HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 April 22, 2002 Budget & ImplementationRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 2:30 p.m.
DATE: Monday, April 22, 2002
059536
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 - Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
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 Thompson, 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 / Ron Perkins, 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
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION 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, APRIL 22, 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 (March 25, 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. 01
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
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.
Budget and Implementation Committee
April 22, 2002
Page 2
5B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - P. 05
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
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 - P. 11
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
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 ROUTE 60 - VALLEY
WAY TO UNIVERSITY AVENUE - P. 13
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Adjust Western County unprogrammed Regional Improvement
Program fund balances, subject to CTC action in June 2002;
2) Receive and file this staff report and supplemental cost increase
for the Route 60 Valley Way to University Avenue project; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee
April 22, 2002
Page 3
7. FUNDING ADJUSTMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74
WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN 1-15 IN LAKE ELSINORE AND
7TH STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS — P. 20
Overview
This item is a place holder to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend the project budget for the State Route 74 widening project
between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris;
and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. ADVERTISE BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION PARKING
LOT EXPANSION — P. 21
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of the parking lot
expansion at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink 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.
9. ADVERTISE BIDS TO CONSTRUCT THE RIVERSIDE -LA
SIERRA METROLINK STATION PHASE 1 PARKING LOT
EXPANSION PROJECT — P. 23
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize staff to advertise bids for the construction of the
Riverside- La Sierra Metrolink Station Phase 1 Parking Lot
Expansion;
Budget and Implementation Committee
April 22, 2002
Page 4
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 CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENSION
OF THE EXISTING EMERGENCY PLATFORM AT THE PEDLEY
METROLINK STATION — P. 26
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval 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, subject to Legal Counsel review, to
execute the Supplement 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.
11. ADVERTISE BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CLOSED-
CIRCUIT TELEVISION SECURITY SYSTEM AT THE PEDLEY
METROLINK STATION — P. 28
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval 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;
Budget and Implementation Committee
April 22, 2002
Page 5
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute the Supplement 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
Monitoring Facilities at the Downtown Riverside 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 FY 2002-03 — P. 30
Overview
1) Accept the Recurring -Contracts for FY 2002-03; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
13. PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 — P. 32
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Discuss, review and seek guidance on the Proposed Budget for
Fiscal Year 2002-2003; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. TDA/MEASURE A AUDIT RESULTS — P. 48
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the responses to the suggestions for improvement
as presented by Ernst and Young; and
Budget and Implementation Committee
April 22, 2002
Page 6
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
15. OVERHEAD ALLOCATION POLICY AMENDMENT - P. 50
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval 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 - P. 51
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Award a 3 year contract, with two one-year options, to Tri-City
Towing for tow truck service on Beat #4 of the Freeway Service
Patrol program at a cost of $45.00 per hour per truck;
2) Award a 3 year contract, with two one-year options, to Pepe's
Towing for tow truck service on Beat #18 of the Freeway Service
Patrol program at a cost of $42.50 per hour per truck;
3) Award a 3 year contract, with two one-year options, to Pepe's
Towing for tow truck service on Beat #25 of -the Freeway Service
Patrol program at a cost of $42.50 p.er hour per truck;
4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
17. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - P. 54
This item is to seek Committee approval 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.
Budget and Implementation Committee
April 22, 2002
Page 7
Oppose Unless Amended — SB 1 856 (Costa, D -Fresno) et al) as
introduced 2/22/02.
Support — AB 2098 (Bates, R -Laguna Niguel) as introduced
2/19/92 and 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
19. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF
20. ADJOURNMENT — The next meeting is scheduled at 2:30 p.m.
on Monday, May 20, 2002.
AGENDA ITEM 4
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
Monday, March 25, 2002
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to
order by Chairperson Chris Carlson-Buydos at 2:41 p.m., at the offices of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Suite
100, Riverside, California, 92501.
2. ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Chris Carlson-Buydos
John Chlebnik
John Hunt
Ameal Moore
Ron Roberts
Robert Schiffner
Placido Valdivia
Jim Venable
Robert Crain
Harvey Gerber
Mike Wilson
John Pena*
Gregory Pettis*
Juan DeLara
*Unable to attend via video conference due to technical difficulties
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests from the public to speak.
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, requested an urgency item be
added to the agenda as Agenda Item No. 13, "Approval of State Route 74
Utility Agreement with AT&T Broadband". This item arose after the agenda
was posted and mailed, and will need to be addressed by the Committee at
this time.
M/S/C (Hunt/Moore) recognizing that staff became aware of this item
after posting and mailout of the agenda, to add the urgency item as
Agenda Item No. 13, "Approval of State Route 74 Utility Agreement
with A T& T Broadband"
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
March 25, 2002
Page 2
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 25, 2002
M/S/C (Roberts/Moore) to approve the February 25, 2002 minutes as
written.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S/C (HuntNenable) to approve the Consent Calendar.
6A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS
1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Reports for
the month ending February 28, 2002; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6B. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
1) Amend the Motorist Assistance budget for maintenance of
equipment; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. APPROVAL OF STATE ROUTE 74 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT
WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, briefly reviewed the purpose and
necessity of the SR 74 Traffic Enforcement Agreement with the California
Highway Patrol.
M/S/C (Venable/Schiffner) to:
1) Approve entering into an agreement with the California Highway
Patrol (CHP) for Traffic Enforcement Services during
construction of Segment 1;
2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement, pursuant to
Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; and,
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
March 25, 2002
Page 3
8. CONSULTANT RANKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROVISION OF
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES FOR THE
PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE AT THE NORTH MAIN CORONA
METROLINK STATION
Hideo Sugita reviewed the funding status of the North Main Corona
Metrolink Station parking structure and the Selection Committee's
recommendations for consultant services to provide preliminary engineering
and environmental studies.
M/S/C (Moore/Chlebnik) to:
1) Concur with the Selection Committee recommendations, for the
ranking of Engineering Firms, as listed below, who responded to
a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to provide
Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Studies, for the
proposed 1,000 space Parking Structure at the new North Main
Corona Metrolink Station;
Top Ranked Gordon H. Chong & Partners
Second Owen Group
Third DMJM + HARRIS
Fourth Choate Parking Design Consultants
2) Direct staff to bring back a scope, schedule, and cost for
approval after the State funding has been approved and the
project scope has been finalized; and,
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
PROGRAM
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, reviewed the Call for Projects for the FY 2002-
03 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program.
M/S/C (Venable/Hunt) to:
1) Approve to release a Call for Projects for the FY 2002-03 SB
821 Program and notify the cities, the County, an the local
school districts of the estimated funding available for the fiscal
year; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
March 25, 2002
Page 4
10. RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
(LAIF)
Ivan Chand, Chief Financial Officer, reviewed the advantages of investing in
LAIF.
Commissioner James Venable asked for the maximum investment allowed
and RCTC's anticipated investment. Ivan Chand responded that the
maximum investment and anticipated investment by RCTC is $40 million.
M/S/C (Moore/Schiffner) to:
1) Adopt the resolution to join the Local Agency Investment Fund
(LAIF); and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE
Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, briefed
the Committee on the Commission on Building for the 21St Century report
that could result in county transportation agencies losing 25% of local
programming funds, noting that the Senate Transportation Committee
Chairman and the Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman would
oppose this program. He also'reviewed AB 2809 and SB 10xxx.
Commissioner Ron Roberts requested the status of SB 1262. Darren Kettle
responded that the bill was recently heard by the Senate Transportation
Committee however no vote was taken and it not likely to be approved
without modification.
M/S/C (Schiffner/Roberts) to:
1) Support — AB 2809 (Longville)
Support — SB 10xxx (Sher);
2) Receive and file the State and Legislative Update as an
information item; and,
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
March 25, 2002
Page 5
12. TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (TEA 21)
STATEWIDE REAUTHORIZATION PRINCIPLES
Darren Kettle reviewed the TEA 21 Statewide Reauthorization Principles.
M/S/C (Moore/Hunt) to:
1) Approve the attached TEA 21 Statewide Reauthorization
Principles; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
13. APPROVAL OF STATE ROUTE 74 UTILITY AGREEMENT WITH AT&T
BROADBAND
M/S/C (Roberts/Venable) to:
1) Approve entering into an agreement with AT&T Broadband
defining the responsibilities for the relocation of cable television
lines related to the Measure "A" widening of State Route 74
between the Cities of Lake Elsinore and Perris. The RCTC cost
is estimated to be $6,212.26;
2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement, pursuant to
Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; and,
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion.
15. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and
Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. The
next meeting will be at 2:30 p.m., on Monday, April 22, 2002, at the RCTC
offices.
Respectfully submitted,
\\VA-4^)-AUIL
l
Je rarer Harmon
Deputy Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 5A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION,
DATE:
April 22, 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 March 31, 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 March
31, 2002.
Attachment: Monthly Report — March 2002
000001
RCTC MEASURE "A " HIGHWAY/RAi OJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
ROUTE 60 PROJECTS
Final Design HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. (2042)
(3000)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60
II
ROUTE 74 PROJECTS
Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966,
(R02142) (R0 2141) (2140) (3001) (3009)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74
110
ROUTE 79 PROJECTS
Engineering/Environ./ROW (3003)
Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 1III11
100
11[1, l!VVIlit
ROUTE 86 PROJECTS
Avenue 58 to Av enue 66 (Segment 2)
Avenue 66 to Avenue 82 (Segment 3)
* (Caltrans Fu nded Projects)
IJBTOTAL ROUTE 86 Ililillili:iiil.:,,,..
li:fi
ROUTE 91 PROJECTS
Soundwall design, ROW and construction
(R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043)
(2058) (2144) (2136) (3600)
Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535)
Sndwall Lan dscaping (R09933,9946,2059.3601)
-SUBTOTA L ROUTE 91 :iilu h 1111 i,irilll.,'
ROUTE 111 PROJECTS
(R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538)
9540,9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629(3401)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111
COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH . MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 03/31/02 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
5516,459, 550
$16,946,856
516,946,856
$3,021,891
$3r021,891
$15,011,132
IIiiIV�
YI
32
$770,049
$770,049
$19,500,000
$33,760,000
553,260,000
$10,374,324
$2,954,000
$1,603,450
514,931,774
315,530,856
515,530.858
Page 1 of 3
97.1%
p7 .1%
100.0%
88.5%
96 .3%
99.7%
87 .2 %
100.0%
1 00.0%
10111111110N64
'i 4
91.6%
$346,185
5346.1 85
$513,077
5513,077
$37,415
$37,415
Project Complete
Project Complete
Rlli11101M
�IIiIIII�V1'P11.;! , 80
$58,232
$0
$22,044
580,275
$0
$1,659,480
51,659,48.0
57,354,651
57,354,551
$538,034
38;034
$18,060,000
$31,013,510
549,073,510
$9,429,916
$2,109,519
$810,628
$14,052,042
54.9%
54.9%
49,0%
49.0%
69 .9%
�in�uii!c
1111111111111111, 69.9,
92 .6%
91.9%
92.1%,
90.9%
71.4%
50.6%
82:7%
90 .5%
90.5%
000002
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
1-215 PROJECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018)
SUBTOTAL 1-215'
INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM
Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946)
SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE
PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT 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)
SUBTO,BL ?ARK -N -RIDE ;11111
Ih��l
�Ililllll illillll�lil
ail-6IlIlIil:I I I'I'IyII�IVI'I'III �;
IiliOi(VIIIIp�JJ�llllll! I;.
COMMUTER RAIL
Studies/Engineering
(RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956,2028)
802031,2027,2120,2029„2128, 3800 - 3808,3809)
Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs
(0000,2026,2056,4000.4007, 4198, 4199) 'SUBTO TAL COMMUTERdRAU.. �!! ! l�tl� it
TOTALS.
000003
COMMISSION
AUTHORIZED
ALLOCATION
11lliil
IIII
$6,726,504
$6,726,504
$440,000
$444,000
$2,300,000
$2,3D0,OD0
$25,000
1 I
,!III
$2,100,814
$2.1.00,814
$5,218,070
$13,190,402
$18,408,472
$13615133116'
CONTIRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
COM MIT MENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
TC) DATE ALLOCATION 03/31/02 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE
ilk
I
III
I
PI ., II
$5,878,173
$54$1;
$400,000
$400,000
$2,223,816
III 52A223,816
$25,000
191;, $25•,O0OIi1
II
$2,100,814
42,100,814;.
$4,825,518
$13,190,402
$18 015 920
$'13'I,1:69,4251
Page 2 of 3
!Illldf
I,I�lil
WII
87.4%
90.9%
96,7%
100 .0%
100.0 %
�KIINII��
92.5%
Ill
lidliiiiV
sa
$0
$0
$85,413
lfl'I
$0
ICI III
$188,814
IIIUIIi11 188,814
$782,742
$88,961
$871,703 II
$2,122,883
$5,704,897
8 5,704,697
$312,519
831112;519
97.1%
97 .1%
78.1%
VIII{I( 'i78 .14a
$1,027,098
$1,027,098 I. IWI
so
46.2 %
'�u�Jll ll!10'I�il��l ,
0 .0%
11.0,0ogl!),11:!I,I .�IIIII;II*1111111;!;II1II'.111111,11M:i
$1,344,952
01,344,952
$4,264,782
$4,122,320
$8,38TOii2
101,804,348
64 .0%
.0%
111
88 .4%
31.3 %
IIIIlr! .,
X10111 46 .6%
I, VIII rllrll; �;�°.
77.6%
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL S :TS & 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 03/31/02 ADVANCES BALANCE COMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT.
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements
"ylSUBTOTAL IIlii�
$1,600,000
$1,600,000
$903,004
$0
56.4 %
I'
CANYON LAKE LOAN , ,tlii: I Ill..._
v1,600 0U0
,
.;
�;I'� ;'- DDD��;. $0
$1,600,000
f
'I�IIf i r s903,D04
ill
al I!I
SIC
56.4%
CITY OF CORONA
Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1)
$5,212,623
$5,212,623
$3,135,939
$0
60.2%
Storm drainage structure
�� � � �� � I I
SUBT13 'AL CITY OF CORONA 1 �DUi i 1111i►O hi
$5,212,623
S3,135,939
50
$5,212,623
$0
.60.2%
CITY OF PERRIS
Local streets & road improvements
$1,936,419
$1,936,419
$1,283,880
$0
66.3%
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Local streets & road Improvements
$1,324,500
$1,324,500
$878,167
$0
66.3 %
CITY OF TEM ECULA
Local streets & road improvements
$5,094,027
$5,094,027
$3,377,429
$0
66.3 %
CITY OF NORCO
Yuma VC & Local streets and road Imprmts
$2,139,067
$2,139,067
$1,418,239
$0
66,3%
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
Local streets & road improvements
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,039,328
$0
69.3 %
CITY OF HEMET
Local streets & roa ds Improvements
$730,000
$730,000
$0
$0
0.0 %
TOTALS
$18,806;636
50
518,806,636
510,996,658,
50
58 .5%
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs.
