca Congressman Ken Calvert Senator Dianne Feinstein No mark-ups have been scheduled yet on transportation appropriations in the House or Senate. It is not anticipated that these will occur before June. Reauthorization of TEA -21 In conversations with staff of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure we were informed that a call for projects for inclusion in the successor to TEA -21 may be issued by the Committee as early as January or February of 2003. Although the Committee will not be using the same form as last time, but plans to develop a new questionnaire, much of the information requested will probably be comparable. 517 2nd STREET, NORTHEAST, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 543-3744 266