Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
06 June 11, 2003 Commission
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Ron Roberts 1' Vice Chairman: Roy Wilson 2nd Vice Chairman: Robin Lowe Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside James A. Venable, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Art Welch / Sue Palmer / Bill Jenkins, City of Banning Placido L. Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Gregory Schook / John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Jack Wamsley / Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macnicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Jeff Bennett, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Greg Ruppert , City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Mike Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Robert L. Schiffner / Thomas Buckley, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Jack F. van Haaster / Warnie Enochs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert William G. Kleindienst / Chris Mills, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Alan Seman / Ron Meepos, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Anne Mayer, Director, Caltrans District #8 Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director II 5to Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, lc-, e corn,../c+., n.../ ..uL...-.:+ ., T....+:.......... Cord t.. tha Clark f +F,.. /'......w.:....:.... RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, June 11, 2003 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (909) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda) 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 14, 2003 5. ORAL REPORT Overview The Executive Director will give an oral report on the status of the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange funding request. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 Page 2 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Hold the public hearing to receive input and comments on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget; 2) Close the public hearing; and, 3) Adopt the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 8. 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. 8A. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. 8B. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending April 30, 2003. Page 179 Page 180 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 Page 3 8C. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Page 184 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve appropriation budget adjustments. 8D. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-027, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATION OF DISTRICT TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAXES" Page 185 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 03-027, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Amendment to Agreement for State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes". 8E. AGREEMENT NO. 03-12-071 — CONTRACT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT PURCHASE, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR SERVICE Page 188 Overview 1) Award Agreement No. 03-12-071, for the purchase, maintenance, and repair service of computer network system to Jaguar Computer Systems, Inc.; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel Review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8F. UPDATE ON THE MORENO VALLEY -SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CETAP CORRIDOR Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Moreno Valley -San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor. Page 190 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 Page 4 8G. STATUS REPORT ON THE WINCHESTER TO TEMECULA CETAP CORRIDOR Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file a status report on the Winchester to Temecula CETAP Corridor. Page 207 8H. PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY — UNMET NEEDS HEARING TESTIMONY AND RESPONSES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 208 1) Make a finding that based upon a review of the requests for services received through the "Unmet Transit Needs Hearing" process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, there are no unmet transit needs remaining which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley Area; 2) Reaffirm the Commission's definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet" Standards; and, 3) Adopt Resolution No. 03-026, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Finding that There are No Unmet Transit Needs that are Reasonable to Meet in the Palo Verde Valley Area". 81. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Page 217 Overview This item is for the Commission to review and approve, in concept, the Fiscal Year 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and RCTC's Regional Rail Program. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 Page 5 8J. FISCAL YEAR 2003 TRANSIT OPERATORS' SECOND QUARTER REPORT Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2003 Mid -Year Transit Operators' Report. Page 224 8K. FISCAL YEAR 2004 MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Page 229 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Fiscal Year 2004 Minimum Fare Revenue to Operating Expense Ratio of 17.4% for the Riverside Transit Agency and 16.11c/0 for SunLine Transit Agency; 2) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required ratio; and, 3) Request Caltrans' concurrence with the methodology and ratios for Fiscal Year 2004. 8L. CITY OF BEAUMONT'S REQUEST TO REALLOCATE CAPITAL TO OPERATING FUNDS Page 233 Overview This item is for the Commission to reallocate $25,168 in Local Transportation Funds from capital to operating for the City of Beaumont's Transit Program. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 Page 6 8M. FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 MEASURE "A" COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS Page 234 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,175/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 to the existing Riverside, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore, and Mira Loma buspools; and, 2) Continue the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. 8N. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2003 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Page 241 Overview This item is for the Commission to amend the Fiscal Year 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs. 80. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 246 1) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy position: Support - SB 87 (Hollingsworth, R -Temecula) as amended 3/20/03; Oppose Unless Amended - AB 496 (Correa, D -Santa Ana) as amended 3/28/03; and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 Page 7 8P. STATE ROUTE 91 PROJECT PLAN PER AB 1010 Page 273 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Draft State Route 91 Project Plan. 8Q. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 9. RECONSIDERATION OF THE HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CORRIDOR Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 276 Page 295 1) Approve acceleration of the CETAP internal east -west corridor work to a project level environmental document; 2) Direct staff to seek federal legislation identifying the CETAP internal east -west corridor as Ramona/Cajalco, south of Lake Mathews; and, 3) Direct staff to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan including details on budget, schedule, and implementation. 10. PRESENTATION - LOCALLY PREFERRED TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE FOR THE INTERSTATE 215/SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE (RIVERSIDE TO ROMOLAND) CORRIDOR Page 299 Overview Staff will present the San Jacinto Branch Line Ad Hoc Committee recommendation on the Locally Preferred Transit Alternative for the I-215/San Jacinto Branch Line (Riverside to Romoland) Corridor. 11. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 Page 8 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities: A) Ten Year Anniversary of Metrolink — Stephanie Wiggins 13. CLOSED SESSION ITEM — Adjourn to RCTC Conference Room "A" Overview A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 54956.9(a) Names of Parties: Raceway Ford, Inc., Caltrans, RCTC et al Case Number: CIV. S-02-710 WBS GGH 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 18, 2003, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 4 Minutes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Ron Roberts at 9:00 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Roger Berg Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy L. Byrd Frank Hall Terry Henderson Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Anne Mayer Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Ron Roberts Robert L. Schiffner Gregory V. Schook John F. Tavaglione Jack van Haaster Jim Venable Jack Wamsley Art Welch Frank West Matt Weyuker Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain Juan DeLara G. Dana Hobart Robin Lowe Gregory S. Pettis Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 2 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Garry Grant, Meadowbrook area resident, requested that the signs that the Meadowbrook Community has placed on State Route 79 be retained on the improved highway. He also requested the font size of the booklet agendas be increased. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Henderson/Buydos) to approve of the March 12, 2003 and April 9, 2003 minutes as submitted. Abstain — March 12, 2003 minutes: Ashley, Berg, Byrd, Hall, Kleindienst, Weyuker Abstain — April 9, 2003 minutes: Berg 5. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Ivan Chand, Chief Financial Officer, presented the proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004, reviewing the projected revenues and expenditures. Chairman Roberts opened the public hearing at this time. No comments were received from the public at this time. The Chairman stated that the public hearing will be continued and the proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 is scheduled for adoption at the June 11, 2003 Commission meeting. Due to the current administrative salaries and benefits approaching the 1% cap, Commissioner Bob Buster suggested staff review other revenue sources to allocate costs as he feels internal staff is critical to the Commission. Eric Haley, Executive Director, ensured the Commission that staff is reviewing all other accounts to provide additional resources to deliver the programs. The legislative position, which was contracted with SanBAG, will not be filled at this time and that John Standiford, Director of Public Information and and the Executive Director will be taking on the responsibilities of that position. Commissioner William Kleindienst requested under the Intergovernmental Programs and Legislative Affairs Section, that the wording be modified as follows: "Play a leadership role in the implementation of the Western Riverside TUMF program with emphasis on the financial and fiduciary responsibilities." He then requested an explanation of the commitment of CMAQ funds. Eric Haley Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 3 responded that approximately 80% of the CMAQ funds will be allocated to the SR 60 HOV Project in Moreno Valley with the remaining funds allocated to a broad selection of smaller projects including alternative fuels and grade separations. M/S/C (Kleindienst/Weyuker) to continue the public hearing of the proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 to the Commission meeting on June 11, 2003. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (M. Wilson/Kleindienst) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. 2003 UPDATE TO LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-023, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE §§ 21000 ET SEQ.)" 1) Adopt the 2003 Update to Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, 2) Adopt Resolution No. 03-023, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending and Adopting Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) ". 7B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ending March 31, 2003. 7C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending March 31, 2003. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 4 7D. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending January, February, and March 2003. 7E. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending March 31, 2003. 7F. REPROGRAMMING OF STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) FUNDING Approve reprogramming $1.875 million in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds from the City of Blythe's Hobsonway Project to Planning, Programming, and Monitoring activities in order to utilize funding capacity in Fiscal Year 2003-2004. 7G. CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR SURVEY AND MATERIAL TESTING ON - CALL SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY AND COMMUTER RAIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1) Concur with the selection panel's recommendation and consultant ranking to provide On -Call Surveying Construction Support Services for future Measure "A" Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Projects as follows: Top Ranked David Evans and Associates, Inc. Second Ranked County of Riverside Survey Department Third Ranked Associated Engineers, Inc. 2) Concur with the selection panel's recommendation and consultant ranking to provide On -Call Material Testing Construction Support Services for future Measure "A" Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Projects as follows: Top Ranked Ninyo & Moore Second Ranked Kleinfelder Third Ranked Converse Consultants 3) Authorize staff to negotiate contracts with the top ranked consultant(s) for both Surveying and Material Testing Support Services and return to the Commission with contract recommendations. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 5 7H. FISCAL YEAR 2003 AMENDMENT TO CITY OF CORONA'S SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN TO REALLOCATE FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF BASE RADIO COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 1) Amend the Fiscal Year 2003 Short Range Transit Plan for the City of Corona's Transit Program; and, 2) Reallocate $12,000 in Local Transportation Funds from the bus replacement line item for the purchase of base radio communication equipment. 71. CARE -A -VAN TRANSIT, INC.'S REQUEST TO APPLY EXCESS MATCHING FUNDS FROM FISCAL YEARS 2000 AND 2001 TO FISCAL YEAR 2002 Apply $12,229 in excess matching funds from Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 to cover Care -A -Van Transit, Inc.'s match requirement for Fiscal Year 2002. 7J. MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAM: ANZA VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. 1) Authorize Anza Valley Community Services, Inc. to disburse approximately $4,000 of Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to four non-profit agencies serving the Anza area; and, 2) Reassign ownership of the 12 -passenger Ford Van purchased in part with Measure "A" Funds to the Riverside Transit Agency. 7K. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2003 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Approve an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 6 7L. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 1) Adopt the preliminary Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Metrolink Operating and Capital Budgets; and, 2) Allocate RCTC's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority in an amount not to exceed $3,948,500, comprised of: $3,056,300 of Local Transportation Funds for train operations and maintenance -of -way, and $892,200 of FTA Section 5307 for capital projects. 7M. DEFERRAL OF THE VAN BUREN METROLINK STATION Defer the construction of the Van Buren Metrolink Station until after 2010, at which time the Commission can re -consider proceeding with the development of the Station. 7N. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 70. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 1) Adopt the following bill positions: Support - SCA 7 (Murray); Watch - SB 957 (McClintock), AB 496 (Correa); and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update. 8. ORAL REPORT - STATUS OF THE HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CETAP CORRIDOR Commissioner Marion Ashley submitted a written statement noting possible conflict of interest on this item and left the Board Room. Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development, provided a report on the status of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore CETAP Corridor. She noted the following: Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 7 • Victoria Grove residents oppose improvements along Cajalco/EI Sobrante, north of Lake Mathews and encourage studying alternatives to improve Cajalco, south of Lake Mathews. • The Cities of Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Norco have recommended via letter that the draft environmental document for the east -west internal corridor be modified to include consideration of an alternative along Cajalco, south of Lake Mathews. Commissioner John Tavaglione met with the Cities and explained the process and impact of adding an additional alternative to the current CETAP process. • Staff is exploring options to address these concerns including acceleration of the CETAP process right into a project level NEPA document. • Congressman Ken Calvert has expressed support for sponsoring legislation which would identify the Ramona/Cajalco alignment, south of Lake Mathews, as the alignment of choice. Commissioner Jack Wamsley expressed concern for the increasing traffic congestion in the Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore areas along SR 79 and 1-15 and requested staff review options to relieve congestion in this area. Commissioner Bob Buster expressed support for staff's proposal as it accelerates improvements in the northern east -west corridor, addresses the concerns of the surrounding areas, would improve to at least four lanes and recommends a six lane limited access parkway, and protects local circulation. He also indicated that the federal resource agencies have offered support and ideas to minimize the impact on conservation areas. Commissioner Robert Schiffner concurred with Commissioner Wamsley's concern. At this time, Chairman Roberts opened the discussion for public comments on this agenda item. Art Cassel, 18350 Harley John Road, Riverside, expressed his belief that improvements on Cajalco Road need to be expedited due to the increase of accidents and fatalities. He expressed his opposition for a freeway level facility as he believes it will destroy the rural community. Also he stated that he is not opposed to growth but believes it needs to be balanced, organized, and done responsibly. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 8 There were no further comments from the public. Commissioner Terry Henderson asked for the number of jobs in jeopardy because of the opposition of the planned growth at March Air Reserve Base. Commissioner Busier responded that March Air Reserve Base is a significant job center. At this time, Chairman Roberts passed the Chair to Vice -Chairman Roy Wilson. 9. TDA AND MEASURE "A" AUDIT RESULTS Ivan Chand presented the TDA and Measure "A" Audit Results performed by Ernst and Young for FY 2002, highlighting the issues identified and value ideas. M/S/C (van Haaster/Kleindienst) to receive and file the TDA and Measure "A" Audit Results Report. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A, Commissioner Tavaglione submitted, for the record, a letter received by the Board of Supervisors from Dennis Blenn regarding concerns about the expansion of SR 74. B. Commissioner Percy Byrd expressed his appreciation to the Commissioners and staff for their thoughtfulness during his recuperation period. C. Commission Kleindienst suggested that the cities submit support resolution/letter to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) prior to the meeting next week to show unified support for the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. D. Eric Haley reported: • The funding status of SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project and the CTC Meeting on May 21. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 9 Commissioner Anne Mayer noted that the project is ready to go which is a favorable attribute in obtaining funding. In response to Commissioner Buster on how to best represent this project to obtain funding from the CTC, Eric Haley said that the focus will be on key regional impacts such as the expansion of UC Riverside and the March Air Reserve Base and goods movement, project readiness, and the cost to fund versus the cost to shut down the project. Staff will provide draft resolutions/letters for the cities to use to present unified support for the project. • Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the funding status of SR 60 HOV Project and the need to require a special meeting of the Commission, as the funds will lapse if not approved by June 30, 2003. After discussion of the Commissioners' schedules, it was agreed upon to hold the special meeting on Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center Board Room. At this time, Steve DeBaun announced the Closed Session Items. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS A. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners — See List of Property Owners Item 1 APN CPN Owner 342-120-039 & 040 & 041 13773- 1&2 Cleo & Betty L. Owens B. Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(b) Significant exposure to litigation to subdivision (b)(1) Number of Potential cases: 1 There were no announcements on the Closed Session items. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 10 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:13 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission AGENDA ITEM 6 Public Hearing RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Hold the public hearing to receive input and comments on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget; 2) Close the public hearing; and, 3) Adopt the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On May 14, 2003, staff presented the proposed budget to the Commission. This was a result of staff going through the budget process and determining the needs and resources to meet those needs. The goals and objectives approved by the Commission on March 12, 2003, were the basis of this budget. The goals and objectives considered during the preparation of the budget are mobility, goods movement, congestion relief and safety improvements, air quality, economic development, intermodalism and accessibility, technological innovation, and public and agency communications. On May 14, 2003, the Commission opened the public hearing to adopt the budget and allow for citizens to provide input into the budget process. The proposed budget outlined the needs of the Commission and the resources that were available to respond to the needs. No changes were made to the proposed budget. The information provided to you on May 14, 2003, remains the same. Attached is proposed budget for Fiscal Year 03-04. This document contains a summary of all departmental budgets and summarizes the information for the entire Commission. The department budgets present the goals and objectives, the resources needed to accomplish the goal and the appropriation required to accomplish the tasks. Staff has also included the fund budgets which examine the budgeted revenue and expenditures from a fund perspective. Agenda Item 6 1 A summary of the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 is as follows: Revenues $143,485,400 Personnel salary and fringe benefits 2,791,200 Professional 3,081,800 Support 1,999,100 Projects and Operations 108,863,400 Capital Outlay 453,000 Debt Service 35,478,100 Total Expenditures $152,766,400 Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance $154,132,843 $144,851 ,843 Attachment: Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Proposed Budget Agenda Item 6 2 PROPOSED BUDGET FY 030.4 Riverside County Transportation Commission Honorable Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California FY 03/04 Budget Introduction After an exciting year full of accomplishments, the Riverside County Transportation Commission now faces a transition year (FY 03/04) that is sure to lead to an exciting future. Fiscal Year 02/03 will be remembered for the action of Riverside County's voters to approve a 30 -Year extension of Measure A. Since the original approval of Measure A in 1988, the local half -cent sales tax has become the primary source of funding for new transportation projects in Riverside County. As funding from the federal and state governments remain uncertain and in even likely to decline, the local sales tax program becomes increasingly important. The voter action of November 2002 ensures the replacement of the current Measure A program when it expires in 2009 with a new 30 -year program that will continue funding improvements until March 2039. For the past three years, the Commission was focused on preparing for an election to extend Measure A. Now that voters have affirmed this action by approving the extension, the Commission is faced with the opportunity and the challenge of planning additional projects and developing an overall strategy to build transportation improvements to serve the area for much of this century. This will require a two -pronged approach of completing a number of important projects contained in the original Measure A program along with establishing the groundwork for implementing the new program which begins funding in 2009. Given the long -lead time necessary for planning and developing significant highway, arterial and transit projects, the upcoming fiscal year should prove to be a busy one for the Commission. CURRENT RESPONSIBILITIES During FY 03/04, RCTC will spend $152,766,400 on a wide variety of projects and services. This funding level includes the beginning of a number of high - profile projects including the widening of Routes 60 and 74, adding trains to the Metrolink Inland Empire/Orange County Line, concluding the first component of the CETAP process, expanding parking capacity at Metrolink rail stations, and continuing to fund Measure A efforts and programs that are constructed and offered by cities and local transit agencies. 4 The Commission's status is becoming somewhat unique in Southern California. As many transportation agencies have consolidated functions and grown in size, RCTC remains true to the original intent of the state legislation that created the Commission. We serve as the county's primary transportation planning and funding agency and have not taken on additional responsibilities such as operating transit services. As a result, the Commission maintains productive relationships with other agencies as part of its planning and funding role. For example, Measure A pays for a score of lesser -known projects that are extremely important to local residents. More than $38,472,000 million will be returned to local cities and the County of Riverside for street and road needs. In addition to local turn -back funding, Measure A provides funding for many regional street and road projects and funds the improvement of major arterial streets in the Coachella Valley. RCTC also receives and programs funding from state and federal sources. This includes the state's Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) programs that are allocated to the county's major public transit providers. Measure A also contributes to the public transit cause by funding transit fare discounts and transit programs for senior citizens and persons with disabilities. Measure A also funds a Commuter Assistance program that provides ridesharing assistance to employers and commuters. LOOKING TOWARD THE FUTURE In addition to current projects that are ongoing responsibilities, the Commission will seek to establish a schedule for embarking upon projects that are contained under the new Measure A extension. Funding from the extension will not begin flowing until 2009, but thanks to low interest rates the Commission must consider advancing some work on needed projects as soon as possible. During the upcoming fiscal year, the Commission will explore opportunities to bond against future Measure dollars to finance limited planning work on major projects such as the widening of Route 91. In taking on this challenge, the Commission must seek to integrate the current Measure A plan with the future one. This transition planning effort will take place during the latter part of 2003. Also, the Western Riverside Council of Governments will soon implement a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program that will require developers to pay for their share of new development. RCTC will serve in a fiduciary capacity for the financial administration of the program. This is appropriate because the TUMF program is called out and mandated in the voter - approved Measure A extension. A. similar TUMF program exists in the Coachella Valley and provides additional funding for regional transportation needs. With the extension of Measure A, the implementation of a TUMF program will leverage the completion of additional transportation projects. 5 The County of Riverside is also busily completing the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) process that will generate a new General Plan, establish a Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan and eventually lead to the addition of four new transportation corridors. Tier II planning and engineering for two of the internal corridors will begin this year. GFOA Distinguished Budget Award The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented an award of Distinguished Budget Presentation to the Riverside County Transportation Commission for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2002. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan and as a communications device. The award is valid for a period of one year only. The Commission believes that this budget document conforms to program requirements and it will be submitted to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award. Acknowledgements The preparation of this budget has been a collaborative effort involving every member of the Commission's staff. The budget reflects the Commission's desire and effort to communicate the components of the budget in terms that are easily understandable and supportable for the general public. Staff acknowledges and appreciates the guidance and leadership of the Commission's 30 -member Board of Directors and the sense of renewal and commitment they have inspired. In addition, special recognition must be given to Michele Cisneros for her contributions to this document. Her efforts in preparing this document have been exceptional. Eric A. Haley, Executive Director Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer 6 COMMISSION INTRODUCTION State law created the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) in 1976 to oversee the funding and coordination of all public transportation services within Riverside County (County). The Commission's mission is to assume a leadership role in improving mobility in Riverside County. The governing body, consist of all five members of the County Board of Supervisors, one elected official from each of the County's 24 cities, and one non -voting member appointed by the Governor of California. The Commission is responsible for setting policies, establishing priorities, and coordinating activities among the County's various transportation operators and agencies. The Commission also programs and/or reviews the allocation of federal, state and local funds for highway, transit, rail, non -motorized travel (bicycle and pedestrian) and other transportation activities. The Commission serves as the tax authority and implementation agency for the voter approved Measure A Transportation Improvement Program. Measure A was approved by the County's electorate in 1988 and imposes a half -cent sales tax to fund a specific program. Measure A was approved for 20 years. On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved the renewal of Measure A through 2039. Additionally, the Commission provides motorist aid services designed to expedite traffic flow. These services include the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), a program that provides call box service for motorists, and the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP), a roving tow truck service to assist motorists with disabled vehicles on the main highways of the County during peak rush hour traffic periods. These services are provided at no charge to motorist and are funded through $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations. RCTC is also legally responsible for allocating Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, the major source of funds for transit in Riverside County. The TDA provides two major sources of funding: the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which is derived from 1/4 of 1 cent State sales tax, and the State Transit Assistance (STA) fund, which is derived from statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Finally, the Commission has been designated as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Riverside County. As the CMA, the Commission coordinates with local jurisdictions in the establishment of congestion mitigation procedures for Riverside County's roadway system. 7 Name Bob Buster John F. Tavaglione James A. Venable Roy Wilson Marion Ashley Art Welch Placido L. Valdivia Robert A. Crain Gregory V. Schook Jack Wamsley Gregory S. Pettis Juan M. DeLara Jeff Miller Gregory S. Ruppert Robin Lowe Percy L. Byrd Michael H. Wilson Terry Henderson Robert L. Schiffner Frank West Jack F. van Haaster Frank Hall Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Daryl R. Busch G. Dana Hobart Ameal Moore Chris Buydos Ron Roberts Anne Mayer Riverside County Transportation Commission List of Principal Officials Board of Commissioners Title Member Member Member 1st Vice Chairman (Commission) Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member 2"d Vice Chairman (Commission) Member Member Vice Chairman (Budget & Implementation Committee) Chairman (Budget & Implementation Committee) Member Member Vice Chairman (Plans & Programs Committee) Chairman (Plans & Programs Committee) Member Member Member Member Member Chairman (Commission) Governor's Appointee Administrative Staff Eric A. Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs John Standiford, Director of Public Information Agency County of Riverside, District 1 County of Riverside, District 2 County of Riverside, District 3 County of Riverside, District 4 County of Riverside, District 5 City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Caltrans District #8 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The budget for FY 03/04 is presented to the Commissioners and the citizens of Riverside County. The Budget outlines the projects the Commission would like to complete during the year and appropriates expenditures to accomplish these tasks. The budget also shows the revenues and fund balances that will be used to complete these projects. This document will serve as the Commission's monetary guideline. To provide the reader a better understanding of the projects to be completed, staff has included descriptive information regarding each department and major projects. The discussion in each Department/Program area includes a review of major initiatives and key assumptions. Though the budget is a very comprehensive document, staff believes its value and usefulness to readers has been enhanced by these features. Staff used the goals and objectives approved at the Commission meeting on March 12, 2003, 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 • Prepare and adopt a transition plan to coordinate the two voter -approved Measure A sales tax measures. • Foster the early implementation of the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). • Work with local jurisdictions and Caltrans to develop mitigation measures and strategies to address congested traffic corridors. • Improve communication with Commissioners and educate policy makers on all issues of importance to the Commission. • Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving the County • Complete Tier 1 Environmental analysis for the two internal CETAP corridors. • Support innovative programs which provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas. • Support development of staff skill levels by providing effective training opportunities. Financial • Maintain administrative costs below the policy threshold of 4% of Measure A revenues. The current Management Services budget is 3.24% of Measure A revenues. • Maintain administrative salaries and benefits less than 1% of Measure A revenues. The current administrative salaries and benefits is 0.92% 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. 9 Budget Overview Chart 1 — Revenues: Major Categories SAFE Fees Other Revenue Investment 1% 3% Income 2% Reimbursements 20% • Measure A LTF Sales TaxJj Sales Tax 5% 69% Total revenues are budgeted at $143,485,400, which is an increase of 2.7% over projected revenues and a 0.5% increase over FY 02/03 budget. The projected fund balance at June 30, 2003 available for expenditures, (exclusive of debt service reserves of $50,393,274, loans receivables for $838,785) is $102,900,784. Total funding sources available for the FY 03/04 budget amount to $246,386,184. Chart 2 - Commission Revenue Trend $160,000,000 $140,000,000 r` $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 FY 03/04 FISCAL YEARS ■ Investment Income 0 Other Revenue ❑ Reimbursements LTF Sales Tax O Measure A Sales Tax After taking economic factors, state of the economy, population growth and housing construction into consideration, staff has projected a 6.6% increase in Measure A sales tax revenues. The increase is relative to the FY 02/03 Measure A budget. Staff expects FY 02/03 Measure A revenues to be 2.5% higher than budgeted. Staff is projecting an increase of 4% over FY 02/03 projected revenues. The State Board of Equalization has provided cities and other agencies their projections for the upcoming year and their projection for the State of California is 4.5%. Riverside County continues to grow due to population increase and a wider base in its economic engine. The revenue to the Commission from Local Transportation Funds (LTF) is higher by 3.3% as the Commission receives reimbursementF for projects completed and for items included in the Short Range Transit Plan. The LTF funds received by the County that are available for allocation, are projected to increase by 4% and these funds will be distributed to all the Transit operators in the county. 10 Reimbursements are down as the Commission invoices Federal, State and Local agencies based on projects completed. Staff expects the projects to be reimbursed as they are 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 rates. In addition, the primary source of the interest income was interest on proceeds of the Construction fund used to fund Route 74. As the project is nearing completion, the funds are being depleted, thus resulting in lower interest revenues. Staff continues to actively manage its resources and make appropriate investments to maximize the return to the Commission without sacrificing security. The Other Revenue consists of miscellaneous revenues that the Commission receives. This revenue category is projected to increase as the Commission has entered into cooperative agreements. Table 1 - Operating Revenue FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Changes Changes Measure A Sales Tax $ 88,973,617 $ 95,797,286 $ 94,605,000 $ 96,970,000 $ 100,849,000 $ 6,244,000 6.6% LTF Sales Tax 6,654,565 6,876,656 6,443,500 6,649,200 6,655,400 211,900 3.3% Reimbursements 9,066,181 19,610,363 37,411,000 27,983,300 29,674,000 (7,737,000) -20.7% Other Revenue 4,086,123 3,117,518 375,900 3,929,400 3,653.800 3,277,900 872.0% Investment Income 9,842,472 5,942,481 3,965,000 4,233,000 2,653,200 (1.311,800) -33.1% Total Operating Revenues $ 118,622,958 $ 131,344,303 $ 142,800.400 $ 139,764,900 $ 143,485,400 $ 685,000 0.5% Chart 3 — Expenditures: Major Categories Debt 23% Management Services 2% Transit 2% Planning & Programming 1% Capital Highway & Rail 33% Motorist Assistance 1% Rail Operations 3% Specialized Transit Regional Arterial 3% 5% Commuter Assistance 3% Streets and Roads 24% Total expenditures are budgeted at $152,766,400, a decrease of 11.4% from the prior year budget amount of $172,416,464 but slightly higher than the projections. The Debt Service amount for this year is $35,478,100. Management Services costs are budgeted at $3,268,200 and Program Expenditures total $114,020,100. Management services had a reduction of 26.7% which was due to the one time charges occurring in FY 02/03. The one- time charges related to the renewal of Measure A and the relocation of the administrative offices. 11 Program costs have decreased 13.9% from $132,407,312 to $114,020,100. This decrease is due to the decrease in the Capital Highway and Rail programs. These programs have a 26.0% decrease. This decrease is due to the completion of the Route 74 project and the completion of the La Sierra Station, Phase 1 and the North Corona Main station. The Regional Arterial program shows a reduction as all reserves were utilized in FY 02/03 and expenditures budgeted in FY 03/04 are for revenues received in the budgeted fiscal year. In addition, the Transit program experienced a decrease due to lower allocation in the State Transit Assistance program. This reduction is a direct result of the economy of the State and the funding available for transit. The other major reduction in program costs is in Planning and Programming. This reduction is due to the completion of the CETAP project and the costs incurred for that program. Table 2 - Program Expenditures FY 2001 - 2004 Capital Highway & Rail Rail Operations Regional Arterial Streets and Roads Commuter Assistance Specialized Transit Motorist Assistance Planning & Programming Transit Intergovt. Program/Legislative Affairs Property Management Management Services Debt Total FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Actual Actual FY 02/03 Revised Budget FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Projected Budget Change Change $ 11,993,503 $ 15,590,364 $ 65,969,412 $ 47,805,300 $ 48,819,800 $ (17,149,612) -26.0% 5,137,472 4,417,824 4,837,500 4,171,973 4,707,600 (129,900) -2.7% 10,532,091 9,732,105 7,957,900 8,957,900 7,133,200 (824,700) -10.4% 34,338,176 36,616,386 34,746,000 35,376,000 36,999,600 2,253,600 6.5% 1,732,714 2,170,429 3,009,000 2,315,900 4,001,700 992,700 33.0% 3,197,679 4,315,040 3,728,000 4,129,500 4,547,900 819,900 22.0% 2,065,094 2,559,408 2,094,700 1,812,700 2,124,800 30,100 1.4% 2,645,156 5,817,079 3,490,000 1,693,000 2,176,600 (1,313,400) -37.6% 3,685,976 4,365,169 6,271,500 4,205,200 2,883,100 (3,388,400) -54.0% 132,098 73,372 104,600 85,600 410,800 306,200 292.7% 159,278 145,158 198,700 127,100 215,000 16,300 8.2% 2,689,303 3,359,160 4,458,152 4,067,400 3,268,200 (1,189,952) -26.7% 35,442,358 35,545,895 35,551,000 35.551 ,000 35,478,100 (72,900) -0.2% 5 113,750,898 $ 124,707,389 $ 172,416,464 5 150,298,573 $ 152,768,400 . {19,650,0641 -11A% Note: Management Services include Executive Management, Administration and Finance. Commission Personnel The Commission's salary and fringe benefits total $2,791,000. This represents a increase of 10.4% or $262,800 over FY 02/03 budget estimate of $2,528,200. The Commission has set aside a pool of 4% for salary increases and additional costs are being incurred due to addition of a Program Manager. Other increases include PERS costs and other benefit increases. Table 3 - Staff Summary by Department FY 2001 - 2004 Executive Management Administration Finance Capital Development & Delivery Plans & Programs Transit Property Management Intergovernmental Programs & Legislative Affairs Specialized Transit Rail Program Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance Total FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FTE FTE FTE FTE 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.2 5.5 5.8 6.