All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
Status as o/: 03/31/02
Page 3 of 3
0OCGO4
AGENDA ITEM 5B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Financial Statements
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the quarterly financial statements for the period
ending March 31, 2002; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During the first nine months of the fiscal year, staff has monitored the revenues
and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements show the
revenues and expenditures incurred in the first nine months of the fiscal year. On
a linear basis, we have completed 75% of the fiscal year. At the end of the
quarter, Administration expenditures are 17% under budget. The primary reason
for the Commission incurring less expenditures are cuts in consulting services and
timing of invoices currently being processed. Staff has some legal invoices and
invoices for consulting services that were processed in April. Debt Service is paid
in December and June and staff expects that the entire budget will be spent at the
end of the fiscal year. Intergovernmental Expenditures are_ incurred early in the
year and, as such, staff expects the expenditures to remain within the budget.
Expenditures in the Program/Projects are below budget, however, these
expenditures are related to progress on projects and staff expects that these funds
will be spent as projects are completed.
The Revenues have exceeded expectations and at the end of the March 2002,
Measure A revenues were 6% higher than the same time last year. Staff expects
to complete the fiscal year with Measure A revenues increasing 4-6% from prior
fiscal year. Interest Income is lower than expected due to the decrease in interest
rates and the utilization of the Construction bond funds. Federal, State, Local and
Other Government revenues are considerably less than projected and that is due to
the nature of these revenues. These revenues are received on a reimbursement
basis and staff expects to receive these revenues as the projects are completed
and invoiced.
- 000005
Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and notify the
Commission of any unusual events. Listed below is the budget variance
explanation for the Highway and Rail programs.
Highwa ryEngineering/Right of way
Route 91 - HOV project pre -award audit of the design consultant from Mary
St. to 7"' Street was completed, a notice to proceed was issued, and
preliminary engineering and environmental has commenced.
Route 74 - widening project from 1-15 to 7th Street is still waiting on the
biological opinion amendment, agency agreements and Caltrans approval of
PS & E. Right of way acquisition is proceeding.
Route 1 1 1 - The design activities for the Palm Desert projects were delayed
due to drainage redesign requirements requested by Caltrans.
Highway Construction
Route 74 - Due to the on -going design and environmental issues, the start of
construction work on Segment 1 is forecasted to start summer of 2002.
Route 79 - Decision on proceeding with constructing of right turn lanes on
Gilman Springs Road was made at the end of the second quarter.
Route 1 1 1 - The Gene Autry Trail project in the City of Palm Springs and the
Monroe to Rubidoux project in the City of Indio are complete and receipt of
final invoices for incurred expenditures are still pending.
Rail Engineering/Right of Way
Pedley Station - Design for the Pedley platform extension and CTTV system
is proceeding.
Corona Main Station - Design is being finalized in order for BNSF to proceed
with procurement of track materials. Finalization of th.e required acquisition
of right of way for the Corona Main station was recently completed.
Rail Construction
Corona Main Station - Start of trackwork and station construction is
forecasted for summer FY2002.
Pedley Station - Construction is forecasted for summer of 2002.
;; AttaMrient: Quarterly Financial Statements, Quarter Ending March 31,-2002
0.00006
Descriptio n
R EVENUES
Sa les Tax Revenu es
Fed State Loca l & Other Govern
Interest Income
Other Revenues
TOTA L REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
ADMINISTRATION
Sala ries & Benefits
Ge neral Legal Service s
Pro f Services (Exc lude s Legal)
Office Lea se/Utilities
General Admin Expens es
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
Sa la ries & Benefits
General Lega l Services
Pro f Ser vices (Exc ludes Legal)
Genera l Pro jects
Highway Enginee ring
Highwa y Con str uctio n
Highwa ys ROW
Specia l Studies
Ra il Engine ering
Ra il Co nstr uction
Ra il ROW
Commuter Assistanc e
Regio na l A rterial
Stre ets & Roa ds
Special Tra nsportio n\Tra nsit
Pro ject Opera tio ns/Ma intena nce
Pro ject Tow ing
STA Distr ibutio ns
TOTA L PROGRAMS/PR OJECTS
Ri vers_,ue County Tra nsp ort ati on C ommissi on
BUDGET VERSUS ACTU ALS-3 rd Qtr
F or Period Ending: 03/31/02
04/10/02
REMAINING PERCENT
BUDGET ACTUALS BAL ANCE UTILIZATION
97,395,645.00 71,351,740.01 26,043,904,99 73.25
31,124,300.00 2,835,434.86 28,288,865,14 9.11
6,474,500.00 4,192,916.86 2,281,583,14 64 .76
9,688,367,00 5,578,298.36 4,110,068.64 57.57
144,682,812.00 83,958,390.09 60,724,421.91 58.02
1,167,500.00 755,878.59 411,621.41 64 .74
77,000,00 43,323.01 33,676.99 56 .26
1,309,000.00 758,994.98 550,005.02 57.98
240,000.00 167,007.06 72,992.94 69.58
794,850.00 333,625 .25 461,224.75 41 .97
3,588,350.00 2,058,828 .89 1,529,521.11 57 .37
1,364,000,00 886,814.79 477,185 .21 65.01
623,000.00 299,545.94 323,454 .06 48.08
882,000,00 281,083.21 600,916.79 31.86
3,138,800.00 1,690,524.52 1,448,275.48 53.85
6,885,618.00 2,547,057.25 4,338,560.75 36.99
18,920,426.00 1,653,999.16 17,266,426.84 8.74
13,156,452.00 2,985,652.55 10,170,799.45 22,69
3,950,500. 00 2,617,794.43 1,332,705,57 66 .26
2,084,657.00 1,417,458.68 667,198.32 67.99
11,010,000.00 229,016.48 10,780,983.52 2 .08
1,421,500.00 475,893.00 945,607 .00 33,47
1,884,100.00 1,028,444. 64 855,655.36 54.58
9,740,000.00 9,176,272. 18 563,727.82 94.21
34,108,000.00 26,604,545. 00 7,303,455.00 78.58
7,800,487.00 7,024,151.89 776,335.11 90,04
2,549,056.00 1,757,069.85 791,986.15 68.93
1,144,228.00 633,820.50 510,407.50 55.39
5,194,019.00 3,757,537.00 1,436,482.00 72.34
125,856,843.00 65,266,681.07 60,590,161.93 51.85
DEBT SERVICE
Principal 24,069,000.00 58,939.00 24,010,061.00 0.24
Inte rest 11,476,200.00 5,742,597,16 5,733,602. 84 50.03
TOTA L DEBT SER VICE 35,545,200.00 5,801,536.16 29,743,663.84 16.32
Intergovern Dis tributio n 602,872.00 605,484.69 (2,612. 69) 100.43
Ca pital Ou tla y 287,000.00 19,657. 00 267,343,00 6.84
00QT A
000007
Descr iptio n
TOTAL EXPEN DITURES
Other Fina ncing Sources/Uses
Operatin g Transfer In
Opera ting Transfer Out
Bond Pro ceeds
To ta l Other Financing Sour ces
/Uses
Ex cess(Deficiency)of Revenu es
An d Other Fina ncing So urces
Over(Under)Expenditu re A nd
Other Fina ncing Us es
Fund Balance July 1, 2001
Fund Balan ce March 31, 2002
000008
Riverside C ounty Transpo rtation Commissi on
BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-3 rd Qt r
F or P eriod Ending: 03/31/02
04/10/02
REMAINING PERCENT
BUDG ET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZ ATION
165,880,265.00 73,752,187.81
59,174,400.00
59,174,400.00
0 .00
57,507,022.08
57,505,794 .13
0.00
0.00 1,227.95
(21,197,453 .00)
(143,398,055.00)
(164,595,508.00)
10,207,430 .23
158,001,237.50
168,208,667 .73
92,128,077.19 44 .46
1,667,377.92
1,668,605.87
0.00
97 .18
97 .18
0.00
(1,227.95) 0 .00
(31,404,883,23)
MMMMM
(301,399,292 .50)
(332,804,175.73)
(48.15)
(110.18)
(102 .19)
OOQTA
Desc ription
REVENUES
Sale s Ta x Revenu es
Fed State Local 6 Othe r G overn
Inte re st Income
Other Re ven ues
TOT AL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
ADMINISTRA TION
Sa laries & Ben efits
Gene ral L egal Se rvices
Pro f Service s (Exclu des L egal)
Office Lea se/Utilities
Gene ral A dmin Expe nse s
TOTA L ADMINISTRATION
PRO GRAMS/PROJE CTS
Salar ies s Benefits
General L ega l Ser vices
Pro f Ser vices (Exc ludes Legal)
Ge ner al Proje cts
Highway En gineering
Highway Cons tructio n
Highways ROW
Specia l Stu dies
Rail Enginee rin g
Rail Construc tion
Rail ROW
Comm uter Ass is tance
Re gional A rterial
Str eets & Roads
Spec ial Tra napo rtion\Transit
Pro je ct O perations /Maintena nce
Project To wing
STA Distr ibutions
TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
Riv erside County Transportati on Commissio n
ACTUALS BY FUND- 3rd Qtr
For Pe riod Ending: 03/31/02
04/10/02
00QBF
STATE WES TERN WESTERN COUNTY
GENERAL WESTERN EASTERN TR ANSIT CV AG COUN TY COMMERCI AL COMBINI NG
FUND FSP/S AFE COUNTY CO UNTY ASSISTANCE CONS TRUC TIO N CONSTRUCTIO N P APER DEBT SER VICE TOTAL
7,364,233.00 0.00 46,167,653.68 17,819,853.33 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 71,351,740.01
1,745,300.12 56 .56 1,090,078.18 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 2,835,434.86
192,700.71 71,657.77 797,876.67 102,956.68 71,054.44 994 .15 1,987,349.94 0.00 968,326.50 4,192,916.86
1,066,496.76 1,225,873 .00 531,567,04 252,413.56 2,501,948.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 5,578,298.36
10,368,730.59 1,297,587 .33 48,587,175 .57 18,175,223.57 2,573,002 .44 994 .15 1,987,349.94 0.00 968,326.50 83,958,390.09
712,552.41 43,326.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 755,878.59
40,752.49 2,570 .52 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 43,323 .01
732,038.45 26,259.80 353 .30 94 .22 89.69 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 159 .32 758,994.98
156,986.70 10,020,36 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 167,007.06
313,594.32 20,030 .93 0 .00 0.00 0-00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 333,625.25
1,955,924.37 102,207.79 353.30 94.22 89.89 0 .00 0.00 0.00 159 .32 2,058,828.89
525,708.72 74,800. 11 285,510.06 795 .90 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 886,814,79
13,164. 00 3,972.78 281,819.16 590.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0-00 299,545.94
145,790.11 24,777. 26 107,915 .84 2,600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 281,083.21
658,609.28 0. 00 1,015,197.12 16,718 .12 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 1,690,524.52
0. 00 0. 00 2,494,747.79 52,309.46 0,00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,547,057.25
0.00 0. 00 726,401 .03 927,598.13 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0,00 0.00 1,653,999 .16
0. 00 0,00 2,983,312.55 2,340 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 2,985,652.55
2,617,794.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 2,617,794 .43
0.00 0. 00 1,417,458.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 ,00 1,417,458 .68
0. 00 0.00 229,016. 40 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 ,00 0.00 229,016 .48
0.00 0,00 475,893. 00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 475,893.00
0.00 0. 00 1,028,444. 44 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 1,028,444.64
0.00 0.00 0. 00 9,176,272.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,176,272.18
0.00 0. 00 19,732,839.40 7,071,705.60 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 26,604,545.00
3,447,434. 89 0. 00 1,654,838.00 1,921,879.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 7,024,151.89
700,388.82 1,056,681.03 0. 00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 5.00 1,757,069 .85
0.00 633,820.50 0. 00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 633,820 .50
0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3,757,537.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 3,757,537.00
8,108,890.25 1,794,051.68 32,433,393. 75 19,172,808.39 3,757,537 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 65,266,681.07
DEBT SERVICE
Principa l 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0 .00 0,00 0 .00 0.00 58,939 .00 58,939.00
Interest 0. 00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,742,597 .16 5,742,597.16
TO TAL DEBT SERVICE 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 5,801,536.16 5,801,536.16
a
In tergpver n Distribution 605,484. 69 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 y 605,484.69
Capital Outlay 18,477.58 1,179.42 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 19,657.00
000009
Des cription
TOTAL EXPEND ITURES
Other Financing Sou rces/U ses
Op erating Transfe r In
Operating Transfer Ou t
Bon d Pr oce eds
Total Othe r Financ ing Sources
/Uses
Exce ss(Deficiency)of Reven ues
A nd Other Financ ing Sources
O ver(Under)Expenditure A nd
Other Fina ncin g Uses
Fu nd Balance Ju ly 1, 2001
Fund Bala nce M arc h 31, 2002
000010
Rive rside County T ranspo rtati on C ommissi on
AC TU AL S BY FUN D- 3rd Qtr
Fo r Pe riod Ending: 03/31/02
0 4/10/02
00QBF
STATE WESTERN WESTER N COUNTY
GE NERAL WESTER N EAST ERN TRANSIT COAL COUN TY COM MERCIAL CO MBI NING
FUND ESP/SAF E COU NTY COUNTY ASSIST ANCE CONSTRUCTIO N CO NSTRUCTION P APER DEBT SERVICE TOT AL
10,688,776 .89 1,897,438.89 32,433,747.05 19,172,902 .61 3,757,626.89 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 5,801,695 .48 73,752,187.81
2,711.90 210,441.13 4,288,322.16 351,536.14 0.00 0.00 52,807.24 0 00 52,601,203.51 57,507,022.08
1,632 .17 210,400 .00 20,298,641 .57 6,142,091.33 0 .00 8,559,730 .92 22,240,490.90 52,837 .24 0 .00 57,505,794 .13
0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0-00 0 .00 0 .00
1,079. 73 41 .13 (16,010,319 .41) (5,790,555.19) 0 .00 (8,559,730 .92) (22,187,683 .66) (52,807 .24) 52,601, 203.51 1,227.95
(318,966. 57) (599,810.43) 143,109.11 (6,788,234.23) (1,184,624 .45) (8,558,736 .77) (20,100,333 .72) (52,807 .24) 47,767,834.53 10,207,430.23
`.i
5,591,399. 40 2,789 340.40 48,710,889.03 9,279,185 .78 3,981,195 .86 ` cg�y 195 .80 8,558,744.03 68,310,389 92 52,807.24 10,727,285.83 158,001,237.50
MM Ola
5,272,432. 83 2,189,529. 97 ..48,,853,,998 .14 2,490 951 .55e ��2,796,571 .43 �ffiaa 7.26 48,110,056 .20 0.00 58,495,120.35 168,208,667 .73
AGENDA ITEM 5C
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Single Signature Authority Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The attached report details all contracts that have been executed through the
months of January, February and March 2002, under the Single Signature
Authority, granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The remaining
unused capacity is $365,852.
Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report
- 000011
SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY
AS OF MARCH 31, 2002
CONSULTANT
AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2001
Genlor
Creative Management Solutions
O RI GINAL REMAINING
DESCRIPTION CONTRACT EXPENDED CONTRACT
OF SERVICES AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT
$ 500,000 .00
Commuter Assistance Club/Team Rid e 22,500.00
Merchant Recruitment
Commission desires to engage Consultant 8,580.00
to conduct comp ensation study.
22,500 .00 0.00
8,580 .00 0.00
Volt Edge .Services
AMF Bowling
Mathis & Associates
Aspire Group
Install drains and bird repellent c aulking at 4,800.00
La Sierra Station.
Increase space lease $345 per month 4,140 .00
Prepare and facilitate the Commission
Staff retreat,
Prepare and facilitate training for RCTC and
Bechtel Staff.
Volt Edge Service s Misc site wo rk at the La Sierra Station
Oliver .& Williams
SCAG
City of Riverside
Maintenance elevator at La Sierra and
West Coron a Stations
Commuter Survey .on RT91
Relocation of Auxiliary lane Rt91
3.621.88
1,178 .12
1,035.00 3,105 .00
6,200 .00 6,111.27
1,000.00 1,000.00
3,408.00 0.00
7,920 .00 0.00
50,000.00 0 .00
25,600 .00
88.73
0.00
3,408.00
7,920.00
50,000.00
0.00 25 .600 .00
AMOUNT USED
AMOUNT REMAINING THROUGH June 30, 2002
Donna Polmounter Michele Cisneros
Prepared by Reviewed by
134,148.00
365,852.00
l's141.1ta4tirsa represents new contracts fo r Janu ary, February, M
f:\users\preprint\dp\sinsig02
42,848 .15
$ 42,848 .15
91,299.85
$ 91,299 .85
000012
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Supplemental Cost Increase for Route 60 — Valley Way to
University Avenue
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Adjust Western County unprogrammed Regional Improvement Program
fund balances subject to California Transportation Commission (CTC)
action in June 2002;
2) Receive and file this staff report and supplemental cost increase for
the Route 60 Valley Way to University Avenue project; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Under SB 45 the California Transportation Commission established a process
whereby projects programmed by regional agencies such as the RCTC and
delivered by Caltrans would have a process to follow in completing the project and
closing out the contract. This process is identified in the CTC State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) Guidelines.
Under the guidelines once a project is "voted" by CTC any cost increases due to
change orders and contractor claims is generally addressed through the provision of
additional funds under CTC Resolution G12 which can provide a maximum of
$200,000 plus 10% of the voted share amounts. Any cost increases over the G12
funding limitation is to be "shared" on the basis of how the agencies (either
Caltrans or RCTC) may have proportionally funded the project.
This type of request is called a Supplemental Fund Request. The one thing of note
is while the request is initiated by Caltrans and can impact RCTC STIP funding
shares, it does not require the approval of the RCTC. This is simply a contract
close out procedure and while this experience has a direct financial impact, CTC, at
the time of implementing SB 45, had to develop a process which determines how
additional funds, if necessary, would be provided for a project.
000013
For your information there are several projects where RCTC and -ealtrans have
combined resources to program projects for delivery.
Attached is a Supplemental Fund Request for the Route 60 Valley Way to
University Ave project. This project has exhausted the G12 funding ($3.148
million was previously approved by CTC for the project) and Caltrans as lead
agency for delivering this project had several contractors working on the project at
the same time. In addition, Caltrans had issues related to the design of the project.
The reason for two contractors on the project is related to the structure/bridge
work being split out as a seismic retrofit project and the roadway work for the
addition of 4 lanes being carried out as a separate contract.
The bottom line is that while this request is for a total of $1.5 million of funds
($1.2 million RCTC Regional Improvement Program funds; $300k of Caltrans
SHOPP funds) it is expected that finalization of the claims and change orders will
take time and when resolved will likely have a further impact on reducing
unprogrammed Western County Regional Improvement Program funds.
For your information the RCTC has $80.767 million of unprogrammed Western
County Formula funds which are committed to the last segment of Route 91 Mary
Street to Seventh Street (HOV lane) project. This action as proposed by Caltrans
will reduce that commitment to $79.767 million with the expectation that there
will be additional costs for the Route 60 project to come forward when settlement
is reached with the contractors. It is anticipated that this Supplemental Fund
Request for $1.5 million will be voted by CTC at their June 2002 meeting.
Attachments:
Supplemental Fund Request from Garry Cohoe dated March 20, 2002
Notice of Potential Claims List and Protested/Pending CCOs
(1(S iF ;F
000014
• State of. California Business, Transportation and Housing Authority
Memorandum
146
To :
MR. R. TERRY
Program Manager, Budgets
ATTENTION Ms. Deanna Ofoe
058936
Date: March 20, 2002
File: 08-Riv-60-
R6.7/12.2(PM)
08-Riv-215-
41.5/43.3(PM)
08-4632V4
1996/97 FY
HB5/FCR Major
HA22/RAS Major
P.P. No. 38A
From : Department of Transportation
District 08
Subject : Request for Supplemental Vote
This Supplemental Fund Request exceeds G-12 limits and will require a CTC allocation.
It is recommended that $1,200,000 in supplemental funds be allocated from the 1996/97 Fiscal
Year HB5/FCR (20.20.075.451) HOV Facilities Program, and that $300,000 in supplemental
funds be allocated from the 1996/97 Fiscal Year HA22/RAS (20.20.201.120) Roadway
Rehabilitation Program for the following Major project:
Co -Rte -PM
08-Riv-60-R6.7/12.2(PM)
08-Riv-215-41.5/43.3(PM)
08-4632V4
(08-463221, 08-466821
and 08-424101)
CTC Vote July 9,1997
G-12 Major 97-632 (SHOPP)
G-12 Major 97-633 (STIP)
Contract Allocation
G-12 Major 99-595
G-12 Major 00-487
New Total
Estimated Final Expenditure
Deficit
Description
In and Near Riverside on Route 60 from 0.3 mile west
of Valley Way Undercrossing to Route 215
Interchange and on Route 215 from Route 60
Interchange to University Avenue Undercrossing
Widening, rehabilitation, soundwalls and retaining
walls
STIP SHOPP
$25,734,000 $5,843,000
- 389,000
- 1,708,000
$24,026,000
2,500,000
648, 000
$27,174,000
$28,374,000
$ 1,200,000
Total
$31,577,000
- 389,000
- 1,708,000
$5,454,000 $29,480,000
2,500,000
648,000
5,454,000 $32,628,000
$5,754,000 $34,128,000
$ 300,000
$ 1,500,000
0'0,0015
MR. R. TERRY
ATTENTION Ms. Deanna Ofoe
Page 2
The construction contract was awarded December 18, 1997 and is federally funded:
ACNHI-215-1(200) 99N, ACNH-P060 (101)N. The contract is 99% complete.
The supplemental funds are required in order to resolve several Notices of Potential Claims
(NOPC) the most expensive of which were delays and conflicts with an adjoining contract
($1,200,000) as shown on attachment. Several contract change orders were required due to
differing site conditions and work was added for a median extension, including an increase in
the number of concrete slabs replaced, increased landscaping work, extending soundwalls and
other related costs.
Copies of the G-12 Majors (97-632, 97-633, 99-595 and 00-487,) a copy of the Request for
Additional Funds from the District Construction Branch and a Supplemental Vote Fact Sheet
are all attached for your reference.
The District recommends approval of this request for $1,500,000 to allow payment to the
contractor in order to avoid future escalated claims with unnecessary additional cost of interest
and other fees. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has been informed
that the STIP portion of this request ($1,200,000) will be funded from their STIP share balance.
This request of $1,500,000 is based on resolving several NOPCs that have been justified by
audit or have been determined to have entitlement. An additional supplemental vote may be
necessary in the future, in the event that an arbitration settlement awards additional
compensation to the Contractor.
It is further recommended that the Commission be requested to vote these funds at the May
2002 meeting.
/S/ GARRY COHOE
GARRY COHOE
Deputy District Director
Program/Project Management
SLH:mc
Attachments
1. Construction Branch Memo
2. Supplemental Vote Fact Sheet
3. G-12 Majors 97-632,.633, 99-595 & 00-487
G00016
State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
Memorandum
To JOE FEHRENKAMP
District 08 - Program Management
From :
Subject
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 08- Construction
Jabra Kawwa, Resident Engineer
Request for Additional Funds
Date : March 20, 2002
File No. 08-Riv-60, 215-R6.7/12.2, 41.5143.3
08-4632V4
ACNHI-215-1(200) 99N, ACNH-P060(101)N
Near Riverside on Rte 60 from Valley Way to Rte
215 and on Rte 215 from Rte 60 to University Ave.
(Widening, Rehabilitate)
Supplemental funds in the amount of $1,500,000.00 are requested for the above
referenced project. Following are the details supporting this request:
Financial Status of Contract
Description
Present Project
Allotment
Estimated Final
Expenditures
Contract Items
$27,156,156.85
$27,414,085.08
Supplemental Work and
Contingencies
$4,792,743.15
$6,016,976.41
State Furnished Materials
and Expense
$679,100.00
$679,100.00
Total Authorized
H
$32,628,000.00
$34,110,161.49
Estimated Deficit
**$1,482,161.49
Call (Total Funds Request)
* $1,500,000.00
* $1,200,000.00 for STIP and $300,000.00 for SHOPP
**Total Needed
Contingency Balance
Amount Requested
Justification for Request
= $2,475,000.00
- $992,838.51
$1,482,161,49
The increases for this contract are for resolving several Notices of Potential
Claims (NOPC) that either have been justified by audit or have been determined
to have entitlement (see attachment). The costliest NOPC resulted from delays
and conflicts with an adjoining contract. The estimated value of this NOPC is
$1,200,000.00.
.00017
Joe Fehrenkamp
March 20, 2002
Page 2
Additional monies were spent for the construction of west end median extension
(CCO #60), extending sound walls, replacing additional existing damaged PCCP
slabs, changes in landscape and irrigation system and other associated costs.
The discrepancyibetween the contract plans and site conditions resulted in
several number of contract change orders (CCO)_ Some of the CCO are.being
protested by the contractor and expected to cost much more than originally
anticipated due to actual field conditions.
The Resident Engineer, Designers, Maintenance and District Safety Review
Committee requested the CCO with the concurrence of the Senior Construction
Engineer, the Project Manager, Designers, Headquarters, Federal Highway
Administration and others as needed. Without these CCO, the originally planned
work could not have been completed as scoped.
It is requested that the additional funds be provided as soon as possible to
allow proper payments to the contractor in order to avoid future escalated
claims with unnecessary additional cost of interests and other fees. Your
expeditious handling of this request is appreciated.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at
(909) 275-0105 or Ashraf Mohamed at (909) 682-6385.
Jabra Kawwa
Resident Engineer
Concurred by
Ashraf MoTiamed
Senior Construction Engineer
Attachment: Notice of Potential Claims List and Protested/Pending CCOs
cc: Robert Pieplow
Chuck Suszko
Doug Saathoff
Mike Perovich
Bryce Johnston
Alex Daouk
David Thomas
Fred Asef
y' ` 666`o 18
Notice Of Potential Claims List And Protested/Pending CCOs **
08-4632V4
Description
* Estimated
Value
STIP
SHOPP
Date
Received
1
Conflict with Other Contract Work
$1,200.000.00
$976,320.00
$223,680.00
04-02-98
2
Approach Slab Work Conflict
No Merit
04-06-98
3
Shoulder Strengthening Work Conflict
No Merit
04-06-98
4
Clear & Grub Temporary. Easement
; a. ?-
_=_Resolved 4¢f
Resbived`
aI.Resolved ;;
:0528'-98,
5
CIDH Piles @ SW 363 - Differing Site ondition
140 Merit
07-01-98
6
CIDH Piles @ SW 612 - Differing Site Condition
No Merit
06-24-98
7
K -rail & Gawk -Screen. a@,1C.efiicle'fAccess.Opening; j
" ResoIVed:i*
R'esoiii
�� Resiilved:�
b09='Lt 98*
8'
Existing . Sign 1 & J'>:- ' '. V
giResoiiieci
xResalved
,`,Resolve l
C-625-98
-:.9 '
Sign K Foundation ., : .,C� "4V . `.7' n . 4
'�--0' Rescilved
R.e owed
' Res"r`bt+red
AVia1 98,
10
Fiber Optic Splice Vaults
$50,000.00
$40,680.00
$9,320.00
12-16-98
11a
2-Feet,Gnndiri• &• Sho ilder_Stren'the ii • •'; '- i
\,;";,�r- a plvecl 1-
; eso(ued.