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.1 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.7 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 12 Department Program Initiatives Executive Management • Project development and delivery will continue as the key Measure A priority. • Regional cooperation and collaboration will continue to be given significant effort consistent with the philosophy and mission of this Commission. • Enhanced external communications with media and civic groups. • Extend considerable efforts educating the public on the growing transportation needs of the County and the Commission's efforts to meet these needs. • Maintain and improve on the administrative efficiency and fiscally sound practices. • Obtain Tier 1 environmental clearance of the two intra-county Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridors. Table 4 - Executive Management Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Total FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Actual Actual FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change $ 235,365 $ 279,720 $ 317,000 323,130 344,962 347,500 74,746 60,270 51,900 $ 633,240 $ 684,952 $ 716,400 $ 231,600 $ 176,300 $ (140,700) -44.4% 308,100 122,500 (225,000) -64.7% 65,400 60,500 8,600 16.6% $ 605,100 $ 359,300 $357,100) -49.8% Administration • Develop a business continuity plan which includes a disaster recovery plan, for the Commission. Continue to update the Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) to improve the Commission's recordkeeping capabilities. • Monitor staff training policies and procedures that link training assessment with employee evaluations. • Provide high quality support to the Commission and to internal and external customers. • Develop and implement a broad information program regarding the Commission's responsibilities and accomplishments through a variety of media formats. Table 5 - Administration Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Capital Outlay Total FY 00/01 Actual FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 Actual Revised Budget Projected $ 352,791 $ 428,569 121,684 223,931 688,333 881,219 63,503 237,919 $ 1,226,311 $ 1,771,637 $ 453,000 $ 392,600 763,851 322,300 1,045,400 1,234,300 332,000 358,200 $ 2,594,251 $ 2,307,400 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change $ 461,100 $ 8,100 1.8% 209,500 (554,351) -72.6% 1,083.400 38,000 3.6% 68,000 (264,000) -79.5% $ 1,822,000 $ (772,251) -29.8% Finance • Maximize revenue potential from invested funds while maintaining safety of the funds. • Continue efforts to improve budgeting for the Commission staff. 13 • Develop web applications to improve staff accessibility to financial records and financial statements. • Continue providing accounting services to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). • Work with WRCOG to set up accounting system for the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. Table 6 - Finance Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Total FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02103 Actual Actual Revised Budget $ 369,338 $ 364,269 424,595 488,553 35,819 49,748 $ 829,751 $ 902,570 FY 02/03 Projected FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change $ 444,000 $ 430,200 $ 452,400 $ 8,400 643,500 676,000 527,500 (116,000) 60,000 48,700 107,000 47,000 $ 1,147,500 $ 1,154,900 $ 1,086,900 $ (60,600) 1.9% -18.0% 78.3% -5.3% Intergovernmental Programs and Legislative Affairs • Continue involvement with the 91 Express Lanes Advisory Committee. • Maintain role as a statewide leader in affecting transportation legislation and policy changes that benefit mobility in Riverside County. • Play a leadership role with Western Riverside Council of Governments in the implementation of the TUMF program with emphasis on the financial and fiduciary responsibilities. • Work closely with member agencies on the development of a new transportation management center (TMC). • Continue to work on airport issues with emphasis on.the March Air Reserve Base plans to develop air freight services. • Manage the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund. • Play a key role in the administration of the Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition (RTAC). Table 7 - Intergovernmental Programs and Legislative Affairs Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Total FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Actual Actual $ 81,331 44,628 6,138 $ 132,098 $ 61,539 9,549 2,284 $ 73,372 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 Revised Budget Projected $ 64,000 32,000 8,600 $ 104.600 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change $ 39,100 $ 115,800 $ 51,800 43,800 289,000 257,000 2,700 6,000 (2,600) $ 85,600 $ 410,800 $ 308,200 80.9% 803.1% -30.2% 292.7% Planning and Programming • Work with local, regional, state and federal agencies to ensure projects proposed for federal funding and/or those that are regionally significant are included in the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). • Work with the County of Riverside on the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). This effort includes the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plar (MSHCP), the CETAP effort and the update of the Riverside County Genera, Plan. • Maintain federal certification for the Congestion Management Program. 14 • Work with CVAG, WRCOG and Ca!trans to coordinate comments and assist in the development of the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. • Continue to strategically program projects and obligate funds in an expeditious manner for the maximum use of all available funding. Table 8 - Planning & Programming Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total FY 00/01 Actual $ 312,574 90,903 7,359 2,234,321 $ 2,645,156 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Actual Revised Budget $ 311,442 131,797 9,848 5,363,992 $ 5,817,079 $ 364,000 107,000 23,000 2,996,000 $ 3.490,000 FY 02/03 Projected $ 287,300 124,300 7,900 1,273,500 $ 1,693,000 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change $ 442,200 $ 78,200 21.5% 132,000 25,000 23.4% 19,600 (3,400) -14.8% 1,582,800 (1,413,200) -47.2% $ 2,176,600 $(1,313,400) -37.6% Rail Program • Continue capital improvements at the stations and on the San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor. • Seek capital and operating funds for Intercity passenger rail. • Oversee station operation and maintenance. • Continue to play a proactive role in the development of a statewide, high-speed passenger rail system. Table 9 - Rail Program Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Rail Station Operations Operating Transfer Total FY 00/01 Actual FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change $ 226,648 $ 217,087 $ 227,000 $ 190,600 $ 216,400 $ (10,600) -4.7% 148,095 195,507 215,000 213,600 277,000 62,000 28.8% 15,565 62,198 75,000 155,400 37,300 (37,700) -50.3% 4,747,165 3,942,597 4,320,500 3,612,373 4,176,900 (143,600) -3.3% - 435 414,000 1,562,000 36,500 (377,500) -91.2% $ 5,137,472 $ 4,417,824 $ 5,251,500 $ 5,733,973 $ 4,744,100 $ (507,400) -9.7% Property Management • Maintain the order, safety and security of Commission owned properties. • Generate a revenue stream to support the costs of maintaining Commission owned real property. Table 10 - Property Management Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Actual Actual FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change $ 43,401 $ 48,365 $ 55,000 37,705 34,226 58,000 4,842 1,653 10,300 73,330 60,913 75,400 $ 159,278 $ 145,158 $ 198,700 $ 46,200 $ 58,600 $ 3,600 6.5% 44,400 115,000 57,000 98.3% 1,400 9,300 (1,000) -9.7% 35,100 32,100 (43,300) -57.4% $ 127,100 $ 215,000 $ 16,300 8.2% 15 Specialized Transit • Support innovative programs which provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs. • Monitor the funding in the amount of $2.5 million to local agencies throughout western Riverside County support of ongoing specialized transit programs. • Provide matching funds to receive Section 5310 federal grants to assure availability of funds. Table 11 - Specialized Transit Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total Transit • FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Actual Actual $ 37,975 $ 28,114 1,220 397 5,101 1,050 3,153,384 4,285,480 $3,197,679 $4,315,040 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change $ 42,000 $ 30,600 $ 33,900 $ (8,100) 15,500 14,000 3,500 (12,000) 12,500 1,300 13,500 1,000 3,658,000 4,083,600 4,497,000 839,000 $ 3,728,000 $4,129,500 $4,547,900 $ 819,900 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 Grant Reports. Table 12 - Transit Program FY 00/01 Costs Actual -19.3% -77.4% 8.0% 22.9% 22.0% FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 83,419 $ 100,514 $ 98,000 $ 74,900 $ 104,800 $ 6,800 6.9% Professional 67,101 3,818 6,000 100 101,000 95,000 1583.3% Support 5,671 5,841 12,500 6,600 11,300 (1,200) -9.6% Projects/Operations 3,529,784 4,254,996 6,155,000 4,123,600 2,666,000 (3,489,000) -56.7% Total $ 3,685,976 $ 4,365,1 69 $ 6,271,500 $ 4,205,200 $ 2,883,100 $ (3,388,400) -54.0% Commuter Assistance • Continue provision of rideshare incentives and support services in partnership with commuters, employers and government. • Maintain commuter database for more than 70,000 commuters in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. • Offer ridematching services and a toll -free information number, 1-866- RIDESHARE for employers and commuters in the Inland Empire. • Implement new ridematching website to provide better services to commuters interested in forming or joining car and vanpools. • Implement a survey tool to provide continuing feedback of effectiveness of the program in establishing and sustaining rideshare behavior. 16 Table 13 - Commuter Assistance Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Capital Outlay Total FY 00/01 Actual FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget $ 177,756 $ 197,293 16,322 253,727 226,565 451,648 1,312,071 1,226,278 41,483 $1,732,714 $2,170,429 $ 150,000 $ 94,800 551,000 212,000 439,000 258,100 1,789,000 1,551,000 80,000 200,000 $ 3,009,000 $2,315,900 $ 260,300 771,500 556,400 2,068,500 345,000 $4,001,700 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Change Change $ 110,300 220,500 117,400 279,500 265,000 992,700 73.5% 40.0% 26.7% 15.6% 331.3% 33.0% Motorist Assistance • Complete a five-year strategic and financial plan for the Call Box program. • Maintain the integrity of the Call Box and service levels. • Evaluate and determine if Freeway Service Patrol services are in need of changes during congestion and construction periods on various freeway segments in the county. • Explore cost effective ways to provide access to call boxes for persons with disabilities. Table 14 - Motorist Assistance Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected $ 94,808 50,918 23,351 1,896,017 $2,065,094 $ 100,002 38,842 20,784 2,399,780 $ 2,559,408 FY 03/04 Budget $ 123,000 $ 99,500 $ 88,400 60,000 50,000 58,100 34,300 29,000 32,400 1,877,400 1,634,200 1,945,900 $ 2,094.700 $1,812,700 $ 2,124,800 Dollar Percent Change Change $ (34,600) -28.1% (1,900) -3.2% (1,900) -5.5% 68,500 3.6% $ 30,100 1.4% Capital Projects Development and Delivery • Realign and widen Route 74 from Interstate 15 in the City of Lake Elsinore to 7Th Street in the City of Perris. • Add High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on Route 60 from east junction of Route 60/Interstate 215 to Redlands Boulevard. • Construct auxiliary lanes on Route 91 between Magnolia Avenue and Mary Street. • Construct operational improvements along Highway 111 in the Coachella valley. • Complete preliminary surveying and engineering for the Interstate 215 projects. • Complete the Project Report and Environmental document for the Route 79 realignment project. • Complete the Preliminary Engineering of HOV lanes on Route 91 between Mary Street and the Route 60/Route 91/Interstate 215 interchange. • Complete the Video Surveillance system at the Pedley Rail Station. • Complete the emergency platform extension at the Pedley Rail Station. • Complete the new North Main Corona Station • Expand parking lots at the La Sierra and Riverside Downtown stations. 17 Table 15 - Capital Projects Development & Delivery Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Capital Outlay Operating Transfer -Debt Total 33,891,187 $90,754,957 FY 00/01 Actual FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Actual Revised Budget FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Projected Budget Dollar Percent Change Changt. $ 179,980 $ 139,794 $ 191,200 $ 140,300 $ 380,800 $ 189,600 99.2% 290,880 555,938 1,095,600 370,300 475,200 (620,400) -56.6% 10,574 21,302 34,500 34,100 62,400 27,900 80.9% 56,382,335 61,221,820 107,352,012 91,594,500 91,994,200 (15,357,812) -14.3% - - - 40,000 40,000 100.0% 34,906,898 35,550,000 35,549,200 35,478,100 (71,900) -0.2% $ 96,845,752 $ 144,223,312 $127,888,400 $128,430,700 L(15,792,62) -11.0% 18 Table 16 - Fund Balances by Program and Geographic Area June 30, 2004 Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Non Measure A Other Total Reserved: Commuter Assistance $ 7,752,321 $ - $ - $ $ - $ 7,752,321 Debt Service - - 51,954,874 51,954,874 Highway 45,295,997 43,181 - - - 45,339,178 Local Streets & Roads 591,362 99,849 - - 691,211 Loans Receivable 423,785 - 10,536,107 10,959,892 Property Management 2,083,897 2,083,897 Rail Programs 11,090,033 - 2,352,291 13,442,324 Regional Arterial 163,985 - 163,985 Specialized Transit 3,342,619 369,037 - - - 3,711,656 TDA - - - - 926,686 926,686 Transit 3,247,929 - 3,247,929 Designated: Motorist Assistance - 3,692,000 - 3,692,000 Unreserved: - 885.886 885,886 Total Fund Balance $ 67,904,755 $ 1,167,565 $ 99,849 $ 6,939.929 $ 68,739,741 $144,851,843 Chart 4 — Fund Balances by Fund Type and Program 19 Riverside County Transportation Commission $144,851,843 Genets Fund $6,21,761 — Planning l Pngramroln9 Servloee $926,666 — Property ManapementSE0e3,R97 — Management Services $665,666 — Rau Operation. $7.352,291 Special Revenue $76.112096 W 1 -t•+. Cwany3 67,903,766 Capital Project Fund SO UmmutcAarietanx$7,752,321 Hl9hwa7545,719,762 Rall$11,090,033 —• Sperrelhad Trend. 4' 16.1639 - MR, Vallee $1.1675 S Highway $1,181 Legg Street. A Reads 5391,262 Regional Arterial $163,965 5pedglnd Transit $369,037 -- Pele Verde Valley 1.513 $99,849 — Slate Transit Avbtaege 13,247,929 — Motorist Asalepnge $3,693.000 Debt Seek= Fund $ 62,490,961 — Debt $51,956,1174 — 2u... Rondo Reredrahle 10 IVY 20 Table 17 - Budget Comparative by Summarized Line Item FY 2001 - 2004 SOURCES OF REVENUE FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Change Change Operating Revenues Measure A Sales Tax $ 88,973,617 $ 95,797,286 $ 94,605,000 $ 96,970,000 $ 100,849,000 $ 6,244,000 6.6% LTF Sales Tax - Planning/Admin 1,631,482 2,070,656 1,998,400 2,104,100 2,090,700 92,300 4.6% LTF Sales Tax - Transit Allocation 5,023,083 4,806,000 4,445,100 4,545,100 4,564,700 119,600 2.7% STA Transit Allocation 2,482,598 4,746,603 4,249,000 2,776,000 2,666,100 (1,582,900) -37.3% Vehicle Registration DMV Fees 1,297,474 1,288,656 1,150,000 1,280,000 1,275,000 125,000 10.9% Reimbursement 5,286,109 13,575,104 32,012,000 23,927,300 25,732,900 (6,279,100) -19.6% Other Revenue 4,086,123 3,117,518 375,900 3,929,400 3,653,800 3,277,900 872.0% Investment Income 9,842,472 5,947,481 3.965,000 _4.233,000 2,653.200 (1.311,800) -33.1% Total Operating Revenues 118,622,958 131,344,303 142,800,400 139,764,900 143,485,400 685,000 0.5% Debt Proceeds 35.934.149 - 0.0% Total Sources of Funds 154,557.107 131,344,303 142,800,400 139,764,900 143,485,400 685,000 0.5% EXPENDITURES Personnel Salary & Benefits 2,195,385 2,276,709 2,528,200 2,057,700 2,791,000 262,800 10 4% Professional & Support Expenditures General Legal Services 434,516 691,145 708,000 576,800 803,700 95,700 13.5% Audit Services 369,936 462,800 482,100 514,200 442,000 (40,100) -8.3% Professional Services - Other 736.756 1,108.142 2,589,851 1237.900 1,786,100 (803,751) -31.0% Total Professional Costs 1.590,461 2,281,680 3,854,951 2,378,900 3,081,800 (773,151) -20.1% Support Costs 1.104.064 1.567.845 1,807.000 1,844,900 1.999,100 192.100 10.6% Total Professional and Support Costs 2,694,525 3,849,526 5,661,951 4,223,800 5,080,900 (581,051) -10.3% Projects and Operations: Projects -General 1,720,986 2,534,380 2,285,200 1,450,800 2,145,900 (139,300) -6.1% Station Operations 1,166,984 1,004,988 1,213,000 1,049,500 1,152,700 (60,300) -5.0% SAFE Operations 943,493 1,434,423 751,800 611,200 636,300 (115,500) -15.4% Towing 947,199 964,605 1,113,000 1,022,000 1,290,400 177,400 15.9% Commuter Assistance 1,278,171 1,186,078 1,635,000 1,486,000 1,968,500 333,500 20.4% Highway Engineering 2,212,722 3,953,287 4,403,515 2,470,000 2,200,900 (2,202,615) -50.0% Rail Engineering 626,184 1,587,828 2,729,798 665,100 1,908,500 (821,298) -30.1% Highway Construction 4,660,916 1,772,527 15,921,000 9,450,400 34,937,300 19,016,300 119.4% Rail Construction 791,386 446,540 17,727,200 17,095,500 2,270,000 (15,457,200) -87.2% Highway Right of Way 1,372,276 4,314,994 14,760,000 8,180,200 2,908,000 (11,852,000) -80.3% Rail Right of Way 30,353 483,344 6,453,000 7,791,700 1,600,000 (4,853,000) -75.2% Special Studies 1,765,150 4,579,889 2,843,000 902.100 677,200 (2,165,800) -76.2% SCRRA Contribution 3,653,511 2,998,523 3.182,900 2,597,973 3,056,300 (126,600) -4.0% Special Transportation/Transit 3,153,384 4,285,480 3,658,000 4,083,600 4,497.000 839,000 22.9% Local Streets & Roads 34,338,176 36,616,386 34,746,000 35,376,000 36,999,600 2,253,600 6.5% LTF Disbursements 632,361 605,485 728,000 594,300 915,600 187,600 25.8% STA Disbursements 3,529,784 4,254,996 6,155,000 4,123,600 2,666,000 (3,489,000) -56.7% Regional Arterial 10,5$2.091 9,732,105 7,957,900 8,957,900 7,133,200 (824.700) -10.4% Total Project and Operating Costs 73,355,126 82,755,857 128,263,313 107,907,873 108,963,400 (19,299,913) -15.0% Debt Service Principal Payments 22,478,844 24,068,939 24,888,000 24,888,000 22,073,100 (2,814,900) -11.3% Interest Payments 12,530,366 11,476,956 10,663,000 10,663,000 13,405,000 2,742,000 25.7% Cost of Issuance 433,148 - - - 0_0% Total Debt Service 35,442,358 35,545,895 35,551,000 35,551,000 35,478,100 (72,900) -0.2% Capital Outlay 63,503 279.402 412,000 558,200 453,000 41,000 10.0% Total Expenditures 113,750,898 124,707,389 172,416,464 150,298,573 152,766,400 (19,650,064) -11.4% Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expendltures 40,806,209 6,636,914 (29,616,064) (10,533,673) (9,281,000) 20,335,064 -68.7% Beginning Fund Balance 112,562,793 158,245,879 164,666,516 164,666,516 154,132,843 (10,533,673) -6.4% Change in accounting principal 4,876.877 (216.277) - - 0.0% Ending Fund Balance $ 158,245,879 $ 164,666.516 $ 135,050,452 $ 154,132,843 $ 144851,843 $ 9.801,391 7.3% 21 Table 18 - Budget Expenditure Summarized by Fund Type June 30, 2004 General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Debt Service Total Personnel Salary and Benefits Professional and Support Expenditures General Legal Services Financial Services Audit Services Professional Services - Other Total Professional Services Support Costs Total Professional and Support Services Project and Operations Expenditures Program Management Projects - General SAFE Operations Towing Commuter Assistance Highway and Rail Engineering Highway and Rail Construction Highway and Rail ROW SCRRA Contributions Special Studies Special Transportation/Transit STA Disbursements Regional Arterial Total Project and Operational Expenditures Other Expenditures Local Streets & Roads LTF Disbursements Capital Outlay Total Other Expenditures Other Financing (Sources) Uses Operating Transfers out Debt Service Total Expenditures Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance $ 1,972,958 $ 818,042 $ 325,107 478,593 47,585 2,415 409,303 22,698 938.158 857-942 1,720,153 1,361,647 1.648.533 731.967 3,368,686 2,093,614 662,600 3,171,800 667,200 - $ 2,791,000 803,700 50,000 432,000 1.796.100 3,081,800 2.380.500 5,462,300 2,036,700 2,036,700 142,800 - 805,400 595,900 - 595,900 1,290,400 1,290,400 1,768,500 - 1,768,500 4,109,400 4,109,400 37,207,300 - 37,207,300 4,508,000 4,508,000 3,171,800 10,000 - 677,200 4,497,000 - - 4,497,000 2,666,000 - 2,666,000 7.133 200 - - 7.133.200 4,501,600 65,965,200 70,466,800 915,600 64.716 36,999,600 588.284 36,999,600 915,600 653.000 980,316 37,587,884 - 38,568,200 36,500 35,726,400 10,900,600 - 46,663,500 - - 35.478,100 35.478.100 10,860,060 142,191,140 10,900,600 35,478,100 199,429,900 149,692 (591,692) (10,400,600) 1,561,600 (9,281,000) 6,503.953 76.298,886 20.936,730 50.393.274 154.132.843 $ 6,553,645 $ 75,707,,194 $ 10,536,'130 $ 51,954,874 $ 144,851,043 Table 19 - State Highway & Rail Programs June 30, 2004 Description Project General Program Management and Contract Administration (Bechtel Corp.) Program Support costs 'AL PROJECT GENERAL n„ .gray Engineering Route 60 HOV 6011-215 to Redlands Boulevard Route 74 1-15 to 71h Street Highway Widening Route 74 Curve Realignment- Winchester to Warren Route 79 Right turn lanes - Gilman Springs Road Route 79 Realignment PSR & Project report Route 91 Soundwall/Auxilliary lanes projects Route 91 HOV Mary Street to 7th Street Route 111 City Projects (La Quinta & Cathedral City) SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY ENGINEERING Rail Engineering San Jacinto Branch Line Preliminary Engineering Material Testing Services Surveying Support Services Perris Multimodal Facility Pedley Station CCTV Design Support Downtown Riverside Station Improvements North Main Corona Station Parking Structure SUBTOTAL RAIL ENGINEERING $ 2,036,700 47.800 2,084,500 100,000 138,000 10,000 5,000 1,000,000 10,000 732,200 205,700 2,200,900 750,000 28,500 20,000 500,000 10,000 50,000 550.000 1,908,500 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL ENGINEERING 4,109,400 Highway Construction Route 60 HOV 60/215 to Redlands Boulevard 17,000,000 Route 60 HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd Construction Management 1,750,000 Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street Widening Project 12,000,000 Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street Widening Construction Management 1,500,000 Route 79 Right Turn Lanes at Gilman Springs Road - Lamb Canyon 100,000 Route 86 County of Riverside Projects 200,000 Route 91 Phase II Landscaping and Plant establishment 1,000 Route 111 El Paseo/Cabnllo 364,100 mute 111 Town Center/EI Paseo 489,100 to 111 San Luis Rey 491,100 ,ute 111 Magnesia Falls to Fairway 1,000,000 Landscape Management - several projects 1,000 Construction Support Services 41,000 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION 34,937,300 Rail Construction Pedley Station Security System installation Pedley Station Emergency Platform North Main Corona Station La Sierra Station Expansion La Sierra Station CCTV West Corona Station CCTV Downtown Riverside Station Improvements SUBTOTAL RAIL CONSTRUCTION 240,000 5,000 500,000 1,400,000 37,500 37,500 50,000 2,270,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL CONSTRUCTION 37,207,300 Highway Right of Way Route 60 HOV 60/215 to Redlands Boulevard Route 60 HOV Right of Way Support Services Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street advance Right of Way acquisitions Route 74 Right of Way Support Services Route 79 Right of Way Support Services Route 91 Right of Way Appraisals and Engineering - Van Buren I/C SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY Rail Right of Way San Jacinto Branch fine Right of Way Support Services Perris Multimodal Facility Right of Way Support Services Riverside Downtown Station Parking Expansion - Southside SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL RIGHT OF WAY --'AND TOTAL HIGHWAY AND RAIL PROGRAMS 20,000 134,000 1,000,000 100,000 1,000,000 654,000 2,908,000 100,000 100,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 4,508,000 $ 47,909,200 FY 2002 -2004 Summary of Estimated Financial Sources and Uses F.nandal Sources: Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax 5010 Funding Federal Funding Wv Rtl1Oursanents .611050 Revenue User Foes DWI Proceeds 0ps aline 70511.5In Interest Earnings Gerrnd Build Special Revenue Fund FY 0172 FY 02N] FY 0304 FY 01102 FY OL03 Accra Pm)eclod Budget 080004 700J4led FY 03104 000.241 Capital Projects Fund Deal Service FLAW Totals FY01/02 FY02/03 FY 03411 FY 01/132 FY02/03 F703,04 FY 01822 FY 02/03 FY03704 Actual P0Nrcldd Bud9M Acker' Prpkclad _ Budget 406.4 Projected Budget 5 2.497.664 S 3.250000 $ 3000,000 0 93290622 $ 43.720 000 9 97.849,000 S - S 8,876,656 6,649200 6.655,400 • 450,411 939,700 166.300 9,072,913 9294,600 7.480200 - 275,731 - 667200 4,386.198 14,854,100 17,692,400 3.158,005 145,098 6,003 078,338 1,469.502 2.385,997 _ 885,466 268154 289.431 1.966,456 3,385,516 3,194,369 215,566 275 700 170,000 1,288,656 1200,000 1,275,000 2,712 - 7210480 16,06300 11,165.460 52641/ 244,177 40512 544517 1010,797 ('17;.360 527,053 2133,155 Tabl Eslnulad Flnanclal Sources 5 19`{14,901 1 11,560,304 $1752 5 119,838087 9 183,?062]3 9 141 ,0610 5 5 S 95,797286 9 96.670.000 9 100,849,000 6,876,656 6,649100 6,655,400 9,523.344 10234,300 7,646,600 4,661.929 14,054.100 - ..59000 4,138433 1614,90! '92000 2,924,759 1853,700 163.600 1,534,222 1,555,700 1,445.000 • - 61,442245 48,065,300 35.470,100 68,714250 64,148600 46,863,500 1,735,806 500,000 5,556,516 1,679,000 1.561,600 6.602,481 4273,410 26.53200 1,795.11170 5 0 5 0:..210.763 5 47.764.500 $ 3711175A 3 202258,553 5 262,314,700 5 190116.990 !xp4021Wr6. Personnel Salary 8 Fringe Benefits S 1,751,820 5 1.629238 S 1,972,058 $ 524,888 $ 428,464 1 810.042 S . S - 3 $ - 5 - 9 5 2276,709 5 2,057.700 S 2.791,000 P,tlessi0na15ervhm 1,]84.1.5 2,004.642 1.720,153 895,325 747,158 1.361,647 - 710 - 2281,680 2,751,600 3,061,600 Support Costs 1,012.66 1,513,170 1,648333 555227 718030 731.907 - - 1,567.045 2229200 2.380.500 General ProlcS 1.688171 627,300 662,600 1,649,949 1,482,600 2,179,500 3,536,120 2.108800 2,1342,100 SAFE Operations . 1,434,423 237200 595600 _ _ 1,43.4,423 237200 595.900 Too4n9 - • 964,605 1,072,000 1290.400 _ 964.605 1,022.000 1,.^98.400 ConnM. Assistance - 1.166.076 1,486.000 1,768300 - - 1,166,076 10080061 1.760,500 Erglrremug - • - 5,541,115 3,135,100 4,109,400 - 2319,065 3,135,100 7 07,300 Conamrcgon - 7200 2218,087 26 545,900 37207200 2218,067 26$5],100 37207,300 Rlghl of Wry 4,798338 15,971,900 4300.000 - - _ 4,798338 15,971,000 4,506,000 SCRRAConhibueon 2,998,523 2,597,973 3,171600 - 2.908325 2.587.67] 3,171000 Spd4JShdies 4,078123 672000 887200 503,766 230,100 10,000 Special Tansportaep/Transil - • - 4.873,780 4,063,600 4,497,000 - - - - 4,878769 083,100 677200 Sale Trans}, Assistance - - 4254.798 4. 2.696,000 � 4254,806 4.127,600 2,666,000 _ _ _ _ 4251.888 23.600 4.123.600 2.666.000 _owl50680 6 Roads - 36,028,065 35278000 36999,600 36.732.15 35.877,800 37.13300 :W AA - 9,732,106 0.057,000 7.133200 _ - - - 8,732,1005 13,057,800 7.133200 _TF Disbursements 605 465 590300 915.600 _ - 805,485 590300 915,800 -+Peal007831 223644 336,708 64,716 55,758 221492 58626 - - _ 270,402 556200 653,000 34615ervice _ _ . 35,545,895 35,551000 35,476,100 35,545.695 35,551,000 35,470,100 isel of Issuance _ - _ 3pereUng Transfix 0ul 2-600 1.,62,000 38500 3`..117,2'18 35,70]600 35,7-56400 53,51i4.pR2 6.786.000 19908,600 - 66,714302 64,1492420 1&3635346 fo05Estlnraled Financial Uses 5 13,745.30 S. 11544523 5 10.860060 $ 110532202 5 140554.644 $ m7 1116,140 9 3339406 5 :6736000 5 10900,500 $ 35340.6M 5 35531,000 5 3!.476,100 9 193418,500 3 214,240173 $ 19&,429.900 Lreress (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 1epinning Fund Balance 'clog Fund Belenc0 840,718 73,635 149.602 9206064 2231392 (591,692) (31,008,126) (25,002,200) (10900,600) 27,452,688 12213,300 1.561,600 6,640,164 (10 533,673) • (9261,000) $009,400 9,460;116 6.502,053 6,760,910 14067,054 76239,068 76.0'7,167 45,538930 20938731 10.727256 30.179,970 50,393274 (58074„33 154,665,610 154.122,843 5 8100,116 S 859396] 5 6.833 843 9 71,067,161 9 10399,696 1 75,707,194 $ 45,35,831 5 20,038,731 S 10338.131 5 38170074 5 50,383274 $ 51,954,574 6 150.6473,516 5 154,132.843 S 141,659.$43 24 COMMISSION POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following material outlines those adopted policy goals and objectives as well as financial policies that have served as the framework for the work plan presented in the FY 03/04 Budget. Mobility The Riverside County Transportation Commission, in cooperation with local, state and federal agencies, will strive to create a transportation system that promotes efficient mobility both within the county and regionally. Following November's overwhelming passage of Measure A, RCTC faces a year of transition with significant opportunities and challenges. • Prepare and adopt a transition plan to coordinate the two voter -approved Measure A sales tax measures. • Complete Tier 1 Environmental analysis for the two internal CETAP corridors and obtain federal adoption of Records of Decision for both the Winchester to Temecula and Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore CETAP corridors. • Support the CETAP process to examine and analyze route alternatives for the two intercounty corridors linking Riverside County to Orange and San Bernardino Counties. • Actively participate in the Orange/Riverside Bi-County 91 Express Lanes Committee to facilitate near and long-term improvements to Route 91; enhance intercounty public transit options and foster the development of a new corridor between the two counties. • Foster the effective and early implementation of the TUMF program to jump-start funding of needed transportation projects. • Assure the ongoing effectiveness of the short-range transit plan process and work with the county's eight transit operators to assure efficiency and effectiveness. • Coordinate regional transit connections among commuter rail, buses, and paratransit services to ensure convenient service for passengers. Goods Movement RCTC will work with federal, state and local governments to facilitate the movement of goods and services, within and through the county, recognizing the vital role mobility plays in the economic health of the county, the state, and the nation. 25 • Work with county transportation commissions, local jurisdictions, and SCAG toward the implementation of a coordinated regional approach to increase rail and highway capacity for goods movement. • Seek funding to implement the Commission's approved, high -priority railroad grade separation priority list to mitigate the impact of increased goods movement demands on the transportation system with special emphasis on obtaining. recognition as part of the reauthorization of the federal transportation act. Promote the use of rail corridors (including the Riverside -Perris -Hemet -San Jacinto Line within funding constraints) as an alternative to trucks for the movement of freight within the County and the region. • Support the efficient use of March Air Reserve Base to address regional air freight demand and resulting ground access infrastructure needs • Advocate inclusion of goods movement policies and projects for Southern California in the reauthorization of the federal transportation act. Congestion Relief and Safety Improvements Selection of projects and programming of funds by RCTC will be done with a view toward promoting traffic flow, improved safety, and reducing congested traffic corridors. • Work with local jurisdictions and Caltrans to develop mitigation measures and strategies to address congested corridors and areas impacted by construction. • Provide innovative commuter rideshare programs to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and coordinate with other regional rideshare service providers to address inter -county commute trips. • Continue to work with state and federal agencies to program and construct projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program, the Measure A Program and other high priority projects. • Work with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol to continue providing a motorist aid system which includes a call box program and freeway service patrol program including temporary services in freeway construction zones. Air Quality RCTC's transportation planning will be designed to achieve clean air standards while fostering economic growth and improving quality of life. • Work with the metropolitan planning organization, sub -regional agencies, and local jurisdictions to develop and implement a regional transportation plan that meets conformity guidelines. 26 • Work with the SCAQMD to coordinate our project implementation with its regional air quality goals. • Support outreach and educational programs that promote voluntary ridesharing. • Facilitate private/public use of clean fuels technology. • Encourage the purchase of clean fuel buses by transit operators and the conversion to clean fuels for other transit vehicles. • Promote the reduction of mobile source emissions through proactive participation in various air quality forums. Economic Development Transportation decisions will consider the economic benefits derived from any improvement, and where feasible and practical, will pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development. • Support local agencies in the design and construction of interchanges that are in proximity to regional economic centers and developments. • Foster the development of transportation technology research, education and training efforts of public institutions within Riverside County • Support local projects, consistent with countywide transportation goals, which enhance business development, local employment and area tourism. Intermodalism and Accessibility Serve county residents, where economically feasible, by developing transportation alternatives that consider the needs of a wide range of citizens. • Work with transit providers and local social service agencies to provide specialized transit service to meet a broad spectrum of socio-economic transit needs. • Implement the Commission's commuter rail short-range transit plan and the SCRRA long-range strategic plan for expansion of the commuter rail system benefiting Riverside County constituents. • Participate in the study of high-speed rail options and support efforts for eventual implementation of a statewide high-speed rail system with emphasis on the pilot project being in Southern California and including the integration of existing rail passenger services. 27 Technological Innovation Advocate the development and use of advanced technologies for transportation applications that are affordable and practical. • Encourage the development of a regional smart -card to increase the level of convenience for transit users. • Continue development, in partnership with Caltrans and San Bernardino Associated Governments, of the Inland Empire Transportation Management Center and seek funding for its construction. Public and Agency Communications Provide timely, informative and accurate information to encourage informed public and agency participation in the Commission's decision -making processes. • Promote a close working relationship with news and civic entities to increase interest in, and understanding of, transportation and related issues. • Enhance the provision of public information through various forms of communications (e.g., Internet, cable TV, speakers' bureau, print media, etc). 28 FINANCIAL POLICIES Operating Budget Policies • The Commission will budget no more than one percent of Measure A sales tax revenue for administrative salaries and benefits. • Administration costs will be budgeted at whatever is reasonable and necessary, but not to exceed four percent of Measure A sales tax revenues (inclusive of the one- percent salary limitation). • Amounts will be budgeted by fiscal year for multi -year projects based on best estimates, with the understanding that to the extent actuals vary from those estimates, and the project is ongoing, adjustments will be made on an ongoing basis. • The fiscal capital budget should be consistent with the strategic plan with deviations appropriately noted, explained, and justified. Revenue Policies • Sales tax revenue projections will be revised bi-annually to ensure use of current and relevant data. Staff may adjust annual amounts to reflect the most current economic trends. • Federal and state matching funds will be used where possible to supplement the use of local funding sources. Debt Management Policies • The Commission will maintain 2x -debt ratio coverage on all senior debt. • Debt issuance will be for major capital projects including engineering, construction, and right of way. Operating requirements must be from current ongoing revenues. • Costs of issuance including the standard underwriter's discount will not exceed 2%. • While it is the intent of the Commission to establish a cash debt reserve for long term bond issuance, obtaining surety bonds can be obtained when beneficial to the Commission. Auditing, Accounting, and Financial Reporting Policies • The Commission will issue a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report compliant 29 with GASB 34. • An audit is to be conducted annually on Commission accounting books and records. As long as the Commission has outstanding bonds, an independent accounting firm must conduct the audit. Capital Planning and Programming Policies • Established priorities will be reviewed annually via a series of workshops and/or policy maker retreat. Reserve Policies • The Commission will maintain a cash reserve at least equal to five percent of annual revenues (exclusive of reimbursements/matching funds). Cash Management/Investment Policies • Where possible, the Commission will encourage receipt of funds by wire transfer to its accounts. • Balances in the bank operating account will be maintained at the amount necessary to meet monthly expenditures. • Idle funds will be invested per the Commission's established investment policy emphasizing in order of priority: 1) safety, 2) liquidity, and 3) yield. • Cash disbursements to local jurisdictions and vendors/consultants will be completed in an expeditious and timely manner. Human Resources Management • Commission staffing levels will be consistent with the intent of its enabling legislation, which envisioned a small, but effective staff. • Consultants will be used to augment staff efforts as much as possible to support programs or work loads, which do not appear to be of a permanent nature. 30 BUDGET PROCESS SUMMARY The budget is the primary performance tool used to measure and control accountability of public agencies for taxpayer dollars. The budget communicates to all stakeholders (i.e., elected officials, regional agencies and citizens) how the investment they made will be put to use by providing detailed information on the specifics of resource allocation and expenditures. Progress is monitored on a monthly basis and revisions and updates are made as deemed necessary to reflect changing dynamics and accommodating unplanned requests. This results in a budget document that is useful and meaningful as a benchmark against which to evaluate government accomplishments and/or challenges, and to assess compliance with fiscal accountability. Chart 5 — Budget Process ID Task Name Duration 2002 2003 J J Al S[ 0 1 N I D J FMAMJ J A 1 Short Term Strategic Direct Phase 105 days -'":- "' -. .. 2 Resource Identification & Allocation Phase 80 days 3 Needs Assessment Phase 90 days 4 Development & Review Phase 110 days mew"••�` ,q"1•1' Adoption & Implementation Phase 40 days 7i 5 6 Budget Roles & Responsibilities 225 days SHORT TERM STRATEGIC DIRECTION PHASE The first phase of the budget process is to determine the direction of the Commission in the short term and to integrate this with the Commission's Tong -term goals and objectives. Annually a seminar is held for the policy makers to evaluate and determine where the Commission plans to be and what it desires to accomplish over the next ten years. Annual reviews allow for timely responsiveness to any significant political, legislative, or economic developments that may occur locally, statewide, or nationally. Staff then adjusts its course based on the long-term strategic direction of the policy makers. Staff convenes in early January to both assess actual results, compared to the current year budget, and to map changes in strategy for the ensuing fiscal year by reviewing and, if necessary, redefining departmental mission statements and setting goals. Those goals, upon review by the Board, become the Commission's short-term strategic direction. Chart 6 - Functional Organization Chart FY 03/04 ,INSERT CHART HERE 31 r :[vivo CommRrte Policy ComnOtta pale & pmgams Comnittre p.-f;r5 8 Iaplrxnarnn Admhistrer eScmim CIat oa ge Board 6 Dowd Relatbra Human Resouroes Communitl, Allalm Ogim 6 Records Mmnegemurt Disadvantaged Bu sbim Errtesyrisa Procurement Stag Oeyebpment 6 Gmmlm4anons Budget 6 Implementation Committee Support Ab Quality Public Inhumation b OrrEeacR Medi. Relations Legbhrtlre Adsocary Legfsl.Wa Analysis Advisory Commit oa Tetlnbl Advisory Committee Cahns odrl y Comment Legal Counsel Highway 6 Ra11 Capital pogroms Commis., Asxisbnce program Rail aperatiorn 6 Support pmpcty Management Motorist Anbbrge Financial Maaagvment Transit Funding & Adminbtretlon Transportation Planning & Programming Shea Traraportadon Improvenenb prpgram — Regional Traraportatbn Plan Haw Corridor Manning Congetbn lianagerners Mare & programs, Technical 6 Clthaa Advisory Committee's Support 32 RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND ALLOCATION PHASE Simultaneous with the short-term strategic direction phase, staff focuses on what funding sources are available, and what monies are estimated as carryover from the current year. In actuality, resource identification occurs throughout the year, but is 'finalized' in the upcoming fiscal year budget. Amounts to be borrowed are determined as part of the long term strategic planning process, but are adjusted in the annual budget to reflect more current information. NEEDS ASSESSMENT PHASE Staff and consultants evaluate what projects and studies need to be accomplished. Project priority and sequencing set in the long-term strategic plan are the top candidates for budget submission. However, priorities may have changed due to economic necessities or political realities, resulting in projects being rescheduled by acceleration or postponement. New projects may be added or existing priorities deleted based on Commission direction. DEVELOPMENT/REVIEW PHASE Using all the data and information gathered from the previously mentioned stages, department heads submit their desired budgets to the Finance department. The information, along with staff and overhead allocations, is compiled into a preliminary or draft budget. After review by the Executive Director and inclusion of the desired changes, the draft budget s presented to the Board of Commissioners for input into the mission and goal statements and review of initial resource allocation. ADOPTION/IMPLEMENTATION PHASE The Proposed Budget is submitted to the Commission at its May meeting. A hearing is scheduled to allow for public comment on the proposed budget. The Commission may choose, after public hearing, to adopt the budget or to request additional information and/or changes to the budget. The budget must be adopted no later than June 15th of each year. If the need arises during the year, staff may transfer part or all of any budgeted balance within financial responsibility units by function. Control of the budget is maintained by monthly status reports to department heads. Corrective action must be documented and submitted to Finance for any significant budget variations. Commission approval is sought for any expenditure that will exceed those amounts allocated to each financial responsibility unit (e.g., Measure A) by broad classification (i.e., administration, programs, capital outlay, and other financing uses). BUDGET, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Involvement in the budget permeates all staffing levels at the Commission from clerical support staff to policy makers. Each program/project manager develops a detailed line item capital budget. Those budgets by program are submitted to the department head for review Ind approval. The department heads submit their budgets to the financial officer by March 33 1st. Finance compiles the department budgets, and completes the operating budget (administrative) with input from the Clerk of the Board. Both the capital and operating budgets are combined into the draft budget for the entire Commission. The Executive Director reviews the entire budget for overall consistency with both the short and long term strategic direction of the Commission, the appropriateness of funding sources for the identified projects and studies, and that the operating budget expenditures are reasonable and complementary to the capital budget. Chart 7 — Staff Organization Chart FY 03/04 INSERT CHART HERE 34 Board of Commissioners Executive Committee Policy Committees Plans & Programs Committee Budget & Implmentatfon Commiee Director or Public Information Executive Assistant Advisory Committees Technical Advisory Committee Gtizens Advisory Committee Legal Counsel Executive Director Director of Administrative Services Senior Administrative Assistant Administrative Support Specialist Office Assistant Records (Bechtel) Chief Financial Officer Program Manager (.5) Accounting Supervisor Accounting Technician (2) Senior Accounting Assistant Director of Regional Programs & Public Affairs Program Manager (1.5) Staff Analyst Measure A" Capital Program (Bechtel) Department Manager Property Agent Staff Analyst Director of Transportation Planning & Policy Development Program Manager (2) Staff Analyst Administrative Support Specialist 35 Table 21 -Funding Sources by DepartmantiProgram June 30, 2004 Depamnanl anti Program Sales To 57aio Federal Operating Measure A LTF STA STEP Other 5TP CMAO FTA Other DMV Fees Local CillealAgendes Private/Other Revenues Management Services S 3,000,000 $ 600,000 S - 5 - $ - 5 • $ - 5 - 5 5 - S 120,000 0 28,000 $ 3.748,000 Properly Management - - 185,000 185,000 MEASURE A AND OTHER CAPITAL PROGRAMS Capital PicSecb Development and Delivery Highways 31,145,000 - - 3,565,700 16,931,400 - • 3,599,900 ,000 Rail 11,674,000 - 119,900 - 281,400 479,600 - - 658,300 349,800 ,.,41,000 Regional Arterial 10.416,000 - - - - - - 1,430.000 309,200 12.155,200 Local Stools and Rauds 36,472,000 _ _ _ - _ 16,100 38,488.100 NON CAPITAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES Planning and Programming Intergovemmen5I Programs Le9tynlire Maim - - State lnou l ivEumtam. - - 2,666,100 Planning and Programming • 1.490,700 166.300 667.200 5.000 2,671,100 15,000 2,339,200 Inlermodal Programs Rau Operations • 4,564,700 - _ _ - _ 5,000 175,000 4,744,700 SpecaKzed Transit • Coachella Valley 2,604,000 5,000 2,609,000 Specialized Transit - Western County 1,769,000 - - -, 15,000 1,784,000 Commuter Programs Commuter Assistance SAFE Freeway Service Patrol Total Funding Sources 1,769,000 - 1.126.500 1,275,000 1,729,600 15,000 40,000 1 000 3,513,600 1,315,000 1.129,500 $ 100.849,000 S 6,655,400 1 2686,100 S 166,300 5 4,614,100 S - 5 17,312,641 6 479600 0 667,200 5 1,275.000 0 3,040.900 0 o 750;000 5 143.485,400 36 'EVENUES Total revenues are budgeted at $143,485,400 consisting of Measure A sales tax amounting to $100,849,000 which is 70.3% of the overall revenue, Federal and State reimbursements totaling $24,210,400 which is 16.7% of the overall revenues and Other revenues amounting to $18,426,000 which is 13% of the overall revenue. Shown in the table below is the specific revenue funding sources and their relative percentage of total revenues. Table 22 — Revenue Sources Federal State Local Other Total Percent Measure A $ - $ - $ 100,849,000 $ $ 100,849,000 70.3% Local Transportation Fund (LTF) - - 6,655,400 6,655,400 4.6% State Transit Assistance (STA) - 2,666,100 - 2,666,100 1.9% State Highway Account (STIP) 166,300 166,300 0.1% State Other - 3,685,600 - 3,685,600 2.6% Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) 17,212,800 - 17,212,800 12.0% Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 479,600 - - 479,600 0.3% Rail/Highway Leases - 170,000 170,000 0.1% Coachella Valley Association of Governments - 1,430,000 - 1,430,000 1.0% Southern California Association of Governments 667,200 - - 667,200 0.5% Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies - - 1,275,000 1,275,000 0.9% Freeway Service Patrol - 1,128,500 - 1,128,500 0.8% Local/Private/Other - 7,099,900 7,099,900 4.9% Total $18,359,600 $ 7,646,500 $ 108,934,400 $ 8,544,900 $ 143,485,400 100.0% Revenue Sources — Definitions and Background Measure A: Measure A was approved by Riverside County voters in 1988. More than 78 percent of the electorate voted to impose a half -cent sales tax over a 20 -year period to pay for transportation improvements. Measure A requires that all sales taxes collected may only be used for transportation purposes including administration and the construction, capital acquisition, maintenance, and operation of streets, roads, highways, including state highways and public transit systems and for related purposes. These purposes include expenditures for planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right of way acquisition. The amount raised by this levy is growing as the county grows. Overall, Measure A is expected to raise $1.5 billion during its lifespan. On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved the renewal of Measure A through 2039. The new Measure A is expected to raise $4.6 billion during its lifespan. Transportation Development Act (TDA): The Transportation Development Act, often referred to as Local Transportation Funds (LTF) was established in state law and is funded through the state sales tax. The intent of the legislation was to provide a dependable revenue stream for public transportation operations. The vast majority of TDA revenue in Riverside County is allocated to transit operators such as the Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine. The Commission also receives a portion for its share of Metrolink operations costs. Much like Measure A revenue, TDA will grow with the growth of the county. 