;a" , evolved''
10246499"
12
Buried Man -Made Object (CTB)
$35,000.00
$28,476.00
$6,524.00
04-15-99
13
Class 2 Aggregate Sub base @ Median
No Merit
04-15-99
;14
G-2 Inlet , S'ar <"A react Slab':` •'" • ,
C� A pp �� ���
Rds4lve i�i'gResa
dl
Resatve'd
x 05=06-99,
15
Profilographing & Grinding
No Merit
r 06-21-99
16
PCCP Cracks Repair
No Merit
10-01-99
17
Dowels Between Lanes - Differing Site Condition
No Merit
01-21-00
18
Differing Site Condition @ Wall 415 CIDH Holes
No Merit
04-05-00
19
CTB - Busied MM Object @ Shoulder
No Merit
03-09-00
20
Roadway Excavation Differing Site Condition Due to
Boulders
$30,000.00
$24,408.00
$5,592.00
05-04-00
21
Differing Site Condition @ SW #421
No Merit
1
05-11-00
22
Decomposed Granite 2 East End
No Merit
05-05-00
23
Differing Site Condition - Boulders SW #438
No Merit
06-01-00
24
A.C. Dike Removal @ Wall 415
No Merit
08-30-00
25
LJ Const - "AFR" Delay Cost (See NPC #1)
No Merit
10-05-00
26
SW 466 CCO - Added Costs & Delays
$100,000.00
$81,360,00
$18,640.00
06-01-00
27
Ret: Wall # 688 at SignSM- _Deta diii Sthariges, "`� "
Y �-��
°' �`'
�ftesalved� Etesofved
e o
. o
Fi,esairPed
1�1,-0-00'
28
PCCP Slab Replacement - Cure Time
No Merit
12-20-00
29
Delay Due to Functional Testing
No Merit
02-13-01
30
PCC Pavement Thickness - Deduction Taken
No Merit
03-01-01
3:1','Joint
9.. g 9= e s -W
Si3altn at`Chica v:Br'rd e�s:.�,:r�:;�,s�
t Resoly=
,'Resolved:_:"
"" �,
Kx�Reolvd .�'�03-Q1a�1�v,
a
32
Repair of Existing Bridge Joint
No Merit
03-06-01_
33
Refinish Bridge Deck - Verbal Shutdown
No Merit
03-14-01
34
Roadside Clearing and Final Clean Up
No Merit
-
03-14-01
35
Contract Item 97 Quantity _
No Merit
_
03-16-01
36
Item 65 - Erosion Control Quantity
$150,000.00
$122,040.00
$27,960.00
03-13-01
37
Item 106 - Change Joint Type A•to B @'Spruce'.` " x
lResolvedY R
Resolved
l Resetved ...
'"-2_03;2X012
38
Item 106 - Joint Seal "A" Change in Character 0:t
,Resolved
?FRes'alved ;' :
URe6cilved -.-
.-03=23-01
39
Item 97 - Clean Bridge Joint - Change in Character
No Merit
03-22-01
40
Removal of Traffic Stripe
No Merit
05-10-01
41
Unmarked Storm Drain at Blaine St';.; - ?. • ,
, >' Reselved .
Resolved <•-.-
Resoved. "=_05-10-01
42
Adjustment of Compensation CCO #54
$10[ 000.00
$81,360.00
$18,640.00
05-10-01
43
- - -5-'4-,1 , k� f5
y a_r� .. ,�
. = R,eseini3� f
g �Zesciii8ed �
-�
a��:-R�es+dndeef- -�.-,
,�: y : 1�
44
Traffic Control for Connector Closure
$100,000.00
$81,360.00
$18,640.00
07-30-01
45
Removal of Existing Thermoplastic Striping
$100,000.00
$81,360.00
$18,640.00
07-30-01
46
SWPPP Clean Up in Summer -of 2000
'"Resofv 1
IReaotved
-,: ^Resotved 1
07-30-01-,
47
Additional Work for SWPPP Clean Up1410-05-01
_: - Resolved.*
t Resolved - `
-, Resalv'ed "
= =.07=31-01 '-
48
Phoneline for Landscaping
$10.000.00
$8,136.00
$1,864.00
08-27-01
49
Deficiencies to the Overhead Signs --
$150,000.00
$122,040.00
$27,960.00
01-11-02
50
Delay in Acceptance?
$200.000.00
$162.720.00
$37,280.00
01-24-02
*
Protested/Pending CCOs -
$250.000.00
$203,400.00
$46,600.00
TOTAL $2,475,000.00
$2,013,660.00
$461,340.00
,
• Values may increase based on the final contractor's submittals and justifications_
000019
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Funding Adjustment for 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 a place holder to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend the project budget for the State Route 74 widening project
between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Staff is in the process of updating the estimated budget for the Measure A Route
74 project. Staff anticipates completion of property appraisals and estimates for
mitigation required as part of the environmental process. It is expected that the
majority of appraisals will be completed by the end of April.
Staff will update the Committee on the progress of updating the budget at the April
22nd meeting but anticipates this item not being complete at that time. Staff will
recommend taking the updated budget information for Route 74 directly to the
Commission at its May 8, 2002 meeting.
000020
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager
Dennis Mejia, Bechtel Resident/Office Engineer
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT•
'
Advertise Bids for the Construction of the Riverside -Downtown
Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of the parking lot
expansion at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink 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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the May 9, 2001 RCTC Meeting, the Commission approved the establishment of an
Ad Hoc Committee to address policy issues identified in the draft Station Management
Plan, submitted to the Commission at the same meeting. One of the main findings of
the draft Station Management Plan was that by 2010, five out of the six, existing and
proposed, Metrolink stations are forecasted to have parking deficits. In conjunction
with direction from both the Commission and the newly formed Ad Hoc Committee,
staff negotiated with several entities for the possible expansion of existing and
proposed parking for the Riverside -La Sierra and Riverside -Downtown Metrolink
commuter rail stations.
At its September 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise a
Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Consultant to provide Engineering and Environmental
Services to develop and implement a Parking Lot Expansion Plan, mainly for the
existing Riverside -La Sierra and Riverside -Downtown Metrolink stations. On November
14, 2001 the Commission entered into Agreement #02-33-029 with Engineering
Resources of Southern California, Inc. (ER), to provide Engineering and Environmental
Services for development and implementation of a Parking Lot Expansion Plan for the
existing two stations.
- ,-. ,0 0�0,9 21
Engineering Resources developed two options for expanding the parking lot at the
Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station.
Option #1:
The first option was to develop the existing RCTC's triangular property, directly north
and adjacent to the Riverside -Downtown Station temporary parking area, across Vine
Street. This option would add approximately 125 to 140 additional parking spaces for
the station. This option could be developed and constructed very quickly for a
minimum cost. It must be noted that this RCTC property is anticipated to be needed
for the future expansion of Route 91. It is currently projected that the expansion of
Route 91 will not occur, in this area, for more than 5 years.
Option #2:
The second option was to investigate the viability of purchasing and developing the
properties along Tenth Street and Commerce Street, adjacent to the east end of the
Riverside -Downtown Station south side platform. This option would add approximately
390 to 430 additional surface parking spaces for the station. In a preliminary
investigation of this option, it was also determined to be a viable option for a future
parking structure that would serve the long term parking needs. RCTC staff is
currently looking deeper into this option.
In March of this year, staff directed Engineering Resources to proceed with the
development of the preparation of a complete PS&E and other tasks related to the City
of Riverside's design review process for Option #1. The PS&E will be submitted to the
City of Riverside on April 15, 2002 for review and comments. It is anticipated that the
PS&E package will be ready for advertisement by May 20, 2002. The preliminary
Engineer's Estimate for Option #1, for the Riverside -Downtown Parking Lot Expansion
Project, is in the range of approximately $200,000 to $225,000.
000022
AGENDA ITEM 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager
Erik Galloway, Bechtel Resident Engineer
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Advertise Bids to Construct the Riverside -La Sierra
Station Phase 1 Parking Lot Expansion Project
Metrolink
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize staff to advertise bids for the construction of the Riverside -
La Sierra Metrolink Station Phase 1 Parking Lot Expansion;
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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the May 9, 2001 RCTC Meeting, the Commission approved the establishment of
an Ad Hoc Committee to address policy issues identified in the draft Station
Management Plan, submitted to the Commission at the same meeting. One of the
main findings of the draft Station Management Plan was that by 2010, five out of
the six, existing and proposed, Metrolink stations are forecasted to have parking
deficits. In conjunction with direction from both the Commission and the newly
formed Ad Hoc Committee, staff negotiated with several entities for the possible
expansion of existing and proposed parking for the Riverside -La Sierra and
Riverside -Downtown Metrolink commuter rail stations.
At its September 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise a
Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Consultant to provide Engineering and
Envi8ronmental Services to develop and implement a Parking Lot Expansion Plan,
mainly for the existing Stations. On November 14, 2001 the Commission entered
into Agreement #02-33-029 with Engineering Resources of Southern California,
Inc., to provide Engineering and Environmental Services for development and
implementation of a Parking Lot Expansion Plan for the existing two stations.
- 000023
RCTC is currently in negotiations with the Riverside Community College (RCC) to
purchase the entire 20 acre parcel which includes the property which RCTC
currently leases from RCC for the existing Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink station. In
the process of developing the Parking Lot Expansion Plan for the station, it was
mutually agreed, by the City of Riverside Planning staff and RCTC staff, to
construct the additional parking for the Riverside -La Sierra station in the following
two (2) phases:
Phase I:
To ease the immediate parking problem at the Riverside -La Sierra station, RCTC
staff working in conjunction with RCC, had previously developed, submitted, and
received the City of Riverside's approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), on
April 10, 2000, for a temporary parking lot, adjacent and to the west of the
existing station. At the request of RCC, the plans for the temporary parking using
the RCC property were abandoned and RCTC staff had to look for other ways to
resolve the station parking at the Riverside -La Sierra station. RCTC staff
subsequently negotiated with an adjacent bowling alley facility to provide additional
parking. The adjacent bowling alley is still used for additional parking today at a
cost of $1,075 per month and requires RTA to run special service to transport the
passengers using this parking location back to the station platform. This auxiliary
parking lot also requires the added cost of having a separate guard for security.
In discussions with the City of Riverside Planning staff, it was determined that the
previously approved CUP, for the Riverside -La Sierra Station Temporary Parking Lot
Expansion using the RCC property, could be resurrected, and revised to allow for a
permanent expansion of the parking lot as long as the permanent facility was
within the footprint of the previously approved temporary facility. This would save
several months in gaining City approval. This along with other mitigating issues
possibly requiring a prolonged period of time to gain the City of Riverside approval,
was the reasoning behind splitting the Riverside -La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion
Project in two (2) phases.
The Phase I Permanent Parking Lot revised CUP was approved by the City of
Riverside in March of 2002. The Phase I permanent parking area will provide an
additional 254 parking spaces. The station currently has 343 parking spaces. The
Phase I parking expansion will bring the total number of spaces to 597.
Phase II:
This Phase will provide for an additional 400 parking spaces. This phase will require
an additional entrance to be located at the east end of the station and widening of
000024
the existing Indiana Avenue entrance. Phase II will bring the total number of
parking spaces to 997. It is anticipated that construction will start on the Phase II
parking lot expansion at the completion of Phase I, which is scheduled for the end
of Summer of 2002.
Staff has been working with Engineering Resources to develop the Plans,
Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) for the Phase I Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink
Station Parking Lot Expansion Project. The PS&E will be submitted to the City of
Riverside on April 15, 2002 for review and comments. It is anticipated that the
PS&E package will be ready for advertisement by May 20, 2002.
In conjunction with developing the design for Phase I, staff has been coordinating
with the City of Riverside for the inclusion of the construction of a Solar Panel
Parking Stall Project with the construction of the Phase I Project. A separate
agenda item will be presented to the Committee for approval to include the City of
Riverside Solar Project with the Phase I Riverside -La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion
Construction Project. The Engineer's estimate for the Phase I Project, is in the
range of approximately $750,000 to $800,000.
000025
AGENDA ITEM 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager
Dennis Mejia, Bechtel Resident/Office Engineer
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Advertise Bids for Construction of an Extension of the Existing
Emergency Platform at the Pedley Metrolink Station
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval 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, subject to Legal Counsel review, to execute the
Supplement 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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
When the Pedley Metrolink Station was constructed, an emergency passenger
unloading platform was included in the original station construction. This emergency
passenger unloading platform is 194 feet long, located between two sets of Union
Pacific tracks, and is intended to be used during situations where Metrolink passengers
need to disembark from the set of tracks furthest away from the Station's main
platform.
Because the existing emergency passenger unloading platform is only 194 feet long, it
will not easily accommodate Metrolink passenger trains over three (3) cars in length.
Currently, Metrolink trains longer than three (3) cars in length must first stop and
unload passengers from the first set of cars and then pull forward to unload the
remaining cars. This has resulted in impacts to the freight traffic on this rail line.
Extending the emergency passenger unloading platform to match the lengili f { i
000026
Metrolink trains, up to six (6) cars in length, will minimize the delays to unload
passengers when the emergency platform must be used.
In February 2001, the Commission amended Contract No. RO-9952, with PB
Farradyne, to develop the Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) Design for
the Emergency Passenger Unloading Platform extension at the Pedley Metrolink
Station.
Staff and PB Farradyne have been working cooperatively with the Union Pacific
Railroad and SCRRA in the development of the PS&E for the Pedley Emergency
Passenger Unloading Platform Extension Project. It is anticipated that the final PS&E
will be completed by the end of April, 2002.
The majority of the funding for this project is STPL Federal Funding. To retain the STPL
Federal Funding, for this project, a Program Supplement Agreement must be entered
into by RCTC and Caltrans. The Program Supplement amends the Agency -State
Agreement for Federal -Aid Projects No. 08-6054 to specifically describe the costs and
special conditions that apply to the construction phase for the Pedley Emergency
Passenger Unloading Platform Extension Project.
After the PS&E for the project is completed, a Request for Authorization to Proceed
with Construction will be submitted to the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance. The
Program Supplement Agreement will then be finalized by RCTC and Caltrans. The
subsequent Authorization to Proceed/Obligation of Federal Funds will be the basis for
the financial responsibilities to be outlined in the Program Supplement. This action is
being brought forward to the Committee at this time in an effort to have funds
obligated prior to the federal expiration date of June 30, 2002. The Engineer's
Estimate for the Pedley emergency passenger platform extension Project, is in the
range of approximately $200,000 to $250,000.
000027
AGENDA ITEM 11
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl I Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager
Dennis Mejia, Bechtel Resident/Office Engineer
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Advertise Bids for Construction of a Closed -Circuit Television Security
System at the Pedley Metrolink Station
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval 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, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
the Supplement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of a CCTV Security
System at the Pedley Metrolink Station including data links to 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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In 1999, with the completion of the South Side Platform/ Pedestrian Overcrossing
Project, the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink station was retrofitted with a Closed -
Circuit Television (CCTV) Security System. The improvements to the Riverside -
Downtown Station included a master monitoring console that would receive the
images from the other Riverside County Metrolink stations. This would allow a single
person to be able to monitor each of the stations CCTV systems from one location.
The Commission has also authorized the retrofitting of both the Riverside -La Sierra and
West Corona Metrolink stations with a CCTV Security System. By providing 24 hour
monitoring and video recording, and centralizin.g the security system, RCTC will
enhance the security currently provided by the station guards already provided at the
various Metrolink Stations operated by RCTC. ' ''J f_+ ' t
00 0112I
In December of 1999, the Commission awarded Contract No. R0-9952, to PB
Farradyne, Inc. to perform a Phase I Communications Study to develop the most cost
effective means to provide a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station
and the means to connect the Pedley CCTV Security System to the Main Security
System located at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station.