37 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): The STIP is funded through state and feder' gas tax dollars and is California's primary transportation fund. Dollars are allocated to each cour, based on a formula that takes into consideration population and highway centerline miles. Actual funding decisions for 75 percent of STIP dollars are made by local transportation agencies such as RCTC. State Transit Assistance (STA): Additional state funding of transit operations for urban counties. The funding source is similar to TDA. These funds are allocated to RTA, SunLine and Metrolink. Surface Transportation Program (STP): The Commission receives funding from this federal program for various transportation projects. The STP is one funding source from the federal transportation omnibus legislation commonly known as TEA -21. The Act and its resultant funding expire in 2003. Congress is expected to pass yet another act to authorize additional federal transportation funding in the future. The Commission has primarily used this funding source for building highway projects. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ): The CMAQ program is also funded and created via TEA -21 and is targeted for transportation improvements in areas with air quality problems. This program pays for improvements that reduce congestion while improving air quality. The Commission has also used CMAQ dollars to include fuel, and commuter assistance programs, signal interconnects, HOV lanes and transit projects. Given the air quality challenges in the Inland Empire, the Commission will actively support the continuation of CMAQ dollars with the reauthorization of the federal transportation program. Federal Transit Administration (FTA): The federal government provides funding for qualified capital investments in transit facilities and vehicles. FTA funds will be used to complete preliminary design and environmental on the North Main Corona Parking Structure. Rail/Highway Leases: The Commission owns parcels of land and rail right of way in selected areas throughout the county. The ownership provides leasing opportunities for fiber-optic cable, advertising signs and business tenants. The amount of funding received from the leases provides revenue to support the cost of owning and maintaining the Commission's land and facilities. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): As the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for Southern California, SCAG often works closely with agencies such as RCTC in the development of regional transportation and air quality plans and programs. One notable area of partnership has been with the County's CETAP process which has received funding from SCAG due to its regional importance. Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE): This motorist assistance program places freeway call boxes throughout the county's freeway and state highways. Additionally, the Commission allocated a portion of the SAFE revenue to support the Freeway Service Patrol. The call boxes enable motorists to summon help should they encounter mechanical or emergency problems while on the road. This program is established through state law that allows county SAFE's to impose a $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations within the county to pay for call box purchases anti operation. The Commission is working with other SAFE agencies throughout the state to se 38 '"gislation to ensure that counties receive enough funding to ensure comprehensive service. Freeway Service Patrol: Caltrans is the primary sponsor of the Freeway Service Patrol and provides the majority of funding for the program. The Commission administers and implements the program along with the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans. Investment Income: The Commission has established a prudent investment policy for cash on hand that is intended to maximize return while providing absolute safeguards on principle and liquidity. A more detailed explanation of the Commission's investment policy is discussed in another section of this document. Measure A Sales Tax Revenues Revenue Projections - The most recent update of those projections was completed in September 2001 performed by the auditing firm of Ernst & Young, LLP which was retained by the Commission to develop and run a model that predicts changes in taxable sales. The econometric model uses personal income and the unemployment rate for the Riverside -San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Ernst & Young, LLP obtained projections on these two variables from Regional Financial Associates (RFA) a consulting firm specializing in the development of comprehensive regional economic models for all MSA's in the United States. RFA's forecasts uses several factors including demographic, employment, and financial data. 'he following additional- assumptions were also used in the development of the Commission's evenue forecast: • The state does not change mix of items subject to the sales tax from what has been included historically. • The relative sales and property tax rates of Riverside and surrounding counties do not change from historical levels. • Internet sales will have minimal impact on revenue. • Historical income was balanced against Ernst and Young projections to project revenues These revenue estimates will be reviewed again in the next fiscal year. Chart 8 - Measure A Sales Tax Revenues 2003 - 2009 120,000,000 115,000,000 110,000,000 105,000,000 100,000,000 - 95,000,000 90,000,000 - 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 39 Geographic allocation - Riverside County is comprised of three geographic areas: Weste'" Riverside County, the Coachella Valley and the Palo Verde Valley. The percentage of revenut allocated to each of these areas based on return to source is approximately 72.3% for Western County, 26.6% for the Coachella Valley, and 1.1% for the Palo Verde Valley. These percentages will experience some variations from year to year based on changes in levels of taxable sales. Chart 9 — Geographic Allocation Palo Verde Valley Coachella 1.1')/0 Valley 26.6% Table 23 - Geographic Allocation 111=0_,_Western County 72.3% Program Administration Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total Administration $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,000,000 Highway 27,239,000 3,906,000 31,145,000 Rail 11,674,000 11,674,000 Regional Arterial 10,416,000 10,416,000 Commuter Assistance 1,769,000 - 1,769,000 Specialized Transit 1,769,000 2,604,000 4,373,000 Local Streets and Roads 28,300,000 9,114,000 1,058,000 38,472,000 Total $ 3,000,000 $ 70,751,000 $ 26,040,000 $ 1,058,000 $ 100,849,000 Program allocation - The Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) of Measure A defines the manner in which the sales tax revenues are to be spent. Table 24 - Program Allocation Percent Western County Highway 38.5% Rail 16.5% Local Streets & Roads 40.0% Commuter Assistance 2.5% Specialized Transit 2.5% Coachella Valley Regional Arterial 40.0% Local Streets & Roads 35.0% Highway 15.0% Specialized Transit 10.0% Palo Verde Valley Local Streets & Roads 100% 40 Other Sales Tax Revenues Revenues received from Transportation Development Act (TDA) totaling $6,655,400 are allocated for regional and local transportation planning, program administration, and transit services, in Western Riverside. TDA revenues consist principally of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) which derives from one quarter of one cent (1/4) of the state sales tax. The Commission administers these funds on behalf of the County of Riverside. The County is projected to receive $49,689,458 in LTF revenues. The majority of LTF revenues, $46,536,059, are reserved for and disbursed to the other transit providers within Riverside County. Program Revenues Measure A sales tax, reimbursements, and TDA funding are allocated to the various Commission programs as follows: Highway Funding Total funding for the highway program includes Measure A sales tax revenues and interest from loans to Cities to advance their local streets and roads programs. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding will be used for the Route 60 HOV Lanes design engineering and construction, Route 79 Realignment and Route 91 Van Buren Interchange (Phase II) design and construction. The CMAQ funding program is also funded and created via TEA -21. STIP/TRCP will provide funding for the Route 91 HOV Lanes between Mary Street and 7th Street. STIP funding is allocated by county based on a formula of population and highway centerline miles. Measure A Sales Tax will be used for Route 91 Soundwall Plant Establishment and Auxiliary Lanes construction and Route 111 improvements. Table 25 — Highway Program Revenues FY 02/03 FY03/04 Revised Budget Budget Variance Pecentage Measure A $ 29,079,000 $ 31,145,000 $ 2,066,000 7.1% CMAQ 1,000,000 16,931,400 15,931,400 1593.1% State - Other 4,000,000 3,565,700 (434,300) -10.9% Local/Private 505.300 410,000 (95,300) -18.9% Total $ 34,584,300 $ 52,052,100 $ 17,467,800 50.5% 41 Rail Program Funding Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 transit capital funding will be used to complete preliminary design and environmental for the North Main Corona Parking Structure. FTA funding is allocated annually by the government and is based on calculated miles of service. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding will be used for the Pedley Station Security Surveillance System and completion of the West Corona/La Sierra Station CCTV. The CMAQ funding program is also funded and created via TEA -21. The emergency platform at Pedley station will be extended with Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding. STP, a category of the federal transportation funding program, is allocated to the state based on ninety percent of gas tax generated. The County is then allocated its share by the state using relative population and highway miles. Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) will provide local match funding for the completion of preliminary design and environmental for the North Main Corona Parking Structure. Measure A Sales Tax will be used for the construction of the La Sierra Station Expansion (Phase 11), the Riverside Station Improvements, complete construction on the new North Main Corona Station and right of way acquisition and construction of additional parking at the !Downtown Riverside Station - Southside. LTF Sales Tax will be used as a local match for the Pedley Station Security Surveillance System, the Pedley Station Platform Extension and the West Corona/La Sierra Station CCTV. Local and private source funds primarily from Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) pass through federal funding will be used for the Perris Multimodal Facility. Rail operations, which include SCRRA and capital contributions, station maintenance, support costs and rail right of way purchases will be funded with an allocation of TDA (i.e., Local Transportation Fund) sales tax revenues. The estimate for TDA for rail assumes the TDA apportionment formula (based on population estimates for the County's three major geographic areas provided by the State Department of Finance), calculates twenty percent (established for planning purposes by Commission policy) of the amount available for Western Riverside County, and then compares that with budgeted expenditures. Fare revenues are anticipated from special train events and are based on expected ticket prices and ridership estimates determined using historical trends. 42 Table 26 — Rail Program Revenues FY 02/03 FY03/04 Revised Budget Budget Variance Pecentage Measure A $ 10,899,000 $ 11,674,000 $ 775,000 7.1% LTF 4,445,100 4,564,700 119,600 2.7% STA 1,342,000 - (1,342,000) -100.0% State - Other 6,711,000 119,900 (6,591,100) -98.2% STP 250,000 - (250,000) -100.0% FTA 12,997,000 479,600 (12,517,400) -96.3% CMAQ 472,000 281,400 (190,600) -40.4% Local/Private 247,400 711,300 463,900 187.5% Fare Revenues 155,900 160,000 4,100 2.6% Total $ 37,519,400 $ 17,990,900 $ 09,528,5010) -52.0% Commuter Assistance The Commuter Assistance program will receive funding from Measure A and other agencies to assist in implementing services to commuters and employers in promoting ridesharing. Table 27 — Commuter Assistance Revenues FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Revised Budget Budget Variance Percent Measure A $ 1,651,000 $ 1,769,000 $ 118,000 7.1% State - Other 430,000 - (430,000) -100.0% Local Cities/Agencies/Other 1,208,300 1,744,600 536,300 44.4% Total $ 3,289,300 $ 3,513,600 $ 224,300 6.8% Specialized Transit Measure A (see Measure A sales tax revenue projections) allocates funding to programs that are designed to improve the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities. The funds are also intended to subsidize transportation costs of the economically disadvantaged. No other revenue sources are anticipated. Table 28 — Specialized Transit Revenues FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Revised Budget Budget Variance Percent Western County Measure A $ 1,651,000 $ 1,769,000 $ 118,000 7.1% Coachella Valley Measure A 2,431,000.00 2,604,000.00 173,000.00 7.1% Total $ 4,082,000 $ 4,373,000 $ 291,000 7.1% 43 Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies The Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) is funded from revenues received by way of a one dollar fee included with the Department of Motor Vehicles registration fees. Since the growth in these fees historically has not been substantial, the budget amount has remained relatively constant. The increase shown assumes a relationship to population growth. Table 29 — SAFE Revenues FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Revised Budget Budget Variance Percent DMV Fees Freeway Service Patrol $ 1,150,000 $ 1,275,000 $ 125,000 10.9% Caltrans will allocate State Highway account funds to cover the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP). The state provides nearly 80% of the funding for the FSP program. The allocation of funding throughout the state is based on population, freeway miles, and level of congestion. The state's contribution is matched with an operating transfer of $248,300, or 20% of total FSP expenditures, from the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). Table 30 — FSP Revenues FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Revised Budget Budget Variance Percent State Budgetary Allocation $ 1,065,000 $ 1,128,500 $ 63,500 6.0% State Transit Assistance The State Transit Assistance (STA) allocation is based on an estimate received from the State Controller's Office. For FY 03/04, the state's estimated allocation to Riverside County is $2,666,100. This estimate reflects a 8.3% decrease which is a direct result of the state economy. This estimate was received prior to finalization of the state's budget, which may result in revisions. Any changes to the revenues will be incorporated during ongoing budget reviews for FY 03/04. Table 31 — STA Revenues FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Revised Budget Budget Variance Percent State Transit Assistance $ 2,907,000 $ 2,666,100 $ (240,900) -8.3% 44 Local Streets and Roads Measure A (see Measure A sales tax projections) Local Streets and Roads program is distributed to the cities and the County to use for local street repairs, maintenance and construction. Table 32 — Local Streets & Roads Revenues FY 02/03 FY03/04 Revised Budget Budget Variance Pecentage Measure A $ 35,919,000 $ 38,472,000 $ 2,553,000 7.1% Regional Arterial The Measure A (see Measure A sales tax revenue projections) Regional Arterial program will be used to reduce debt service on the 1993 sales tax revenue bonds and to continue construction and improvements of the regional arterial system in the Coachella Valley. Table 33 — Regional Arterial Revenues FY 02/03 FY03/04 Revised Budget Budget Variance Pecentage Measure A $ 9,725,000 $ 10,416,000 $ 691,000 7.1% Local Cities/Agencies 1,440,600 1,440,000 (600) 0.0% Total $ 11,165,600 $ 11,856,000 $ 690.400 6.2% Planning and Programming Transportation planning studies are funded with an LTF off the top allocation equal to three percent (3%) of estimated revenues. 2% of the State Transportation Improvement Program (SB45) Planning & Programming Monitoring (PP&M) funds are used to support staff monitoring activities. These PP&M funds will also support consultant costs associated with CETAP. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is providing federal funding for the CETAP study. Table 34 — Planning & Programming Revenues FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Revised Budget Budget Variance Percent TDA $ 1,398,400 $ 1,490,700 $ 92,300 6.6% STIP 1,297,300 166,300 (1,131,000) -87.2% Federal - Other 500,000 667,200 167,200 33.4% Local Cities/Agencies/Other 675,660 15,000 (660,660) -97.8% Total $ 3,871,360 $ 2,339,200 $ 1,532,160 -39.6% 45 Other Revenues A total of $170,000 in revenues is expected from property management for licenses and leases from the San Jacinto and San Bernardino subdivision rail program. In the Coachella Valley, revenues totaling $1,430,000 will be used to cover Coachella Valley's share of debt service for the sales tax revenue bonds 1993 Series A. Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF), collected and maintained by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), are the source for these funds. A total of $352,238 in revenues is budgeted as interest only, earned from loan reimbursement agreements with the Cities of Canyon Lake, Corona, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. Those funds are used to pay debt service on the 1997 -Series B Junior Bonds. In addition, Western Riverside Council of Governments will reimburse the Commission $102,300 for financial and receptionist services. Investment Income Interest earnings on the County pool are estimated around 2.0%. The earnings on funds held by the trustee for debt service in money market funds is also assumed to be at 2.0%, except for the 1993 Debt Reserve Fund which contractually pays 6.87%. The Commission's operating funds are held in various mutual funds and U.S. guaranteed agency notes. Interest rates for the mutual funds are assumed to be 2.0%, while the treasury notes yield approximately 2.8%. Total earnings are projected to be $2,653,200 for FY 03/04. 46 PERSONNEL Personnel salary and fringe benefits - The Commission provides a comprehensive package of benefits to all permanent, salaried employees. The package includes: • Health, dental, vision and life insurance • Short and long term disability • Workers compensation • Tuition assistance • Sick and vacation leave • Retirement benefits in the form of participation in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) • Deferred compensation Chart 10 — Personnel Salary & Benefits Health_ 6% Retirement 14% Other Fringes 11% Salary 69% In 1988, when Measure A was approved, one of the requirements of the Measure was for the Commission to not budget more than one percent of Measure A sales tax revenue for administrative salaries and benefits. In this budget, the Commission is utilizing 92% of this capacity and other administrative salaries and benefits are being funded by specific programs and other federal and state funds. As a result of this requirement, the Commission has a small staff to provide the transportation services to the county of Riverside. The Commission's salary and fringe benefits totals $2,791,000. This represents a increase of 10.4% over the FY 02/03 budget of $2,528,200 and is for the following reasons: • Increase in Public Employees Retirement (PERS); • Employees will be eligible for 0-4% performance merit increases; • New Commuter Assistance Program Manager position. 47 Chart 11 - Personnel and Benefits Costs 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 r� f-'/ .. a ' ' t•t i s 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Over the past three years, the Commission has maintained it's current staff with only merit increases in salaried personnel. The budget reflects an unfilled position due to the retirement of one staff member and the anticipation of one permanent staff position. Staffing levels will continue to be assessed during the 2004 fiscal year. Management continues to be firmly committed to the intent of the Commission's enabling legislation that called for a small staff. Staff will continue to be provided the tools needed, including state of the art technology to ensure working smarter (i.e., more productively). However, it must be recognized that small is not viewed in an absolute context, but is relative to the required tasks to be performed and the demands to be met. Table 35 - Personnel Summary FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FTE FTE FTE FTE Executive Management 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.2 Administration 5.5 5.8 6.3 5.3 Finance 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.1 Capital Development & Delivery 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.7 Plans & Programs 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.9 Transit 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 Property Management 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 Intergovernmental Programs & Legislative Affairs 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.9 Specialized Transit 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 Rail Program 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 Commuter Assistance 1.8 1.6 1.5 2.2 Motorist Assistance 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 Total 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 48 COMMISSION DEBT At June 30, 2002, the Commission will have $212,868,275 outstanding in sales tax revenue bonds. During the year, $21,606,959 in principal will be retired, along with $13,871,141 in interest payments. The Commission has maintained an excellent credit rating and is one of the highest rated Self -Help counties in the State of California. The Commission has been able to maintain its rating because of the high level of voter approval on its Measure A, the higher standard of 2x on debt service and good financial management. The Commission currently maintains an AA3/AA rating from Standard and Poors and Moody's rating agencies. In this upcoming year, staff is planning on creating a transition plan on how to proceed with completing the current Measure A and incorporating the projects that need to be completed with the new Measure A. The Commission's current plans are to have a commercial paper program for preliminary engineering and design or projects and as projects are closer to construction, the Commission plans to use Capital Appreciation bonds to finance those projects and incorporate the Commercial paper program into it. The Commission does not expect to issue any more debt from the current Measure A. Other costs associated with debt management include trustee processing fees budgeted at $20,000. Debt Capacity Analysis The Commission is legally prohibited from issuing additional debt if its debt coverage ratio is less than 1.5 to 1 on all senior debt. The Commission has adopted a higher standard of 2 to 1 as part of its Debt Service policy. As the chart shows, the Commission has successfully met its policy standard. Any coverage less than 2 to 1 would necessitate using other program funding to cover all debt service expenditures. Chart 12 - Debt Capacity Analysis $120,000,000 -,-'t $100,000,000 - $80,000,000 $60,000,000 --- $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $- FY99/00 FY00/01 FY01/02 FY02/03 FY03/04 OSenior Debt ®Junior Debt DAvailable Revenue 49 Table 36 - Debt Capacity Analysis FY99/00 rY00/01 FY01/02 FY02/03 FY03/04 Sales Tax Revenues $ 81,543,732 $ 88,973,617 $ 95,797,286 $ 94,605,000 $ 100,849,000 Senior Debt Service $ 28,989,523 $ 33,972,345 $ 34,075,482 $ 34,078,075 $ 34,005,779 Coverage Ratio - Senior Debt 2.81 2.62 2.81 2.78 2.97 Subordinate Debt $ 1,473,213 $ 1,470,013 $ 1,470,413 $ 1,472,925 $ 1,472,321 Coverage Ratio - All Debt 2.68 2.51 2.70 2.66 2.84 Debt Rating Aa3/AA- Aa3/AA- Aa3/AA- AA3/AA AA3/AA Chart 13 — Available Revenue/Debt Service 100% 80%- 60%- 40%- 20% 0%- FY99/00 � ■ a _ FY00/01 FY01 /02 FY02/03 FY03/04 Debt Service Schedule Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Table 37 — Commission Debt Fiscal Year 2004 $ 2005 2006 2007 2008-2009 Total Principal 21,606,959 27,200,000 28,640,000 30,200,000 65,495,000 $ 173,141,959 Interest $ 13,871,141 8,285,530 6,843,222 5,274,945 5,451.478 I7 Available Revenues 0 Debt Service Total $ 35,478,100 35,485,530 35,483,222 35,474,945 70,946,478 $ 39,726,316 $ 212,868,275 Under the provisions of Measure A, as amended by Ordinance No. 92-1 (Measure AA), the Commission has the authority to issue bonds subject to a bond debt limitation of $525,000,000. The following is a summary of bonds issued and secured by Measure A revenues: 2000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In July 2000, the Commission issued $35,825,000 principal amount of serial bonds to finance 50 the widening and construction improvement to enhance the accessibility and safety of California State Route 74 and other Western County projects. 1997 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: The Commission issued $47,910,000 principal amount of serial bonds to refund $41,000,000 of the outstanding commercial paper notes along with $6,910,000 in new debt proceeds to fund various major highway projects. 1997 Sales Tax Revenue Junior Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series B: The Commission issued $13,245,000 principal amount of subordinated (junior) serial bonds to refund $3,000,000 of the outstanding commercial paper notes along with $10,245,000 in new debt proceeds to fund various streets and roads projects for local cities. 1996 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In January 1996, the Commission issued $61,765,000 principal amount of serial bonds to refund a portion of the 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A. The bonds refunded were the serial maturities due in 2002 and 2003 for $6,945,000 and $7,405,000, respectively, and the term bonds due in 2009 for $44,975,000, for a total refunded amount of $59,325,000. The refunding resulted in total present value savings of $1,862,750. 1993 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In February 1993, the Commission issued $136,610,000 principal amount of serial bonds to finance the purchase of the Santa Fe use rights and other rail properties, improvements to Routes 86 and 111, as well as major regional arterials in the Coachella Valley. 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In January 1991, the Commission issued $112,996,959 principal amount of long term debt in the form of serial, term, and capital appreciation bonds to finance improvements to Route 91 and Route 86, purchase of rail properties for station sites, and engineering and/or construction for various other routes in the County, including 1-215, Routes 74 and 79. See description of 1996 Series A Refunding Bonds. The bond agreements require the trustee to hold all bond proceeds and sales tax revenues and to segregate all funds into separate accounts including project proceeds, sales tax revenues, interest payments and principal payments and a reserve fund equal to the maximum annual debt service of $35,478,100. 51 Chart 14 — Program Debt Regional Arterial 16% Streets & Roads 4% Outstanding Debt and Legal Debt Margin June 30, 2003 Authorized Debt $ 525,000,000 1991 Series A 1993 Series A 1996 Series A Refunding Bonds 1997 Series A 1997 Junior Series B 2000 Series A 3,216,959 64,500,000 44,850,000 27,380,000 7,535,000 25,660,000 Total Outstanding Debt 173,141,959 Legal Debt Margin $ 351,858,041 Chart 15 — Debt by Geographic Area Coachella Valley 22% 411 ;;;ONN.,_Westem County 78% Chart 16 — Highway Program Debt: $22,278,510 Coachella Valley 10% Western County 90% 52 TABLE 38 - BUDGET COMPARISION BY PROGRAM FY 2001 - 2004 SOURCES OF REVENUE Operating Revenues M--�ure A Sales Tax Iles Tax - Planning/Administrative ales Tax - Transit Allocation STA Transit Allocation Vehicle Registration DMV Fees Reimbursement Other Revenue Investment Income Total Operating Revenues EXPENDITURES: Management Services Executive Management Administration Finance Total Management Services Capital Program Services Debt Service Principal Payments Interest Payments Cost of Issuance Total Debt Service Non Capital Transportation Programs Planning and Programming Transit Intergovernmental Programs and Legislative Affairs Specialized Transit Property Management Rail Operations Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance Total Mon Capital Transportation Programs Total expenditures Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Debt Proceeds Net Flnancing Sources (Uses) Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures Fund Balance, July 1 Change in accounting principal Ending Fund Balance FY 00!01 FY 01!02 Actual Actual $ 88,973,617 $ 95,797,286 1,631.482 2,070,656 5,023,083 4,806,000 2,482,598 4,746,603 1,297,474 1,288,656 5,286,109 13,575,104 4,086,123 3,117,518 9,842,472 5,942,481 FY 02!03 Revised Budget $ 94,605,000 1,998,400 4,445,100 4,249,000 1,150,000 32,012,000 375,900 3,965,000 FY 02/03 Projected Actual 96,970,000 2,104,100 4,545,100 2,776,000 1,280,000 23,927,300 3,929,400 4,233,000 FY 03!04 Budget $ 100,849,000 2,090,700 4,564,700 2,666,100 1,275,000 25,732,900 3,653,800 2,653,200 118,622,958 131,344,303 142,800,400 139, 764, 900 143, 485,400 Dollar Percent Change Change $ 6,244,000 6.6% 92,300 4.6% 119,600 2.7% (1,582,900) -37.3% 125,000 10.9% (6,279,100) -19.6% 3,277,900 872.0% (1,311,800) -33.1% 685,000 0.5% 633,240 684,952 716,400 605,100 359,300 (357,100) -49.8% 1,226,311 1,771,637 2,594,252 2,307,400 1,822,000 (772,252) -29.8% 829,751 902,570 1,147,500 1,154,900 1,086.900 (60,800) -5.3% 2,689,303 3,359,160 4,458,152 4,067,400 3,268,200 (1,189,952) -26.7% 56,863,770 61,938,854 108,673,312 92,139,200 92,952,600 (15,720,712) -14.5% 22,478,844 24,068,939 24,888,000 24,888,000 22,073,100 (2,814,900) -11.3% 12,530,366 11,476,956 10,663,000 10,663,000 13,405,000 2,742,000 25.7% 433,148 - - - - 0.0% 35,442,358 35,545,895 35,551,000 35,551,000 35,478,100 (72,900) -0.2% 2,645,156 5,817,079 3,490,000 1,693,000 2,176,600 (1,313,400) -37.6% 3,685,976 4,365,169 6,271,500 4.205,200 2,883,100 (3,388,400) -54.0% 132,098 73,372 104,600 85,600 410,800 306,200 292.7% 3,197,679 4,315,040 3,728,000 4,129,500 4,547,900 819,900 22.0% 159,278 145,158 198,700 127,100 215,000 16,300 8.2% 5,137,472 4,417,824 4,837,500 4,171,973 4,707,600 (129,900) -2.7% 1,732,714 2,170,429 3,009,000 2,315,900 4,001,700 992,700 33.0% 2,065,094 2,559,408 2,094,700 1,812,700 2,124,800 30,100 1.44% 18,755,467 23,863,481 23,734,000 18,540,973 21,067,500 (2,666,500) -11.2% 113,750,898 124,707,389 172,416,464 150,298,573 152,766,400 (19,650,064) -11.4% 4,872,060 6,636,913 (29,616,064) (10,533,673) (9,281,000) 20,335,064 -68.7% 35,934,149 - - - 00^0% 35,934,149 - - - 0.0% 40,806,209 6,636,913 (29,616,064) (10,533,673) (9,281,000) 20,335,064 -68.7% 112,562,792 158,245,879 164,666,516 164,666,516 154,132,843 (10,533,673) -6.4% 4,876,877 (216,277) - - - 0.0% $ 158,245,879 5 164,666 516 $ 135,050,452 5 154,132,843 $ 144,851,843 S 9.801,391 7_3% 53 Executive Management Mission Statement: "To manage the activities of the agency with a small staff, complemented with consultants, to effectuate sound transportation policies and legislation compatible with air quality standards and accomplish the expeditious delivery of cost-effective transportation programs and projects consistent with Commission direction." Chart 17 - Executive Management Support 17% Professional 34% Personnel 49% Expenditures Executive Management has a budget of $359,300, a decrease of 49.8% from last year's budget for oversight of all Commission functions. The reason for the decrease is due to the reallocation of the Executive Director's time to programs, to better reflect the time spent. Professional costs include legal fees for $100,000. Support costs of $60,500 include membership dues, sponsorship fees and other office expenditures. Table 39 - Executive Management Expenditure Detail Salaries and Benefits FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02J03 FY 02/03 Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual $ 235,365 $ 279,720 $ 317,000 $ FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change 231,600 $ 176,300 $ (140,700) -44.4% Professional Costs General Legal Services 82,211 74,916 80,000 102,900 100,000 20,000.. 25.0% Other Professional Services 240,919 270,046 267,500 205,200 22,500" (245,000) -91.6% Total Professional Costs 323.130 344,962 308,100 122,500 (225,000) -64.7% 347,500 Support Costs 74,746 60,270 51,900 65,400 60,500 8,600 16.6% Total Executive Management $ 633,240 $ 684,952 $ 716,400 $ 605.100 $ 359,300 $ (357,100) -49.8% 54 Executive Management Staffing Summary Position FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Actual Actual Budget Budget Executive Director Deputy Executive Director Director Public Information Executive Assistant LtTE 1.00 0.08 0.00 0:80 1.00 0.08 0.00 0.77 1.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 0.50 0.05 0.00 0.67 1.88 1.85 1.90 1.22 Department Overview Department Description The Executive Director is responsible for and provides strong leadership in developing and implementing new strategies, assuring project delivery of transportation improvements throughout Riverside County. Furthermore, executive management is committed to fostering a positive and supportive work environment for staff that emphasizes quality work, encourages teamwork and open communication while recognizing individual achievement. Major Accomplishments . 2002 saw extraordinary accomplishments at RCTC, placing the Commission in the top tier of California transportation organizations. In several areas, RCTC stood by itself in successful advocacy, innovation and leadership. • Alone amongst five transportation funding ballot measures, Measure A was successfully extended November 5th, guaranteeing at least $4.6 billion in locally controlled funding through 2039. Substantial statewide recognition of RCTC's success has come about. • CETAP received national recognition through President Bush's November Executive Order highlighting seven environmental streamlining projects nationwide. CETAP is moving aggressively forward to adopt the two internal corridors by February 2004. • With the leadership of WRCOG and the fiscal incentives of Measure A, the Western County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)is receiving early support by a number of entities. • RCTC moved into its new offices in October, thus giving the Commission a modern working and meeting environment that will serve it well for years to come. • Major construction projects were initiated in 2002: o Route 74 first segment o 60/91/215 initial project of six design sequencing projects o North Main Corona Metrolink Station constructed and open o La Sierra Metrolink Station properties purchased and parking expanded 55 • Desert o CVAG/RCTC projects completed — notably Fred Waring Drive widening and beautification poject o Ongoing project development on remaining Measure A projects Department Budget Review Key Assumptions • Executive compensation package as granted will remain the same up to December 31, 2003. The contract currently extended to December 31, 2004 is subject to review and revision in December of 2003. • The Commission and SANBAG will continue to share state and federal legislative consultants to generate cost savings and more effectively collaborate on mutual interests. Major Initiatives Project development and delivery will continue as the key Measure A priority. Work efforts are ongoing for Routes 60, 74, 79, 91, and Coachella Valley Measure A commitments in partnership with CVAG. Continuing expansion of commuter rail stations, project development and planning for the San Jacinto Branch Line and the 60/91/1-215 freeway interchange will be major new efforts in FY 03/04. Regional cooperation and collaboration will continue to be given significant effort consistent with the philosophy and mission of this Commission. Working closely with the Executive Director in this endeavor will be the Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs. Issue briefings will be accomplished through a series of workshops and face-to- face meetings with the Executive Director and senior staff, as well as through the use of printed material. Enhanced external communications will remain a top Commission priority. Media relations will continue to be formally cultivated and press releases will remain a major effort along with the Commission Connection newsletter. An expanding and systematic outreach to business and civic groups, focusing on the integration of Measure A "I" with Measure A "II", will be a central feature of the program. The Executive Director will expend considerable effort educating the public on the growing transportation needs of the County and the Commission's efforts to meet these needs. Through meetings with community leaders, elected officials and various citizen interest groups, the goal will be to communicate the Commission's achievements and its plans and aspirations as it completes Measure A programs (1989-2009), and anticipates its new thirty-year program of projects (2009-2039). While actively participating in all of these major endeavors, the Executive Director will maintain and improve administrative efficiency and fiscally sound practices characteristic 56 of this agency. Staff training and development will continue to be intensified enabling our small and dedicated staff to enhance their skills, productivity, and value. The Commission will continue to be competitive in the employment market and will retain capable staff as well as attract high quality applicants. The Director of Administrative Services has been charged with oversight for this activity. Next year will also mark a new milestone as the Commission will obtain Tier 1 environmental clearance of the two intracounty Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridors. As it anticipates the Tier I environmental clearance by February 28, 2004 of the two intracounty transportation corridors, CETAP will enter a new phase; emphasizing intercounty corridors. CETAP is jointly funded by the Commission, the County of Riverside, Western Riverside County Cities, San Bemardino County local govemments, and the Southem Califomia Association of Governments (SCAG) and has received federal and state funding appropriations. The purpose of CETAP is to shorten the time frame for construction of new transportation corridors by ten to fifteen years and to develop a comprehensive, balanced transportation system for the next 25 years. The Commission is responsible for the transportation element of the plan, an effort led by the Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development. Department Goals Maximize funding for transportation improvements in Riverside County through legislative advocacy and locally controlled funding options such as sales taxes (e.g., expansion/extension of Measure A). Objectives: = A special emphasis will be placed on the Federal reauthorization of TEA -21 and RCTC's policies and project priorities. Executive Staff will respond to the State of California's transportation funding shortfall by implementing continuing project work on named Measure A projects. • Support the completion of the CETAP new corridor adoption process. • Support ongoing efforts to implement Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) throughout Western Riverside County with the Director of Public Information. Reach agreements with WRCOG over early financial commitments to CETAP and the Measure A "II" regional arterial program prior to the April 1, 2009 commencement of the "New" 1/2 cent sales tax. • Following RCTC's November 2002 success, develop a transitional strategic plan to "blend" the original Measure A program with the new 2009-2039 expenditure plan. Support regional transportation solutions in cooperation with surrounding counties that are of benefit to Riverside County. Objectives: • Support the redistribution of passenger and cargo growth demands from LAX to existing underutilized airports in the region and more specifically, the air cargo development plans of the March Air Reserve Base. 57 • Participate in the AB 2928 Alameda Corridor East capital improvement planning process, with a goal of gaining state and federal funding for goods movement related improvements. Particularly focusing on the reauthorization of the federal TEA 21 program in 2003. Maintain effective working relationships with Commissioners to strengthen and expand RCTC's leadership in transportation policy decision -making at all levels of government. Objectives: • Facilitate Commissioner participation at the regional, state and federal levels to raise the interests of RCTC and seek favorable action. • Continue the regular one-on-one meetings between the Executive Director and all Commissioners. While maintaining a relatively small staff, promote its effectiveness by improving and developing staff skills, using state-of-the-art working tools, and fostering an environment that encourages and rewards individual and team effort. Objectives: • Continue to maintain a well -documented employee appraisal process that provides clear, understandable, and measurable performance criteria for all employees. • Continue to refine RCTC's performance based compensation system. In FY 03/04, conduct biennial compensation review for salary range and adjustments effective FY 04/05. Develop the framework for a Commission culture that enhances productivity, encourages regular and open communication among staff, and promotes the mutual achievement of individual and organizational goals and objectives. Objectives: • Conduct a semi-annual review of organization accomplishments as measured against planned objectives to determine progress in meeting those objectives and to determine action steps needed. • Facilitate open communications and coordination between management, professional and support staff through regular meetings. Executive Management Performance/Workload Indicators Budgeted Expenditures Public Speeches Staffing Levels Administration costs as percentage of expenditures FY00/01 Actual $113,750,898 16 25.0 2.36% FY01 /02 Actual $124,707,389 29 25.0 2.69% FY02/03 Estimated $150,298,573 27 25.0 2.71% FY03/04 Projected $152,766,400 24 25.0 2.14% Administration Mission Statement: "To provide the Commission with efficient and effective administrative policies and procedures regarding office management, human resources, insurance coverage, and procurement in order to maintain a diverse, collaborative and supportive work environment to enhance day to day operations of the Commission, its staff and external customers, comply with applicable federal and state requirements, provide training and professional development opportunities to members of the Commission and its staff, and facilitate interactive communications with the public and transportation stakeholders." Chart 18 — Administration Capital Outlay 4% Personnel 25% Support Professional 60% 11% Expenditures The Administration Department's total budget is $1,822,000 for office administration which includes management of Commission meetings and events, human resources, office space and equipment, and communications and training. This budget is 29.8% less than prior year budget due to elimination of one-time costs related to the renewal of Measure A and the relocation of the administrative office. Professional costs of $209,500 cover various services including, but not limited to Commissioners' per diem, legal fees, information systems, web site design and maintenance, graphic design and temporary help services. Support costs cover administrative overhead. 59 Table 40 - Administration Expenditure Detail FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Protected Actual Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 352,791 $ 428,569 $ 453,000 $ 392,600 $ 461,100 $ 8,100 1.8% Professional Costs Commissioner - Per Diem 65,500 57,392 60,000 39,100 60,000 0.0% General Legal Services 3,952 10,052 10,000 4,500 7,000 (3,000) -30.0% Other Professional Services 52,232 156,487 693,851 278,700 142,500 (551,351) -79.5% Total Professional Costs 121,684 223,931 763,851 322,300 209,500 (554,351) -72.6% Support Costs 688,333 881,219 1,045,400 1,234,300 1,083,400 38,000 3.6% Capital Outlay 63,503 237,919 332,000 358,200 68,000 (264,000) -79.5% Total Administration $ 1,226,311 $ 1,771,637 S 2,594,251 $ 2,307,400 $ 1,822,000 $ (772,251) -29.8% Administration Staffing Summary Position FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Administrative Support Specialist Director: Adnii n lstra tive' Services Director Pubic Infatm'atio-n Director Regional Programs & f'ublicMtairs Executive Assists nt Office Assistant Senior Administrative Assistant Staff Analyst . FTE Actual Actual Budget Budget 1.84 1.75 2.20 1.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 0.56 0.53 0.55 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.01 0.18 0.17 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.02 0.10. 0.03 5.48 5.76 6.25 5.33 Department Overview Department Description ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Administrative Services Department manages centralized information systems, support services and purchasing activities for the Commission. It provides administrative and staff support to the 30 -member Board of Commissioners, Commission and Committee meetings, and to Commission staff. It oversees the daily maintenance needs of RCTC facility and its staff, maintenance and retention of the Commission's records and documents; update human resources and employees benefits policies and procedures; recruitment and performance assessment system; 60 processing and tracking of contracts and agreements; procurement and disposal of office supplies equipment and furniture; development and tracking disadvantaged business enterprise program and contracts; compliance of Conflict of Interest Codes; posting of legal notices; maintenance of Commission offices; and, planning and coordination of Commission special events. The Department continues to operate with a small staff consisting of the Director of Administrative Services, Senior Administrative Assistant, Administrative Support Specialists and is assisted by one Bechtel staff with its recordkeeping function. The Director of Administrative Services and the Senior Administrative Assistant serve as the Commission's Clerk of the Board and Deputy Clerk of the Board, respectively. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions Support costs assume 25 full time staff and 10 in-house consultants. • Meeting agenda, legal notices, request for proposals, and employment opportunities will be accessible through the Commission's web page. ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Relocated the Commission offices and meeting locations to the Riverside County Administrative Center in October with just a brief interruption to its operations. • The Commission web page includes all meeting agenda, legal notices, requests for proposals, and employment opportunities. • Computers, software applications and network have been updated. • The Electronic Management System was implemented. • Meeting agenda and staff memorandums continued to be posted on the bulletin board and the web page in accordance to the Brown Act. • Posted 13 legal notices for capital projects. • Organized 23 Commission meetings and three special events Major Initiatives The Commission is a member of the California Unified Certification Program (CAUCP). The Director of Administrative Services acts as the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Liaison Officer. The Department will continue to review and expand its DBE mailing list to advertise for federally funded projects. The Department will continue to work with appropriate staff members working on capital projects as it relates to the Commission's disadvantaged business enterprise program, public notices, and on events to commemorate start and completion of the projects. The Electronic Document Management System provided an improvement for Commission staffs recordkeeping and retention capability for incoming and 61 internally created records, reports to be filed and categorized in a timely manner. Documents are now being forwarded to staff members and could be accessed by staff electronically. Training sessions will continue to reinforce the Commission's policies regarding performance evaluation, sexual harassment, drug and alcohol free workplace, personnel policies and procedures, tuition reimbursement program and other office procedures. Personnel policies and procedures will be updated in compliance with state and federal requirements. Informative meetings will be scheduled on an "as needed" basis to provide update on health insurance providers, deferred compensation, and retirement benefits. The Administrative Department will continue to provide high quality support services to the Board of Commissioners and to internal and external customers, by maintaining effective and professional human resource, maintaining the quality and integrity of the procurement system, and providing a working environment that enhances the overall mission of the Commission. Department Goals Maintain and promote good employee/employer relations. Develop innovative solutions, products, services and processes to provide excellent service to internal and external customers through shared leadership, and employee recognition and support. Objectives: • Provide opportunities and information to enhance the employee's knowledge of current personnel policies and procedures by scheduling workshop on Commission's personnel policies and employee benefits. • Maintain a compensation program which ensures internal equity and external competitiveness within the pay structure for Commission employees. • Stay abreast of employee relations issues and be prepared to offer recommendations for problem solving. • Ensure employee personnel records are maintained electronically in order to provide easy access to appropriate staff. • Review and update personnel policies and procedures to comply with federal and state requirements, and provide employees with changes to the policies and procedures. • Develop a mechanism to alert supervisors and staff on the timeline to process and complete employee performance evaluations. • Continue to recognize employees at Commission meetings upon reaching Commission service tenure. • Coordinate with administrative staff to develop a new employee orientation packet. 62 • Schedule Administrative Department staff to attend training sessions and workshops to increase their knowledge in the areas of human resources, record management, procurement, and office management. • Provide products and services to promote a safe working environment and a competent, diverse and productive workforce. Promote quality purchasing services through the use of automation to increase efficiency and good relations with departments and the business community. Objectives: • Post request for proposals on the Commission's web page on a timely basis. • Continually review and update the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) mailing list. • Provide information on DBE certification on the Commission's web page. • Obtain goods and services consistent with intended quality and capabilities at the most advantageous price afforded in the market. • Work with administrative staff to develop a unified format and process for request for proposals. • Update, when necessary, agreement formats to comply with federal and state requirements. Prepare, publish and maintain timely official records of Commission meetings and facilitate access of information to Commission records. Objectives: • Ensure that meeting agendas are posted on agenda bulletin board and the web page and mailed in compliance to state and federal requirements. • Continue to keep accurate Commission and Committee meeting records. • Update Commissioners on transportation -related information on a timely basis. • Continue to respond to requests for records and information on a timely basis. • Continue to improve the Commission's recordkeeping practices by implementation and installation of electronic document management system. • Maintain and index Commission resolutions, ordinance, agreements and contracts. • Coordinate special activities, meetings, events, and conferences as requested by the Executive Director and the Commission. COMMUNICATIONS AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT The Commission is committed to communicating with and educating a broad arena of interested parties on the roles and responsibilities of the agency. As managed by the Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs, emphasis is placed on informing Riverside County residents and businesses about transportation projects 63 and services, and maintaining open communication with other allied entities. Various forms of media and communication tools are used in these outreach efforts with the overall objectives being to provide accurate, informative and easily accessible information, facilitate public participation in the Commission processes, and increase inter -agency coordination and cooperation. The structure of the communications effort is evolving with the recent upgrade of the Public Information Officer position to Director of Public Information. The joint partnership of the Directors combines expertise to broaden and strengthen the growing communications efforts of the Commission. It is envisioned that the Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs will retain responsibility for the development and production of Commission materials and publications, oversee all training efforts, and continue to play a critical role in message development. The Director of Public Information will be responsible for communications with the news media and will draft and write text for Commission materials, presentations and speeches. The need for proactive public communication was especially important during the last two years because of the Commission's efforts to seek reauthorization and extension of its Measure A half -cent sales tax program. The effort was successful and resulted in a 69 percent voter approval in November 2002. As a result, the total communication budget will reflect a decrease in costs related to development and distribution of Measure A educational materials. Costs were also higher than normal during last year due to communications efforts to recognize the Commission's 25th Anniversary and develop a new agency web site. While the Communications budget reflects a reduction in funding from the previous year including several one time efforts, it should not be construed as a reduction in its importance nor its emphasis. Proactive communication with the news media and with the public remains an important Commission priority and should prove to be especially important as . the Commission embarks on a number of construction projects and heads toward implementation of the next Measure A program. Focusing on the organization itself, training of Board members and staff alike are considered essential to maintaining and advancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency. Reflecting their policy role, in-house continuing education for Commissioners is generally developed and presented in a topical format to quickly and succinctly provide information in a framework that fosters inter -active discussion and consensus decision -making. Emphasis is also placed on developing strong working relationships between Commissioners and staff. The training program for staff is designed and funded to fully encourage participation in both technical and professional development courses. Training options are identified as part of an employee's annual evaluation process. 64 Accomplishments • Completed a public information and education effort that preceded the successful election to extend Measure A for 30 years/ • Designed and developed a new website for the Commission providing a significantly larger source of information and data regarding the agency's projects, programs and processes that is easily accessible to the public. • Published a special, six page 25th Anniversary edition of the Commission's annual report featuring the accomplishments of the agency as well as a look back at transportation history in Riverside County. • Continued effective relationships with the news media resulting in informative coverage regarding local and regional transportation issues and Measure A project delivery. • Updated the Commissioner "Resource Notebook" and provided new notebooks to all Commissioner's for their reference use. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions • All staff will attend at least one training course in support of professional development. Training emphasis will be placed on computer and technology applications in the workplace. • The annual newspaper report to the public will be published in the major newspapers throughout the County. • The Commission Connection newsletter will be published monthly. • The Speakers Bureau effort will continue to seek local community opportunities to expand outreach regarding the Commission's activities. • The Commission's website will be updated and refreshed on a regular basis. Major Initiatives New Commissioner orientation meetings will be provided by the Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs in one-to-one settings. To supplement individual Commissioner meetings with the Executive Director, continuing education opportunities at the small group level will also be provided to Commissioners which focus on timely issues. Broad distribution of the Commission Connection, a monthly one -page, two-sided newsletter highlighting actions of the Commission and emerging topics, will continue as part of the Commission's communications efforts. A new look will be developed for the Commission Connection to freshen and update its appearance. Efforts will continue on updating and expanding the Commission's contact database including e-mail addresses to support distribution of the agency's public information materials. 65 The staff training program policies and procedures that link training assessment with employee evaluations will be monitored for effectiveness and amended as appropriate based on feedback from staff. The Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs will work closely with supervisors at the time of individual employee evaluations to identify and budget specific training options that relate to employee goals for the new review period. The identification of courses remains a priority to build resources and expand training options for staff. Efforts will be made to update and enhance the Commission's public information program to citizens and businesses within Riverside County as well as a broad array of public and private entities involved in the world of transportation. The Commission's outreach will include a proactive effort to work closely with various media formats such as print, radio and television to increase their understanding of and interest in transportation issues and generate a higher level of media coverage. Towards that end, a general information video about the Commission and its overall role will be produced for distribution to local cable television providers. The Commission provides information to the public through various channels including: 1) participation at service clubs and public meetings; 2) production and provision of resource materials and fact sheets; 3) maintenance and enhancement of the Commission's web site; and 4) development of newspaper press releases, radio public service announcements and cable television spots. The Commission's largest publication effort to provide widespread understanding of its projects and expenditures is its four page annual report which is published in three area newspapers throughout the County. Department Goals Support the continuing education of Commissioners to increase their understanding of transportation -related issues at local, state, and federal levels to maximize the effectiveness of RCTC in affecting policy and funding actions. Objectives: • Provide individual orientation training for new Commissioners. • Update the format and produce a monthly one -page fact sheet, Commission Connection, highlighting actions and activities of the agency. • Provide periodic educational workshops/study sessions for Commissioners. Develop and maintain an information program which educates the public and other stakeholders on the roles and responsibilities of the Commission as it relates to accomplishments achieved through Measure A or other funding sources controlled or administered by the Commission. 66 Objectives: • Expand the stock of video footage for use in production of cable TV spots that features transportation projects funded and or implemented by the Commission. • Expand, maintain, and update information on the Commission's website. • Periodically use cable television and other forms of media such as billboards, if appropriate, to communicate information to the public regarding the Commission's activities and services. • Annually produce an insert in all major County newspapers that informs the public regarding Measure A progress and other Commission programs. • Issue news releases to the local media announcing significant achievements and providing information on Commission actions and activities. • Develop and maintain open line of communication with news reporters to facilitate adequate and accurate news coverage. • Schedule periodic media information briefings or news conferences when a particular issue warrants it. • Coordinate and oversee message content of all Commission publications and communications to provide a uniformity of message and direction. • Require the use of Measure A project/program signage by funding recipients to increase public awareness of Measure A accomplishments. • Continue to administer and expand the use of a Speaker's Bureau to reach community members in service and other organizations. • Monitor and distribute media coverage from various outlets in the county and throughout the region to Commissioners and staff to enable them to keep close track of transportation policy trends. Foster and maintain effective communications with other agencies to heighten their understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and increase inter -agency coordination and cooperation. Objective: • Assign designated staff members to attend other agency meetings and require staff to provide written/verbal communication on topics of discussion during regular staff meetings. Ensure a consistent and coordinated training program that develops management, leadership, and technical skills to improve overall staff expertise. Objectives: • Develop and implement training programs to support and enhance individual staff performance within the various classification levels. • Encourage participation in seminars and classes related to Commission activities that complement job responsibilities. • Facilitate cross -training opportunities to ensure adequate staff coverage in case of staff vacancies, illnesses or vacations. 67 • Support supervisors during the evaluation process in identification of training options based on an employee's defined goals. Administration Performance/Workload Indicators FY 00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Actual FY 02/03 Estimated FY 03/04 Projected Employee Introduction Sessions 3 Records Microfilmed _ 5,200 Vacant Position Recruitment 12 Agreements Processed 160 _ Legal Notices 15 Commission/Committee/Ad Hoc Meetings 47 Hits on RCTC Web Page 45,000 RCTC Sponsored Events _ 2 Staff Training Hours 507 579 435 400 68 Finance Mission Statement: "Seek financing alternatives that complement the Commission's strategic direction. Safeguard the Commission's assets and maintain strong and prudent fiscal controls in investing, accounting, budgeting and financial reporting including ongoing disclosure to all interest parties." Chart 19 - Finance Support 10%, Personnel ir 42% Professlonal 48% Expenditures Finance's total budget is $1,086,900. Department staffing costs will total $452,400, an increase of $8,400 or 1.9% due to merit increases. Professional costs of $ 527,500 include various services related to general legal fees, bond counsel fees for debt maintenance issues, financial advisory services, audit services, rating agency fees and other consulting services. Table 41 - Finance Expenditure Detail FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 369,338 $ 364,269 $ 444,000 $ 430,200 $ 452,400 $ 8,400 1.9% Professional Costs Legal Services 13,802 3,051 10,000 4,000 15,000 5,000 50.0% Financial Services 49,253 19,594 75,000 50,000 50,000 (25,000) -33.3% Audit Services 282,580 417,500 422,500 500,000 335,000 (87,500) -20.7% Other Professlonal Services 78,960 48,409 136,000 122,000 127,500 (8,500) -6.3% Total Professlonal Costs 424,595 488,553 643,500 676,000 527,500 (116,000) -18.0% Support Costs 35,819 49,748 60 000 48,700 107,000 47,000 78.3% Total Finance $829,751 $ 902,570 $ 1,147,500 $ 1,154,900 $ 1.086.900 $ (60„600) -5.3% 69 Finance Staffing Summary Position FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Actual Actual Budget Budget Accounting Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accounting Technician 2.00 2:00 2.00 2.00 Administrative Support Specialist 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.00 Chief Financial Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Program Manager 0.00 ,0.00 0.00 0.08 Senior Accounting Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FTE 5.17 5.17 5.00 5.08 Department Overview Department Description Finance activities include investing the Commission's cash resources, planning and directing financial transactions, and subsequent maintenance of legal and regulatory requirements. Fiscal accountability involves receiving all funds due the Commission and payment of all Commission obligations, general ledger accounting, regular reporting of the Commission fiscal results, budget preparation and monitoring. Commission resources are allocated to assure financial stability and fiscal accountability. Adequate cash flow must be maintained while at the same time prudently investing idle funds. Borrowing needs are carefully planned using both short and long term debt. Once debt is issued there are ongoing responsibilities including interaction with financial advisors, bankers, bond insurance companies, and rating agencies, and regular and consistent information disclosure to investors. Fiscal accountability requires coordination of budget planning and close budget monitoring, and accurate and timely accounting for all funding sources, including compliance with all applicable laws and regulations governing those funds. Accounting encompasses cash receipt and disbursement functions, maintenance of the general ledger including project cost accounting, retention of and coordination with independent auditors, payroll processing and quarterly and annual financial reporting. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions • Audit fees remain consistent or be reduced with the prior year as a result of the RFP process to select an audit firm. • The Investment advisory contract will be bid to evaluate services provided by the industry. 70 • The Commission will continue to provide accounting services to the Western Riverside Council of Governments. • Refine the Budget process to streamline internal and external processes. Assist Directors and Program Managers to use project budgeting to assist with project accounting. Accomplishments Over the last year, the Finance department accomplished several of its goals as outlined in prior year budget. A request for proposal was completed to hire an auditing firm to complete the audit for the Commission and savings were realized in the selection of a new auditor. In addition, staff converted the financial statements to be GASB 34 compliant and issued financial statements accordingly. Staff has submitted its comprehensive annual financial report to Government Finance Officers Association and expects to receive the award for excellence in financial reporting. Staff also met its goal in investment practices. The Commission made a better rate of return than the County of Riverside pool. Major Initiatives Investment activities will receive greater attention to assure the Commission is maximizing its revenue potential from invested funds. Staff will continue to pursue prudent investment strategies and instruments that will provide strong principal protection while improving on the Commission's investment retum. The Commission has approved the use of an investment advisor to assist staff with investment strategy and decisions. Staff expects the economy and rates to remain low requiring greater effort for maximizing the retum on investment. In addition, the Commission has joined the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and hopes to obtain a better return on its liquid cash. Staff will continue to make prudent investments to maximize cost effectiveness for the Commission. Budgeting has been an evolving process at the Commission. The past year improvements have been made to ensure greater participation and accountability at the department/program level. A comprehensive approach to budgeting was implemented, and this will be built upon and improved in the FY 03/04. Directors and Program managers have been given greater autonomy in developing their budget thus generating greater participation in the financial operation of their programs. Staff has also implemented changes that eliminated the mid -year budget adjustment process and departments are required to initiate budget adjustments on an ongoing basis. Staff will continue to assist Directors and Program Managers in their efforts to do project budgeting to better account for their projects. Changes to the department reports will be explored and appropriate suggestions implemented to improve on their readability and usefulness to department/program managers. Staff will work with the financial community to form an appropriate Commercial Paper program for the Commission as it transitions into the new Measure A. Staff will also initiate the use of Cost Allocation in all appropriate projects. 71 In addition, staff is initiating a project to create intranet applications for financial data. Finance would like to be able to allow the department managers to do their budget, initiate their payment requests and lookup financial reports through this application. These applications will provide staff greater accessibility to finance data and ease in preparation of the budget. Department Goals Protect the Commission's cash resources by regular monitoring of investment practices to ensure consistency with established investment policy. Objective: • Achieve a rate or retum at least equal to the County of Riverside Treasury Pool rate. Manage the Commission's outstanding debt ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations and continued investor awareness and receptivity to the Commission's program. Objective: • Annual update and review of program with rating agencies to occur no later than June 2004. Ensure the Commission complies with Measure A laws and regulations as they relate to the annual financial and compliance audits as well as close cooperation and coordination with independent auditors. Objective: • Minimize the number of substantive RCTC management letter comments directly and solely applicable to accounting and requiring corrective action (exclusive of those applicable to other jurisdictions). Maintain fiscal and budgetary control through monitoring or periodic results and consistency with the Commission's strategic direction. Objectives: • Coordinate the completion of a study of performance benchmarks to measure the Commission's consistency with industry standards and to assure appropriate administrative and fiscal performance. • Obtain GFOA Distinguished Budget Award for the FY 03/04 budget and strive for at least two outstanding categories. • Provide monthly notification to department heads on budget performance, and work with department managers to explain and resolve unfavorable budget variances. • Facilitate a comprehensive budgeting approach that effectively involves management staff, requiring full accountability for all department expenditures. Assure fiscal accountability for Commission funds with general ledger accounting and financial reporting consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. 72 Objectives: • Provide monthly activity reports to all Program Managers ensuring timely responses to any noted errors and corrections. • Obtain an unqualified opinion on general-purpose financial statements and the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the GFOA. • Work with training coordinator to ensure that department employees receive at least 20 hours of training and instruction in accounting or areas applicable to job duties. • Update and maintain complete accounting desk procedures manual. • Assist local govemments with Measure A funding by providing timely allocation of funds for eligible projects and financing opportunities to the extent funding does not impact other programs and is financially feasible and prudent. Finance Performance/Workload Indicators FY00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Actual FY 02/03 Estimated FY 03/04 Projected Debt Rating Aa3/AA- Aa3/AA- AA3/AA AA3/AA GFOA Certificate of Achievement Awarded Expected Expected Proficient Expected Outstanding GFOA Distinguished Budget Award Proficient Proficient Invoices Processed 4,681 6,575 13,600 7,000 Checks Processed 3,030 3,116 3,800 3,400 Audit Adjustments 2 4 2 2 Intergovernmental Programs and Legislative Affairs Mission Statement: • "To strive to improve the lives of Riverside County residents through the facilitation of legislative processes and inter -agency and inter -jurisdictional relationships in support of a coordinated regional approach to transportation funding and solutions." Chart 20 - Intergovernmental Programs & Legislative Affairs Support 1% Personnel `^ 28% Professional 71% Expenditures Starting this fiscal year, the Intergovernmental Programs and Legislative Affairs have been combined. This has resulted in a significant increase in the budget. Total budgeted expenditures are $410,800. Staffing costs make up 28% of the total program expenditure. Professional services and support costs include legal fees for $2,000 and legislative analysis and advocacy for $287,000. Table 42 -Intergovernmental Programs & Legislative Affairs Expenditure Detail FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Protected Actual Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 81,331 $ 61,539 $ 64,000 $ 39,100 $ 115,800 $ 51,800 80.9% Professional Costs Legal Services 7,822 852 2,000 1,800 2,000 0.0% Other Professional Services 36,806 8,697 30,000 42,000 287 000 257,000 856.7% Total Professional Costs 44,628 9,549 32,000 43,800 289,000 257,000 803.1% Support Costs 6,138 2,284 8,600 2,700 6,000 (2,600) -30.2% Total Regional Issues $13.0098 $ 73,372 $ _ 104,600 $ 85,600 $ 410.800 $ 306,200 292.7% 74 Intergovernmental Programs & Legislative Affairs Staffing Summary Position FY 00101 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY03/04 Actual Actual Budget Budget Director Regional Programs & Public Affairs 0.59 0.40 0.35 0.25 Director Public Information 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.45 Executive Assistant 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.06 Staff Analyst 0.00 0.08 0.10 0.17 FTE 0.70 0.54 0.50 0.93 Department Overview Department Description Transportation issues and system enhancements typically affect a number of jurisdictions and stakeholders. To facilitate development of a linked, efficient transportation system that is responsive to the continued demands placed on it as a result of local and regional growth, staff resources are specifically dedicated to addressing joint city and/or county issues impacting the development of the transportation system. Through increased participation, the Commission is able to play a stronger leadership role at all levels of government to advance its interests and policy goals. Of particular importance is the promotion and maintenance of interregional cooperation to ensure that the interests of the Commission are disseminated in a proactive, informative manner. Within that context, partnership development, public and private, is viewed as critical to the Commission's continued success in affecting positive transportation decisions to meet future demands. The Intergovernmental Programs work effort focuses on long standing priorities of the Commission including air quality, clean fuels technology, inter jurisdictional coordination, and regional project development. The success of the region in meeting air quality mandates through strategies such as implementation of clean fuels technology and reduction of vehicle miles traveled is directly linked to local and regional efforts to enhance the transportation systems serving a growing population. The Commission's Legislative Affairs efforts focus on taking full advantage of developments at both the federal and state when there is a potential impact to Commission programs. In doing so, the Commission maintains its role as a major legislative force and a statewide leader on a broad range of issues affecting transportation policy such as project delivery and enhanced funding. 75 Recognizing that the Inland Empire area of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties has a number of commonly shared transportation concerns and a significant combined legislative delegation in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., the Commission works cooperatively with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to leverage the interests of the region. Accomplishments • Opened the A'gua Mansa public access LNG fueling station developed by the County Department of Waste Management and funded under the Commission's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund for projects in the western Riverside County area. • Passage of Asembly Bill 1010 which enabled OCTA to purchase the 91 Express Lanes and created a new bi-county advisory committee that provides RCTC with a new voice and added influence on intercounty transportation matters between Riverside and Orange Counties. • Completed implementation of county transportation commission sponsored SB 836 small employer rideshare projects under the oversight of the Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition (RTAC). • Continued funding from the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee for programs that reduced harmful emissions in Riverside County including the Coachella Valley PM10 Program, Local Government Match Program, Alternative Fuel Infrastructure and On/Off Road Heavy Duty Vehicle categories. Departmental Budget Review Key Assumptions • The Executive Director will oversee the Legislative Affairs work effort with support from the Director of Public Information (30%) and legislative consultants. • The Commission and SANBAG will continue to share state and federal legislative consultants to generate cost savings and more effectively collaborate on mutual interests. • One -quarter of the budgeted hours for the Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs will be devoted to enhancing the Commission's involvement and participation in regional transportation issues. An additional 15 percent of the Director of Public Information will also be devoted for staff support for the Route 91 Advisory Committee, RTAC and TUMF matters. • Supplemental staff support will be provided by one of the Staff Analyst positions. • The Commission will continue to use consultant services to assist in the development of clean fuel strategies and altematives. 76 Major Initiatives The Commission's Intergovernmental Programs work effort will remain focused on facilitating on -going commitments as well as being responsive to various emerging issues. In the coming fiscal year, interregional concerns will prove to be a more important task for the Commission on a number of issues. First of all, the approval of Assembly Bill 1010 creates a bi-county advisory committee comprised of members from the Commission and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). This committee was established as part of OCTA's purchase of the 91 Express Lanes Toll Road and will be an important new regional work effort for the Commission. Another regional issue focus will be the implementation of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program in western Riverside County. Although the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) has been designated as the policy agency for the TUMF, the Commission will assume a significant financial and fiduciary responsibility regarding oversight of the fee receipts and overall finances for the program. The development of a new transportation management center (TMC) to serve Riverside and San Bernardino Counties continues to be a priority. As part of the project development team, the Commission has been working closely with San Bernardino Associated Governments and Caltrans to speed development of the proposed TMC to be construction at the 15/210 interchange. Los Angeles International Airport expansion issues will be monitored with focus placed on supporting and facilitating processes most likely to result in the redistribution of passengers and cargo from LAX to existing underutilized airports in the region. The Commission continues to support the March Air Reserve Base plans to develop air freight services and resulting ground access improvement needs. Management of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund call for projects for the western Riverside County area continues to be a priority. Staff resources are dedicated to support project development and ensure successful project implementation. Upon execution of individual Memorandum of Understandings (MOU's) with grant recipients, staff will monitor their progress in fulfilling reporting and operating requirements. Consultants will be used to continue development of alternative fuels projects on specific corridors, seek grant funds from various resources, and assist with outreach efforts to build public/private sector involvement in clean fuel strategies. The 1-15 in the Temecula area has been identified as a priority corridor to eliminate an identified gap area in the alternative fuel infrastructure network. Finally, the Commission also plays a key role in the administration of the Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition (RTAC). RTAC weighs in on a 77 number of regional matters such as the approval of the Regional Transportation Plan. Administration of RTAC rotates on a yearly basis from one transportation commission to another and this year, RCTC will be directing the organization. Department Goals Facilitate development of regional transportation solutions that benefit Riverside County. Objectives: • Participate and influence intercounty discussions between Riverside and Orange regarding the operation of the 91 Express Lanes as well as overall transportation policy between both counties. This includes supporting efforts to develop a new transportation corridor between the counties and to. support additional transit service. • Provide staff support regarding the implementation of the western Riverside County TUMF program. While WRCOG will serve as the main agency, RCTC must play a support role regarding financial issues. • Participate and influence the regional discussions on meeting air passenger and freight growth demands for the future, encouraging the use of other regional airport facilities such as March Air Reserve Base over Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). • Participate in various forums and processes to assess the effectiveness of high occupancy vehicle lanes and seek opportunities to implement a peak hour only demonstration project where feasible. • Continue staff support for the administration of the Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition (RTAC). Of particular concern, is RTAC's role in development and overall approval of the Regional Transportation Plan. Facilitate public and private investments in clean air technology in support of the broader air quality programs for the Southern California Association of Governments, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Riverside County local entities. Objectives: • Participate on the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee at both the policy and staff levels to provide leadership in the development of its work program disbursing $12 million annually to reduce mobile source emissions. • Influence implementation of the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor plan to facilitate the location of clean fuel infrastructure and deployment of clean fuel equipment along designated corridors in Riverside County and the greater region through financial support and participation. • Continue to manage the CMAQ "Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund" within western Riverside County to provide seed funds for development of public/private clean fuels partnerships. 