The results of the Phase I Communications Study produced by PB Farradyne was that
the most economical way to connect the Pedley Metrolink Station CCTV Security
System to the Riverside -Downtown Monitoring Facility was via a telephone T1
connection. RCTC staff concurred with this finding and in July 2001, staff
recommended and the Commission authorized the Executive Director to amend
Contract No. RO-9952 with PB Farradyne to proceed with the development of Final
Engineering Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) for a CCTV Security System
at the Pedley Metrolink Station, based on the findings of the Phase I Communications
Study.
Staff and PB Farradyne have been working cooperatively with the Union Pacific
Railroad and SCRRA in the development of the PS&E for the Pedley CCTV Security
System Project. It is anticipated that the Final Pedley CCTV Security System PS&E
will be completed by end of April, 2002.
The majority of the funding for this project is CMAQ federal funding. To retain the
CMAQ federal funding for this project, a Program Supplement Agreement must be
entered into by RCTC and Caltrans. The Program Supplement amends the Agency -
State Agreement for Federal -Aid Projects No. 08-6054 to specifically describe the
costs and special conditions that apply to the construction phase for the Pedley CCTV
Security System Project.
After the PS&E for the project is completed, a Request for Authorization to Proceed
with Construction will be submitted to the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance. The
Program Supplement Agreement can than be finalized by RCTC and Caltrans. The
subsequent Authorization to Proceed and Obligation of Federal Funds will be the basis
for the financial responsibilities to be outlined in the Program Supplement. This action
is being brought forward to the Committee at this time in an effort to have funds
obligated prior to the federal expiration date of June 30, 2002. The Engineer's
Estimate for the Pedley CCTV Security system Project, is in the range of approximately
$200,000 to $225,000.
000029
AGENDA ITEM 12
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Recurring Contracts for FY 2002-03
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Accept the Recurring Contracts for FY 2002-03; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Four years ago, the Commission evaluated all recurring contracts to determine
when and if to hold a competitive process. As a result of that review, most
contracts were rebid. In addition, the Commission required that these contracts be
approved at the beginning of each year.
Schedule of Recurring Contracts
Consultant
Name
Description of
Services
Budget
FY 01/02
Budget
FY 02/03
Dollar
Change
Percent
Change
Bechtel
Program Mgmt
$2,300,000
$2,138,641
$(161,359)
(8.1%)
Best, Best and
Krieger
General Legal
600,000
600,000
0
0.0%
Jefferson House
Internal and
External
cleaning of
Metrolink
Stations
82,000
82,000
0
0.0%
Public Financial
Mgt.
Investment
Advisor
45,000
45,000
0
0.0%
Ernst & Young
Audit Services
422,000
425,000
2,500
0.71%
Valley Research
& Planning
Congestion
Mgmt.
80,000
60,000
(20,000)
(25.0%)
Staff is planning to prepare Request for Proposals for Audit Services, Investment
Advisory services and Janitorial Service for Metrolink stations in the upcoming
fiscal year.
All these items have already been included in the FY 2002/2003 Adopted Budget
and as such no budget adjustment is required.
000031
AGENDA ITEM 13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2002-03
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Discuss, review and seek guidance on the Proposed Budget for Fiscal
Year 2002-2003; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Staff has gone through the budget process and attached is an executive summary
outlining the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. 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.
Staff is seeking review and input at the Committee meeting and will then forward
the item to the Commission, at which time a public hearing regarding the budget is
scheduled. Based on input received from Commissioners and other interested
parties, staff will update the document and present the final budget for the
Commission's review and adoption in June immediately following the close of a
public hearing period.
Attached is the executive summary for the 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. At the May 2002 Committee
meeting, and the June Commission meeting, staff will present the entire budget
with detailed narratives. Staff has also included the fund budgets which examine
the budgeted revenue and expenditures from a fund perspective.
'00,00 0 3 2
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 2,086,400
Projects and Operations 115,584,100
Capital Outlay 332,000
Debt Service 35,551,000
Total Expenditures $158,947,300
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
$151,867,774
$135,720,874
Attachments: FY 02-03 Proposed Budget Executive Summary
0000 33
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The budget for FY 2002-03 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 tasks. This budget
document will serve as the Commission's monetary guideline. 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 has 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 revenues.
• 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.
000034
Budget Overview
Revenues
Other Revenue
1%
Investment
SAFE Fees Income
1% 3%
Reimbursements
25%
Other Sales Tax
5%
Measure A Sales
Tax
65%
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 FY 02/03 budget amount to
$235,588,400.
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 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03
FISCAL YEARS
i Investment
Income
o Other Revenue
Reimbursements
• 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. This projection is based on FY
01/02 receipts and trend analysis. 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. The other revenue categories
are budgeted at lower amounts than prior year. Local Transportation Funds (LTF) are
lower, however, the Commission receives reimbursements for projects completed as the
000035
,s; t(ii*l')
Sales tax itself is received as Local Transportation Funds. Local Transportation funds are
also 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 be lower due to several factors.
The current economic environment provides lower interest earnings as the Federal Reserve
has lowered raters. 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 utilized, thus resulting in lower interest revenues. Staff continues to actively
manage its resources and make appropriate investments to maximize the return to the
Commission. 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 36,911,000 (749,219) -2.0%
Other Revenue 3,064,255 4,086,123 3,152,448 1,146,176 875,900 (2,276,548) -72.2%
Investment Income 5.193,832 9,842472 6.474,500 5.712 394 3.965 000 (2.509.500) -38.8%
Total Operating Revenues $105 9Q7,274 $118 622 958 ,;.,1__ _§46 . 2.812 11_02,4 N $142,,0 40Q L51,,,,8_61412) -1.3%
Expenditures
Management Services
3%
Transit
Plans & Programs 2%
2%
Motorist Assistance
1%
Special Transportation
2%
Commuter Assistance_
2%
Debt
22%
Streets and Roads
22%
Capital Highway & Rail
38%
Rail Operations
3%
Regional Arterial
3%
Total expenditures are budgeted at $158,947,300, a decrease of 4.3% from the prior year
budget amount of $165,880,265. The Debt Service amount for this year is $35,551,000.
Administrative costs are budgeted at $4,205,300 and program expenditures total
$119,191,000.
Program costs have decreased 5.7% from $126,509,715 to $119,191,000. 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
``660436
reflection of the service level. The Regional Arterial program shows a reduction as all
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.
Table 2
Program Expenditures - 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 $20,113,724 159,623,300 $3,314,847 5.9%
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 5,432,000 (4,308,000) -44.2%
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 35,545200 35,964,471 35,551,000 5,800 0.0%
Total 196,293,274 1113,750,898 1166,030,765 1126,040,513 1158,947,300 (17,083,465) -4.3%
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 2001-2002 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 1,1) 1.0 ID
Total
ZaD 25-0 25Q 25_,Q
1.1
937
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 00/01 FY 01/02 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 20 . -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.
• 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 '/2
cent sales tax in 1988.
Table 5 - Administration
Program FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY01/02 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Dollar Percent
Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change
Personnel $285,632 $352,791 $462,500 $382,493 $453,000 ($9,500) -2.1%
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 $1,97$272 `$1',226,311 52,052.80Q $1,347,549 $2,396,400 $343,600 16.7%
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 01/02 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 47.65j) 60.000 (11.950) -16.6%
Total $953,650 $829,751 $1,106,950 $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 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 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 2854,186 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 Grants Reports.
000031
cc,
CJ�iL il s
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 2,920 5,671 11,500 9,535 12,500 1,000 8.7%
Projects/Operations 1,527.661 3,529,784 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/I-215 corridor.
• North Main Corona Station opens in Fall 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 $14,000 6.6%
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 ___414,004 -
Total ,$4.01.427 $5.137.472 $4.966.687 $4,096.496 $5.151.500 S181813 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 ($50,000) -43.9%
Professional 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/Operation: 7,500 - - - - - -
Total $206,893 $132,098 $177,4Q0 $.1 1.0a5 $.10_4: (,$j2t8Q0O -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.
b fi.
Ii 1
s..1 :_
000040
• 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 station
emergency platform.
• Design HOV lanes on Route 91 between Mary Street and the State Route 60191/1-
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
Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed
Personnel
Professional
Support
Projects/Operations
Operating Transfer
Total
$187,803 $179,980 $186,000 $136,990 $191,200
246,366 290,880 638,000 694,695 595,600
27,933 10,574 26,900 18,201 34,500
47,138,024 56,416,235 99,305,553 62,343,838 98,680,000
30.527,415 a3.891.187 ,35.964.000 38.223.930 _15,550,1101)
FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent
Change Change
$5,200 2.8%
(42,400) -6.6%
7,600 28.3%
(625,553) -0.6%
(414.000) -1 2%
$78,127,540 ,$90788857 11a6.,120.453 $101,417,654 $135,051,300 ($1,069,153) -0.8%
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.
• Provide matching funds to receive Section 5310 federal grants to assure availability
of funds.
Table 12 - Special Transportation
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
$39,718 $37,975 $62,000 $22,655 $42,000 ($20,000) -32.3%
231 1,220 6,000 1,353 9,000 3,000 50.0%
3,611 5,101 14,100 1,220 17,500 3,400 24.1%
2.826.031 3,153.384 4,269.000 3.697.208 3.647.000 (622 000) -14.6%
,$2M9.5,4? 11191,07Q 24.251101/ $3,722,43• x,M= L 5 of -14.6%
Personnel
Professional
Support
Projects/Operations
Total
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.
000041
4 . f , t i
Table 13 - Commuter Assistance
Program FY 99/00 FY 99/00 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent
Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change
Personnel $127,423 $177,756 $143,000 $226,841 $150,000 $7,000 4.9%
Professional 20,753 16,322 374,500 419,933 251,000 (123,500) -33.0%
Support 5,187 226,565 588,385 337,532 439,000 (149,385) -25.4%
Projects/Operations 963,038 1,278,171 1,295,715 980,099 1,555,000 259,285 20.0%
Capital Outlay - 50.000 - - (50,000) -100.0%
Total $1,116,402 $1,698,814 $2,451,600 $1,964,405 $2,395,000 ($56.600) -2.3%
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 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent
Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change
Personnel $100,186 $94,808 $126,000 $93,700 $123,000 ($3,000)
Professional 44,786 50,918 80,000 49,900 60,000 (20,000)
Support 8,206 23,351 34,900 28,070 34,300 (600)
Projects/Operations 1.604.041 1.896.017 2.634.434 2.432,35Q 1.807.600 (826.834)
Total $1,757,219 $2,065,094 $2,875,334 $2,604,020 $2 024,900 1$850,434)
-2.4%
-25.0%
-1.7%
- 31.4%
- 29.6%
Property Management
• Maintain the order, safety and security of the Commission owned properties.
• Determine the highest and best use of Commission owned property.