78 Foster the Commission's full involvement in a broad range of local, regional, state and federal government settings. Objectives: • Participate in the Self -Help Counties Coalition, the California Transit Association, state and federal transportation agencies and community/business organizations including the Monday Morning Group, Inland Empire Economic Partnership, the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, Temecula/Murrieta Group, Hemet/San Jacinto Group and the Valley Group. • • Work with the California Transportation Commission and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies to protect and enhance project funding for Riverside County through influencing policy decisions. Implement the RCTC/SANBAG State and Federal Legislative Program to maximize flexibility in the use of existing transportation revenues by supporting legislation to protect and increase current funding levels, insuring an equitable distribution of available resources, streamlining administrative procedures to reduce costs and time of project development, and accelerating the allocation and use of existing resources. Objectives: • Coordinate legislative activities of federal and state legislative consultants in light of the reauthorization of TEA 21 and the significant reduction of state transportation funding. Obtain monthly reports on activities performed. • Work with board members to establish policy positions, draft legislation, and take positions on pending legislation. • Review and analyze legislation, recommend positions for the Commission to adopt on specific legislative proposals. • Effectively represent the Commission before the state and federal legislative bodies, the California Transportation Commission and other agencies in funding, programming, and policy matters. • Maintain contact and good working relationships with state and federal lawmakers and their staffs. Regularly meet and inform them of County transportation issues, policy positions and project priorities. • Convene meetings with state, federal and legislative staff members, including hosting federal staff, for an annual full -day briefing and tour of projects. 79 Intergovernmental Programs and Legislative Affairs Performance/Workload Indicators _ FY 00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Actual FY 02/03 Estimated FY 03/04 Projected Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor Projects initiated and/or supported 2 3 3 3 CMAQ Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund projects under development 8 8 8 7 Intergovernmental advocacy provided to _ established committee's and or working groups 5 7 8 10 Legislative Matrix Submitted to Commission 4 4 4 8 Commissioners' and state and federal legislators In -person meetings 6 6 6 6 Inland Empire Delegation staff briefings 2 2 2 3 So. Calif. Legislative Staff Round Table 5 5 6 6 80 Planning and Programming Mission Statement: "To exert leadership in planning and programming transportation improvements resulting in improved mobility and air quality while leveraging maximum return of federal and state funding on local investment." Chart 21 - Planning and Programming Personnel 20% 7 Special Studies 31% LTF Disbursements 42% Professional & - Support 7% Expenditures Planning and Programming expenditures have decreased 37.6% from last year's budget due to reduced direct expenditure of funds on CETAP. While the project work is continuing, funding commitments have not kept pace with costs. However, the County of Riverside has agreed to fund the project work until funds become available to RCTC for this project. Professional Services of $132,000 include a consultant contract to assist the Commission with management of the Congestion Management Program (CMP), air quality analysis and legal services. Support costs of $19,600 consist of direct expenditures. Table 43 - Planning and Programming Expenditure Detail FY 00/01 FY 01102 FY 02/03 FY 02103 FY 03104 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 312,574 $ 311,442 $ 364,000 $ 287,300 $ 442,200 $ 78,200 21.5% Professional Costs Legal Services 12,741 9,723 17,000 30,400 42,000 25,000 147.1% Audit Fees - 5,200 - 0.0% Other Professional Services 78,162 116,875 90,000 93,900 90,000 0.0% Total Professional Costs 90,903 131,797 107,000 124,300 132,000 25,000 23.4% Support Costs 7,359 9,848 23,000 7,900 19,600 (3,400) -14.8% Projects and Operations Construction - Smart Call Box - 682,384 - 7,200 0 0% Special Studies 1,601,960 4,076,123 2,268,000 672,000 667,200 (1,600,800) -70.6% LTF Disbursements 632,361 605,485 728,000 594,300 915,600 187.600 25.8% Total Protects and Operations 2,234,321 5,363,992 2,996,000 1,273,500 1,582,800 (1,413,200) -47.2% Total Planning and Programming $ 2,645,156 $ 5,817.079 $ 3,490,000 $ 1,693,000 $ 2,176„600 $ (1,313,400) -37.6% 81 Planning and Programming Staffing Summary Position Administrative Support Specialist Deputy Executive,Director Director Transportation Planning &Policy Development Exocutiva Director Program Manager Rail Department Manager Staff Analyst FTE Department Overview FY 00101 FY 01102 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Actual Actual Budget Budget 0.65 0.62 0.70 0.60 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.92 0.86 0.83 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.19 1.04 1.13 1.04 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.90 3.63 3.77 3.91 The Commission is responsible for short-range transportation planning and programming. The Commission's involvement with long range planning includes coordination and input to long range transportation planning efforts throughout the County and Southern California Region. These efforts include participation in local and regional corridor studies, including the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Commission also serves as the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Riverside County and is responsible for developing and maintaining the Congestion Management Program (CMP), a state and federal program to link the impacts of land use decisions on the regional transportation system. Programming includes the development, review and approval of funding programs/projects and incorporation into the Federal/Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (FTIP/RTIP) and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The Commission is responsible for the following local, state, and federal fund programs: Measure A programs/projects, SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian projects, Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Intercity Rail, Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA), Surface Transportation Program (STP), and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). Department Budget Review Key Assumptions • The Commission will lead the CETAP effort with the County contracting for all elements of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). • A significant part of the CETAP effort is funded with state planning funds. • The consultant contract for CMP services is maintained to provide assistance with the traffic counter equipment installations and monitoring efforts. 82 • The Commission will continue the progress of transportation projects identified in Measure A, and the extension of Measure A as well as other high priority projects. • The Commission will represent the interests of the County in the SCAG 2004 Regional Transportation Plan Update Major Initiatives With the passage of SB 45, increased funding authority and responsibility was placed on the Commission as it relates to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). SB 45 provides for distribution of federal and state highway funds into the following categories: Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Interregional Improvement Program (IIP), and Intercity Rail. Each County Transportation Commission throughout the state is responsible for programming RIP funds, which represents 75% of the total STIP. As a result of SB 45, the Commission is now responsible to ensure projects funded with STIP funding are implemented consistent with California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans policies. Two percent of RIP funding available to Riverside County has been allocated for additional staff support to carry out planning, programming and monitoring activities. Transportation Planning The Commission's role in planning throughout the year will involve working with local, regional, state and federal agencies to ensure projects proposed for federal funding and/or those that are regionally significant are included in the 2004 RTP update scheduled for adoption by the SCAG Regional Council in April 2004. The RTP is a 30 -year long-range transportation plan for the SCAG six -county region. RCTC staff will provide the Board and Technical Advisory Committee information on regional discussions regarding the RTP update and the status of its conformity with the adopted Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Commission along with the County of Riverside will continue work on the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). This involves the integrated development of a Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) in Western county, the update of the Riverside County General Plan and the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). The RCIP project will identify future transportation corridors/systems, primarily in Western county. We expect to receive a Record of Decision to preserve right-of-way on the Winchester to Temecula Corridor in August 2003. The Record of Decision on the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor is scheduled for February 2004. State level environmental work will be conducted on the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor during fiscal year 2003/04 while a Major Investment Study is planned in cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority for the Riverside County to Orange County Corridor. 83 This year's Congestion Management Program (CMP) effort will focus on the Enhanced Transportation Monitoring System element. This will include the completion of the installation of traffic counter equipment along the urban and rural highway systems. This effort will provide an improved method of reporting traffic count data to meet federal and state monitoring requirements as well as local data needs. The traffic count information is planned to be posted on the RCTC website and will be updated on a quarterly basis. Transportation Programming During the FY 01/02, staff worked on the development of the 2002 RTIP/FTIP that received federal approval in October 2002. The 2002 RTIP is the short-term transportation program covering FY 02/03 through FY 07/08. The 2002 RTIP will be amended on a continuous basis (approximately quarterly) to incorporate changes to projects that do not require transportation conformity modeling. The next conformity modeling update will be the 2004 RTIP/FTIP scheduled for development and processing in FY 03/04. Annually, Commission staff administers SB 821 bicycle and pedestrian funds. The Commission is responsible for the selection and ranking of eligible projects that meet established criteria. A Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued in the month of April with project recommendations approved at the June Commission meeting. This year staff had planned on releasing calls for projects in anticipation of the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA -21) and the 2004 STIP cycle. However, due to the state budget crisis and reduced funding at the federal level, staff will be working on seeking funds to replace those that were lost from the STIP. Department Goals - Planning Build upon relationships with local, state, and federal agencies to coordinate short and long range planning to ensure that transportation projects receive funding and approvals. Objectives: • Work with CVAG, WRCOG, and Caltrans to coordinate input and comments on the 2004 RTP Update. • Provide policy input and coordination through our Commissioners in advocating RCTC projects. • Direct CETAP in • the integrated planning process and continue inter- and intra- county corridor studies. Continue to seek a stronger role for County Transportation Commissions in state and regional transportation and air quality programs to direct 84 funding for programs and projects that will improve air quality in Riverside County. Objectives: • Participate in statewide efforts to maintain SB 45 STIP at 75% of the total STIP amount. • Participate in the development of the 2003 Air Quality Management Program. • Participate in the development of the 2004 RTP Update. Continue implementation of the CMP in cooperation with SCAG, WRCOG, CVAG and local agencies and maintain federal certification for the Congestion Management Program. Objectives: • Provide data collected on the CMP System to SCAG for reporting on the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). • Provide data collected on the CMP system to local agencies, sub -regions, and other interested parties • Continue monitoring the CMP system to ensure the adopted level of service threshold is met. Work with Caltrans and local governments including transit operators to seek opportunities to develop and implement Intelligent Transportation System applications that improve the accessibility of highway and transit information to the public as well as achieve operational efficiencies. Objective: • Seek federal and state funding sources to support implementation of ITS strategies and projects consistent with the Inland Empire ITS Strategic Plan. Continue to advocate for jobs/housing balance and attracting high -income jobs to Riverside County in addition to addressing intercounty congestion. Objectives: • Participate in ongoing studies that are reviewing the jobs/housing imbalance between Orange and Riverside Counties and San Diego and Riverside Counties. • Represent Riverside County interests as population, job, and • housing forecasts are developed by SCAG and the state. Department Goals - Programming Improve project databases to allow for efficient processing of RTIP/FTIP updates and amendments. Objectives: 85 • Work with SCAG and other commissions to refine and maintain the SCAG regional database. • Coordinate with Caltrans to assure database compatibility among the regional and state databases. Ensure maximum funding and flexibility for projects programmed in the STIP and under the reauthorization of the federal transportation act. Objectives: • Through SB 45, continue to strategically program projects and obligate funds in an expeditious manner for the maximum use of all available funding. • Continue monitoring STIP project implementation (e.g. allocations, amendments, and extensions) to obtain/maintain maximum funding levels for projects in Riverside County. Provide assistance to local agencies with all project components to ensure milestones are met. Objectives: • Provide information regarding RTIP/FTIP data and funding status to project sponsors on a quarterly basis. • Participate in meetings to resolve any issues regarding local agency project delays or other problems with project implementation. Continue to work with state and federal agencies to streamline processes for funding and project approvals. Objectives: • Establish relationships with key staff at state and federal agencies. • Identify problematic areas with project programming and develop solutions for streamlining and clarification. • Participate in regional, state, and federal forums addressing issues related to project programming and FTIP/RTIP conformity. Planning & Programming Performance/Workload Indicators FY00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Actual FY 02/03 Estimated FY 03/04 Projected Federal Projects Monitored CMAQ/STP/TEA 374 374 194 194 Number of STIP Projects Monitored 45 1 45 81 1 81 Number of Traffic Counters at Call Boxes _ _ 20 20 20 33 Number of Traffic Counters at TMC Sites 0 0 0 _ 40 86 Rail Program Development, Operations and Support Mission Statement: "To develop and support rail transportation options for increased mobility within Riverside County and the region." Chart 22 — Rail Program Personnel 5% SCRRA Contribution 66% Rail Station Operations 22% `,,,, Professional & Support 7% Expenditures Rail Program expenditures include Metrolink support and the five Commission owned and operated rail stations. The SCRRA contribution (i.e. Metrolink support) consists of an operating contribution of $3,056,000. RCTC's subsidy to SCRRA's operating budget has increased by 0.9% from last year due to the addition of one off-peak round trip on the IEOC line. Station Maintenance includes utilities, grounds maintenance, repairs and cleaning of RCTC's rail stations. Professional and Support costs include legal services, consultant services and general supplies. 87 Table 44 - Rail Program Expenditure Detail FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 226,648 $ 217,087 $ 227,000 $ 190,600 $ 216,400 $ (10,600) -4.7% Professional Costs Legal Services 16,534 63,096 45,000 60,900 125,000 80,000 177.8% Special Studies 26,720 40,000 - (40,000) -100.0% Other Professional Services 104,841 132,411 130,000 152,700 152,000 22,000 16.9% Total Professional Costs Support Costs 148,095 195,507 215,000 213,600 277,000 62,000 28.8% 15,565 62,198 75,000 155,400 37,300 (37,700) -50 3% Rail Station Operations Station Maintenance 535,348 320,828 369,000 388,300 342,500 (26,500) -7.2% Station Security 558,305 623,247 768,600 626,100 662,600 (106,000) -13.8% Other Transit Operations - - - - 115,500 115,500 100.0% SCRRA Capital Maintenance 504,611 290,000 43,900 - - (43,900) -100.0% SCRRA Operating Subsidy 3,148,900 2,708,523 3,139,000 2,597,973 3,056,300 (82,700) -2.6% Total Rall Station Operations 4,747,165 3,942,597 4,320,500 3,612,373 4,176,900 (143,600) -3.3% Operating Transfer Out 435 414,000 1,562,000 36,500 (377,500) -91.2% Total Rail Program $5,137,472 $4,417,824 $ 5,251,500 $ 5,733,973 $ 4,744,100 $ (507,400) -9.7% Rail Program Staffing Summary Position FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Actual Actual Budget Budget Administrative Support Specialist 0.14 0.15 0.10 0.10 Deputy Executive Director 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Director Transportation Planning R Policy Development 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.03 Program Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Property'Agent 0.38 0.35 0.45 0.40 Rall Department Manager 0.92 0.95 0.80 0.55 Staff Anal st • 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FTE 2.47 2.53 2.42 2.16 Department Overview Department Description The Riverside County Transportation Commission has directed efforts in the areas of regional commuter rail, intercity passenger rail, high-speed rail, and capital improvements to support enhanced passenger and freight rail service. The entire program includes elements of planning, programming, commuter rail development and support, station and corridor management, mitigation of community and environmental impacts, legislative and regulatory advocacy, and construction of capital projects. Many elements are managed or supported by other Commission departments, by Bechtel 88 project management, and by legal counsel and consultants. Departmental efforts contributing to the rail program are found throughout the budget document. Coordination and consultation also occurs with a variety of public and private entities including: the California Transportation Commission, Caltrans, California Public Utilities Commission, California High Speed Rail Authority, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Amtrak, environmental agencies, the University of California, transit providers, SCAG, WRCOG, CVAG, local governments, private freight railroads, businesses and property owners. Commuter Rail The Commission participates in the ongoing funding and governance of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), a joint powers authority consisting of the transportation commissions of Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura counties. The Commission holds two voting positions on SCRRA's eleven member Board. RCTC staff serves on the five -county Technical Advisory Committee which negotiates service and funding levels, based upon the county's established priorities, and provides technical assistance, coordination between various SCRRA and RCTC departments, and linkages to local communities. Of the seven commuter rail lines operated by Metrolink, three routes, the Riverside, Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC), and 91 Lines, directly serve western Riverside County. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions • Metrolink's Preliminary FY 03/04 Budget is adopted by the Commission and the SCRRA. • Ridership and fare revenues continue to grow on the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 Lines. • The Commission manages the station security guard contract. Estimated costs are based on the actual contract terms with a portion to be reimbursed by SCRRA. • Parking expansion projects are completed at the La Sierra and Riverside Downtown stations. • Construction of the new North Main Corona Station pedestrian crossing is completed. Accomplishments • Opened the new North Main Corona Station in November 2002. 89 • Opened 120 new parking spaces (Phase 1) at Riverside —Downtown station in March 2003, bringing the total number of parking spaces to 870 at the largest station in Riverside County. • Opened 254 new parking spaces (Phase 1) at La Sierra Station. • Ridership on the new 91 line increased by 673 riders, for a total of 1,473, exceeding budget projections by 102%. • Celebrated SCRRA 10 year anniversary and Riverside County rail anniversary with passenger appreciation days, 10 -year commemorative station pin sets and marketing incentives such as monthly pass giveaways. • Enrolled over 140 Metrolink riders into the Rideshare 2 Rails program, bringing the total to 240, surpassing the goal of the program by 40 riders. • Beach Train ridership for 2002 season at 12,991. It was the highest ever in 7 years with an increase of 11% over the 2001 season. • Riverside Line on -time performance has increased to 95%. Major Initiatives Over the last 10 years, significant capital improvements have been made on the private freight corridors over which the Commission's rail services operate. Current major initiatives include preliminary engineering on Phase 2 of the North Main Corona Station Parking Structure, completion of Phase 2 parking expansion at La Sierra station, preliminary engineering of Phase 2 parking expansion at the Riverside Downtown station or preliminary engineering of the San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor and the Perris Multimodal Facility. Chart 23 — Metrolink Ridership 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2000 2001 2002 091 Line Ill Riverside/LA ❑Inland Emplre/Orange County 2003 2004 90 Intercity Passenger Rail In recent years the rail program has also focused attention on the creation of intercity passenger rail service between the Coachella Valley, Riverside and the Los Angeles basin (with future extension to the Mexican border at Calexico) through advocacy efforts with state, federal, and local government entities and negotiation with the freight railroads. The Commission's current efforts include seeking capital and operating funds and coordinating with Amtrak West and Caltrans. High Speed Passenger Rail The Commission continues to play a proactive role in the development of a statewide, high-speed passenger rail system, including routing of the backbone corridor through the Inland Empire with possible stations in Downtown Riverside, UC Riverside, March ARB, Murrieta, and Temecula. The California High Speed Rail Authority is preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 700 -mile high speed train system serving Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. Rail -related Properties and San Jacinto Corridor Unlike the other SCRRA county agencies, the Commission owns and operates the commuter rail stations serving Riverside County: Riverside -Downtown, Pedley, La Sierra, West Corona, and North Main Corona. Station operation and maintenance costs are included in this rail program budget with services coordinated by the Commission's property management department. 1% of the budget includes subsidy payments to Riverside Transit Agency to provide dedicated bus shuttle service at two stations to assist with overcrowded parking at stations. New this year will be the operating expenses related to the opening of the North Main Corona Station in the fall of 2002, bringing the total number of owned and operated stations to five. New and ongoing construction projects at these stations are described in the capital budget. Chart 24 — Station Operation & Maintenance - $1,010,100 Utilities Bus Operations 1% Security 65% 12% G eneral Maintenance 15% Grounds Maintenance 7% 91 Chart 25 — Station Locations Riverside County Metrolink Stations UP MAIN LINE +w BNSF MAIN LINE The Commission holds title to and manages the 38 -mile San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) and several adjacent properties, preserved for future passenger rail service. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) holds the freight rights in the corridor, providing service to local shippers, and performs maintenance on the line. In June 2000, the Commission allocated $20 million of Measure A funds for capital and operating expenses related to the implementation of passenger rail service on Segment 1 of the SJBL (Riverside to Romoland), however project cost estimates total $97 million. Staff is seeking a full funding grant agreement from the FTA and private funding from BNSF to fund the balance of the project cost. The FY 03/04 budget in the Capital Development and Delivery Section includes $900,000 for the project and preliminary engineering of the Perris Multi -Modal facility. Facilitating efficient freight service on the line continues to be a priority. Department Goals Commuter Rail Goals Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving Riverside County. 92 Objectives: • Increase peak period patronage on the Riverside Line by 7%, IEOC Line by 5%, and the 91 Line average by 10%. • Increase off-peak and reverse -peak patronage by 10 percent in FY 03/04 by aggressively marketing unused capacity for business, recreational, school trips and adding one off-peak round trip on the IEOC Line. • Reduce public subsidy per passenger mile traveled on lines currently serving Riverside County through economies of scale, efficient use of train sets and crew hours, and increased passenger fares. Maximize opportunities for public use of rail -related investment. Objectives: • Support transit operator efforts to expand availability and use of connecting transit in order to improve access and reduce demand on parking capacity. • Administer self-supporting or chartered special train service (i.e. Beach Trains, special event service, etc.) • Expand opportunities for inter -line travel through coordination of schedules with Amtrak intercity and long distance trains and other Metrolink lines. Encourage joint ticketing options. Identify and plan for capital improvements necessary to increase the scope, appeal, and reliability of commuter rail operations. Objectives: • Continue work to fully fund segment 1: San Jacinto Branchline (Riverside to Romoland extension). Intercity Rail Goal Maintain efforts with local agencies, other Southern California counties, the state and federal governments to expand intercity passenger rail service into Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. High Speed Rail Goal Continue to supportand influence state efforts in the creation of a high-speed passenger rail system along an Inland Empire alignment, through sponsorship of the Inland Empire High Speed Rail Task Force. Rail Corridor Goals 93 Continue efforts to reduce community impacts of rail infrastructure and operation. Objectives: • Support further research and investigation into clean -fuel, alternative rail technology for both passenger and freight rail service in the region. • Work toward reduction of grade crossing conflicts by advocating that additional grade separation funding be available for projects in Riverside County identified on the Alameda Corridor -East Trade Corridor Grade Separation Priority List. Seek capital improvements, operating practices, and institutional arrangements which improve the viability of corridors, serve shippers and alleviate freight rail conflicts. Plan for the incremental improvement of the San Jacinto Branch Line and maintain and operate RCTC-owned rail infrastructure in a safe and cost effective manner (see Property Management Goals). Objective: • Secure full funding for the upgrade of passenger service from Riverside to Romoland on the San Jacinto Branch Line. Rail Operations Performance/workload Indicators Growth on existing commuter lines • Riverside Line • IEOC Line • 91 Line (began 5/6/02) _ Farebox Recovery Ratio • Riverside Line • IEOC Line • 91 Line (began 5/6/02) Special Event Trains Ridership Saturday Service on Riverside Line — Average Ridership (discontinued FY 02/03) FY00/01 FY01/02 Actual Actual 4,523 4,200 2,757 2,923 N/A 240 50.9% 50.4% N/A 17 10,073 232 55.3% 46.3% 16.6% 17 11,607 FY 02/03 Estimated 4,372 3,076 1,473 54.8% 51.4% 49.7% 20 12,991 FY 03/04 Projected 4,412 3,300 1,620 55.0% 52.0% 50.0% 18 13,640 245 N/A N/A 94 Property Management Mission Statement: "To protect the real property assets of the Commission in a cost effective manner with awareness of potential economic benefit to be derived from the sale, lease, or development of said property." Chart 26 - Property Management Protects/Operations 15% Personnel 27% Support 4% Professional 54% Expenditures Property Management expenditures are budgeted for $215,000 to maintain Commission -owned Highway and Rail property. Professional costs increased $49,000 from last year's budget due to the retention of consultants for encroachment and appraisals. Projects and Operations include $32,100 for maintenance of commission owned property. Table 45 - Property Management Expenditure Detail FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 43,401 $ 48,365 $ 55,000 $ 46,200 $ 58,600 $ 3,600 6.5% Professional Costs Legal Services 22,131 13,158 32,000 19,400 40,000 8,000 25.0% Other Professional Services 15,574 21,068 26,000 25,000 75,000 49,000 188.5% Total Professional Costs 37,705 34,226 58,000 44,400 115,000 57,000 98.3% Support Costs 4,842 1,653 10,300 1,400 9,300 (1,000) -9.7% Projects and Operations Maintenance 57,645 45,188 55,400 19,700 32,100 (23,300) -42.1% Security 1,401 1,529 2,000 1,400 (2,000) -100.0% Utilities 14,284 14,196 18,000 14,000 (18,300) -100.0% Total Projects and Operations 73,330 60,913 75,400 35,100 32,100 (43,300) -57.4% Total Property Management $ 159,278 $ 145,158 $ 198,700 $ 127,100 $ 215,000 $ 16,300 8.2% 95 Property Management Staffing Summary Position FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Actual Actual Budget Budget Deputy Executive. Director, 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 Program Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 Property Agent 0:62 0.65 0.55 0.40 Rall Department Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 FTE _ 0.62 0.67 0.55 0.59 Department Overview Department Description Since 1990, the Commission has acquired property assets in the course of Rail and Highway project implementation. To date, these properties number over 225 parcels, including five Metrolink Commuter Rail stations. Operations of these stations are overseen by this department; however, expenses are identified in the Rail Operations Budget. This department develops license, lease and right of entry agreements related to the San Jacinto Branch Line which require the coordination of a variety of public and private entities, (i.e. Riverside County Flood Control District, Southern California Edison, Caltrans, Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline and Burlington Northern Santa Fe). Numerous agreements are negotiated and executed as directed by the Property Committee and the Commission. Upon project completion, properties are re- assessed and are deemed surplus when it has been determined that the continued retention of the property no longer supports the Commission policy goals and objectives. Major Accomplishments • Contractors were secured for the North Main Corona Station; • Completed surplus, appraisal and disbursement process for the San Jacinto "Y" property; • Completed transfer of five (5) properties to Caltrans for the 1-215/60/91 interchange; • Generated over $40,000 in new revenue from license and leases. Department Goals Maintain order, security and safety at the RCTC operating and non -operating properties. Objectives: • Complete transfer of land to Caltrans for the future 1-215/60/91 interchange; 96 • Complete the disposition of an office building (Annex) located at 1740 Spruce Street to Caltrans; • Insure undeveloped land is abated and secured with fencing; • Work with local law enforcement to prevent trespassing or improper use of Commission -owned property; • Through a selection process, retain a consultant to assist with the encroachment on the San Jacinto Branch Line; • Complete the implementation of CCTV systems at the five RCTC Metrolink Stations; • Install security gates for station elevators for use during the non -operating hours. Generate revenue to offset maintenance cost of rail and highway properties Objectives: • Implement the use of solar panels at the La Sierra Metrolink Station to offset electricity costs; • Coordinate appraisals and subsequent surplus of excess RCTC owned property. • Increase lease valuation and assessments on existing and future lease holders; • Complete development of a GIS database that will provide past and current information on license agreements for the San Jacinto Branch Line. Property Management Performance/Workload Indicators FY00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Actual FY 02/03 Estimated FY03/04 Projected License Agreements 22 18 21 _ 20 Lease Agreements 1 1 1 0 Appraisals 5 8 5 5 97 Property Management Mission Statement: "To protect the real property assets of the Commission in a cost effective manner with awareness of potential economic benefit to be derived from the sale, lease, or development of said property." Chart 26 - Property Management Projects/Operations 15% Personnel 27% Support 4% Professional 54% Expenditures Property Management expenditures are budgeted for $215,000 to maintain Commission -owned Highway and Rail property. Professional costs increased $49,000 from last year's budget due to the retention of consultants for encroachment and appraisals. Projects and Operations include $32,100 for maintenance of commission owned property. Table 45 - Property Management Expenditure Detail FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 43,401 $ 48,365 $ 55,000 $ 46,200 $ 58,600 $ 3,600 6.5% Professional Costs Legal Services 22,131 13,158 32,000 19,400 40,000 8,000 25.0% Other Professional Services 15,574 21,068 26.000 25,000 75,000 49,000 188.5% Total Professional Costs 37,705 34,226 58,000 44,400 115,000 57,000 98.3% Support Costs 4,842 1,653 10,300 1,400 9,300 (1,000) -9.7% Protects and Operations Maintenance 57,645 45,188 55,400 19,700 32,100 (23,300) -42.1% Security 1,401 1,529 2,000 1,400 (2,000) -100.0% Utilities 14,284 14,196 18,000 14,000 (18,000) -100.0% Total Protects and Operations 73,330 60,913 75,400 35,100 32,100 (43,300) -57.4% Total Property Management $ 159,278 $ 145,158 $ 198.700 $ 127,100 $ 215.000 $ 16,300 8.2% 98 Property Management Staffing Summary Position FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Actual Actual Budget Budget Deputy Executive Director Program Manager Property Agent Rail Department Manager 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.40 0.10 FIE 0.62 0.67 0.55 0.59 Department Overview Department Description Since 1990, the Commission has acquired property assets in the course of Rail and Highway project implementation. To date, these properties number over 225 parcels, including five Metrolink Commuter Rail stations. Operations of these stations are overseen by this department; however, expenses are identified in the Rail Operations Budget. This department develops license, lease and right of entry agreements related to the San Jacinto Branch Line which require the coordination of a variety of public and private entities, (i.e. Riverside County Flood Control District, Southern California Edison, Caltrans, Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline and Burlington Northern Santa Fe). Numerous agreements are negotiated and executed as directed by the Property Committee and the Commission. Upon project completion, properties are re- assessed and are deemed surplus when it has been determined that the continued retention of the property no longer supports the Commission policy goals and objectives. Major Accomplishments • Contractors were secured for the North Main Corona Station; • Completed surplus, appraisal and disbursement process for the San Jacinto "Y" property; • Completed transfer of five (5) properties to Caltrans for the 1-215/60/91 interchange; • Generated over $40,000 in new revenue from license and leases. Department Goals Maintain order, security and safety at the RCTC operating and non -operating properties. Objectives: • Complete transfer of land to Caltrans for the future 1-215/60/91 interchange; 99 • Complete the disposition of an office building (Annex) located at 1740 Spruce Street to Caltrans; • Insure undeveloped land is abated and secured with fencing; • Work with local law enforcement to prevent trespassing or improper use of Commission -owned property; • Through a selection process, retain a consultant to assist with the encroachment on the San Jacinto Branch Line; • Complete the implementation of CCTV systems at the five RCTC Metrolink Stations; • Install security gates for station elevators for use during the non -operating hours. Generate revenue to offset maintenance cost of rail and highway properties Objectives: • Implement the use of solar panels at the La Sierra Metrolink Station to offset electricity costs; • Coordinate appraisals and subsequent surplus of excess RCTC owned property. • Increase lease valuation and assessments on existing and future lease holders; • Complete development of a GIS database that will provide past and current information on license agreements for the San Jacinto Branch Line. Property Management Performance/Workload Indicators FY00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Actual FY 02/03 Estimated FY03/04 Projected License Agreements 22 18 21 20 Lease Agreements 1 1 1 0 Appraisals 5 8 5 5 100 Specialized Transit Mission Statement: "To maintain and enhance, as resources allow, transportation options for seniors, persons with disabilities and the truly needy through innovation and community interaction." Chart 27 — Specialized Transportation Personnel 1% Regional Transportation Coachella Valley 57% Professional d Support 0% Regional Transportation W astern County 42% Expenditures Western County special transportation expenditures are allocated based on a competitive process among qualified social service providers within western Riverside County. The last call for projects was made FY01/02 and was for a two-year period. The Coachella Valley allocation is disbursed monthly to the SunLine Transit Agency, the major transit provider in 'stern Riverside County. This budget shows a significant increase from prior year. This is .4ue to the increased revenues from Measure A and the ability to allocate more funds to specialized transportation providers. Table 46 — Specialized Transit Expenditure Detail FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 37,975 $ 28,114 $ 42,000 $ 30,600 $ 33,900 $ (8,100) -19.3% Professional Costs Legal Services 1,220 397 5,000 1,400 2,500 (2,500) -50.0% Other Professional Services - 10.500 12,600 1,000 (9,500) -90.5% Total Professional Costs 1,220 397 15,500 14,000 3,500 (12,000) -77.4% Support Costs 5,101 1,050 12,500 1,300 13,500 1,000 8.0% Projects and Operations Regional Transportation 3,153,384 4.285,480 3,658,000 4.083,600 4,497,000 839,000 22.9% Total Projects and Operations 3,153,384 4,285,480 3,658,000 4,083,600 4,497,000 839,000 22.9% Total Special Transportation $ 3.197,679 $ 4 315,040 $ 3,728.000 $ 4,129,500 $ 4,547,900 $ 819,900 22.0% 101 Specialized Transportation Staffing Summary Position FY 00101 Administrative Support Specialist Director Transportation Planning & Policy Development Executive Director Program Manager FTE Department Overview Department Description Actual 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.41 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Actual Budget Budget 0.20 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.25 0.20 0.38 0.30 0.27 Often characterized as some of the "soft" programs of Measure A, these programs provide a valuable service to the community. Substantial support is furnished to social service and public transit agencies, which serve special and unique needs of seniors and persons with disabilities. Annually, the Commission facilitates a competitive call for projects to allocate Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 funds available to non-profit transportation and social service agencies and public operators, under special circumstances. Major Accomplishments During FY 02/03, as a result of the Commission's two-year competitive call for projects, a little over one million dollars was provided to ten non-profit organizations. The funding will be used to provide transportation assistance to seniors, the disabled and to economically disadvantaged residents of western Riverside County. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions • Western County disbursements are based on the program established in FY 02/03. • The Coachella Valley Association of Governments allocates its discretionary five -percent of funding to the Sunline Transit Agency for transit. • The Sunline Transit Agency oversees the social services program for the Coachella Valley. Major Initiatives The Commission has long demonstrated a strong commitment to assisting in the mobility of those with specialized transit needs. Through its Specialized Transit Program, the Commission has provided millions of dollars to public and non-profit transit operators to assist in the provision of special transit services to improve the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities. Along with support of traditional dial -a -ride services, the Commission supports innovative programs which provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs. 102 For over thirteen years the Commission has provided operating grants to a number of non - At agencies in the western county to assist in the provision of very specialized transit service. The riders, many frail elderly, have come to depend on these services which provide a higher level of assistance than can be provided by the public providers and/or operate in areas not served by public transit. In 2002, a call for projects covering FY 02/03 and FY 03/04 was released for Specialized Transit Programs. Funding in the amount of $2.5 million will be available to local agencies throughout western Riverside County to support ongoing and new programs. In order to assure the availability of funds to support matching of Section 5310 federal capital grants, $150,000 on an annual basis, will be budgeted to meet the 20% local matching requirements. Department Goals Provide timely information to the public regarding Commission implemented projects and support public relations activities of Measure A funded programs by grant recipients. Objective: • Produce and distribute public information materials as needed including press releases, fliers, brochures, marketing materials, and newspaper ads. . rovide Measure A Specialized Transit Funds and technical assistance to support services which will maintain and/or enhance mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities, and the truly needy. Objectives: • Monitor performance of Specialized Transit Grant recipients through analysis of their quarterly performance reports. • Continue discussions with the Office on Aging and the United Way to encourage funding of transportation projects by these agencies. Assistance to screen eligible transportation programs and monitor the cost effectiveness of these proposals is offered to both agencies. • Support the Section 5310 federal grant process for the purchase of capital projects to improve mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities by working with Caltrans, public operators and social service agencies to ensure a competitive process statewide for the allocation of Federal transportation dollars for social service programs. • Provide technical assistance and program support to agencies offering specialized transit programs to ensure the maximum benefit of funding for improved mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities, and the economically disadvantaged. Continue to provide staff resources to assist and support the coordination of transit services, within the County and throughout the State. Objective: 103 • Regularly participate in meetings that focus on the coordination of transit services, such as the California Association for Coordinated Transportation, the SunLine Access Committee and the Riverside Transit Agency's ADA Committee. Specialized Transit Performance/ Workload Indicators FY00/01 Actual FY 01102 Actual FY 02103 Estimated FY 03/04 Projected 8 Number of Specialized Transit grants awarded 8 9 10 Number of one-way trips provided by Measure A funded non-profit operators 36,019 35,427 26,782 23,661 Number of one-way trips reimbursed through The Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) Western County 27,092 19,525 21,225 23,780 Number of transit tickets provided through the Transportation Access Program (TAP) _ 69,530 68,007 65,000 65,000 Number of clients served through Blindness Support Services 41 41 40 40 104 TRANSIT Mission Statement: "To coordinate the operation of all public transportation services within the county with a goal towards promoting program efficiency and effectiveness between transit operators." Chart 28 - Transit Personnel 5% SCRRA Contribution 66% Rail Station Operations 22% Professional & Support 7% Expenditures State Transit Assistance expenditures have decreased 54% from last year's budget. This decrease is directly related to the fiscal crisis of the State of California as the revenues for this program are received from the State. Table 47 — Transit Expenditure Detail FY 00/01 FY 01102 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 83,419 $ 100,514 $ 98,000 $ 74,900 $ 104,800 $ 6,800 6.9% Professional Costs Legal Services 870 3,818 5,000 (5,000) -100.0% Audit Services 66,231 - - 100,000 100,000 100% Other Professional Services - 1,000 100 1,000 0.0% Total Professional Costs 67,101 3,818 6,000 100 101,000 95,000 1583.3% Support Costs 5,671 5,841 12,500 6,600 11,300 (1,200) -9.6% Projects and Operations STA Disbursements 3,529,784 4,254,996 6,155,000 4.123,600 2.666,000 (3,489,000) -56.7% Total Projects and Operations 3,529,784 4,254,996 6,155,000 4,123,600 2,666,000 (3,489,000) -56.7% Total Transit $ 3.685.976 $ 4,365,169 $ 6,271,500 $ 4,205.200 $ 2,883,100 $ (3.388.400) -54.0% 105 Transit Staffing Summary Position FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Actual Actual Budget Budget Administrative Support Specialist 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.06 Director Transportation Planning & Policy Development 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 Program Manager 0.76 0.92 0.75 0.80 FTE 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.89 Department Overview Department Description The Commission is responsible for short-range transportation planning and programming. Planning includes the development of the countywide short-range transit plan for eight public transit operators which consists of the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, Southern California Regional Rail Authority's commuter rail, Palo Verde Valley, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency In FY 03/04, the Commission will conduct an unmet transit needs hearing in Palo Verde Valley, assist in coordinating the development, review and approval of the annual countywide Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and allocate transit -funding resources. The Commission has responsibility for funding transit programs using Measure A funds, Local Transportation Funds (LTF), State Transit Assistance (STA) funds, and Federal Transit Assistance funds which consist of Section 5307, 5309, and 5311 funds. Departmental Budget Review Major Accomplishments Transit operators submitted their Short Range Transit Plans for FY 02/03 utilizing the three-year, streamlined format approved by the Commission in FY 01/02. Previous SRTPs were submitted as a seven-year planning document. However, only three years of capital purchase information was required to be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan. The revised format eliminates the need for duplicated information in both the tables and text areas throughout the document. Key Assumptions • LTF, STA and Measure A disbursements are based . on projected budgetary allocation but will be adjusted after the Commission has made actual allocations. Department Goals Coordinate the operation of all public transportation services within the county with a goal towards promoting program efficiency and harmony between transit operators as outlined in state law. 106 Objectives: • Review transit planning, resource allocation and service implementation policy requirements, including appropriate coordination of commuter rail, inter -county and inter -city bus, local bus and paratransit, and social service transportation services. • Review the short-range transit plans of all operators ensuring consistency with the Commission's adopted productivity improvement programs. • Monitor transit operators' Quarterly Capital Grants Reports. • Monitor performance of transit operators' performance through analysis of their quarterly performance reports. • Encourage transit operators to purchase clean fuel buses. 107 Commuter Assistance Mission Statement: "To encourage and promote transportation alternatives for commuters, through innovation, education and community interaction." Chart 29 — Commuter Assistance Personnel 7% Capital Outlay 9% Professional 19% Projects/Operations 51% Support 14% Expenditures Commuter Assistance project and operating expenditures total $2,068,500, an increase of 15.6% from last year's budget. This increase is due to the addition of a program manager to manage the Commuter Assistance program. These expenditures consist of consultant services totaling $1,373,900 to manage and implement the program, merchant vouchers valued at $394,600, a $200,000 Transit Operating contribution and park and ride lease payments of $100,000. Support costs totaling $556,400 include mail and printing services, computer and vehicle maintenance, communications, and other office expenditures. Capital outlay of $345,000 is designated for the purchase of a 40' motor vehicle and interior displays to replace the existing Commuter Exchange, a mobile information center. This represents a 123% increase from prior year. 108 Table 48 - Commuter Assistance Expenditure Detail FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 177,756 $ 197,293 $ 150,000 $ 94,800 $ 260,300 $ 110,300 73.5% Professional Costs Legal Services 9,561 22,790 13,000 12,500 21,000 8,000 61.5% Audit Services - - - 0% Other Professional Services 6,761 230,937 538,000 199,500 750,500 212,500 39.5% Total Professional Costs 16,322 253,727 551,000 212,000 771,500 220,500 40.0% Support Costs 226,565 451,648 439,000 258,100 556,400 117,400 26.7% Protects and Operations Park & Ride 33,900 40,200 54,000 65,000 100,000 46,000 85.2% Regional Transportation 1,278,171 1,186,078 1,635,000 1,486,000 1,968,500 333,500 20.4% Special Studies - 100,000 - (100,00) -100.0% Total Projects and Operations 1,312,071 1,226,278 1,789,000 1,551,000 2,068,500 279,500 15.6% Capital Outlay 41,483 80,000 200.000 345,000 265,000 331.3% Total Commuter Assistance $ 1,732,714 $ 2,170,429 $ 3,009,000 $ 2,315,900 $ 4,001700 $ 992,700 33.0% Commuter Assistance Staffing Summary Position FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Actual Actual Budget Budget Administrative uppart:Specialist . 0.04 0.04' 0.00 0.00 Director Regional Programs & Public`Affairs 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.30 Executive Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Executive Director ,..;'- 0.00 '0.00 0.00 0.03 Program Manager 0.08 0.00 0.00 1.05 Director Public Information 0.49 0.42: 0.45 0.00 Staff Analyst 1.00 0.90. 0.80 0.80 FIE 1.77 1.61 1.50 2.21 Department Overview Department Description While much of the Commission's efforts revolve around increasing transportation infrastructure and capacity, there is significant value in efforts to manage transportation demand. The Commission's Commuter Assistance Program (Program) addresses the issue by encouraging residents to seek alternatives to commuting alone. This is promoted through technical assistance, incentive and educational programs offered to commuters and employers to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and improve air quality. 109 Accomplishments • Implemented an Inland Empire ridematching database system to more efficiently serve the employers and commuters in the two county region. • Participated in and effected decisions made to transition delivery of regional rideshare services from a centralized to a decentralized structure allowing the county transportation commissions to offer more customized services to their constituents. • Expanded the Program services to include a toll free information number, 1-866- RIDESHARE. Customer service representatives provide callers with a broad range of traveler information, assistance in finding alternative modes of transportation to travel to and from work, and identification of potential car and vanpool partners. • Developed and implemented a new marketing theme introducing rideshare mascots, Sharon A. Ride and Scooter Commuter. The two mascots, rescued chimpanzees, will be featured in various rideshare promotions over the next several years, adding humor and visual continuity to the Commission's efforts to encourage use of rideshare options. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions The Commission will continue to contract with a consulting firm to implement the Program under the management of the Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs, and Program Manager. Technical and budget support will be provided by a Staff Analyst. No significant programmatic changes are planned for the existing rideshare incentive and employer assistance work efforts. A new service will be added to the Program allowing individuals interested in finding rideshare partners via the Internet. San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) will continue to contract with the Commission to manage and implement a "sister" Commuter Assistance Program for residents and employers in San Bernardino County. Major Initiatives A cornerstone of the Commuter Assistance Program is the continued partnership between commuters, employers, and government. The partnership based on voluntary efforts, makes a collective difference in increasing the efficiency of our transportation system —local roads, freeways, commuter rail and public bus. The combined effort results in less congestion, decreased vehicle miles traveled and improved air quality. While the Commission's Program was implemented as a specific requirement under Measure A to address congestion mitigation, two factors have continued over the last few 110 years to impact its voluntary, business friendly approach in marketing to commuters directly and through their employers. First, the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 2202 was amended to allow employers to select options other than rideshare programs to reduce air pollution. Second, the implementation of SB 836 in January 1997 exempted all employers having 100 to 249 employees at a work site from meeting Rule 2202 requirements. The value of the Commuter Assistance Program should be seen in its inherent capability to ease traffic congestion. While ridesharing has a beneficial impact on air quality, it should first be seen as a strategy in addressing traffic congestion and in providing an attractive commuter option to local residents who can use alternative forms of transportation including freeway carpool lanes, public buses or Metrolink. The Commission has been successful in working with local employers to continue participating in rideshare programs through an attention to customer service and to having a commitment in improving the county's transportation system. Given that the highest percentage of rideshare arrangements are formed at work sites, voluntary employer participation is critical to addressing congestion and air quality goals as employers are the conduit to directly influencing their employees' personal transportation choices. The Program's annual Performance/Workload Indicators serve as a good indicator of employer participation rates over time. To assist staff with the administration and ongoing operation of the Program and its multiple projects, a consulting firm has been retained annually by the Commission. The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) contracts with the Commission for administration and implementation of its Commuter Assistance Program. By working closely together, the positive impact of the Commuter Assistance Program is enhanced because it serves employers and commuters throughout the Inland Empire. The Commission will expand its Program services to include management and operation of a wide area network ridematching database system for and with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority, Ventura County Transportation Commission and SANBAG. In addition to contract hardware and software database services, technical and operational support will be provided to the agencies on an as needed basis. The service to residents and local employers will be enhanced this year through the implementation of a new rideshare website that will provide real time commuter matching information via a regional database. By registering on-line at www.Rideshare.us, registrants will be able to identify other commuters interested in carpooling or vanpooling within similar timeframes and origins and destinations. The new website will also allow employers who have surveyed with the Program to have direct access to their employees' records to update information and produce various reports to assist in employee marketing and outreach. 111 An ongoing initiative for the Program this year will be the implementation of a survey tool to provide continuing feedback on the effectiveness of the program in establishing and sustaining rideshare behavior. This will also enable the Commission to closely monitor consultant performance in serving employers and enhance the Commission's efforts. A redesign of the Program's incentive tracking system will be completed early in the program year. The update of the software database will provide Program staff with new tools to more efficiently performed administrative functions involved with maintaining commuter and employer records including payment of incentives and documenting such data as number of days in a rideshare mode, type of mode used, and air quality benefits. As noted earlier, the budget includes funding for the replacement of the Commuter Exchange, a 40' motor vehicle, and its interior displays. The mobile unit serves as a one stop shopping center for rideshare and air quality information. Funding is also provided to convert the new mobile information center to operate on alternative fuels. Since thousands of residents work in neighboring counties, serving these commuters is a priority for the Commission, RCTC will target residents commuting to Orange, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties. While the cost of reaching out to employers in adjoining counties is prohibitive, the Commission will offer limited outreach to major employers in neighboring counties, which employ large numbers of Inland Empire residents. The Commission will reach out to these employers as well as market to commuters within Riverside County. Working with employers throughout the region complements the Commission's expanding teleservices function and the operation of the Program's toll free number, 1-866-RIDESHARE. The FY03/04 Commuter Assistance Program consists of the following core and supplemental projects. Project budgets have been developed based on experience, current trends, scope of work, goals, estimated staff hours, marketing tasks, and estimated participation rates. Core Projects Advantage Rideshare: To reduce single occupant vehicle trips, this short term incentive project offers up to $2/day for each day new ridesharers use an alternate mode of transportation in a three month period. Commuters must live in western Riverside County and travel to work within the county. Club Ride: To recognize the contribution of long term ridesharers, this project offers discounts of 20% at various restaurant locations and up to a 50% savings at various entertainment venues. In addition, Club Ride members receive a quarterly newsletter and special discount offerings. Commuter Exchange: To provide information and materials regarding the importance and ease of using alternate modes of transportation, the 40' mobile resource center attends various events including employer transportation fairs, community activities and 112 schools. The mobile unit brings a field trip experience to elementary schools through creative and interactive lessons about the importance of continuing their ridesharing activities when they become drivers. Customized take-home newsletters help students share what they have learned with their parents. Inland Empire Commuter Services (IECS): This project supports voluntary efforts by local employers in maintaining and implementing rideshare activities at work sites. This project provides services and tools to Riverside County employers including: technical assistance; continuing education through transportation forums and Rideshare Connection, a broadcast fax; theme marketing campaign materials including State Rideshare Week; ridematching and AVR survey services; and other specialized efforts as determined by changing conditions. Staff actively participates with other regional and state rideshare entities to provide leadership and coordination of services to Riverside County employers. This particular service is primarily funded through federal grant funds. This project also includes employer transportation forums, which provide continuing education and employer networking opportunities. Ridematching: The maintenance of an Inland Empire commuter database enables RCTC to provide RideGuides to commuters seeking carpool and vanpool matches in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. A RideGuide is a customized information piece that provides a variety of rideshare information including individual contacts of commuters interested in sharing a ride, transit options and park and ride information. RideGuides are produced as part of a surveying process at employer worksites. As an enhancement of the Program's ridematching service this year, individuals will also be able to seek the same type of information via the internet. The Program's ridematching services will be expanded to serve the adjoining Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura to continue provision and update of the five county area ridematching database. Teleservices: The Program administers and operates a toll -free number, 1-866- RIDESHARE. The number provides live assistance to callers on transit information and individualized assistance in joining or forming carpools and vanpools. This service also provides callers with a broad range of transportation information including locations of park and ride lots and HOV lanes, the availability of commuter incentives, and the location of transit routes, stations and services. Buspool Subsidies: To facilitate the formation and use of buspools originating in Riverside County, this project offers a $25 per seat per month subsidy ($1,175/bus/month) to employer and/or commuter operated buspools. The budget supports four existing buspools and reserves funding for two new buspools. Park and Ride Lots: In support of ridesharing, the park and ride project leases existing underutilized parking lots that are conveniently located near freeway corridors. In a three way lease agreement between the property owner, Caltrans and the Commission, lots are established and/or changed in response to rideshare demand. 113 Special Project Development/Contingencies: To provide flexibility in addressing changing conditions or needs in providing transportation demand management services to employers and commuters within a fiscal year this project allocates funds for work efforts not anticipated such as special promotions, transportation fairs, studies, reduced funds, etc. Department Goals Operate a cost-effective commuter assistance program within Riverside County that results in a demonstrable reduction in single occupant car trips thus assisting with congestion mitigation and a reduction in harmful emissions: Objectives: • Offer short-term incentives for commuters to try a commute mode other than driving alone. • Operate an affinity program for long-term ridesharers to encourage alternative travel modes and in doing so, create positive support for the program among local merchants. • Work with employers to offer these programs to their employees as a way of attracting employees to Riverside County businesses. • Ensure the effectiveness of the program through recurrent assessments of participation and retention of ridesharers. • Provide ridematching information through the maintenance of a ridematching database and website. Ensure the coordination of ridesharing programs throughout the Inland Empire and the Southern California region. Objectives: • Implement a similar commuter assistance program in San Bernardino County on a contract basis, thus expanding the reach and effectiveness of commuter programs throughout the Inland Empire area. • Partially fund and participate in regional rideshare marketing programs to enhance awareness of and encourage participation in commute modes that provide an alternative to driving alone. • Provide contract ridematching database services to the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura to maintain and enhance the five county wide area network system. Enhance and pursue educational activities that encourage alternatives to driving alone and that encourage employers to assist employees in seeking commute methods other than driving alone. Objectives: • Make full use of the Commuter Exchange program at local schools and major public events. 114 • Publish a quarterly newsletter for Club Ride members and send out regular fax information bulletins to local employers regarding commuter issues. • Advocate through the Commission's legislative program for commuter -friendly tax breaks for employers who assist residents by paying for transit passes and vanpool costs. • Publicize the participation of local employers in RCTC Commuter Assistance Programs through an awards program. Table 49 — Funding Sources Core Projects Advantage Rideshare Out of County Advantage Rideshare In County Buspool Subsidies Club Ride Commuter Exchange Inland Empire Commuter Services - Riverside Ridematching Regional Rideshare Marketing Special Project Development/Contingencies ' " 'rmation Services IBAG Park and Ride Regional Ridematching Services General TOTAL Commuter Incentive Commuter Incentive Commuter Incentive Commuter Incentive Public Education Employer Services Employer Services Marketing Program Enchancement Commuter Services Commuter Services Employer Services $ 86,300 $ 232,000 84,600 172,500 443,750 260,100 115,600 20,000 110,000 105,500 100,000 67,647 474,450 1,080,300 648,953 $ 86,300 232,000 84,600 172,500 443,750 260,100 115,600 20,000 110,000 105,500 1,080,300 100,000 716,600 474,450 $ 2,272,447 $1,729,253 $ 4,001,700 San Bernardino County's Rideshare program is contracted to RCTC to administer and is funded 100% by SANBAG. Chart 30 — Commuter Assistance Program Budget Commuter Services 5% Program Enhancement 3% Com m uter Incentives 14% General 12% SANBAG 27% Employer Services 28% Public Education 11% 115 Commuter Assistance Performance/Workload Indicators FY00/01 Actual FY01/02 Actual FY 02/03 Estimated FY 03/04 Projected Number of one-way single occupant vehicle trips reduced as a result of Advantage Rideshare incentives: 50,000 59,251 58,500 59,000 Number of Club Ride Members _ 2,005 1,792 1,560 1,900 Number of Club Ride business discount partnerships 200 160 160 160 Provisions of Employer Transportation Forums 8 8 7 8 Number of services provided by Inland Empire Commuter Services to support employer trip reduction efforts at work sites: • Survey/Ride Guide Services 106 144 120 120 • Technical Assistance Services 184 244 175 175 • Ride Guides produced 14,000 16,042 11,300 11,500 Number of events participated in by the Commuter Exchange: • Public Events 9 10 8 7 • Employer Work Sites 12 12 7 8 • Elementary Schools 35 38 45 45 Delivery of "Rideshare Connection" broadcast/fax information bulletin to employers 16 17 15 18 Development and distribution of rideshare marketing campaigns for implementation by employers 2 2 2 2 Motorist Assistance Mission Statement: "To improve safety and convenience to motorists who experience mechanical difficulty on the roadway." Chart 31 - Motorist Assistance Personnel 4" Protect/Operations 91% Professional 3% Support 2% Expenditures Budgeted expenditures for project operations include $1,290,400 in towing contract costs for the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program, and $596,500 for the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) to cover cellular access charges, knockdowns, vandalism, miscellaneous repairs and maintenance and call answering services. Professional service costs of $58,100 include legal services and contracted consultants to monitor the Commission's call box program, and provide monthly operating and statistical reports for the program. Table 50 - Motorist Assistance Expenditure Detail FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Protected Actual Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 94,808 $ 100,002 $ 123,000 $ 99,500 $ 88,400 $ (34,600) -28.1% Professional Costs Legal Services 9,887 7,045 8,000 4,900 6,000 (2,000) -25.0% Other Professional Services 41,031 31,797 52.000 45,100 52,100 100 0.2% Total Professional Costs 50,918 38,842 Support Costs 23,351 20,784 60,000 50,000 58,100 (1,900) -3.2% 34,300 29,000 32,400 (1,900) -5.5% Projects and Operations Projects General 5,325 752 2,600 1,000 9,200 6,600 253.8% Towing 947,199 964,605 1,113,000 1,022,000 1,290,400 177,400 15.9% Access Charges 112,357 111,140 111,000 107,000 105,800 (5,200) -4.7% Preventive Maintenance 1,354 4,000 1,600 4,150 150 3.8% Corrective Maintenance 1,354 4,000 1,600 4,150 150 3.8% Equipment Maintenance 597,058 1,106,830 399,000 334,000 364,400 (34,600) -8.7% Knockdowns 9,706 1,663 26,000 6,000 26,000 - 0.0% Vandalism 1,253 4,000 1,000 2,000 (2,000) -50.0% Operating Costs 223,119 212,082 203,800 160,000 129,800 (74,000) -36.3% Special Studies - - 10,000 - 10,000 0.0% Total Projects and Operations Total Motorist Assistance 1,896,017 2,399,780 1,877,400 $ 2,065,094 $ 2,559,408 $ 2,094,700 $ 1,634,200 1,945,900 68,500 3.6% 1,812,700 $ 2„124,800 $ 30.100 1.4% 117 Motorist Assistance Staffing Summary Position FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Actual Actual Budget Budget Administrative. Support Specialist 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 Director Regional Programs & Public Affairs 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 Executive Assistant 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Program Manger 0.74 - 0.86 0.85 0.54 FTE 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.69 Department Overview Department Description The Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) is the call box system that allows motorists to call for assistance in the event of a mechanical breakdown or accident on the freeway. Additionally, the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) assists stranded motorists on certain segments of the freeway by towing, changing tires, providing a gallon of fuel, etc., at no charge to the motorists. FSP service is also provided in construction zones through separate funding agreements with Caltrans to help mitigate congestion. Department Budget Review Key Assumptions • Existing levels of vandalism, knockdowns, and miscellaneous repairs will remain consistent with the past .year. • Maintenance costs are based on a "flat -fee" maintenance contract with Comarco Wireless Technologies. • Call box operating costs are based on estimates from the CHP and the call answering center contract through SANBAG. • Cellular service charges are based on a five-year agreement with AT&T Wireless Services. • Tow truck contractor costs for the five existing beats are based on the Commission approved contracts. • In conjunction with CHP and Caltrans, staff will evaluate the possibility of expanding FSP service hours on existing beats should additional State funding become available. Major Accomplishments The Riverside County SAFE, along with the San Bernardino County SAFE, transferred its call box call answering services to a private contractor in February, 2002. The California Highway Patrol had been handling call box call answering and dispatching services since the inception of the program in 1990. However, in an effort to provide faster and more responsive service for our motorist as well as cut operating costs, a request for proposal (RFP) was issued to contract with a private firm to answer the call box calls. CaII answering operating costs have been reduced by approximately 118 $52,000 in the past twelve months. The private call answering center (CAC) answers all calls and only true emergency calls are sent to the CHP. All other non -emergency calls are either routed through a remote message system (similar to e-mail) to the CHP or are handled by the CAC. The CHP continues to dispatch emergency vehicles to incidents reported via the call boxes. Major Initiatives A five-year strategic and financial plan for the call box program is being completed by staff. The purpose of the plan is to look at the various issues confronting the program (e.g. decreasing call volume, ADA accessibility, conversion to digital cellular service, etc.) as well as the financial viability of the program. Staff also submitted a grant proposal to the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) requesting funding for Freeway Service Patrol service on SR -60 in the city of Moreno Valley. The project will fund two vehicles during the morning and afternoon commute hours for the two year duration of the SR -60 HOV construction project. Department Goals Maintain the integrity of the call box system and service levels. Objective: • Along with San Bernardino County SAFE, continue to monitor the operation of the call answering center contractor, Professional Communications Network (PCN). Continue the Freeway Service Patrol as long as state -funding support is available. Objectives: • Consult with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol to evaluate existing beats and determine if changes in service hours or expanded service hours are justified should additional funding become available. • Review proposed construction projects with Caltrans and coordinate the use of temporary tow service to mitigate congestion. • Work cooperatively with Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, and other FSP program managers to gain increased funding for the program and review the funding allocation formula to attain a more equitable distribution of program funds. Explore cost effective ways to provide access to call boxes for persons with disabilities. Objective: • Implement the Commission's recommendations from the Riverside County SAFE Five Year Strategic and Financial Plan. 119 Motorist Assistance Performance/Workload Indicators FY00/01 Actual FY 01/02 Actual FY 02/03 Estimated FY 03/04 Projected Number of Call Boxes (at 6/30) 947 1,085 1,077 1,070 Number of CaII Box Calls 44,158 37,918 33,000 31,000 Number of Vehicle Assists 25,679 25,952 27,800 29,900 Review of Motorist's Satisfaction 98% 99% 100% 100% Capital Project Development and Delivery Mission Statement: "To keep the Commission's compact with the voters of Riverside County by accelerating the planning, programming, and implementation of projects and programs in the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan to the extent that funds are available. To ensure that capital projects are environmentally acceptable, technically sound and designed in a manner that is cost effective." Chart 32 — Capital Project Development and Delivery Local Streets & Roads 30% Regional / Arterial 10% Rail 10% Highway 50% Expenditures The budgeted expenditures total $128,430,700 to cover all of the Commission's major projects. Rail expenditures amount to $7,019,300 primarily for the completion of the new North Main Corona station, parking lot expansions at the La Sierra and Riverside Downtown stations, complete construction of the Pedley station emergency platform extension and complete design and installation of the Pedley station security surveillance system. Highway expenditures of $40,882,100 are for engineering, construction and right of way on Routes 60, 74, 79, 91 and 111. Disbursements to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) for the Regional Arterial program are budgeted at $7,133,200. Payments to cities and the County for local streets and roads repair, maintenance and construction amount to $36,999,600. Repayment of bond debt amounts to $35,478,100. Other costs of $918,400 include salary and fringe benefits, legal fees, professional services and support. 121 Table 51 - Capital Project Development and Delivery Expenditure Detail Salaries and Benefits FY 00101 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Change Change $ 179,980 $ 139,794 $ 191,200 $ 140,300 $ 380,800 $ 189,600 99.2% Professional Costs Legal Services 253,785 482,250 481,000 334.100 443,200 (37,800) -7.9% Audit Services 21,125 40,100 59,600 14,200 7,000 (52,600) -88.3% Other Professional Services 15,970 33,588 555,000 _ 22,000 25,000 (530 000) -95.5% Total Professional Costs 290,880 555,938 1,095,600 370,300 475,200 (620,400) -56.6% Support Costs 10,574 21,302 34,500 34,100 62,400 27,900 80.9% Protects and Operations Projects -General 1,681,760 1,811,045 2,228,600 1,377,600 2,036,700 (191,900) -8.6% Highway and Rall Engineering 2,838,906 5,541,115 7,133,312 3,135,100 4,109,400 (3,023,912) -42.4% Highway and Rall Construction 5,452,303 2,219,067 33,648,200 26,545,900 37,207,300 3,559,100 10.6% Highway and Rall ROW 1,402,629 4,798,338 21,213,000 15.971,900 4,508,000 (16,705,000) -78.7% Hlghway and Rail Special Study 136,471 503,766 425.000 230,100 - (425,000) -100.0% Local Streets 8 Roads 34,338,176 36,616,386 34,746.000 35,376,000 36,999,600 2,253,600 6.5% Regional Arterial 10,532,091 9,732,105 7,957,900 8,957,900 7,133,200 (824,700) -10.4% Total Projects and Operations 56,382,335 61,221,820 107,352,012 91,594,500 91,994,200 (15,357,812) -14.3% Capital Outlay _ 40,000 40,000 100.0% Operating Transfer Out - Debt 33,891,187 34,906,898 35,550,000 35,549,200 35,478 1000 (71,900) -0.2% Total Capital Project Development/Delivery $ 90,754,957 $ 96,845,752. 5 144,223,312 $ 127,688,400. $ 128,430,700 5 (15,792,612) -11.0% Delivery Capital Project Development and Delivery Staffing Summary Position FY 00/01 FY 01)02 FY 02103 FY 03/04 Actual Actual Budget Budget Deputy Executive Director 0.78 0.80 0.84 0.79 Executive Director 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 Program Manager 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.18 Property Agent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 Rail Department Manager 0.03 0.04 0.15 0.30 FTE 0.81 0.86 1.01 1.72 Department Overview Department Description The Capital Projects Department is responsible for the development and delivery of major highway and rail capital projects where RCTC is identified as the lead agency. The delivery of a capital project can include tasks such as feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, environmental clearance, final design, right of way acquisition, and construction. Nearly 63% of the Commission's budget originates in this department managed by the Deputy Executive Director. The primary goal of the department is to accelerate delivery of the Measure A and STIP funded highway and rail capital improvement projects throughout the County o1 122 Riverside. Highway improvements currently being worked on include the addition of car pool lanes, widening and realignment projects and interchange improvements. The Commission will continue its efforts to protect and purchase right of way for the identified highway improvements as funding permits. Commuter Rail capital improvements include: the purchase of equipment and construction of a new rail station along with the necessary track improvements design of a parking structure and expansion of the existing La Sierra and Riverside Downtown rail stations. In addition to the Measure "A" projects constructed directly by RCTC, this department provides the necessary coordination between RCTC and Caltrans for the development of scope, cost, and project delivery schedules for Measure "A" projects that are funded by the STIP. For these projects, Caltrans is assigned the responsibility for design and construction. The Capital Projects Department also has lead agency status over certain demonstration projects identified in the federal legislation, the Transportation Enhancement Act of the 21st Century (TEA21). Department Budget Review Key Assumptions • Commission will continue its emphasis on completion of the Measure A program. • The January 2000 Strategic Plan Phase I serves as the basis for defining project selection and prioritization. • Bond proceeds are only used for major highway projects. • New Rail projects are completed with federal, state and Measure A funding. • Project costs are based on engineer's estimates and scope agreements with Caltrans. • Projects are competitively bid to minimize costs. • All projects will be built to existing required and applicable standards. Major Initiatives Measure A Strategic Plan The Chief Financial Officer updates state and federal STIP, and Measure A revenues projected through the year 2008 for each area of the county based on formulas approved by the Commission. Those projections allow the Commission to identify specific projects, priorities, and funding sources for each year of the Strategic Plan period. The construction projects identified in the FY 03/04 budget, funded by Measure A or rail funds, require the continued support of the Bechtel Program Management team which includes: program managers, project engineers, construction engineers, inspectors and support staff through this next fiscal year. Since the passage of SB 45 the Commission is responsible for STIP fund programming and project delivery. The Commission is also responsible for project delivery of federal 123 demonstration projects and the Governor's Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) project on State Route 91. Further, the Commission has agreed to provide continuing assistance through Bechtel consultants to Caltrans staff to assist in the advanced completion of the Riverside Measure "A" 1-215 highway projects through the "Design Sequencing Process" allowed by AB 405. Highway and Rail Project Development and Implementation The major rail construction projects are: • Video Surveillance System at the Pedley rail station. • Completion of emergency platform extension at the Pedley rail station. • Completion of the new North Main Corona station. • Expansion of parking lots at the La Sierra and Riverside Downtown stations. • Begin preliminary design and environmental clearance of the Perris Multimodal Facility. The major highway construction projects are: • Realignment and widening of State Route 74 highway from 1-15 in the City of Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris. • Addition of HOV lanes on State Route 60 from East junction Route 60/1-215 to Redlands Boulevard. • Construction of auxiliary lanes project between Magnolia and Mary Street. • Operational improvements along State Route 86 State Highway 111 in the Coachella Valley. The major highway design projects are: • Complete PS & E design for the 1-215 projects. • State Route 79 realignment project Project Report and Environmental document. • Preliminary Engineering of HOV lanes on State Route 91 between Mary Street and the State Route 60/91/1-215 Interchange. (See the Projects Summary for a brief synopsis on each project included in the Commissions capital program for FY 03/04). STIP Funded Projects Interstate 215 60/91/1-215 Interchange to 60/1-215 East Junction • Continue final design and begin right of way acquisition for the project to provide: two direct connectors at the 60/91/1-215 Interchange; HOV lanes and a truck climbing lane from University Avenue to the 60/1-215 East Junction; a truck bypass at the 60/1-215 East Junction; new interchanges at Spruce Street on State Route 91, and new interchanges at Martin Luther King on 1-215. Interstate 10 Ramon Road Interchange 124 • Programmed funds for widening the interchange. Demonstration Projects Funded Under TEA 21 that have other agencies acting as "Lead Agencies": Highway Projects 1-15 Construct new interchange at Galena Street and 1-215 for Job Development 1-215 Construct Oleander Street Interchange and Circulation Improvements 1-15 Construct Overcrossing at Overland Drive and 1-15 1-10 Construct interstate 10 interchanges in the Coachella Valley Route 71 Construct new improvements on ramps at Route 91 Route 91 Widen Green River Road Interchange Route 60 Construct Nason Street Interchange Transit Projects March Inland Port Ground Access Transit Vehicle Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Local Streets and Roads The Commission disburses Measure A local streets and roads funds directly to the Cities and County for their use. The budgeted amount is set by formula established in the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Local jurisdictions will receive $36,999,600 for local streets and roads maintenance, repair, and construction. Each jurisdiction's respective allocation is based on population and the amount of sales tax generated. A number of jurisdictions in the Western County have entered into loan agreements with the Commission for advance acceleration of Measure A local streets and roads revenue. The annual principal and interest payments for these loans are deducted by the Commission from each city's respective disbursements based on the terms of the loan agreements. The participating jurisdictions are the cities of Canyon Lake, Corona, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, Lake Elsinore and Temecula. La Quinta is the only city in the Coachella Valley, which does not participate in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program. The Measure A allocations of these cities are remitted to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) in lieu of the TUMF. Total Measure A funding under the local streets and roads programs to be received by CVAG is $744,000. The Coachella Valley has a discretionary five percent of their sales tax revenues that may be allocated for either, streets and roads or transit as determined by CVAG. The local street and road money for the Palo Verde Valley Area is divided proportionately between the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside based on population and sales tax generated. 125 Western County Area Banning Beaumont Calimesa Canyon Lake Corona Hemet Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Perris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula Riverside County Total Western County Local Streets and Road Funding $516,000 257,000 137,000 180,000 3,428,000 1,419,000 751,000 2,930,000 1,129,000 667,000 846,000 6,492,000 467,000 2,162,000 6,920,000 $28.301.000 Coachella Valley Area Local Streets and Cathedral City Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Palm Springs Palm Desert Rancho Mirage Riverside County Coachella Valley Association of Governments Total Coachella Valley Road Funding $1,261,000 308,000 245,000 180,000 1,032,000 0 1,441,000 2,054,000 622,000 1,227,000 744,000 $9.114.000 Palo Verde Valley Area Local Streets & Road Funding Blythe $859,000 Riverside County 199,000 Total Palo Verde Valley $1.058,000 Department Goals Continue prudent right of way protection and preservation activities for Measure A projects to control long range project costs and project feasibility. Objectives: • Purchase property to protect right-of-way required along Routes 60, 74, 79 and 91 for future projects if funding is available. 126 • Develop agreements with private property owners/developers, where practical, to coordinate the design of Measure A funded highway improvements with improvements required for development approval. Build upon and strengthen the partnership with Caltrans toward timely delivery of identified Measure A and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects. Objectives: • Develop agreements with Caltrans, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as may be required, to finalize project scoping and cost issues for the STIP, TEA -21, Federal Demonstration Projects, and Measure A funded highway projects on Routes 1-215, 91, 74 , 79 and 60 in Riverside County. • Provide monthly contract status and cost schedule reports to the Commission and to Caltrans. In coordination with SANBAG and Caltrans District 08, provide the FHWA Regional Administrator and his key staff members with a briefing on the overall Measure A and I Highway Programs, the status of various projects, and identify and discuss issues which need resolution in order to keep current projects on schedule. To the extent permitted by law, pursue reasonable involvement of local firms and minority and women business enterprises in contract work. Objective: • Maintain goal for a minimum DBE participation in all federally funded contracts. Continue to review quarterly report on DBE participation levels. FY 02/03 goal is currently 11.4% Provide effective communication of project progress to the Commission board members, Caltrans, and FHWA. Objective: • Develop a strategy with Caltrans District 08 that would allow RCTC to advance specific projects identified in the Strategic Plan to take advantage of any unexpected state or federal funding which may become available through increased state/federal budget authorizations or potential loan programs to advance construction. Work with Caltrans and other agencies toward completion of Preliminary Engineering and Environmental clearance of all projects. Objectives: • Work with Caltrans, the County of Riverside and the cities of Riverside County to complete preliminary design and environmental clearance for Measure "A" projects that could be eligible to receive additional or early funding from various sources that could become available if a project is sufficiently developed. 