• 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 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 $71,046 $43,401 $91,000 $48,330 $55,000 ($36,000) -39.6%
Professional 30,349 37,705 63,000 40,047 58,000 (5,000) -7.9%
Support 6,373 4,842 9,050 963 10,300 1,250 13.8%
Projects/Operatioi 60.767 . J2•332 72.200 50.761 75.400 3,200 4.4%
Total $168,535 $159.278 $235.250 $140.101 $198,700 .5 -15.5%
000042
.T .r
TABLE 16 - FUND BALANCES — BY PROGRAM AND GEOGRAPHIC AREA
June 30, 2003
Westem 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 24,783,775 705,989 0 0 0 25,489,764
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 8,013,745 0 0 0 0 8,013,745
Regional Arterial 0 1,452,913 0 0 0 1,452,913
Special Transportation 4,454,919 712,255 0 0 0 5,167,174
Streets & Roads 583,421 446,854 87,701 0 0 1,117,976
TDA 0 0 0 0 12,658 12,658
Transit 0 0 0 1,675,969 2,865,581 4,541,550
Designated:
Contingency 740,833 2,440,903 0 308 3,556 3,185,600
Motorist Assistance 0 0 0 2,274,042 0 2,274,042
Unreserved: 0 0 0 176.887 1.555M 1.732.269
$79,193,495 $5,758,914 $87,701 $4,127,206 $46,553,556 $135,720,875
000043
Table 17 - Budget Comparative By Summarized Line Item
June 30, 2003
SOURCES OF REVENUE:
FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Dollar Percent
Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change
Operating Revenues
Measure A Sales Tax $81,543,732 $88,973,617 $89,250,000 $91,035,000 $94,605,000 $5,355,000 6.0%
TDA Sales Tax - Planning/Admin. 1,555,263 1,631,482 1,719,245 1,884,733 1,998,400 279,155 16.2%
TDA Sales Tax - Transit Alloc.. 4,428,971 5,023,083 6,426,400 5,046,300 4,445,100 (1,981,300) -30.8%
STA Transit Allocation 2,423,397 2,482,598 4,644,019 3,144,136 4,249,000 (395,019) -8.5%
SAFE Fees 1,183,364 1,297,474 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,150,000 150,000 15.0%
Reimbursement 6,414,461 5,286,109 32,016,200 10,593,670 31,512,000 (504,200) -1.6%
Other Revenue 3,064,255 4,086,123 3,152,448 1,146,176 875,900 (2,276,548) -72.2%
Investment Income 5.193 832 9.842.472 6.474.500 51.12 394 3 965 000 42.509.500) -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%
Debt Proceeds 0 35.934.149 0 9 0 0 0.0%
Total Sources of Funds 105,807,274 154,557,107 144,682,812 119,662,409 142,800,400 (1,882,412) -1.3%
EXPENDITURES:
Personnel Salary 8 Benefits 2,046,310 2,195,385 2,531,500 2,246,663 2,528,200 (3,300) -0.1%
Prof. & Support Expenditures
Professional:
General Legal 416,974 434,516 710,000 704,303 613,000 (97,000) -13.7%
Financial Services 219.604 49,253 100,000 30,000 75,000 (25,000) -25.0%
Audit Services 473,915 369,936 412,000 486,000 482,100 70,100 17.0%
Professional Services - Other 723.434 736.756 1 669.000 1 281.774 1.695 500 26 500 1.6%
Total Professional Costs 1,833,927 1,590,461 2,891,000 2,502,077 2,865,600 (25,400) -0.9%
Support Costs 423 016 1.104 064 1.781.785 1.122 353 1.702 000 479.785) -4.5%
Total Prof. and Support Costs 2,756,943 2,694,525 4,672,785 3,624,430 4,567,600 (105,185) -2.3%
Projects and Operations:
Projects -General 1,798,645 2,256,334 3,489,500 3,402,771 2,190,600 (1,298,900) -37.2%
Station Operations 551,451 631,635 672,200 650,761 844,000 171,800 25.6%
SAFE Operations 697,408 943,493 1,367,519 1,452,200 682,000 (685,519) -50.1%
Towing Services 866.059 947,199 1,144,315 970,700 1,113,000 (31,315) -2.7%
Commuter Assistance 963,038 1,278,171 1,295,715 980,099 1,555,000 259,285 20.0%
Highway Engineering 2,511,044 2,212,722 6,885.618 4,173,621 3.987,000 (2,898,618) -42.1%
Rail Engineering 295,036 626,184 2,084,657 1,848,000 2,542,000 457,343 21.9%
Highway Construction 1,437,415 4,660,916 18,920,426 2,807,317 16,334,000 (2,586,426) -13.7%
Rail Construction 2,452,755 791,386 11,010,000 1,305,000 14,675,000 3,665,000 33.3%
Highway Right of Way 482,373 1,372,276 13,156,452 5,760,000 12,760,000 (396,452) -3.0%
Rail Right of Way 650,083 30,353 1,421.500 1,421,500 6,200,000 4,778,500 336.2%
Special Studies 2,442,541 1,765,150 3,950,500 3,962,500 2,743,000 (1,207,500) -30.6%
SCRRA Contribution 3,149,719 3,653,511 3,531,487 2,703,400 3,182,900 (348,587) -9.9%
Regional Transportation 34,101,173 37,491,560 38,3.77,000 37,037,208 38,093,000 (284,000) -0.7%
LTF Disbursements 518,322 632,361 602,872 652,872 728,000 125,128 20.8%
STA Disbursements 1,527,661 3,529,784 5.194,019 5,100,000 2,907,000 (2,287,019) -44.0%
Regional Arterial 6.467.674 10 532.091 9.740.000 9.740.000 5.432 000 (4.308.0001 -44.2%
Total Project and Oper. Costs 60,912,399 73,355,126 122,843,780 83,967,949 115,968,500 (6,875,280) -5.6%
Debt Service
Principal Payments 18,529,107 22,478,844 24,069,000 24,455,053 - 24,888,000 819,000 3.4%
Interest Payments 11,998,197 12,530,366 11,476,200 11,509,418 10,663,000 (813,200) -7.1%
Cost of Issuance 0 433,148 0 0 0
Total Debt Service 30,527,304 35,442,358 35,545,200 35,964,471 35,551,000 5,800 0.0%
Capital Outlay 50 319 63.503 287.000 237 000 332.000 45 000 15.7%
Expenditures before Distributions and
Operating Transfers 96,293,274 113,750,898 165,880,265 126,040,513 158,947,300 (6,932,965) -4.2%
Operating Transfers (Net)
Total Expenditures
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
Over Expenditures
Contingency
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
Over Expenditures after Contingency
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
96,293,274 113,750,898 165,880,265 126,040,513 158,947,300 (6,932,965) -4.2%
9,514,000 40,806,209 (21,197,453) (6,378,104) (16,146,900) 5,050,553 -23.8%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
9,514,000 40,806,209 (21,197,453) (6,378,104) (16.146,900) 5,050,553 -23.8%
Fund Balance, July 1 103,048,439 112,562,792 158,245,879 158,245,879 151,867,775 (6,378,104) 4.0%
Change in accounting principal 0 4.876 877
Ending Fund Balance $112,562,792 $158,245,879 $137,048,426 $151,867,775 $135,720,875 ($1,327,551) -1.0%
0000'44
Table 18 — Budget Expenditure Summarized By Fund Type
June 30; 2003
General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Debt Service Total
Personnel Salary and Benefits $1,941.9ti4 $585.240 M $0 $2.528.200
Professional and Support Expenditures
General Legal Services 103,300 509,700 0 0 613,000
Special Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0
Financial Services 70500 4,500 0 0 75,000
Audit Services 397,150 84,950 0 0 482,100
Professional Services - Other 1,282.330 413.170 0 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 0 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 1,780,000 0 0 1,780,000
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 6,529,000 0 0 6,529,000
Highway and Rail Construction 0 31,009,000 0 0 31,009,000
Highway and Rail ROW 0 18,960,000 0 0 18960 000
SCRRA Contributions 3,182,900 0 0 0 3,182,900
Special Studies 2,333,000 410,000 0
Special Transportation 0 3,647,000 0 0 2,743,000
0 3,647,000
STA Disbursements 0 2,907,000 0 0 2,907,000
Regional Arterial 0 5.432.000 0 0 5.432.000
Total Project and Operational Expenditures 6,284,500 74,125,600 0 0 80,410,100
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 35506,000
Other Financing (Sources) Uses
Operating Transfers out 414,000 36,040,600 19,000,000 0 55,454,600
Debt Service 0 0 0 35,551,000 35,551,000
Total Expenditures 13.032.082 146.818.8 t 19.000.000 35.551.000 214.401.900
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (175,682) 824,782 (17,850,000) 1,054,000 (16,146,900)
Beginning Fund Balance 6.275.368 56.300.910 A9 884.428 39.407.069 151.867.774
Ending Fund Balance $6,099,686 $57,125,692 $32,034,428 $40,46.1,99 $135,720,875
.0000.45
. � I ; 1 ;
Table 19 — State Highway & Rail Programs
June 30, 2003
Project Description
81000 Project General
Program management and contract administration (Bechtel Corp.) $1,780,000
Park N Ride Leases 54,000
Program support costs 45,000
TOTAL PROJECT GENERAL 1,879,000
81100 Highway Engineering
Route 60 HOV 60/1-215 to Redlands Blvd 1,060,000
Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street highway widening 900,000
Route 79 Right turn lanes 200,000
Route 79 Realignment PSR & Project report 900,000
Route 91 HOV Mary St. to 7th Street 850,000
Route 91 Material testing services 12,000
Route 91 Surveying support services 15,000
Route 111 San Luis Rey design 15,000
Route 111 0 Paseo/Cabrillo design 15,000
Route 111 Town Central/EI Paseo design 20,000
SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY 3,987,000
81100 Rail Engineering
81300 Highway Construction
81300 Rail Construction
81400 Highway Right of Way
81400 Rail Right of Way
San Jacinto Branch line Preliminary engineering
San Jacinto Branch line Altemative Analysis studies
North Main Corona Station Parking Structure
SUBTOTAL RAIL 2,542,000
500,000
400,000
375,000
1,267,000
TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL ENGINEERING 6,529,000
Route 60 HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd 3,000,000
Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street widening Project 11,000,000
Route 91 PH 11 Landscaping and Plant establishment 150,000
Route 111 Monroe to Rubidoux 678,000
Route 111 El Paseo/Cabrillo 397,000
Route 111 Town Center/EI Paseo 511,000
Route 111 San Luis Rey 508,000
Route 91 Material testing services 50,000
Route 91 Surveying support services 30,000
Landscape Management - several projects 10,000
SUBTOTAL HIGHWAYS 16,334,000
Pedley station security system installation 290,000
Pedley station emergency platform 300,000
North Main Corona Station 11,600,000
La Sierra Station Overcrossing & CCTV 130,000
West Corona Station Overcrossing & CCTV 130,000
La Sierra Station Expansion 1,950,000
Riverside -Downtown Station Expansion 275,000
SUBTOTAL RAIL 14,675,000
TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL CONSTRUCTION 31,009,000
Route 60 HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. 1,500,000
Route 60 HOV Right of Way Support Service 200,000
Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street advance right of way acquisitions 9,000,000
Route 74 right of way support services 500,000
Route 91 Right of way appraisels and engineering 1,500,000
Route 111 Acquisitions and support Services 60,000
SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY 12,760,000
La Sierra Station expansion right of way acquisition 6,200,000
SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY 6,200,000
TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL RIGHT OF WAY 18,960,000
GRAND TOTAL HIGHWAY AND RAIL PROGRAMS $ 58,377,000
000046
Table 20
Governmental Funds
FY 2001 - 2003 Su mmary of Estimated Financial S ources and Uses
General Fund Special Revenue Fu nd Capital Projects Fund D ebt Servic e 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 02103 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 Pr oject ed Proposed Actual Prolected Pr oposed - Actual Proj ected Prop osed
Financial Sources:
Measu reASalesTax $1,998,207 $2,500,000 $3,250,000 $86,975,410 $88,535,000 $91,355,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 80 588,973,617 $91,035,000 $94,605,000
TDA Sales Tax 6,654,565 8,931,033 6.443,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,654,565 6,931,033 6,443,500
State Funding 1,146,850 1,063,397 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 Fundin g 0 1,439,500 500,000 298,866 2,700,000 14,719,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 296,866 4,139,500 15,219,000
Other Reimbursements • 1,862,883 634,168 277,700 2,795,883 2,520,752 2,512,000 568,138 0 0 0 0 0 5,026,904 3,154,920 2,789,700
All Other Revenue 327,800 948,652 716,900 123,495 21,812 3,000 643,294 0 0 0 0 0 1,094,589 970,464 719,900
User Fe es 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
O perating Tran sfe r 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 Financia l Sources $12,343,386 513,996,127 $12,856,400 $107 027,917 $108,738,512 $147,643,600 $41,654.013 52.567.738 51.150 ,000 $37,546,478 564 .844,254 336.605.000 $198,571.792 $187,946.831 5198,255.000
Expenditures:
Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits $1,649,366 $1,704,330 $1,941,960 $546,017 5542,332 5586,240 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 52,195,383 52,246,662 $2,528,200
Professional Services 1,162,474 1,273,294 1,853,260 398,183 1,228,785 1,012,320 0 0 0 29.804 0 0 1,590,461 2,502,079 2,865,800
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 2,587,584 2,086,400
Ge ner al Protects 780,662 725,000 768,600 1,716,097 1,917,500 1,910,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,496,760 2,642,500 2,678,600
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 0 947,199 970,700 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 1,278,171 980,099 1,555,000
Engineering 0 0 0 2,838,906 8,021,621 6,529,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,838,906 6,021,621 6,529,000
Construction 10,000 1,100,000 0 5,452,303 4,112,317 31,009,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,462,303 5,212,317 31,009,000
Right of Way 0 0 0 1,402,629 7,181,500 18,960,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,402,629 7,181,500 18,960,000
SCRRA Contribution 3,853,511 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 3,982,500 2,743,000
Special Tra nsportation 0 0 0 3,153,384 3,697,208 3,647,000 0 0 0. 0 0 0 3,153,384 3,697,208 3,847,000
Slate Transit Assista nce 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
Lo cal Streets & Roads 0 0 0 34,338,176 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 5,432,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,532,091 9,740,000 5,432,000
LTF Disbursements 632,381 652,872 728,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 632,361 652,872 728,000
Ca pital 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 35.964,471 35,551.000 35,009,210 35,964,471 35,551,000
Cost of issu ance 0 0 0 0 0 0 433,148 433,148 0 0
Operating Transfe r 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 Budget
$10,871,830 $13,312,160 $13,032,082 5102,986,025 $115,198,212 5148,816:818 98,868,714 $29,849,892 519.000 ,000 $35,039,014 535,964,471 $35 .551 .000 $157,765,582 5194,324,735 $214.401.900
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over $1,471,556 $883,987 ($175,682) $ 4,041,892 (58,459,700) $824,782 $32,785,299 ($27,282,154) ($17,850.000) $2,507,462 528,679,783 $1,054,000 540,806,210
Expen diture s (58,378,104 ) ($16,14e,eoo)
Fund Balance, July 1 $4,119,844 $5,591,400 56,275,366 #55,641.641 564,750 610 556,300,910 _ 544.381. 283 $77, 166,582 549,864 .428 $8 .219,824 $10,727,286 539,407,069 5112,582,792 $158,241,79 5151,657,774
Changelin acco un ting principal 54,870,877 $4,676,877
Ending Fund Balan ce 55,591,400 56,275,368 56,099,666 5 64. 760.010 556,300, 910 557,125,692 577,166,582 549,884,428 532,034,428 910,727,286 539,407,069 540,461,069 $15.3,249,870 5151.857,775 5135,720,875
000047
AGENDA ITEM 14
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
TDA/Measure A Audit Results
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval 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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
As part of the annual Measure A/TDA audit, Ernst and Young reviewed the policies
and procedures of the Commission and the agencies receiving the funds. Based on
their FY 2000-01 review, Ernst and Young listed four suggestions for improvement.
The audits for most of these agencies were presented to the Commission on March
13, 2002. At that time, staff stated that a written response would be brought
back to the Commission for their review.
Suggestion 1
Adopt a more precise policy for TDA claimants and Measure A recipients relating to
overhead allocation. The policy should address the requirements that the overhead
allocation must be based on actual costs, not budgeted costs and that the
overhead expense must be listed as a project on the approved Measure A five-year
capital improvement plan. Any policy clarifications should be timely communicated
to all TDA claimants and Measure A recipients.
Commission Response
On July 11, 2001, the Commission adopted a policy relating to Overhead
Allocation. The policy outlined the requirements and conditions for allowing
overhead allocation. Staff is presenting a separate agenda item to modify
the policy and bring before the Commission a more precise policy requiring
the recipients to update their budgeted or estimated allocations to actual at
the end of the year.
} ' i t J
u00048
Suggestion 2
Adopt a process regarding more timely follow up with the various TDA claimants
and Measure A recipients regarding resolution of compliance issues and questioned
costs reported within the audited financial statements.
Commission Response
Effective with the FY 2001-02 audit, staff will adopt a process to resolve
open matters within 90 days of the receipt of the audit report.
Suggestion 3
Adopt a policy relating to the completion of each Article 3 project to request a final
report from each city which would provide detail of the final costs of the project
and the related funds used to pay for the Article 3 project. Since the TDA claimant
may request disbursement of the Article 3 funds approved by the Commission as
soon as the Article 3 project is approved, the Commission should ensure that a
final accounting of the Article 3 funds be made to the Commission. Any unspent
Article 3 grant funds and any interest earned upon the Article 3 funds that was not
needed to pay for the completion of the Article 3 project should be remitted back
to the Commission.
Commission Response
As part of the new call for projects to be issued in the later part of the year,
staff will incorporate this suggestion into the criteria and set up a process to
review the final costs.
Suggestion 4
Revise Measure A five-year capital improvement plan requirements to include
descriptions of specific projects rather than listing general street improvement
projects on the five-year capital improvement plan.
Commission Response
Staff has informed Ernst and Young that this suggestion would make the
process very cumbersome for the recipients and reduce the flexibility they
currently enjoy and maintaining streets and roads as needed. Ernst and
Young has agreed to remove this suggestion next year.