127 Complete the construction of the highway projects identified in the FY 03/04 Budget. Objectives: • Complete Landscaping and plant establishment for soundwall projects Phase 11 on Route 91 • Complete construction of Route 111 projects in the Cities of Palm Desert. • Complete the right -turn lanes at Gilman Springs along Route 79. • Complete Construction of Phase 1 of the Measure "A" State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 and Wasson Canyon Road. • Continue right-of-way acquisition and start of construction for Phase 11 of the Measure "A" State Route 74 widening project between Wasson Canyon Road and 7th Street in the City of Perris. In coordination with the Rail Department Manager, construct capital improvements at existing rail stations as identified in the FY 03/04 Budget. Objectives: • Complete Installation of video surveillance equipment at the La Sierra, West Corona, and Pedley Rail Stations with the control station at the Riverside Downtown Station. Complete construction of the emergency platform extension at the Pedley rail station. • Complete construction of the North Main Corona rail station. • Seek FTA approval to enter into Preliminary engineering on Segment 1 of the San Jacinto Branch Line (Riverside to Romoland). • Construct additional surface parking at the La Sierra and Riverside Downtown rail stations. • Begin preliminary design and environmental clearance of the Perris Multimodal Facility. Location of Projects within the County Budgeted for the Current Fiscal Year INSERT MAP HERE Park and Ride Lots Lease Park and Ride Lots at various locations on Route 60, 91, 1-15 and 1-215. Route 60 Design and Construction of HOV lanes between East Junction 60/1-215 and Redlands Boulevard. Route 74 Dexter Avenue to just East of Wasson Canyon— Segment 1 of highway widening includes engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction. Route 74 Wasson Canyon to 7th street Segment 11 of highway widening includes engineering, right of way acquisition and construction. Route 79 Realignment between Ramona Expressway and East Valley Reservoir — task will include development of Project Report and environmental studies. Route 79 Right turn lanes on Route 79 at Gilman Springs Road. Route 91 Phase!! soundwall landscaping and plant establishment. 128 Route 91 Route 111 San Jacinto Branch Line Pedley Station North Main Corona Station La Sierra rail station Downtown Riverside station Perris Multimodal Facility Local Streets and Roads Auxiliary lane construction between Magnolia and Mary Streets being funded by Caltrans. Preliminary engineering and Environmental for HOV lanes from Mary Street to 7tr, Street. Intersection improvements San Luis Rey construction, El Paseo/Cabrillo construction, Town Center to El Paseo construction, (City of Palm Desert). Upon FTA approval begin Preliminary engineering on Segment 1 from Riverside to Romoland. Security system design and installation. Complete construction of station emergency platform. Complete construction of Pedestrian Overcrossing and installation of CCTV. Complete construction of parking lot expansion for Phase 11 Construction of Phase 11 of parking lot expansion — Southside, and design of station improvements for landscaping and lighting to meet City requirements. Begin Preliminary engineering, environmental and right of way support. Provide Measure A revenues to each city and the county to improve, maintain, and repair high priority local streets and roads. Performance/Workload Indicators Design or Construction Projects to be Undertaken and/or Completed: Highway Projects: • Route 91 Magnolia to Mary - Complete preliminary engineering and environmental. • Operational improvements on Route 111 in the City of Palm Desert - Continue to provide assistance to the cities to complete these projects. • Route 74 — Complete design, right of way acquisition and complete construction from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to Wasson Canyon. Complete design, ROW Acquisition and start construction for Segment 11 from Wasson Canyon to 7th Street_ • Route 60 - Complete design, environmental clearance and ROW Acquisition for the addition of HOV lanes between 60/1-215 to Redlands Boulevard. • TEA 21 Demonstration Projects - act as lead agency for the Route 79 realignment project and, provide assistance to the cities, the county, and Caltrans to see that specific highway and transit projects identified in the federal TEA 21 Legislation are complete as soon as possible. 129 Rail Projects: • Video Security Surveillance System at Pedley rail station - Complete design and installation. • Complete construction North Main Corona station. • Pedley Station Emergency platform extension - Complete construction . • Complete design and construction of parking lot expansion at La Sierra rail station (Phase I and Phase 11) Riverside Downtown station. • Begin preliminary design and environmental clearance of the Perris Multimodal Facility. Capital Projects Summary Western County Projects Route 60 — Design Engineering and Construction HOV Lanes Complete design and start of construction of the Route 60 Measure A HOV lane project between the East Junction of Route 60 with 1-215 and Redlands Boulevard. Cost: FY03/04 $ 100,000 Design $ 18,750,000 Construction and CM $ 20,000 Right of way acquisitions and TCE's $ 134,000 Right of way support services Measure "A" Budget Impact: None. Caltrans will have construction and maintenance responsibility. Strategic Plan Impact: This is a Measure A project funded with CMAQ funds. The construction will commence in FY 03/04 and continue through FY 04/05. Route 74 - Design Engineering and Construction on Route 74 RCTC will complete final design, acquire the necessary Right of Way, and construct a new realigned 4 -lane roadway between Interstate 15 in the City of Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris. Cost: FY 03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $ 1,000,000 Right of Way Acquisition $ 138,000 Engineering $ 100,000 Right of Way support services $ 13,500,000 Construction and CM None. Caltrans will have maintenance responsibility. This Measure A project is being advanced to take advantage of $4.5 million that will be made available by Caltrans. These funds were to be used for several safety projects and will now be offered to RCTC by Caltrans for advancing the Measure A project. Construction for 130 Segment I from 1-15 to Dexter Road started in the summer of FY 02/03. Segment II is scheduled for the fall of FY 03/04. Route 79 - Realignment - Gilman Springs Road to East Valley Reservoir and Right Turn Lanes @ Gilman Springs Road Complete the engineering and construction of the right turn lane along Route 79. Perform realignment environmental and preliminary engineering services from Gilman Springs Road to East Valley reservoir. Cost: FY 03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $1,000,000 (Realignment environmental and engineering services) $1,000,000 (Right of way support services) $100,000 (Right -turn lanes engineering and construction) There are no long-term operational budget impacts. Caltrans will assume maintenance responsibility. The FY 02/03 budget included funding of $100,000 for the right -turn lanes with the county matching an equal share; however, work will now be performed in FY 03/04. The realignment of Route 79 will be performed as a Demonstration Project and funded through TEA 21 program dollars. The realignment of Route 79 will be performed as a Demonstration Project and funded through TEA 21 programs dollars. The local match will come from SB45 2% planning funds. Route 91 - Van Buren Interchange Design/Construction (Phase II) Phase II of this project is to complete design and right-of-way appraisals and acquisition of the future interchange improvements on Van Buren Boulevard. This phase of the project will improve the local circulation element, widen, heighten and lengthen that span of the bridge from 6 to 10 lanes and improve ramp access. This interchange is currently the most congested interchange along Route 91. The first phase (Phase I) which added a new eastbound off ramp was completed in 1996. The construction of the interchange improvement will commence in FY 04/05. Cost: FY 03/04 $654,000 Engineering/Right-of-way Appraisals and Acquisition Measure "A" budget Impact: None. Caltrans and City of Riverside will share responsibilities for the maintenance, signaling and landscaping. Strategic Plan Impact: One of the aspects of Measure A is construction of interchanges, which improve local circulation or promote job development. Van Buren is one of the interchanges to relieve local congestion and promote job development. 131 Current funding in addition to the balance of authorized Measure A for this project will come from CMAQ funds. The remaining $7.6 million of Measure A funds identified in the Strategic Plan, along with $1.681 million of STP funds has not been obligated. Route 91- Soundwall Plant Establishment and Auxiliary Lanes Construction The intent of the project is to improve traffic operations and safety on the freeway between adjacent interchanges within this segment of Route 91. The proposed improvements primarily involve construction of 3.6 meter wide auxiliary lanes at various locations along Route 91 within the project limits. Cost: FY03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $ 10,000 (Design support to construction) $ 2,000 (Plant establishment and landscape management) $ 41,000 (Construction support services) (Construction costs will be the responsibility of Caltrans) The Commission will be responsible for plant establishment for the first three years. The Commission will contract for these services - Caltrans will then assume maintenance responsibility. The Strategic Plan allows for staged implementation of soundwalls and auxiliary lanes along Route 91. These soundwalls are required mitigation for HOV lane: constructed on Route 91. Route 91 HOV lanes between Mary Street and 7th Street This initial phase of work is for the preparation of the Project Report and Environmental Document which proposes widening for HOV lanes and interchange modifications between Mary Street and rn Street. Cost: FY 03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $ 732,200 (Preliminary Engineering/environmental) None. Caltrans will have construction and maintenance responsibilities. This is a Measure A Project indicated in the Strategic Plan that will be funded using Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TRCP) and STIP funds. This project will complete the mitigation commitment of Measure A to complete one HOV lane on Route 91 from the Orange County Line to the 60/91 215 interchange. 132 Coachella Valley Projects Route 111 The Commission and CVAG cooperatively programmed Measure A highway program funds to complete signal improvements and local intersection widening improvements along State Route 111. Cost: FY 03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $364,100 El Paseo/Cabrillo construction —City of Palm Desert $489,100 Town Center/EI Paseo construction -City of Palm Desert $491,100 San Luis Rey construction -City of Palm Desert $1,000,000 Magnesia Falls to Fairway -City of Rancho Mirage $205,700 City projects — La Quinta and Cathedral City None. Caltrans will be responsible for maintenance. The projects that are completed or will be completed as part of this initial amount are identified as Tier 1 & 11 in the Strategic Plan. Route 86 The Commission and CVAG cooperatively programmed Measure A highway program funds to complete signal improvements and local intersection widening improvements along State Route 86. Cost: FY 03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $200,000 Complete engineering for left turn lane at Pierce Traffic signal at 661 Avenue. None. County of Riverside is lead agency and Caltrans will be responsible for maintenance. Included in the strategic plan as continual improvements as part of 3 segments on route 86. Rail Projects San Jacinto Branch Line Segment! (Riverside to Romoland) The Track improvement study proposes $100,000,000 for improvements along segment I of the San Jacinto Branchline of which $850,000 of federal and state funds is for completion of the study and start of preliminary engineering. Cost: FY03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: $850,000 Complete Alternative Analysis study, right of way support services and seek FTA approval to start preliminary engineering. All costs will be funded using STA and Measure A funds. 133 Strategic Plan Impact: This is consistent with Commission's long term policy goals. In accordance with the Strategic Plan as approved by the Commission on June 14, 2000. The completion of the study and the start of preliminary engineering are necessary for future commuter rail service on the San Jacinto Branch Line. Pedley Station Security Surveillance System Cost: FY03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $250,000 (Construction and engineering support) None. All costs will be reimbursed by CMAQ funds. Local match will be satisfied by rail allocated Local Transportation Funds (LTF). In accordance with the Strategic Plan as approved by the Commission on June 14, 2000. Pedley Station Emergency Platform Extension Cost: FY03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $5,000 (Complete construction) None. All costs will be reimbursed by STP funds. In accordance with the Strategic Plan as approved by the Commission on June 14, 2000. These improvements are being entirely funded by Surface Transportation Program grant along with matching funds from rail allocated LTF. New Station (North Main Corona) Cost: FY03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $500,000 (Complete Station Construction) All costs will be funded using Measure A funds. In accordance with the Strategic Plan as approved by the Commission on June 14, 2000. La Sierra Station Expansion (Phase II) Cost: FY03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $1,448,500 ( Design and Construction) All costs will be funded using Measure A funds. In accordance with the Strategic Plan as approved by the Commission on June 14, 2000. Riverside Downtown Station Parking Lot Expansion - Southside Cost: FY03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $1,400,000 (Construction) All costs will be funded using Measure A funds. In accordance with the Strategic Plan as approved by the Commission on June 14, 2000. 134 Riverside Downtown Station Improvements Cost: FY03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact Strategic Plan Impact: $100,000 (Engineering and Construction) All costs will be funded using Measure A funds. In accordance with the Strategic Plan as approved by the Commission on June 14, 2000. North Main Corona Station Parking Structure Cost: FY03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $550,000 (Design and Environmental) None. All costs to be reimbursed using Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) and FTA Section 5307 funds. In accordance with the Strategic Plan as approved by the Commission on June 14, 2000. West Corona/La Sierra Station CCTV Cost: FY03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $75,000 (Complete construction) None. All costs to be reimbursed with Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds In accordance with the Strategic Plan as approved by the Commission on June 14, 2000. City of Perris Multimodal Facility Cost: FY03/04 Measure "A" Budget Impact Strategic Plan Impact: $600,000 (Preliminary engineering and Right of way support) All costs to be funded using Measure A funds and reimbursed by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). In accordance with the Strategic Plan as approved by the Commission on June 14, 2000. 135 Table 52 - Budget Summary By Fund and Department June 30, 2004 DESCRIPTION PALO STATE WESTERN MEASURE A WESTERN COACHELLA VERDE TRANSIT COUNTY DEBT COMBINING GENERAL RCTC FSP SAFE COUNTY VALLEY VALLEY ASSISTANCE CONSTRUCTION SERVICE TOTAL REVENUES Measure A Sales Tax $ 3,000,000 $ • $ - $ - $ 70,751,000 $ 26,040.000 $ 1,058,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,849,000 LTF Sales Tax - 6,655,400 - - 6,655,400 Federal, Stale, Local B Other Gov't Revenues - 838,500 1,128,500 1,275,000 23.763,900 1,430,000 - 2,666,100 31,102,000 Other Revenues 111,338 349,996 3,588 3,077 1,757,800 - - - 2,225,800 Interest Income 8,068 46449 1,260 40,223 465,400 25200 5,000 500,000 1,581,600 2951.200 TOTAL REVENUES 3,119,406 7,690,345 1,133,348 1,318,300 96,738,100 27,495,200 1,058,000 2,671,100 500,000 1,561,600 1 90 EXPENDITURES MANAGEMENT SERVICES Executive Management 289,883 52,063 0,342 8,012 - 359,300 Administration 1,469,990 264,008 47,372 40,631 - - 1,822.000 Finance 876,911 157,492 28,259 24,238 - - 1,089,600 TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES 2,636,784 473,562 84.973 72,881 - - 3,268,200 MEASURE A 8 OTHER CAPITAL PROGRAMS Capital Projects Development & Defvery 72,856,600 19,037.800 1.058.000 - - 92,952,600 TOTAL MEASURE A PROGRAMS - - 72,856,800 19,037.800 1,058.000 - 92,952,600 DEBT SERVICE Principal Payments Interest Payments TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 22.073.100 22,073,100 13,465,000 13,405,000 35,478,100 35,478,100 NON -CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Property Management - 215,000 - - 215,000 Planning and Programming 2,176,600 - - - - 2,176,600 Transit 217,100 - 2,666,000 - 2,683,100 Intergovernmental Programs and Legislative Affairs 231,955 164,959 7,475 6.411 Specialized Transit - - 1,943,900 2,604,000 - 547,900 Rail Operations - 4,707,600 _ - 4,707,600 - 4,707,600 Commuter Assistance 4,001,700 4,0011,700 Motorist Assistance 1,3.96.000 726,800 - - _ - - 2,124.800 TOTAL NON -CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 231,955 7,481,259 1,405,475 733,211 5,945,600 2,604,000 2,666,000 - 21,067,500 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,868,739 7,954,821 1,490,448 806,092 78,602,40D 21,641,800 1,058,000 2,666,000 - 35,478,100 152,766,400 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenue Over Expenditures 250,668 (64,476) (357,100) 512,208 17.935.700 5,853,400 5,100 500.000 (33,916,500) (9,281.000) Other Financing Sources (Uses) Operating Transfers (36,500) 745,300 (248,300) 116,643.0 0) 17 096 000) 110,900,600} 3,6 47@,700 Excess (Deficiency) ul Revenue Over Expendtures 250,668 (100,976) (108,800) 263,908 1,292,700 (2,044,600) 5,100 (10,400,600) 1.561.600 (9,281,000) Fund Balance Beginning Year 786,910 5,332,154 849,859 2,637,233 66.612,055 3.712.1 P5 99.649 3.242,829 10,400,600 60.929,381 154,132,843 Fund Balance Ending Year 5 1,017,583 5 5,231,176 $ 790,859 $ 2,901.141 5 67,904,755 5 1,167,585 5 99.049 $ 3.247,929 5 - 5 62.440„661 $ 144,851,843 136 FUND BUDGETS ‘dgetary Basis The Commission accounts for its twenty budgeted funds primarily using governmental accounting. Governmental accounting differs from full accrual accounting in that there are a number of expenditures that are recorded when cash is disbursed. This is known as the modified accrual basis of accounting, and is the basis for the Commission's FY 03/04 budget. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when received and available to meet current year obligations. Only those revenues which are guaranteed as to receipt, based on expenditure of funds (i.e., government matching funds), or certain to be received within ninety days of the end of the fiscal year (e.g., interest earnings due from the County of Riverside; SAFE fees due from the State of California), are recorded as revenues. Chart 33 — Total Fund Expenditures Total Fund Expenditures Debt Service Fund 18% Capital Projects Funds 5% General Fund 5% Special Revenue Funds 72% Budget Authorization and Amendment Process The Commission authorizes expenditures according to administration, programs, capital outlay, debt service and other financing uses. As long as management does not exceed budgeted amounts in these broad classifications, it may transfer amounts among individual line items according to function and between financial responsibility units defined as the General Fund, Measure A Funds, Motorist Assistance Funds, and the State Transit Assistant Fund. Any other budget changes require the authorization of the Commission. The Commission may take action at any monthly meeting to amend the budget. Those amendments are incorporated into the budget as they occur and are reflected in the CAFR by adjusting budget vs. actual statements. Fund Structure There are a total of twenty funds which account for the Commission's budgeted resources categorized into the four primary fund types: the General Fund, the Special Revenue Funds, Capital Projects Funds and Debt Service Fund. There are five funds reported in the General Fund, thirteen funds in the Special Revenue Funds and one Capital Projects fund. In addition, the Commission has one Debt Service fund to account for debt related activity. 137 Non -Budgeted Funds In addition to the twenty budgeted funds, the Commission uses two fiduciary fund types -agency funds and expendable trust funds and one proprietary fund. The Commission does not adopt budgets for the Fiduciary Funds, or the Proprietary Fund. The monies in the expendable trust fund are monitored and controlled by means of an annual allocation process and by legal and statutory requirements. The resources for the Internal Service Fund are budgeted in the General and Special Revenue funds. GENERAL FUND Overview The General Fund of the Commission is used to account for all activities not legally required or designated by Board action to be accounted for separately. For many public agencies the General Fund is the largest fund. The Commission's largest revenue source is a locally levied sales tax, which legally must be separately accounted for. For the Commission this results in the Special Revenue, and when bonds are issued against those sales taxes, the Capital Projects Funds, accounting for the significant portion of the Commission's programs and projects. The Commission's commuter rail operations, short range transit planning, fund programming, property management, clean fuel and air quality, and a portion of administration are accounted for in the General Fund. Capital programs not funded with Measure A sales tax revenues or not requiring significant up front expenditures (i.e., expenditures to be reimbursed), are also accounted for in the General Fund. The revenue sources for the General Fund are Measure A sales tax for administration (accounted for separately but combined with the RCTC General Fund for reporting purposes); Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax for administration and planning; TDA Article 4 funds for transit operations and capital; user fees from licenses and leases; state highway account (SB45) funding for project planning; various other state and federal reimbursements not accounted for in the other funds; and investment income. Chart 34 — General Fund Federal Reimbursements Other Interest 6% 4% 0% State Reimbursements 2% LTF 61% Measure A 27% 138 Ile 53 - General Fund Revenue Sources 2001 - 2004 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Actual Estimated MEASURE A SALES TAX $ 1,998,207 $ 2,497,664 $ 3,250,000 $ 3,250,000 $ 3,000,000 20.1% -7.7% LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (LTF) SALES TAX Article 3 Administration 375,000 500,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 20 0% 0.0% Article 3 Planning 1,256,482 1,570,656 1,398,400 1,504,100 1,490,700 -5.1% 6.6% Article 4 Transit 5,023,083 4,806,000 4,445,100 4,545,100 4,564,700 -5.0% 2.7% STATE FUNDING State Dept of Transportation 1,146,850 - 0 0% 0.0% STIP - 401,583 1,297,300 932,300 166,300 -58.6% -87.2% Other 48,828 7,400 - -100..0% 0.0% FEDERAL FUNDING Other 275,731 - 667.200 142 0% 0.0% OTHER REIMBURSEMENTS SCAG (CETAP) 1,088,994 2,273,707 500,000 -100.0% -100.0% Local 529,375 875,542 771,700 136,500 5.000 -99.4% -99.4% Miscellaneous 44,514 8,846 6,000 8,598 1,903 -78.5% -68.3% USER FEES Licenses and Leases 260,537 245,566 156,000 275,700 170,000 -30.8% 9.0% OPERATING TRANSFER IN 2,940 2,712 -100.0% 0.0% OTHER 327,800 885,496 216,900 268,154 289,431 -67.3% 33.4% INTEREST 289,604 241,777 215,000 40,512 54.517 -77.5% -74.6% .AL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $ 12,343,386 $ 14,634,107 $ 12,856,400 $ 11,568,364 $ 11,009,752 -24.8% -14.4% Measure A sales tax revenues are used for administration. The decrease from the prior year is due to the reduced cost of the public information program, the lack of one-time costs dealing with the relocation and the lack of one-time costs related to the election fees for the renewal of Measure A. The administrative allocation is adjusted at midyear based on needed expenditures, but in no event will exceed four percent of total Measure A revenues (including administrative salaries and benefits). LTF sales tax revenues fund administration, planning staff and studies, and transit operations and capital for rail services. The increases are for the following reasons: • Planning money is set by law at three percent of estimated Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax revenues. A combination of the estimated growth in sales tax revenues and higher than expected carryover funds (also as a result of strong revenue growth), has yielded a much higher allocation for planning than the prior year. • Transit funding is also tied to sales tax revenue growth. The allocation of funding to transit operators, however, is based on need. State Highway Account monies are expected to be derived from the Commission's two - percent share of Regional Choice funding. This will be used to pay for staff STIP activities and the CETAP effort. 139 Table 54 - General Fund Expenditures FY 2001 - 2004 FY 00/01 FY 01102 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Actual Estimated Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits $ 1,649,366 $ 1,751,820 $ 1,949,160 $ 1,629,236 $ 1,972,958 12.6% 1.2% Professional & Support General Legal Services 154,302 173,412 220,000 217,216 325,107 87.5% 47.8% Financial Services 47,021 18,870 70,500 47,000 47,585 152.2% -32.5% Audit Services 342,429 415,800 397,150 470,000 409,303 -1.6% 3.1% Professional Services -Other 618,723 780,064 1,364,910 1.270,426 938,158 20.3% -31.3% Lease/Utilities 293,110 320,987 452,320 472,044 406,413 26.6% -10.1% General Expenses 199,352 226,711 404,498 407,408 374,385 65.1% -7.4% Communications 59,059 56,035 86,200 60,400 70,567 25.9% -18.1% Maintenance 334,786 261,922 356,760 327,024 302,233 15.4% -15.3% Insurance 86,854 121,636 89,300 1,598 214,133 -100.0% -100.0% Data Processing 26,309 24,899 - 396.7% 0.0% Staff Related Expenses 94,211 82,532 147,704 74,196 123,660 90.4% 6.4% Information/Publicity 72,274 238,724 124,880 170,500 157,141 -100 0% -100.0% SUBTOTAL 2,328,429 2,721,592 3,714,222 3,517,812 3,368,686 23.8% -9.3% Project and Operations Miscellaneous Projects 780,662 1,365,343 768,600 627,300 662,600 -51.5% -13.8% Engineering - - 0.0% 0.0% Construction 10,000 7,200 - 0.0% 0.0% Right of Way - 0.0% 0.0% Special Studies 1,753,680 4,076,123 2,333,000 672,000 667,200 -83.6% -71.4% SCRRA/Transit Contribution 3,653,511 2.998,523 3,182,900 2,597,973 3.171,800 5.8% -0.3% SUBTOTAL 6,197,853 8,439,989 6,284,500 3,904,473 4,501.600 -46.7% -28.4% Other LTF Disbursements 632,361 605,485 703,000 594,300 915,600 51.2% 30.2% Capital Outlay 59,693 223.644 312,080 336,708 64.716 -7t1% -79.3% SUBTOTAL 692,054 829,129 1,015,080 931,008 980,316 18.2% -3.4% Other Financing (Sources) Uses Operating Transfer Out 4,128 2,860 414,000 1,562,000 _ 36,500 1176.2% -91.2% SUBTOTAL 4,128 2,860 414,000 1,562,000 36,500 1176.2% -91.2% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITUREE $ 10671,830 $ 13,745,389 $ 13,376,962 $ 11,544.529 5 10,860,060 -21.0% -18.8% Personnel salary and fringe benefits have increased from the Revised Budget by 1.2%. This increase is due to increased PERS costs as the retirement formula was changed during last fiscal year. All other benefits remained the same (See Personnel Section) Professional and Support Costs have decreased by 9.3% due to decreased costs related to the renewal of Measure A and completion of the relocation of the administrative offices. Project and Operations Costs have decreased by 28.4% primarily due to the reduced costs related to the CETAP effort. Other Costs have decreased by 3.4% due to the reduced one-time costs related to the relocation of the administrative offices. 140 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS •erview .e Commission's Special Revenue Funds are legally restricted as to use. Measure A sales tax, a number of state budgetary allocations, and vehicle users fees are all accounted for in thirteen Special Revenue Funds. Significant state and federal reimbursements and project matching funds are used to supplement the Measure A sales tax. The Special Revenue Fund resources are expended on highway, rail, and regional arterial design and construction, local streets and roads maintenance; repair, and construction; education and incentive programs to encourage ridesharing; special social service transportation programs, fixed route transit operation and capital needs; and motorist towing and freeway call box assistance. Chart 35 — Special Revenue Funds Other 13% Federal Reimbursements 12% State Reimbursements 5% Measure A 70% Interest 0% J Table 55 — Special Revenue Fund Sources FY 2001 — 2004 141 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Actual Estimated MEASURE A SALES TAX Highways $ 27,810,250 $ 29,871,023 $ 29,079,000 6 29,831,000 $ 31,145.000 4.3% 7.1% Commuter Rall 10,169,589 10,921,314 10,899,000 11,181,000 11,674,000 6.9% 7 1% Regional Arterial 9,369,356 10,050,947 9,725,000 9,977,000 10,416,000 3.6% 7 1% Local Streets & Roads 34,141,867 36,577,853 35,919,000 36,849,000 38,472,000 5.2% 7.1% Special Transportatlon/Translt 5,478,368 5.878 485 5,733,000 5,882,000 6,142,000 4.5% 7.1% TOTAL MEASURE A 86,975,410 93,299,622 91,355,000 93,720,000 97.049,000 4.9 % 7.1% STATE FUNDING SB 836 68,970 127,738 15,800 -100.0% 0.0% State Dept of Transportation FSP Budget Allocation 893,299 1,520,692 1,065,000 875,600 1,128,500 -25.8% 6.0% STIP - 154,946 • 5,211,000 100.0% 00% State Transit Grant 2,482,596 4,746,603 4,249,000 2,776,000 2,666,100 -43.8% -37.3% State Other 676,146 2,522,952 11,141,000 416,200 3,685,600 46.1% -66.9% FEDERAL FUNDING Federal Transit Administration - 1,169,535 12,997,000 11,790,000 479,600 -59.0% -96.3% Surface Transportation Program - 250,000 443,300 0 0% -100.0% Congestion Mitigation 8 Air Quality 298,866 3,110,632 1,472,000 2,620,800 17,212,800 453 4% 1069.3% Federal Other 106,031 OTHER REIMBURSEMENTS Local 2,146,923 780,472 2,491,000 869,100 1,729,600 121.6% -30.6% Miscellaneous 648,961 197,867 21,000 600,702 656,397 231.7% 3025.7% USER FEES Vehicle Registration Fees 1,240,728 1,288,656 1,150,000 1,280,000 1,275,000 -1.1% 10.9% OPERATING TRANSFER IN 7,730,773 7,216,486 19,904,600 16,064,500 11,185,400 55 0% -43.8% OTHER 123,495 1,986,456 3,000 3,385,548 3,194,369 60.0% 1063790% INTEREST 3,741,746 1,610,997 1,545,000 717,688 537,083 -66.7% -65.2% TOTAL SPECIAL FUND REVENUES 5 107,027,917 5 119,839,687 $ 147,643,600 5 142,786,236 5 141,599,448 16.2% -4.1% Measure A Special Revenue Of the Special Revenue Funds, ten are funded primarily with Measure A sales tax revenue: the Western County Operating Funds, the Palo Verde Valley Operating Fund, and the Coachella Valley Operating Funds. These ten funds account for all Measure A expenditures that are not paid from debt proceeds. Chart 36 - Measure A Sales Tax Palo Verde Valley 1% Coachella Valley 27% Western County 72% Western County Measure A Operating Fund This special revenue fund accounts for Western Riverside County's 72% share of the Measure A sales tax. Since the sales tax leverages state and federal dollars, the largest shares of the Commission's reimbursements flow through this fund. Chart 37 - Western County Percentage of Total Commission Revenues 142 Remaining Commission Revenues 33% Western County Operating 67% ,Ie 56 — Western County Revenue Sources 2003 - 2004 Measure A Sales Tax Highways RaII Local Streets & Roads Commuter Assistance Specialized Transit Total Measure A State Funding State Transit Assistance State Other FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Revised Budget Budget $ 25,432,000 10,899,000 26,422,000 1,651,000 1,651,000 66,055,000 1.342,000 11,141,000 Federal Funding Federal Transit Administration 12,997,000 Surface Transportation Program 250,000 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality 1,472,000 Other Reimbursements 1,082,000 Operating Transfer In 19,414,000 Interest 765,000 Total Western County Measure A Operating 114,518,000 $ 27,239,000 11,674,000 28,300,000 1,769,000 1,759,000 70,751 ,000 3,685,600 479,600 17,212,800 3,487,400 10,937,100 465,000 107,018,500 Dollar % Change Variance Estimated $ 1,807,000 7.1% 775,000 7.1% 1,878,000 7.1% 118,000 7.1% 118,000 7.1% 4,696,000 7.1% (1,342,000) -100.0% (7,455,400) -66.9% (12,517,400) -96.3% (250,000) -100.0% 15,740,800 1069.3% 2,405,400 222.3% (8,476,900) -43.7% (300,000) -39.2% (7,499,500) -6_5% As the above table demonstrates, total revenues for the Western County Operating Fund are down 6.5%, principally due to a decrease in Federal Transit Administration and State funding. In addition, State Transit Assistance funds have seen a significant decrease in funding as the e of California deals with its budget crisis and have trimmed funding to Transit programs. All the programs funded by Measure A are projected to receive 7.1% more revenues than prior 143 year. The Commission expects to receive significant more funding for Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality projects. The decrease in interest income reflects the investment earnings on highway construction funds. These funds are being used in the Route 74 widening project. Coachella Valley Operating Fund This special revenue fund accounts for Coachella Valley's 27% share of the Measure A sales tax. Chart 38 — Coachella Valley Percentage of Total Commission Revenues Remaining Commission Revenues 81% Table 57 — Coachella Valley Revenue Sources FY 2003 - 2004 FY 02/03 Revised Budget Measure A Sales Tax Highways $ 3,647,000 $ Regional Arterial 9,725,000 Local Streets & Roads 8,509,000 Special Transportation 2,431,000 Total Measure A 24,312,000 Other Reimbursements Interest Total Coachella Valley Operating 1,430,000 450,000 Coachella Valley Operating 19% FY 03/04 Budget 3,906,000 $ 10,416,000 9,114,000 2,604,000 26,040,000 1,430,000 35,200 Dollar % Change Variance Estimated 259,000 7.1% 691,000 7.1% 605,000 7.1% 173,000 7.1% 1,728,000 7.1% 0.0% (414,800) -92.2% $ 26,192,000 $ 27,505,200 $ 1,313,200 5.0% Other reimbursements represent the Coachella Valley's TUMF program share of the debt service on the 1993 Series A bonds used to fund regional arterial improvements. Palo Verde Valley Operating Fund This special revenue fund accounts for Palo Verde Valley's 1% share of Measure A Sales Tax. Chart 39 — Palo Verde Valley Percentages of Total Commission Revenue 144 Palo Verde Valley Operating 1% Remaining Commission Revenues 99% Table 58 — Palo Verde Revenue Sources FY 2003 - 2004 REVENUE SOURCES FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Measure A Local Streets & Roads $ 988,000 $ 1,058,000 $ 70,000 7.1% Interest 2,500 (2,500) -100.0% Total Palo Verde Valley Operating 990,500 $ 1,058,000 $ 67.500 6.8% 7N MEASURE A SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Freeway Service Patrol Fund The Freeway Service Patrol Fund accounts for the state and local resources provided to cover the costs of servicing stranded motorists by means of towing, changing tires, and providing fuel. Chart 40 — FSP & SAFE Revenues FSP 46% Table 59 — Freeway Service Patrol Revenue Sources FY 2003 - 2004 SAFE 54% 145 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated State Allocation $ 1,065,000 $ 1,128,500 $ 63,500 6.0% Operating Transfer from SAFE 320,600 248,300 (72,300) -22.6% Other Reimbursements - 4,588 4,588 100.0% Interest 2,500 1,260 (1,240) -49.6% Total Freeway Service Patrol $ 1,388,100 $ 1,382,648 $ (5,452) -0.4% Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) The SAFE fund accounts for the $1 per vehicle user fee levied on all registered vehicles within the County. It funds emergency aid call boxes located strategically on the highways throughout the County. Table 60 — Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Revenue Sources FY 2003 - 2004 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated DMV User Fees $ 1,150,000 $ 1,275,000 $ 125,000 10.9% Other Reimbursements 3,000 43,077 40,077 1335.9% Operating Transfer In 170,000 (170,000) -100.0% Interest 100.000 40,223 (59,777) -59.8% Total SAFE $ 1,423,000 $ 1,358,300 $ (64,700) State Transit Assistance Fund _45% State transit assistance funds rail and bus transit operations and capital requirements. Table 61 — State Transit Assistance Revenue Sources FY 2003 - 2004 State Budgetary Allocation Interest Total State Transit Assistance FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated $ 2,907,000 $ 2,666,100 $ (240,900) -8.3% 225,000 5.000 (220.000) -97.8% $ 3,132,000 $ 2,671,100 $ (460,900) -14.7% The allocation is strictly based on estimates of gas tax revenues and is provided by the Controller of the State of California. It is subject to annual state budget appropriation. EXPENDITURES Chart 41 - Special Revenue Expenditures 146 Debt 25% Streets & Roads 7 26% Other 2% Table 62 — Special Revenue Expenditures FY 2001 - 2004 Project & Operations 47% 147 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Actual Estimated Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits $ 546,017 $ 524,888 $ 579,040 $ 428,464 $ 818,042 55.9% 41.3% Professional & Support General Legal Services 280,214 517,733 513,000 359,584 478,593 -7.6% -6.7% Financial Services 2,231 724 4,500 3,000 2,415 233.7% -46.3% Audit Services 27,508 47,000 84,950 44,200 22,698 -51.7% -73.3% Professional Services -Other 88,230 327,868 1,224,941 340,374 857,942 161.7% -30.0% Lease/Utilitles 16,092 18,700 23,680 28,556 18,987 1.5% -19.8% General Expenses 99,305 193,047 266,002 265,192 362,665 87.9% 36.3% Communications 20,973 24,610 43,800 31,100 69,733 183.4% 59.2% Maintenance 610,972 9,483 50,640 342,176 21,117 122.7% -58.3% Insurance 5,544 7,764 5,700 102 10,868 40.0% 90.7% Data Processing 1,679 1,589 - - - -100.0% 0.0% Staff Related Expenses 13,824 13,466 46,596 17,104 41,840 210 7% -10.2% Information/Publlcity 147,104 286,568 153,320 31,800 206,759 -27.9% 34.9% TOTAL PROFESSIONAL AND SUPPORT 1,313,676 1,448,552 2,417,129 1,463,188 2,093,614 44.5% -13.4% Project and Operations Program Management 1,681,310 1,809,749 2,183,600 1,297,600 2,038,700 12 5% -6.7% Park & Rlde Lease Payments 33,900 40,200 54,000 65,000 100,000 148.8% 85.2% Litigation Settlement 450 45,000 . 0.0"/ -100.0% Projects - General 437 - 40,800 120,000 42,800 0.0% 4.9% SAFE Operations 346,435 1,434,423 713,600 237,200 595,900 -58.5% -16.5% Towing 947,199 964,605 1,113,000 1,022,000 1,290,400 33.8% 15.9% Commuter Assistance 1,278,171 1,186,078 1,635,000 1,486,000 1,768,500 49.1% 8.2% Engineering 2,838,906 5,541,115 7,133,313 3,135,100 4,109,400 -25.8% -42.4% Construction 5,452,303 2,219,067 33,648,200 26,545,900 37,207,300 1576 7% 10.6% Right of Way 1,402,629 4,798,338 21,213,000 15,971,900 4,508,000 -6.1% -78.7% Special Studies 11,471 503,768 510,000 230,100 10,000 -98.0% -98.0% Special Transportation/Transit 3,153,384 4,873,780 3,658,000 4,083,600 4,497,000 -7.7% 22.9% State Transit Assistance 3,529,784 4,254,996 6,155,000 4,123,600 2,666,000 -37.3% -56.7% Regional Arterial 10,532,091 9,732,105 7,957,900 _ 8,957,900 7.133.200 -26,7% -10 4% TOTAL PROJECT AND OPERATIONS 31,208,469 37,358,221 86,060,413 67,275,900 65,965,200 76.6% -23.4% Other Local Streets & Roads 34,338,176 36,028,085 34,746,000 35,376,000 36,999,600 2.7% 6.5% Capital Outlay 3,810 55,758 99,920 221,492 588,284 955.1% 488.8% TOTAL OTHER 34,341,986 36.083,843 34,845,920 35,597,492 37,587,884 4.2% 7.9% Other Financing (Sources) Uses Operating Transfer Out 35,575,877 35,117,298 36,040,600 35,789,800 35.726,400 1.7% -0.9"/ TOTAL 35,575,877 , 35,117,298 36,040,600 35,789,800 35,726,400 1.7% -0.9% TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES $ 102,986,025 $ 110,532,802 $ 159,943,102 $ 140,554,644 $ 142,191,140 28 6% -11.1% Measure A Special Revenue - The Measure A Special Revenue Funds are expended on capital construction and improvements to highways, commuter rail, regional arterials, and local 148 streets and roads. Funding is also reserved for commuter assistance and specialized transit programs. The Commission is considered a self-help county and as such on major highway -7jects, the Commission supplement's the State of California's spending and upon completion the project, the Caltrans takes over the project. All revenues from the Measure A sales tax have been pledged as security for the Commission's senior debt and commercial paper notes. (Note: Currently there are no outstanding commercial paper notes). Although debt service is recorded in the Debt Service Fund, most of the resources for the cash payments are provided by the Measure A Special Revenue Funds (See section on Capital Projects Funds). Table 63 — Western County Expenditures FY 2003 - 2004 Personnel, Professional & Support Measure A Program Management Projects - General Highway Engineering Highway Construction Highway Right of Way Rail Engineering Rail Construction Rail Right of Way Commuter Assistance Specialized Transit Local Streets & Roads ' cial Studies ,pital Outlay Debt TOTAL WESTERN COUNTY FY 02/03 Revised Budget $ 2,524,700 2,143,600 99,000 4,353,515 14,505,000 14,700,000 2,729,798 17,727,200 6,453,000 1,635,000 1,261,000 25,249,000 500,000 80,000 27,652,000 $ 121,612,813 Table 64 — Coachella Valley Expenditures FY 2003 - 2004 Personnel, Professional & Support Measure A Program Management Highway Engineering Highway Construction Highway Right of Way Regional Arterial Specialized Transit Local Streets & Roads Debt TOTAL COACHELLA VALLEY FY 02/03 Revised Budget FY 03/04 Budget $ 2,540,900 2,012,700 300,000 1,995,200 32,393,000 2,908,000 1,908,500 2,270,000 1,600,000 1,768,500 1,893,000 26,827,600 385,000 27,580,100 Dollar % Change Variance Estimated $ 16,200 (130,900) 201,000 (2,358,315) 17,888,000 (11,792,000) (821,298) (15,457,200) (4,853,000) 133,500 632,000 1,578,600 (500,000) 305,000 (71,900) 0.6% -6.1% 203.0% -54.2% 123.3% -80.2% -30.1% -87.2% -75.2% 8.2% 50.1% 6.3% -100.0% 100.0% -0.3% 106,382,500 $ (15,230,313) -12.5% FY 03/04 Budget Dollar Variance % Change Estimated $ 6,600 $ 16,600 $ 10,000 151.5% 40,000 24,000 (16,000) -40.0% 50,000 205,700 155,700 311.4% 1,416,000 2,544,300 1,128,300 79.7% 60,000 (60,000) -100.0% 7,957,900 7,133,200 (824,700) -10.4% 2,397,000 2,604,000 207,000 8.6% 8,509,000 9,114,000 605,000 7.1% 7,898,000 7,898,000 0.0% $ 28,334,500 $ 29,539,800 $ 1,205,300 IN MEASURE A SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 4.3% 149 The non Measure A Special Revenue funds account for motorist assistance expenditures including freeway call boxes and towing service, as well as transit disbursements from the State Transit Assistance Program. These activiti's are budgeted in the Freeway Service Patrol Fund, the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies, and the State Transit Assistance Fund. Freeway Service Patrol Fund accounts for the Commission's towing service, which is jointly funded by Caltrans and the Commission. The program also includes services to construction zones to help mitigate congestion. Table 65 — Freeway Service Patrol Expenditures FY 2003 - 2004 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Personnel, Professional & Support $ 160,821 $ 64,800 $ (96,021) -59.7% Towing 1,113,000 1,290,400 177,400 15.9% Project - General 40,800 42,800 2,000 4.9% Capital Outlay 6,374 (6,374) -100.0% Operating Transfer Out 80.000 (80,000) -100.0% TOTAL FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL 1,400,995 $ _ 1,398,000 $ (2.995) -0.2% Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Fund accounts for the installation and maintenance of a freeway call box system within Riverside County. Table 66 — SAFE Expenditures FY 2003 - 2004 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance. Estimated Personnel, Professional & Support $ 306,648 $ 120,900 $ (185,748) -60.6% Access Charges 111,000 105,800 (5,200) -4.7% Preventive Maintenance 4,000 4,150 150 3.8% Corrective Maintenance 4,000 4,150 150 3.8% Knockdowns 26,000 26,000 0.0% Operating Costs 163,000 87,000 (76,000) -46.6% Vandalism 4,000 2,000 (2,000) -50.0% Equipment Maintenance - Call Boxes 399,000 362,800 (36,200) -9.1% Operating Transfer 410,600 248,300 (162,300) -39.5% Special Studies 10,000 Projects - General 13,546 14,000 454 3.4% TOTAL SAFE $ 1.451,794 $ 975,100 $ (476.694) -32.8% State Transit Assistance Fund is used to account for the state budgetary allocation of gas tax revenues designated for transit purposes. The decrease represents a lower allocation in the State Transit Assistance Program. Table 67 — State Transit Assistance Expenditures FY 2003 - 2004 150 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated 'mant Allocations $ 6,155,000 $ 2,666,000 $ (3,489,000) -56.7% The budget assumes that the entire state grant is allocated to claimants. The actual allocation will not occur until early summer. At mid year, the budget is adjusted to reflect the actual allocations. CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Overview The Capital Project fund accounts for all debt proceeds from senior bonds, including debt reserve funds, and commercial paper notes. Major expenditures are for highways (including interchanges). The last debt issued by the Commission was in July 2000. Over the next year, these funds will diminish in activity since no further debt issuance is anticipated. Chart 42 — Capital Project Fund Investment — Income 100% Other revenues consist of interest payments from Temecula, Canyon Lake, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, Corona and Lake Elsinore for outstanding loans. Table 68 - Capital Project Revenue Sources FY 2001 - 2004 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Actual Estimated OTHER FINANCING SOURCES DEBT PROCEEDS Senior Bond Proceeds $ 35,934,149 $ $ - $ $ 0.0% 0.0% Junior Bond Proceeds 0.0% 0.0% OTHER 643,294 52,807 - -100.0% 0.0% INTEREST 4,508.432 2,533,159 1,150,000 1,795.800 500,000 -80.3% -56.5% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS $ 41,085,876 $ 2,585,566 $ 1,150,000 $ 1,795,800 $ 500,000 90.7% -56.5% Able 69 — Capital Project Expenditures FY 2001 - 2004 151 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Rev Budget Projected Actual Budget Actual Estimated EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING (SOURCES) USES Issuance Cost $ 433,148 $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% Operating Transfers Out 9.435,566 33,59.1 n0p 19,000000 26,798,000 10,900,600 -67.6% 42.6% TOTAL OTHER TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 8,868,714 33,594,092 19,000,000 26,798,000 10,900,600 -67.6% -42.6% 8,868,714 $ 33,594092 $ 19,000,000 $ 26,798,000 $ 10.900,600 -67.6% -42.6% Table 70 — Western County Construction Expenditures FY 2003 - 2004 Highway Engineering Highway Construction Highway Right of Way Operating Transfer Out TOTAL WESTERN COUNTY CONST. FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated $ - $ $ - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19,000,000 10,900,600 (8,099,400) -42.6% $ 19,000,000 $ 10,900,600 $ 1$,099,400) 100.0% With the use of the remaining debt proceeds from the 1997 bond issue, most of the highway projects for FY 03/04 will be funded from the Western County Measure A Operating Fund. The intent is to exhaust those funds as quickly as possible. DEBT SERVICE FUND Overview The Debt Service Fund of the Commission is used to account for all activities related to the debt incurred by the Commission. The Commission's largest expenditure is debt service. The Commission has made a conscious decision to issue debt to complete projects in the earlier years. This strategy brought quick relief to the transportation needs of the County of Riverside. As a result, the Commission has issued five outstanding bond issues. Under the provisions of Measure A as amended by Ordinance No. 92-1 (Measure AA), the Commission has the authority to issue bonds subject to a bond debt limitation of $525,000,000. The Commission has an internal policy of maintaining a 2X coverage of debt. Based on the provisions listed above, the Commission has issued the following bonds secured by Measure A revenues: 2000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In July 2000, the Commission issued serial bonds in the principal amount of $35,825,000 to fund various major highway projects. Net proceeds amounted to $35,501,000 inclusive of premium of $109,148 and net of accrued interest. The bonds mature in annual installments of $3,825,000 to $4,785,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 4.30% to 4.70%. 