000049
AGENDA ITEM 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Overhead Allocation Policy Amendment
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend the Overhead Allocation Policy; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On July 11, 2002, the Commission approved a policy for Overhead Allocation.
Ernst and Young has requested an amendment to this policy to clarify it further.
The suggestion made is "Adopt a more precise policy for TDA claimants and
Measure A recipients relating to overhead allocation. The policy should address the
requirements that the overhead allocation must be based on actual costs, not
budgeted costs and that the overhead expense must be listed as a project on the
approved Measure A five-year capital improvement plan. Any policy clarifications
should be timely communicated to all TDA claimants and Measure A recipients."
Based on the above, staff is suggesting that the following item be added to the
current policy.
Item 4
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.
000050
AGENDA ITEM 16
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs
SUBJECT:
Contract Award for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Service
STAFF AND EVAL UA TION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Award a 3 year contract, with two one-year options, to Tri-City Towing
for tow truck service on Beat #4 of the Freeway Service Patrol program
at a cost of $45.00 per hour per truck;
2) Award a 3 year contract, with two one-year options, to Pepe's Towing
for tow truck service on Beat #18 of the Freeway Service Patrol program
at a cost of $42.50 per hour per truck;
3) Award a 3 year contract, with two one-year options, to Pepe's Towing
for tow truck service on Beat #25 of the Freeway Service Patrol program
at a cost of $42.50 per hour per truck;
4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Commission, acting in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for
Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE), reviewed and approved a Request for Proposal (RFP)
for tow truck service at its February 13, 2002 meeting. The RFP for the Freeway
Service Patrol program was for three beats or segments of freeways in Riverside
County and included specific proposal requirements and evaluation criteria.
• Beat #4 is on SR -91 from Magnolia Avenue to the SR -60/91/I-215 interchange
• Beat #18 is on SR -60/91 from the SR -60/91/I-215 interchange to the SR -60/91
interchange
• Beat #25 is on 1-15 from the SR -91/I-15 interchange to the SR -60/I-15
interchange.
1060051
Bids were due March 27, 2002, and four proposals were received. An Evaluation
Committee consisting of Commissioner Schiffner and representatives from the
California Highway Patrol Headquarters and local staff, Caltrans, the Orange County
Transportation Authority FSP program, and Commission staff reviewed the proposals
for completeness and responsiveness. Site visit interviews were conducted on all four
firms on April 15. Commissioner Ron Roberts was originally scheduled to serve on the
Evaluation Committee, but was unable to participate in the process due to scheduling
conflicts.
The Evaluation Committee spoke with each of the company representatives about their
proposals and their understanding of the program's requirements. Each was asked a
set of standard questions in addition to several questions concerning their individual
proposals to clarify any questions. After all four visits were completed, the Committee
discussed the proposals and site visits and finalized their scoring of the proposals
based on the following criteria included in the RFP:
Qualifications of the Firm 25 points
Staffing and Project Organization 25 points
Work Plan 15 points
Cost and Price 25 points
Completeness of Response 10 points
Total 100 points
The Evaluation Committee's combined average scores is as follows:
Beat #4 Beat #18 Beat #25
Firm Score Score Score
Pepe's Towing 87.6 90.4* 94.4*
Tri-City Towing 82.2* 84.2 81.0
Hamner Towing 61.0 63.0 67.0
Exclusive Towing 60.7 62.9 59.5-
* Recommend award of contract.
NOTE: While Pepe's Towing was ranked #1 on all three beats, they would
prefer operating no more than two beats.
Based upon the average score of the five Committee members (Commissioner
Schiffner, CHP HQ, Caltrans District 8, OCTA FSP staff, and Commission staff) the
Committee recommends that: 1) Tri-City Towing be awarded a three-year contract
with two one-year options, to provide tow truck service for the FSP program on beat
#4 at $45.00 per hour per truck; 2) Pepe's Towing be awarded a three-year contract
with two one-year options, to provide tow truck service for the FSP program on beat
#18 at $42.50 per hour per truck; 3) Pepe's Towing be awarded a three-year contract
+•O04052
with two one-year options, to provide tow truck service for the FSP program on beat
#25 at $42.50 per hour per truck. Beat #4 currently requires four (4) trucks, one of
which is funded by a separate agreement with Caltrans for construction projects. Beat
#18 requires three trucks and beat #25 requires two trucks. All three beats operate
from 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays.
The current tow truck operator for beat #4 is Hamner Towing, and the Committee's
recommendation is to award the beat to Tri-City towing effective July 1, 2002. The
current operator for beat #18 and #25 is Pepe's Towing, and it is the Committee's
recommendation that Pepe's Towing continue to operate those two beats.
All obligations incurred by the Commission under the terms of this award are funded
80% from State funds and 20% from local SAFE fees, and are subject to continued
funding from the State for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program.
Funding for these beats are included in the FY 02-03 Proposed Budget.
000053
AGENDA ITEM 17
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 22, 2002
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
State and Federal Legislative Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval 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) et al) as
introduced 2/22/02.
Support — AB 2098 (Bates, R -Laguna Niguel) as introduced 2/19/92
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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State Update
The last day for policy committees to report fiscal bills out of- the policy committee
of the house of origin is April 26, 2002. With this deadline, there has been a flurry
of activity to move bills through this step of the legislative process. The budget
and the $ 17.5 billion deficit continues to receive most of the attention from
legislators with a strong undercurrent of concern of how the deficit will impact any
legislation that has fiscal consequences.
There has been little in the way of transportation policy legislation with the
exception of 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, and the bills referenced above for
position consideration. SB 1262 passed out of the Senate Transportation
Committee on April 2, 2002 on an 8-3 vote with 8 votes being the minimum to
move the bill out of committee and on to Senate Appropriations Committee.
�,<<Q,00054
Also the Committee will recall two bills introduced that proposed to clarify the
diesel fuel tax exemption as it relates to the definition of farming activities in the
event that the BOE approved proposed regulation 1533.2. The bills are AB 2809
(Longville) and SB 10xxx (Sher). The bills are no longer being considered since the
transit community and food processing industry reached an agreement and the BOE
adopted the proposed regulation as agreed to by the two parties.
Staff has analyzed and recommends the following bill positions for approval:
SCA 5 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) — This measure is a Senate Constitutional
Amendment that would place before California voters the ability to adopt a local
option sales tax for transportation projects with a minimum of 25% of the revenues
for smart -growth planning and development with a simple majority (50% +1) vote.
Staff recommends: NO POSITION. The staff analysis is attached.
SB 1827 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) — Senate Bill 1827 redirects a portion of AB 2766
Air District fee revenues to implement a free bus pass pilot project in the South
Coast AQMD by redirecting a portion of the AB 2766 vehicle registration fees to a
small Los Angeles County public transit system for the purpose of establishing a
free bus pass program. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The bill analysis is attached.
SB 1856 (Costa, D -Fresno, et al) — This bill enacts the High -Speed Passenger Train
Bond Act, which, subject to voter approval, would provide for the issuance of $6
billion of general obligation bonds to be used for the purpose of funding the
planning and construction of a high-speed train system. Staff recommends:
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED. The staff analysis is attached.
AB 2098 (Bates, R -Laguna Niguel) - The purpose of this legislation is to conform
California law to federal requirements related to repeat drunk driving offenders in
order to permit flexibility in using federal highway funding. Staff recommends:
SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached.
AB 2476 (Pacheco, R -Riverside) - This measure grants the Department of Housing
and Community Development flexibility in awarding grants within the existing Jobs -
Housing Balance Improvement Program. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff
analysis is attached.
Federal Update
Appropriations requests were due in the Transportation Appropriations Committee
Chairmen's offices March 28, 2002 in the House and April 17, 2002 for the
Senate. Staff will report back on those requests as information becomes available.
The two Highway Funding Restoration Acts (S. 1917 and H.R. 3694) are bipartisan
bills that continue to garner veto proof support. As introduced, the measure
restores the highway program from the $23.3 billion level of the president's budget
N .16 t; 66d55
to $27.7 billion, the FY 2003 level of highway authorizations found in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21). While the Senate is
considering going beyond the $27.7 billion level of restoration, House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R -Alaska) is
committed to not exceeding the $27.7 billion as part of an agreement worked out
with the House's budget and appropriations leaders.
Attachments:
SCA 5 (Torlakson) — Bill Analysis
SB 1827 (Torlakson) — Bill Analysis
SB 1856 (Costa) — Bill Analysis
AB 2098 (Bates) — Bill Analysis
AB 2476 (Pacheco) — Bill Analysis
Legislative Matrix
000056
Date of Analysis: April 9, 2002
Bill Number/Author: SCA 5 (Tom Torlakson, D -Antioch)
As amended February 13, 2002
Subject:
Set a simple majority vote requirement for local
sales tax measures for transportation with a
minimum 25% set -aside of revenues for smart
growth planning and construction.
Status: Introduced May 15, 2001
Amended February 13, 2002
Summary:
The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax, such as
transportation sales tax measures like Measure A or I, by a city, county, or
special district upon the approval of 2/3of the voters of the city, county, or
special district voting on that tax.
SCA 5 as amended, places before California voters the ability to authorize a
city, county, or the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the bay area,
to impose a special tax to fund transportation projects and smart growth
planning with a simple majority vote of the voters of the local jurisdiction. As
a Senate Constitutional Amendment this bill must be approved by 2/3 of the
membership of each house and approved by the voters of the State of
California.
Staff Comments:
In its' introduced form, SCA 5 was a vehicle to reduce the super majority 2/3 -
vote requirement for approval of transportation sales taxes to a simple
majority. The proposal was identical to SCA 3 (Burton) from the last
legislative session that was supported by both RCTC and SANBAG. SANBAG
had taken a support if amended position on introduced version of SCA 5 with
the amendment being changing the local vote threshold to a 55% majority.
The author has since amended the bill to require that local sales tax measures
approved under this constitutional provision would be required to set -aside
25% of the revenues for "smart -growth" planning and development. The
amended bill retains the simple majority vote threshold.
In light of the significant change in the bill to require 25% of the revenues be
used for something other than transportation programs, thus limiting local
control and specifically our ability to fund transportation projects that the
SANBAG Board and County voters deem necessary, staff recommends
removing the qualified support for the bill and taking NO POSITION.
Staff Recommendation:
NO POSITION
`8 h858
Date of Analysis: April 9, 2002
Bill Number/Author: SB 1827 (Tom Torlakson, D -Antioch)
As introduced February 22, 2002
Subject:
Demonstration project to fund free bus pass
program from motor vehicle registration fees
currently allocated to clean air programs by air
districts and related entities.
Status: Introduced February 22, 2002
Summary:
Existing law permits any air quality management district or air pollution
control district, except the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District, that has been designated by the State Air Resources Board as a
nonattainment area for any pollutant emitted by motor vehicles to levy a fee
on motor vehicles registered in the district, and requires the Department of
Motor Vehicles to collect, upon the request of a district, those fees upon
renewal of the registration of any motor vehicle subject to the air pollution
control laws of the state. The districts are required to use the motor vehicle
registration fee revenues to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles, and for
related planning, monitoring, enforcement, and technical studies to
implement the California Clean Air Act of 1988. Existing law requires those
motor vehicle fee revenues generated in the Air Quality Management
Districts to be subvened to the district and used for specified purposes,
including the implementation of ridesharing programs, purchase and lease of
clean fuel buses for school districts and transit operators, provision of
transportation services to rail and ferry stations and airports, implementation
of local arterial traffic management, implementation of -low-emission and
zero -emission vehicle and smoking vehicle programs, automobile buyback
programs, and other specified emission -reduction programs.
This bill would require Air Quality Management Districts, on January 1,
2003, or as soon as practicable thereafter, to provide fee revenues in an
amount determined by each applicable district to specified small public
transit systems, as defined, within their jurisdiction. The bill would also
require the South Coast Air Quality Management District to provide fee
revenues, in an amount determined by that district, to a small public transit
system in Los Angeles County determined by the district. By imposing
additional duties on specified districts, this bill would impose a state -
mandated local program.
Staff Comments:
�OO59
Senate Bill 1827 redirects a portion of AB 2766 Air District fee revenues to
implement a free bus pass pilot project in the South Coast AQMD by
redirecting a portion of the AB 2766 vehicle registration fees to a small Los
Angeles County public transit system for the purpose of establishing a free
bus pass program.
AB 2766 (Health & Safety Code Sections 44240-44247) stipulates that the
$4 registration fee collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles be
distributed as follows:
■ Thirty cents of every dollar shall be used by the AQMD for planning,
monitoring, enforcement and technical studies that are authorized by, or
necessary to implement, the California Clean Air Act;
▪ Forty cents of every dollar shall be distributed by the AQMD to cities and
counties located in the South Coast District to be used to reduce motor
vehicle air pollution; and;
• Thirty cents of every dollar shall be deposited by the AQMD in a
discretionary account (the "Discretionary' Fund") to be used to implement
programs that reduce motor vehicle air pollution.
To determine which projects should be funded by the Discretionary Fund, AB
2766 created the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee
consisting of membership from the SCAQMD, county transportation
commissions (including SANBAG and RCTC), the regional rideshare agency,
and the regional transportation planning agency. The MSRC develops an
annual work program, evaluates candidate air pollution reduction projects,
and makes a final recommendation to the AQMD Governing Board as to
which programs and/or projects should receive Discretionary Funds.
The MSRC has provided considerable financial support _to public transit
agencies since its inception in 1990. This has been accomplished on a
regional basis, ensuring small public transit agencies in each of the four
counties that comprise the South Coast AQMD are treated equitably. SB
1827 appears to favor small transit operators in only Los Angeles County
Finally, staff is concerned that Senate Bill 1827, if enacted, could potentially
reduce the ability to fund other cost-effective air pollution reduction
strategies.
Staff Recommendation:
OPPOSE
;; .,I 1 99,)°060
Date of Analysis: April 9, 2002
Bill Number/Author: SB 1856 (Jim Costa, D -Fresno, et al.)
As introduced February 22, 2002
Subject:
Enacts the High Speed Rail Bond Act for the
purpose of funding the planning and construction
of a high-speed rail system.
Status: Introduced February 22, 2002
Summary:
Existing law creates the High -Speed Rail Authority with the responsibility of
directing the development and implementation of intercity high-speed rail
service.
This bill would enact the High -Speed Passenger Train Bond Act of 2002,
which, subject to voter approval, would provide for the issuance of an
unspecified amount of general obligation bonds, the proceeds of which
would be used for the purpose of funding planning and construction of a
high-speed train system in this state pursuant to the business plan of the
authority. The bill would provide for the submission of the bond act to the
voters in accordance with specified law.
Staff Comments:
According to the High -Speed Rail Authority's adopted business plan, the
total cost of the statewide high-speed rail system is estimated in today's
dollars at $25 billion. The Statewide system stretches from Sacramento to
the Bay Area, south through the central valley to Los Angeles, then inland to
Ontario Airport and south through the Temecula Valley to San Diego.
SB 1856 currently cites an unspecified amount in general obligation bond
issuance to fund the project. Staff has learned that it is the author's intent
to amend the bill to set the amount of GO bond issuance at $6 billion and
with that funding the High -Speed Rail Authority would move forward with
what they call Segment 1 of the system which stretches from San Jose to
Los Angeles Union Station. The problem here is that Segment 1 costs are
estimated at $12 billion for planning, construction, vehicles, and support
costs so the GO bond issuance only would fund half the costs. To ensure
completion of Segment 1, the other $6 billion is necessary, placing extreme
000061
pressure on decision -makers to identify sources of revenue for the project
outside the bond financing mechanism, including general purpose
transportation funds.
If amended as expected by staff, the bond act would fund only half the
estimated cost of the first segment of the high-speed rail network that does
not extend to the Inland Empire. It is highly unlikely that California voters
will approve a measure that funds half a segment of a high-speed rail system
that has only limited statewide benefit, particularly if arguments are made
that other transportation dollars may be at risk to fund the half of the first
segment of the project not covered by the GO bond issue.
So unless the bill is amended to address the variety of concerns cited above,
staff recommends an oppose position. However, if the following
amendments are incorporated into the bill staff would suggest removing the
opposition.
1. The high-speed rail system shall be constructed as a single project as
proposed by the High -Speed Rail Authority adopted business plan
which includes segments through San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties. This ensures that the High -Speed Rail Authority will realize
adequate revenues to cover anticipated operational costs. This
amendment will also allow a GO ballot measure to garner the state-
wide support necessary for passage.
2. The bill should guarantee that general transportation dollars, including
State Transportation Improvement Program, State Transit Assistance,
Proposition 42 Sale tax on gasoline revenues, and Federal formula
funds not be used to fund any part of the high-speed rail system
including operations costs.
Staff Recommendation:
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
f o lj )
000062
Date of Analysis: April 9, 2002
Bill Number/Author: AB 2098 (Patricia Bates, R -Laguna Niguel)
As introduced February 19, 2002
Subject:
Conforms California law to federal requirements in
order to permit flexibility in using federal highway
funding.
Status: Introduced February 19, 2002
Summary:
Existing law requires that if any person is convicted of driving under the
influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug and the offense occurred within 7
years of a separate violation of specified provisions relating to driving under
the influence, which resulted in a conviction, that person be punished by
imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 90 days nor more than one
year and by a fine of not less $390 nor more than $1,000. The person's
privilege to operate a motor vehicle is also required to be suspended by the
Department of Motor Vehicles. If any person is convicted of driving under
the influence and the offense occurred within 7 years of 2 separate
violations of provisions relating to driving under the influence, which resulted
in convictions, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail
for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine of not less
than $390 nor more than $1,000. The person's privilege to operate a motor
vehicle is also required to be revoked, as specified. Under existing law,
whenever a person is convicted of any specified provisions committed while
driving a motor vehicle of which he or she is the owner, the court, at the
time sentence is imposed on the person, is authorized to order the motor
vehicle impounded for a period of not more than 6 months for a first
conviction, and not more than 12 months for a 2nd or subsequent conviction.
This bill would require that, for the above violations relating to driving under
the influence, the person also be punished by the impoundment of his or her
motor vehicle and receive an assessment regarding his or her alcohol abuse
and, if applicable, treatment as determined by the court.
Staff Comments:
The federal statute regarding repeat drunk driving offenders requires each
state to enact and enforce a law that provides that any individual convicted
000063
of a second or subsequent offense for driving under the influence or while
intoxicated to be subject to four penalties.
California law meets the first (one year driver's license suspension) and
fourth (30 days of community service or 5 days of imprisonment)
requirements. This bill would clarify that repeat offenders are to receive an
assessment regarding his or her alcohol abuse and treatment as determined
by the court (the third requirement), and would make impoundment of the
offender's vehicle mandatory, rather than permissive (the second
requirement). As a result, this bill would amend the applicable California
laws to comply with the second and third provisions of the federal repeat
offenders statute in order to permit maximum federal highway funding
flexibility.
California is currently being penalized for noncompliance with the federal
repeat offenders requirements. This penalty requires that 1.5% of the
state's apportionments and associated obligation authority for the federal
highway system, surface transportation, and interstate maintenance
programs be transferred to the state's safety program. Under federal law,
this penalty will increase to 3% beginning October 1, 2002, and potentially
could be over $45 million.
These funds would have been available for maintenance, reconstruction, and
certain additions to the interstate system, which includes all freeways
throughout the state. Without the transfer of these penalty funds, more
federal highways funds potentially would have been available for interstate
maintenance or even regional transportation projects through the STIP.
Staff Recommendation:
SUPPORT
E; 9199964
Date of Analysis: April 15, 2002
Bill Number/Author: AB 2476 (Rod Pacheco, R -Riverside)
As introduced February 21, 2002
Subject: State Grant Funding for Jobs -to -Housing Studies
Status: Introduced February 21, 2002
Assembly Transportation Hearing — April 22, 2002
Summary:
Existing law, the Budget Act of 2000, provides for a transfer of
$10,000,000 by the Controller from the General Fund to the Housing
Rehabilitation Loan Fund, and requires $5,000,000 of that amount to be
distributed for collaborative work by a county, in partnership with certain
governmental entities, to mitigate interregional impacts of substantial
imbalances of jobs and housing.
This bill would authorize the Department of Housing and Community
Development, in accordance with provisions in the Budget Act of 2002, or a
subsequent Budget Act, that are similar to the provision described above, to
distribute funds for local, regional, or interregional studies that address
interregional impacts relating to transportation systems, traffic congestion,
and long commutes that result, in part, from the imbalance of jobs and
housing. The bill would require those studies to focus on developing
strategies to promote jobs -to -housing balance objectives.
Staff Comments:
The Inland Empire is projected to have the region's highest population
growth over the next twenty years while Orange County is projected to
create more jobs than it can fill with its' projected population growth. That
means the workforce in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties will continue
to commute to the jobs in Orange County resulting in increased congestion
and traffic accidents. The 91 freeway is currently the only transportation
corridor linking the two counties and is one of the most congested freeway
in the United States.
This measure grants the Department of Housing and Community
Development flexibility in awarding grants within the existing Jobs -Housing
Balance Improvement Program. AB 2476 will allow the Department to
consider inter -regional studies that address the imbalance of --jobs and
housing in awarding grant funds.
Staff Recommendation:
SUPPORT
00Q066
,# f ` RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSIOV 1N BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERN MENTS
BILL WATCH 2002 - POSITI L 4 ON STATE LEGISLATION
Legislation/
Author
Description
Bill
Status
Positi on
Date of Board
Adoption
AB 227
(Dutra)
AB 227 as introduced by Longville would extend indefinitely the period
during which the Controller would be required to make the quarterly
transfers from the General Fund to the TIF, and thereby would make an
appropriation. However AB 227 has been amended to a non -
transportation related activity and will be deleted from Bill Watch.
N/A
N/A
SANB AG: 3/7/01
RCTC: 3/14/01
AB 381
(Papan)
This bill would require that an unspecified percentage of the money in
the account be available to the department for the purpose of providing
incentives to local governments, local transit providers, pri vate
developers and financial lenders for the citing and constr uction of
transit -oriented and pedestrian -oriented development within one -quarter
mile of an existing or planned transit station.
Senate Housing and
Community
Development Comm.
Hearing pending
No position
taken.
AB 710
(Chavez)
Ex isting law requires the DOT to develop contract specifications to
conduct a statewide study of technically feasible and a vailable cost-
effective means to reduce 4- and 5 -axle truck traffic from congested
urban freeways during commute hours. This bill would delete the
prov isions of the existing law.
This bill is dead.
No p osition
taken.
AB 860
(Negfete-
M cLeod)
"Spot Bill" that includes Legislative intent language to fund
transportation projects that will mitigate the impacts of local traffic
impacts caused by the construction of the Alameda Corridor .
Died at Desk
SUPPORT
WITH
AMENDMENTS
SANBAG: 4/4/01
RCTC: 4/11/01
AB 1303
(Hollingsworth)
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature that alternati ve
routes that may be used to travel from Riverside County to Orange
County be evaluated and considered.
Failed Asm. Trans.
Died pursuant to Art.
IV Sec. 10 (c)
No position
taken.
AB 1396
(Longville)
This bill would create the Passenger Rail Improvement, Safety, and
Modernization Program . Subaccount to the Public .Transportation
Account and appropriates $100,000,000 from the State General Fund
to the subaccount to be used for commuter and light rail improvement,
modernization and safety projects.
Died pursuant to
Art .IV
Secti on 10(c)
SUPPORT
SANB AG: 4/4/01
RCTC: 4/11/01
F:\users\preprint\j s\legmat. do c
000067
Legislation/
Author
Descriptio n
Bill
Status
Positi on
AB 1587
(Pacheco)
AB
2098
(Bates)
AB
2476
(Pacheco)
SB 116
(Kuehl)
SB 171
(M cClintock)
Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to impr ove
and maintain the state highways. This bill, contingent upon an
appropriation in the annual Budget Act for the purposes of the bill,
would require the County of Riverside, in consultation with a steering
committee comprised of representatives from Orange County, the
Orange County Transportation Authority, the Transportation Corridor
Agencies of Orange County, the City of Riverside, Riverside County
Transportation Commission, the City of Corona, and Districts 8 and 12
of the department, to complete and submit to the Legislature, not later
than July 1, 2003, a study and route alignment to de velop and gain
legislative appr oval for an alternati ve to the State Highway Route 91
transportation corridor from Riverside County to Orange County. The
bill would require the study to address the issues of the j obs and
housing balance in the area, the movement of goods and services, and
environmental protections.
The purpose of this legislation is to conform California law to federal
requirements related to repeat drunk driving offenders in order to permit
flexibility in using federal highway funding.
This measure grants the Department of Housing and Community
Development flexibility in awarding grants within the existing Jobs -
Housing Balance Improvement Program.
Date of Bo ard
Adoption._ .
Died pursuant to
Art .IV Section 10(c)
SUPPORT
RCTC: 5/9/01
SB 790
(Karnette)
$B
910
(Dunn)
This bill would prohibit a state or local agency from constructing, or
approving the construction of any public road, or from making any
improvement to an existing road that substantially increases vehicular
traffic capacity in or through any property under jurisdiction of the
State Department of Parks and Recreation
This bill would authorize a transportation gridlock emergency to be
declared for the purpose of relieving traffic congestion on any highway
or segment of highway for the DOT has determined that the average
daily vehicle hou rs of delay, excluding weekends, exceeds 3,000
vehicle hours.
This bill would specify that it is.the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation that removes restrictions on county share advances from the
State Transportation Improv ement Program process to promo te efficient
use of transportation funding.
This bill would provide that, in any action filed on or after
January 1, 2002, challenging the validity of a housing element, there
shall be a rebuttable presumption of nonvalidity of the element or
amendment if the department has found that the element or
amendment does not substantially comply.
F:\use s prreeprintjjs,' .
VV ���
11
t,doc
Assembly Public
Safety -- Hearing
4/15/02
Assembly Housing
and Community
Dvlpmnt — Hearing
4/24/02
Failed passage . Asm
Water, Parks and
Wildlife Committee
Recommended:
SUPPORT
Rec ommended:
SUPPORT
OPPOSE
SANBAG: 4/4/01
RCTC: 4/11/01
Returned to Secretary
of Senate
Assembly
Appropriations —
Hearing pending
Assembly Local Gvt.
— Hearing pending
No position
taken.
No position
taken.
OPPOSE
SANBAiG: 5/2/01
RCTC: 4/11/01
Legislatio n)
Auth
Des cription
Bill
Status
Positio n
D a. -- of Board
sption
SB
1262
(Torlakson)
This bill would provide for a county with m ore than 200,Ou0 residents
that not less than 10 % of the funds available for regional improvements
shall be used for county transportation incentive programs that reward
local jurisdictions that promote new development programs that reduce
traffic congestion, provide a better balance of housing located near area
employers, and promote new housing and other developments that are
within walking distance of local schools, shops, and businesses.
Senate Trans.
Approve
8-3
Senate Appropriations
4/22/02
OPPOSE
SAN BAG: 3/6/02
RCTC: 3/13/02
SB
1827
(Torlakson)
This bill would redirects a portion of AB 2766 Air District fee revenues to
implement a free bus pass pilot project in the South Coast AQMD by
redirecting a portion of the AB 2766 vehicle registration fees to a small Los
Angeles County public transit system for the purpose of establishing a free
bus pass program.
Senate Transportation
— 4/25/02
Recommended:
OPPOSE
_
SB
1856
(Costa)
This bill enacts the High-speed Passenger Train Bond Act, which, subject
to voter approval, would provide for the issuance of $6 billion of general
obligation bonds to be used for the purpose of funding the planning and
construction of a high-speed train system.
Introduced February
22, 2002 .
Recommended:
OPPOSE
UNLESS
AMENDED
ACA 4
(Dutra,
Longville)
This measure would lock in, for transportati on purposes, the dedication
of the state's sales tax rev enues collected at the gas pump that
heretofore hav e accrued in the State General Fund.
Prop osition 42
approved by California
voters 3/5/02
SUPPORT
SANBAG: 5/2/01
RCTC: 5/9/01
ACA 9
(Dutra)
Amended to a non -transportatio n related acti vity, pro visions are now
part of ACA 4.
SUPPORT
SANBAG: 5/2/01
RCTC: 5/9/01
A CR 81
Assembly Concurrent Resolution urging the California Department
of Transportation, RCTC and OCTA to facilitate the establishment of
an alternativ e transportation corridor between Riverside and Orange
Counties.
Senate Appropriations
— Hearing date
pending
SUPPORT
SANBAG:
7/11/01
RCTC:
7/11/01
SCA 5
-
Senate Constitutional Amendment to set a simple majority vote
requirement for local transportation sales tax measures and require that
25% of revenues from sales tax measure approved under this
constitutional provision be used for "smart -growth" planning and
development.
=
Senate Appropriations
— Hearing date
pending
Recommended:
Change to NO
POSITION from
SUPPORT
SANBAG:
7/11/01 (with
amendments)
RCTC: , 1
7/11/01
F:\users\preprint\js\legmat.doc
000069