1997 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In August 1997, the Commission issued serial bonds in the principal amount of $47,910,000 to retire outstanding 152 commercial paper notes of $41,200,000 and to fund various major highway projects. Net proceeds amounted to $48,055,659, inclusive of premium of $263,196 and net of accrued -+erest. The bonds mature in annual installments of $4,065,000 to $5,115,000 on various .es through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 4.25% to 4.75%. Portions of the bonds are subject to early redemption, at the option of the Commission, beginning June 1, 2007. 1997 Junior Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series B: In August 1997, the Commission issued subordinated serial bonds in the principal amount of $13,245,000 to retire outstanding commercial paper notes of $2,800,000 and to fund various local streets and roads projects. Net proceeds amounted to $13,223,717, inclusive of premium of $11,016 and net of accrued interest. The bonds mature in annual installments of $1,120,000 to $1,405,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 4.38% to 4.75%. Portions of the bonds are subject to early redemption, at the option of the Commission, beginning June 1, 2007. 1996 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In January 1996, the Commission issued $61,765,000 principal amount of serial bonds to refund a portion of the 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A. Net proceeds amounted to $66,252,576, inclusive of premium of $4,487,576 and net of accrued interest. The bonds mature in annual installments of $45,000 to $10,030,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 4.50% to 6.0%. The proceeds from the refunding bonds and a forward float contract provided by a major bank in the amount of $16,186,000 have been placed in an irrevocable escrow fund consisting of United States Treasury obligations. The escrow fund will be used to meet all annual maturing iments through 2009 for the refunded portion of the 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds kumited Tax Bonds), Series A. 1993 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In February 1993, the Commission issued $136,610,000 principal amount of serial bonds to finance certain highway and rail projects and Coachella Valley regional arterial projects. Net proceeds after original issue discount amounted to $135,448,305. The bonds mature in annual installments and require sinking fund payments of $9,335,00 to $12,295,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 5.50% to 5.75%. 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In January 1991, the Commission issued $112,996,959 principal amount of long-term debt in the form of serial, term, and capital appreciation bonds to finance certain transportation capital projects pursuant to the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan. Net proceeds after original issue discount amounted to $110,303,215. The bonds mature in annual installments and require a sinking fund payment of $3,216,959 June 1, 2004 with an interest rate of 6.85%. Portions of the bonds are subjects to early redemption, at the option of the Commission, beginning June 1, 2000. The bond agreements require the trustee to hold all bond proceeds and sales tax revenues and to segregate all funds into separate amounts including project proceeds, sales tax revenues, interest payments, and principal payments and a reserve fund equal to the maximum annual debt service of $35,480,957. These monies are included in the restricted investments held by 'stee in the Capital Project and Debt Service funds. A portion of the Debt Reserve auirement has been satisfied with surety policies purchased from a major insurance company and held by the trustee. Under the agreements, the Commission may use sales tax 153 revenues for any lawful purpose related to Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan after the trustee has satisfied debt service requirements. Listed below are the principal and interest payments for the fiscal year and a table outlining the Commission's debt in future years: Table 71 — Debt Obligation Bonds Issued Principal Interest Total 1991 Bonds 1993 Bonds 1996 Bonds 1997 Bonds 1997 Jr. Bonds 2000 Bonds $ 3,216,959 9,335,000 45,000 4,065,000 1,120,000 3,825,000 $ 4,683,041 3,665,438 2,691,207 1,292,500 352,238 1,186,718 $ 7,900,000 13,000,438 2,736,207 5,357,500 1,472,238 5,011,718 Total $ 21,606,959 $ 13,871,141 $ 35,478,100 Fiscal Year Principal Interest Total FY03/04 $ 21,606,959 $ 13,871,141 $ 35,478,100 FY04/05 27,200,000 8,285,530 35,485,530 FY05/06 28,640,000 6,843,222 35,483,222 FY06/07 30,200,000 5,274,945 35,474,945 FY07/08 31,865,000 3,608,120 35,473,120 FY08/09 33,630,000 1,843,358 35,473,358 Total $ 173,141,959 $ 39,726,316 $ 212,868,275 Chart 43 — Debt Service Fund Operating Transfer 96% Table 72 — Debt Service Revenue Source FY 2001 - 2004 Investment Income 4% 154 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Proj Actual Budget Actual Estimated REVENUES .crest Operating Transfer In $ 1,265,504 $ 1,556,548 $ 1,055,000 $ 1,679,000 $ 1,561,600 0.3% 48.0% 36,280,972 61,442.245 35,550,000 46,085,300 35,478,100 -42.3% -0.2% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND $ 37,546,476 $ 62,998,793 $ 36,605,000 $ 47,764,300 $ 37,039,700 -41.2% Table 73 — Debt Service Expenditures FY 2001 - 2004 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Proj Actual Budget Actual Estimated EXPENDITURES Professional & Support $ 29,804 $ 210 $ - $ - $ -100.0% 0.0% Principal Payments 22,478,844 24,068,939 24,888,000 24,888,000 22,073,100 -8.3% -11.3% Interest Payments 12,530,366 11,476,956 10,663,000 10,663,000 13,405,000 16.8% 25.7% Cost of Issuance 433,148 - - 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND $ 35,472,162 $ 35,546,105 $ 35,551,000 $ 35,551,000 $ 35,478,100 -0.2% -0.2% 155 FUND BUDGETS Budgetary Basis The Commission accounts for its twenty budgeted funds primarily using governmental accounting. Governmental accounting differs from full accrual accounting in that there are a number of expenditures that are recorded when cash is disbursed. This is known as the modified accrual basis of accounting, and is the basis for the Commission's FY 03/04 budget. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when received and available to meet current year obligations. Only those revenues which are guaranteed as to receipt, based on expenditure of funds (i.e., government matching funds), or certain to be received within ninety days of the end of the fiscal year (e.g., interest earnings due from the County of Riverside; SAFE fees due from the State of California), are recorded as revenues. Chart 33 — Total Fund Expenditures Total Fund Expenditures Debt Service General Fund Fund 5% 18% �r Capital Projects f / Funds 5% Special Revenue Funds 72% Budget Authorization and Amendment Process The Commission authorizes expenditures according to administration, programs, capital outlay, debt service and other financing uses. As long as management does not exceed budgeted amounts in these broad classifications, it may transfer amounts among individual line items according to function and between financial responsibility units defined as the General Fund, Measure A Funds, Motorist Assistance Funds, and the State Transit Assistant Fund. Any other budget changes require the authorization of the Commission. The Commission may take action at any monthly meeting to amend the budget. Those amendments are incorporated into the budget as they occur and are reflected in the CAFR by adjusting budget vs. actual statements. Fund Structure There are a total of twenty funds which account for the Commission's budgeted resources categorized into the four primary fund types: the General Fund, the Special Revenue Funds, Capital Projects Funds and Debt Service Fund. There are five funds reported in the General Fund, thirteen funds in the Special Revenue Funds and one Capital Projects fund. In addition, the Commission has one Debt Service fund to account for debt related activity. 156 Non -Budgeted Funds ICI addition to the twenty budgeted funds, the Commission uses two fiduciary fund types -agency funds and expendable trust funds and one proprietary fund. The Commission does not adopt budgets for the Fiduciary Funds, or the Proprietary Fund. The monies in the expendable trust fund are monitored and controlled by means of an annual allocation process and by legal and statutory requirements. The resources for the Internal Service Fund are budgeted in the General and Special Revenue funds. GENERAL FUND Overview The General Fund of the Commission is used to account for all activities not legally required or designated by Board action to be accounted for separately. For many public agencies the General Fund is the largest fund. The Commission's largest revenue source is a locally levied sales tax, which legally must be separately accounted for. For the Commission this results in the Special Revenue, and when bonds are issued against those sales taxes, the Capital Projects Funds, accounting for the significant portion of the Commission's programs and projects. The Commission's commuter rail operations, short range transit planning, fund programming, property management, clean fuel and air quality, and a portion of administration are accounted for in the General Fund. Capital programs not funded with Measure A sales tax revenues or t requiring significant up front expenditures (i.e., expenditures to be reimbursed), are also _..,counted for in the General Fund. The revenue sources for the General Fund are Measure A sales tax for administration (accounted for separately but combined with the RCTC General Fund for reporting purposes); Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax for administration and planning; TDA Article 4 funds for transit operations and capital; user fees from licenses and leases; state highway account (SB45) funding for project planning; various other state and federal reimbursements not accounted for in the other funds; and investment income. Chart 34 — General Fund Federal Reimbursements Other Interest 6% 4% 0% State Reimbursements 2% LTF 61% Measure A 27% 157 Table 53 - General Fund Revenue Sources FY 2001 - 2004 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Actual Estimated MEASURE A SALES TAX $ 1,998,207 $ 2,497,664 $ 3,250,000 $ 3,250,000 $ 3.000,000 20.1% -7.7% LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (LTF) SALES TAX Article 3 Administration 375,000 500,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 20.0% 0.0% Article Planning 1,256,482 1,570,656 1,398,400 1,504,100 1,490,700 -5.1% 6.6% Article 4 Transit 5,023,083 4,806,000 4,445,100 4,545,100 4,564,700 -5.0% 2.7% STATE FUNDING State Dept of Transportation 1,146,850 0.0% 0.0% STIP 401,583 1,297,300 932,300 166,300 -58.6% -87.2% Other 48,828 7,400 -100.0% 0.0% FEDERAL FUNDING Other - 275,731 - 667,200 142.0% 0.0% OTHER REIMBURSEMENTS SCAG (CETAP) 1,088,994 2,273,707 500,000 - -100.0% -100.0% Local 529,375 875,542 771,700 136,500 5,000 -99.4% -99.4% Miscellaneous 44,514 8,846 6,000 8,598 1,903 -78.5% -68.3% USER FEES Licenses and Leases 260,537 245,566 156,000 275,700 170,000 -30.8% 9.0% OPERATING TRANSFER IN 2,940 2,712 - -100.0% 0.0% OTHER 327,800 885,496 216,900 268,154 289.431 -67.3% 33.4% INTEREST 289.604 241,777 215.000 40.512 54.517 -77.5% -74.6% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $ 12.343,386 $ 14,634,107 $ 12,856,400 $ 11,568,364 $ 11,009,752 -24.8% -14.4% Measure A sales tax revenues are used for administration. The decrease from the prior year is due to the reduced cost of the public information program, the lack of one-time costs dealing with the relocation and the lack of one-time costs related to the election fees for the renewal of Measure A. The administrative allocation is adjusted at midyear based on needed expenditures, but in no event will exceed four percent of total Measure A revenues (including administrative salaries and benefits). LTF sales tax revenues fund administration, planning staff and studies, and transit operations and capital for rail services. The increases are for the following reasons: ■ Planning money is set by law at three percent of estimated Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax revenues. A combination of the estimated growth in sales tax revenues and higher than expected carryover funds (also as a result of strong revenue growth), has yielded a much higher allocation for planning than the prior year. • Transit funding is also tied to sales tax revenue growth. The allocation of funding to transit operators, however, is based on need. State Highway Account monies are expected to be derived from the Commission's two - percent share of Regional Choice funding. This will be used to pay for staff STIP activities and the CETAP effort. 158 Table 54 - General Fund Expenditures 2001 - 2004 Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits Professional & Support General Legal Services Financial Services Audit Services Professional Services -Other Lease/Utilities General Expenses Communications Maintenance Insurance Data Processing Staff Related Expenses Information/Publicity SUBTOTAL Project and Operations Miscellaneous Projects Engineering Construction Right of Way Special Studies SCRRA/Transit Contribution SUBTOTAL Other LTF Disbursements Capital Outlay SUBTOTAL Other Financing (Sources) Uses Operating Transfer Out SUBTOTAL FY 00/01 Actual FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Actual Estimated $ 1.649,366 $ 1,751,820 $ 1,949,160 $ 1,629,236 $ 1,972,958 12.6% 1.2% 154,302 47,021 342,429 618,723 293,110 199,352 59,059 334,786 86,854 26,309 94,211 72,274 173,412 18,870 415,800 780.064 320,987 226,711 56,035 261,922 121,636 24,899 82,532 238,724 220.000 217,216 325.107 70,500 47,000 47,585 397,150 470,000 409,303 1,364,910 1,270.426 938,158 452,320 472,044 406,413 404,498 407,408 374,385 86.200 60,400 70,567 356,760 327,024 302,233 89,300 1.598 214,133 147,704 74,196 123,660 124.880 170,500 157.141 87.5% 47.8% 152.2% -32.5% -1.6% 3.1% 20.3% -31.3% 26.6% -10.1% 65.1% -7.4% 25.9% -18.1% 15.4% -15.3% -100.0% -100.0% 396.7% 0.0% 90.4% 6.4% -100.0% -100.0% 2,328.429 2,721,592 3,714,222 3,517,812 3,368,686 23.8% -9.3% 780,662 1,365,343 768,600 627,300 662,600 -51.5% -13.8% 0.0% 0.0% 10,000 - 7,200 0.0% 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 1,753,680 4,076,123 2,333,000 672,000 667,200 -83.6% -71.4% 3,653,511 2,998.523 3,182.900 2,597,973 3.171.800 5.8% -0.3% 6,197,853 8,439,989 6,284,500 3,904,473 4,501,600 -46.7% -28.4% 632,361 605,485 703,000 594,300 915,600 51.2% 30.2% 59,693 223,644 312,080 336.708 64,716 -71.1% -79.3% 692,054 829,129 1,015,080 931,008 980,316 18.2% -3.4% 4,128 2,860 414,000 1.562,000 4,128 2,860 36,500 1176.2% -9L2% 414,000 1,562,000 36,500 1176.2% -91.2% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 10871.830 $ 13,745.389 $ 13.376.962 $ 11,544,529 $ 10,860.060 -21.0% -18.8% Personnel salary and fringe benefits have increased from the Revised Budget by 1.2%. This increase is due to increased PERS costs as the retirement formula was changed during last fiscal year. All other benefits remained the same (See Personnel Section) Professional and Support Costs have decreased by 9.3% due to decreased costs related to the renewal of Measure A and completion of the relocation of the administrative offices. Project and Operations Costs have decreased by 28.4% primarily due to the reduced costs related to the CETAP effort. Other Costs have decreased by 3.4% due to the reduced one-time costs related to the relocation of the administrative offices. 159 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Overview The Commission's Special Revenue Funds are legally restricted as to use. Measure A sales tax, a number of state budgetary allocations, and vehicle users fees are all accounted for in thirteen Special Revenue Funds. Significant state and federal reimbursements and project matching funds are used to supplement the Measure A sales tax. The Special Revenue Fund resources are expended on highway, rail, and regional arterial design and construction, local streets and roads maintenance; repair, and construction; education and incentive programs to encourage ridesharing; special social service transportation programs, fixed route transit operation and capital needs; and motorist towing and freeway call box assistance. Chart 35 — Special Revenue Funds Other 13% Federal Reimbursements 12% Stato . Reimbursements 5% Measure A 70% Interest 0% Table 55 — Special Revenue Fund Sources FY 2001 — 2004 160 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Aclual Estimated MEASURE A SALES TAX 'ighways $ 27,818,250 $ 29,871,023 $ 29,079.000 $ 29,831,000 $ 31.145,000 4.3% 7.1% 3mmuter Rail 10,169,569 10,921.314 10,899,000 11.181,000 11,674,000 6.9% 7.1% rtegional Arterial 9,369,356 10,050,947 9,725,000 9,977,000 10,416,000 3.6% 7 1% Local Streets & Roads 34,141,867 36,577,853 35,919,000 36,849,000 38.472,000 5.2% 7.1% Special Transportation/Transit 5,478,368 5,878,485 5,733.000 5,882,000 6,142,000 4.5% 7.1% TOTAL MEASURE A 86,975,410 93,299.822 91,355,000 93,720,000 97.849,000 4 9% 7.1% STATE FUNDING SB B36 68,970 127,738 15,800 -100.0% 0.0% State Dept of Transportation FSPBudget Allocation 893,299 1,520,692 1,065,000 875,600 1,128,500 -25.8% 6.0% STIP 154,948 - 5,211,000 -100.0% 0.0% State Transit Grant 2,482,598 4,746,603 4,249,000 2,776,000 2,666.100 -43.8% -37.3% State Other 676,146 2,522,952 11,141,000 416,200 3,685.600 46.1 % -66 9% FEDERAL FUNDING Federal Transit Administration Surface Transportation Program Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Federal Other 298,866 1,169,535 12,997,000 11,790,000 479,600 -59.0% -96.3% 250.000 443,300 0.0% -100.0% 3,110,632 1,472,000 2,620,800 17,212,800 453.4% 1069.3% 106,031 - OTHER REIMBURSEMENTS Local 2,148,923 780,472 2,491,000 889,100 1,729,600 121.6% -30.6% Miscellaneous 648,961 197,867 21,000 600,702 656.397 231.7% 3025.7% USER FEES Vehicle Registration Fees 1,240,728 1,288,656 1,150,000 1,280,000 1,275,000 -1 1% 10.9% OPERATING TRANSFER IN 7,730,773 7,216,486 19,904,600 18,064,500 11,185,400 55.0% -43.8% OTHER 123,495 1,988,458 3,000 3,385.546 3,194,369 60.8% 106379.0% INTEREST 3,741,749 ,,610,997 1,545,000 717,688 537,083 -66.7% -65.2% TOTAL SPECIAL FUND REVENUES 107,027,917 $ 119,839,687 $ 147;843,600 5 142,788,236 5 141,599,448 18,2% -4.1% Measure A Special Revenue Of the Special Revenue Funds, ten are funded primarily with lasure A sales tax revenue: the Western County Operating Funds, the Palo Verde Valley aerating Fund, and the Coachella Valley Operating Funds. These ten funds account for all Measure A expenditures that are not paid from debt•proceeds. Chart 36 - Measure A Sales Tax Palo Verde Valley 1% Coachella Valley 27% \Western County 72% Western County Measure A Operating Fund This special revenue fund accounts for Western Riverside County's 72% share of the Measure A sales tax. Since the sales tax leverages state and federal dollars, the largest shares of the mmission's reimbursements flow through this fund. Chart 37 - Western County Percentage of Total Commission Revenues 161 Remaining Commission Revenues 33% Western County Operating 67% Table 56 — Western County Revenue Sources FY 2003 - 2004 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Measure A Sales Tax Highways $ 25,432,000 $ 27,239,000 $ 1,007,000 7.1% Rail 10,899,000 11 ,674,000 775,000 7.1% Local Streets & Roads 26,422,000 28,300,000 1,878,000 7.1% Commuter Assistance 1,651,000 1,769,000 118,000 7.1% Specialized Transit 1,651,000 1,769,000 118,000 7.1% Total Measure A 66,055,000 70,751,000 4,696,000 7.1% State Funding State Transit Assistance State Other 1,342,000 11,141,000 (1,342,000) -100.0% 3,685,600 (7,455,400) -66.9% Federal Funding Federal Transit Administration 12,997,000 479,600 (12,517,400) -96.3% Surface Transportation Program 250,000 (250,000) -100.0% Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality 1,472,000 17,212,800 15,740,800 1069.3% Other Reimbursements 1,082,000 3,487,400 2,405,400 222.3% Operating Transfer In 19,414,000 10,937,100 (8,476,900) -43.7% Interest 765,000 465,000 (300,000) -39.2% Total Western County Measure A Operating 114,518,000 107,018,500 (7,499.500) -6_5% As the above table demonstrates, total revenues for the Western County Operating Fund are down 6.5%, principally due to a decrease in Federal Transit Administration and State funding. In addition, State Transit Assistance funds have seen a significant decrease in funding as the State of California deals with its budget crisis and have trimmed funding to Transit programs. All the programs funded by Measure A are projected to receive 7.1% more revenues than prior 162 year. The Commission expects to receive significant more funding for Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality projects. The decrease in interest income reflects the investment earnings on h hway construction funds. These funds are being used in the Route 74 widening project. Coachella Valley Operating Fund This special revenue fund accounts for Coachella Valley's 27% share of the Measure A sales tax. Chart 38 — Coachella Valley Percentage of Total Commission Revenues Coachella Valley r Operating 19% Remaining Commission /' Revenues 81% Table 57 — Coachella Valley Revenue Sources r '003 - 2004 FY 02/03 Revised Budget Measure A Sales Tax Highways $ 3,647,000 $ Regional Arterial 9,725,000 Local Streets & Roads 8,509,000 Special Transportation 2,431,000 Total Measure A 24,312,000 Other Reimbursements Interest Total Coachella Valley Operating 1,430,000 450,000 FY 03/04 Budget 3,906,000 10,416,000 9,114,000 2.604.000 26,040,000 1,430,000 35.200 Dollar % Change Variance Estimated $ 259,000 7.1% 691,000 7.1% 605,000 7.1% 173,000 7.1% 1,728,000 7.1% 0.0% (414,800) -92.2% $ 26,192,000 $ 27,505,200 $ 1,313,200 5.0% Other reimbursements represent the Coachella Valley's TUMF program share of the debt service on the 1993 Series A bonds used to fund regional arterial improvements. Palo Verde Valley Operating Fund This special revenue fund accounts for Palo Verde Valley's 1`1/0 share of Measure A Sales Tax. Chart 39 — Palo Verde Valley Percentages of Total Commission Revenue Palo Verde Valley Operating 1% Remaining Commission Revenues 99% Table 58 — Palo Verde Revenue Sources FY 2003 - 2004 REVENUE SOURCES FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Measure A Local Streets & Roads Interest Total Palo Verde Valley Operating $ 988,000 $ 1,058,000 $ 70,000 7.1% 2,500 (2,500) -100.0% $ 990,500 $ 1,058,000 $ 67,500 6.8% NON MEASURE A SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Freeway Service Patrol Fund The Freeway Service Patrol Fund accounts for the state and local resources provided to cover the costs of servicing stranded motorists by means of towing, changing tires, and providing fuel. Chart 40 — FSP & SAFE Revenues FSP "\cimi;004\s„\_ 46% Table 59 — Freeway Service Patrol Revenue Sources FY 2003 - 2004 SAFE 54% 164 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated -"ate Allocation $ 1,065,000 $ 1,128,500 $ 63,500 6.0% erating Transfer from SAFE 320,600 248,300 (72,300) -22.6% other Reimbursements 4,588 4,588 100.0% Interest 2,500 1,260 (1,240) -49.6% Total Freeway Service Patrol $ 1,388,100 $ 1,382,648 $ (5,452) -0.4% Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) The SAFE fund accounts for the $1 per vehicle user fee levied on all registered vehicles within the County. It funds emergency aid call boxes located strategically on the highways throughout the County. Table 60 — Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Revenue Sources FY 2003 - 2004 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated DMVUserFees $ 1,150,000 $ 1,275,000 $ 125,000 10.9% Other Reimbursements 3,000 43,077 40,077 1335.9% Operating Transfer In 170,000 - (170,000) -100.0% Interest 100,000 40,223 (59,777) -59.8% Total SAFE State Transit Assistance Fund $ 1,423,000 $ 1,358,300 $ (64,700) -4.5% State transit assistance funds rail and bus transit operations and capital requirements. Table 61 — State Transit Assistance Revenue Sources FY 2003 - 2004 State Budgetary Allocation Interest Total State Transit Assistance FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated $ 2,907,000 $ 2,666,100 $ (240,900) -8.3% 225,000 5,000 (220,00) -97.8% 3,132,000 $ 2,671,100 $ (460,900) -14.7% The allocation is strictly based on estimates of gas tax revenues and is provided by the Controller of the State of California. It is subject to annual state budget appropriation. EXPENDITURES Chart 41 — Special Revenue Expenditures 165 Debt 25% �w Streets & Roads 26% Other 2% Table 62 — Special Revenue Expenditures FY 2001 - 2004 Project & a- Operations 47% 166 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Actual Estimated -onnel Salary & Fringe Benefits $ 546,017 $ 524,888 $ 579,040 $ 428,464 $ 818,042 55.9% 41.3% ssional & Support General Legal Services 280,214 517,733 513,000 359,584 478,593 -7.6% -6.7% Financial Services 2,231 724 4,500 3,000 2,415 233.7% -46.3% Audit Services 27,508 47,000 84,950 44,200 22,698 -51.7% -73.3% Professional Services -Other 88,230 327,868 1,224,941 340,374 857,942 161.7% -30.0% Lease/Utilities 16,092 18,700 23,680 28,556 18,987 1.5% -19.8% General Expenses 99,305 193,047 266,002 265,192 362,665 87.9% 36.3% Communications 20,973 24,610 43,800 31,100 69,733 183.4% 59.2% Maintenance 610,972 9,483 50,640 342,176 21,117 122.7% -58.3% Insurance 5,544 7,764 5,700 102 10,868 40.0% 90.7% Data Processing 1,679 1,589 - - - .100.0% 0.0% Staff Related Expenses 13,824 13,466 46,596 17,104 41,840 210.7% -10.2% Information/Publicity 147,104 286,568 153,320 31,800 206,759 -27.9% 34.9% TOTAL PROFESSIONAL AND SUPPORT 1,313,676 1,448,552 2,417,129 1,463,188 2,093,614 44.5% -13.4% Project and Operations Program Management 1,681,310 1,809,749 2,183,600 1,297,600 2,036,700 12.5% -6.7% Park & Ride Lease Payments 33,900 40,200 54,000 65,000 100,000 148.8% 85.2% Litigation Settlement 450 45,000 - 0.0% -100.0% Projects - General 437 - 40,800 120,000 42,800 0.0% 4.9% SAFE Operations 346,435 1,434,423 713,600 237,200 595,900 -58.5% -16.5% Towing 947,199 964,605 1,113,000 1,022,000 1,290,400 33.8% 15.9% Commuter Assistance 1,278,171 1,186,078 1,835,000 1,486,000 1,768,500 49.1% 8.2% Engineering 2,838,906 5,541,115 7,133,313 3,135,100 4,109,400 -25.8% -42.4% Construction 5,452,303 2,219,067 33,648,200 26,545,900 37,207,300 1576.7% 10.6% Right of Way 1,402,629 4,798,338 21,213,000 15,971,900 4,508,000 -6.1% -78.7% Special Studies 11,471 503,766 510,000 230,100 10,000 -98.0% -98.0% Special Transportation/Transit 3,153,384 4,873,780 3,658,000 4,083,600 4,497,000 -7.7% 22.9% State Transit Assistance 3,529,784 4,254,996 6,155,000 4,123,600 2,666,000 -37.3% -56.7% Regional Arterial 10.532,091 9,732,106 7,957,900 8,957,900 7,133,200 -26.7% -10.4% TOTAL PROJECT AND OPERATIONS 31,208,469 37,358,221 88,060,413 67,275,900 65,965,200 76.6% -23.4% :r Local Streets & Roads Capital Outlay TOTAL OTHER 34,338,176 36,028,085 34,746,000 3,810 55,758 99,920 34,341,986 36,083,843 34,845,920 35,376,000 221,492 35,597,492 36,999,600 2.7% 6.5% 588,284 955.1% 488.8% 37,587,884 4.2% 7.9% Other Financing (Sources) Uses Operating Transfer Out 35,575,877 35,117,298 36,040,600 35,789,800 35.726,400 1_7% -0_9% TOTAL 35,575,877 35,117,298 36,040,600 35,789,800 35,726,400 1.7% -0.9% TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES $ 102,986 025 $ 110,532,802 5 159,943,102 $ 140,554,844 5 142,191,140 28.6% -11.1% :asure A Special Revenue - The Measure A Special Revenue Funds are expended on capital construction and improvements to highways, commuter rail, regional arterials, and local 167 streets and roads. Funding is also reserved for commuter assistance and specialized transit programs. The Commission is considered a self-help county and as such on major highway projects, the Commission supplement's the State of California's spending and upon completion of the project, the Caltrans takes over the project. All revenues from the Measure A sales tax have been pledged as security for the Commission's senior debt and commercial paper notes. (Note: Currently there are no outstanding commercial paper notes). Although debt service is recorded in the Debt Service Fund, most of the resources for the cash payments are provided by the Measure A Special Revenue Funds (See section on Capital Projects Funds). Table 63 — Western County Expenditures FY 2003 - 2004 Personnel, Professional & Support Measure A Program Management Projects - General Highway Engineering Highway Construction Highway Right of Way Rail Engineering Rail Construction Rail Right of Way Commuter Assistance Specialized Transit Local Streets & Roads Special Studies Capital Outlay Debt TOTAL WESTERN COUNTY FY 02/03 Revised Budget $ 2,524,700 2,143,600 99,000 4.353,515 14,505,000 14,700,000 2,729,798 17,727,200 6,453,000 1,635,000 1,261,000 25,249,000 500,000 80,000 27,652,000 $ 121,612,813 Table 64 — Coachella Valley Expenditures FY 2003 - 2004 Personnel, Professional & Support Measure A Program Management Highway Engineering Highway Construction Highway Right of Way Regional Arterial Specialized Transit Local Streets & Roads Debt TOTAL COACHELLA VALLEY FY 02/03 Revised Budget FY 03/04 Budget $ 2,540,900 2,012,700 300,000 1,995,200 32,393,000 2,908,000 1,908,500 2,270,000 1,600,000 1,768,500 1,893,000 26,827,600 385,000 27,580,100 Dollar Variance $ 16,200 (130,900) 201,000 (2,358,315) 17,888,000 (11.792,000) (821,298) (15,457,200) (4,853,000) 133,500 632,000 1,578,600 (500,000) 305,000 (71,900) $ 106,3.82,500 $ (15,230,313) FY 03/04 Budget Dollar Variance % Change Estimated 0.6% -6.1% 203.0% -54.2% 123.3% -80.2% -30.1% -87.2% -75.2% 8.2% 50.1% 6.3% -100.0% 100.0% -0.3% -12.5% % Change Estimated $ 6,600 $ 16,600 $ 10,000 151.5% 40,000 24,000 (16,000) -40.0% 50,000 205,700 155,700 311.4% 1,416,000 2,544,300 1,128,300 79.7% 60,000 - (60,000) -100.0% 7,957,900 7,133,200 (824,700) -10.4% 2,397,000 2,604,000 207,000 8.6% 8,509,000 9,114,000 605,000 7.1% 7,898,000 7,898,000 0.0% $ 28,334,500 $ 29,539,800 $ 1,205,300 NON MEASURE A SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 4.3% 168 The non Measure A Special Revenue funds account for motorist assistance expenditures including freeway call boxes and towing service, as well as transit disbursements from the c+ate Transit Assistance Program. These activities are budgeted in the Freeway Service Patrol nd, the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies, and the State Transit Assistance Fund. Freeway Service Patrol Fund accounts for the Commission's towing service, which is jointly funded by Caltrans and the Commission. The program also includes services to construction zones to help mitigate congestion. Table 65 — Freeway Service Patrol Expenditures FY 2003 - 2004 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Revised Budget Budget Personnel, Professional & Support $ 160,821 $ 64,800 $ Towing 1,113,000 1,290,400 Project - General 40,800 42,800 Capital Outlay 6,374 - Operating Transfer Out 80,000 Dollar % Change Variance Estimated (96,021) -59.7% 177,400 15.9% 2,000 4.9% (6,374) -100.0% (80,000) -100.0% TOTAL FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL $ 1,400,995 $ 1,398,000 $ X2,995) -0.2% Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Fund accounts for the installation and maintenance of a freeway call box system within Riverside County. Table 66 — SAFE Expenditures FY 2003 - 2004 Personnel, Professional & Support Access Charges Preventive Maintenance Corrective Maintenance Knockdowns Operating Costs Vandalism Equipment Maintenance - Call Boxes Operating Transfer Special Studies Projects - General TOTAL SAFE FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Revised Budget Budget $ 306,648 111,000 4,000 4,000 26,000 163,000 4,000 399,000 410,600 10,000 13,546 $ 120,900 105,800 4,150 4,150 26,000 87,000 2,000 362,800 248,300 14,000 Dollar % Change Variance Estimated $ (185,748) -60.6% (5,200) -4.7% 150 3.8% 150 3.8% 0.0% (76,000) -46.6% (2,000) -50.0% (36,200) -9.1% (162,300) -39.5% 454 3.4% $ 1,451,794 $ 975,100 $ (476,694) -32.8% State Transit Assistance Fund is used to account for the state budgetary allocation of gas tax revenues designated for transit purposes. The decrease represents a lower allocation in the State Transit Assistance Program. le 67 — State Transit Assistance Expenditures 2003 - 2004 169 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Claimant Allocations $ 6,155,000 $ 2,666,000 $ (3,489,000) -56.7% The budget assumes that the entire state grant is allocated to claimants. The actual allocation will not occur until early summer. At mid year, the budget is adjusted to reflect the actual allocations. CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Overview The Capital Project fund accounts for all debt proceeds from senior bonds, including debt reserve funds, and commercial paper notes. Major expenditures are for highways (including interchanges). The last debt issued by the Commission was in July 2000. Over the next year, these funds will diminish in activity since no further debt issuance is anticipated. Chart 42 — Capital Project Fund Investment - Income 100% Other revenues consist of interest payments from Temecula, Canyon Lake, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, Corona and Lake Elsinore for outstanding loans. Table 68 - Capital Project Revenue Sources FY 2001 - 2004 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02103 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Actual Budget Actual Estimated OTHER FINANCING SOURCES DEBT PROCEEDS Senior Bond Proceeds $ 35,934,149 $ - $ $ - $ - 0.0% 0.0% Junior Bond Proceeds 0.0% 0.0% OTHER 643,294 52,807 - -100.0% 0.0% INTEREST 4,508;432 2,533,159 1,150,000 1,795,800 500,000 -80.3% -56.5% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS S 41,085,876 $ 2,585 966 S 1.150.000 $ 1.795.800 $ 500,000 -80.7% -56.5% Table 69 — Capital Project Expenditures FY 2001 - 2004 170 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Rev Budget Projected Actual Budget Actual Estimated EXPENDITURES '1THER FINANCING (SOURCES) USES Issuance Cost $ 433,148 $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% Operating Transfers Out 8,435,566 33594,092 19,000,000 26,798,000 10,900,600 -67.6% -42.6% TOTAL OTHER 8,868,714 33,594,092 19,000,000 26,798,000 10,900,600 -67.6% -42.6% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS $ 8,868,714 $ 33,594,092 5 19,000,000 $ 26,798,000 $ 10,900,600 -67.6% -42.6% Table 70 — Western County Construction Expenditures FY 2003 - 2004 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Highway Engineering $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Highway Construction - 0.0% Highway Right of Way - - 0.0% Operating Transfer Out 19,000,000 10,900,600 (8,099,400) -42.6% TOTAL WESTERN COUNTY CONST. $ 19,000,000 $ 10,900,600 $ (6,099,400) 100.0% With the use of the remaining debt proceeds from the 1997 bond issue, most of the highway projects for FY 03/04 will be funded from the Western County Measure A Operating Fund. The intent is to exhaust those funds as quickly as possible. DEBT SERVICE FUND ,"erview The Debt Service Fund of the Commission is used to account for all activities related to the debt incurred by the Commission. The Commission's largest expenditure is debt service. The Commission has made a conscious decision to issue debt to complete projects in the earlier years. This strategy brought quick relief to the transportation needs of the County of Riverside. As a result, the Commission has issued five outstanding bond issues. Under the provisions of Measure A as amended by Ordinance No. 92-1 (Measure AA), the Commission has the authority to issue bonds subject to a bond debt limitation of $525,000,000. The Commission has an internal policy of maintaining a 2X coverage of debt. Based on the provisions listed above, the Commission has issued the following bonds secured by Measure A revenues: 2000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In July 2000, the Commission issued serial bonds in the principal amount of $35,825,000 to fund various major highway projects. Net proceeds amounted to $35,501,000 inclusive of premium of $109,148 and net of accrued interest. The bonds mature in annual installments of $3,825,000 to $4,785,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 4.30% to 4.70%. ')7 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In August 1997, the .,ommission issued serial bonds in the principal amount of $47,910,000 to retire outstanding 171 commercial paper notes of $41,200,000 and to fund various major highway projects. Net proceeds amounted to $48,055,659, inclusive of premium of $263,196 and net of accrued interest. The bonds mature in annual installments of $4,065,000 to $5,115,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 4.25% to 4.75%. Portions of the bonds are subject to early redemption, at the option of the Commission, beginning June 1, 2007. 1997 Junior Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series B: In August 1997, the Commission issued subordinated serial bonds in the principal amount of $13,245,000 to retire outstanding commercial paper notes of $2,800,000 and to fund various local streets and roads projects. Net proceeds amounted to $13,223,717, inclusive of premium of $11,016 and net of accrued interest. The bonds mature in annual installments of $1,120,000 to $1,405,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 4.38% to 4.75%. Portions of the bonds are subject to early redemption, at the option of the Commission, beginning June 1, 2007. 1996 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In January 1996, the Commission issued $61,765,000 principal amount of serial bonds to refund a portion of the 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A. Net proceeds amounted to $66,252,576, inclusive of premium of $4,487,576 and net of accrued interest. The bonds mature in annual installments of $45,000 to $10,030,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 4.50% to 6.0%. The proceeds from the refunding bonds and a forward float contract provided by a major bank in the amount of $16,186,000 have been placed in an irrevocable escrow fund consisting of United States Treasury obligations. The escrow fund will be used to meet all annual maturing payments through 2009 for the refunded portion of the 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A. 1993 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In February 1993, the Commission issued $136,610,000 principal amount of serial bonds to finance certain highway and rail projects and Coachella Valley regional arterial projects. Net proceeds after original issue discount amounted to $135,448,305. The bonds mature in annual installments and require sinking fund payments of $9,335,00 to $12,295,000 on various dates through June 1, 2009 with interest rates ranging from 5.50% to 5.75%. 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In January 1991, the Commission issued $112,996,959 principal amount of long-term debt in the form of serial, term, and capital appreciation bonds to finance certain transportation capital projects pursuant to the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan. Net proceeds after original issue discount amounted to $110,303,215. The bonds mature in annual installments and require a sinking fund payment of $3,216,959 June 1, 2004 with an interest rate of 6.85%. Portions of the bonds are subjects to early redemption, at the option of the Commission, beginning June 1, 2000. The bond agreements require the trustee to hold all bond proceeds and sales tax revenues and to segregate all funds into separate amounts including project proceeds, sales tax revenues, interest payments, and principal payments and a reserve fund equal to the maximum annual debt service of $35,480,957. These monies are included in the restricted investments held by trustee in the Capital Project and Debt Service funds. A portion of the Debt Reserve Requirement has been satisfied with surety policies purchased from a major insurance company and held by the trustee. Under the agreements, the Commission may use sales tax 172 revenues for any lawful purpose related to Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan after the trustee has satisfied debt service requirements. ed below are the principal and interest payments for the fiscal year and a table outlining the Commission's debt in future years: Table 71 — Debt Obligation Bonds Issued Principal Interest Total 1991 Bonds 1993 Bonds 1996 Bonds 1997 Bonds 1997 Jr. Bonds 2000 Bonds $ 3,216,959 9,335,000 45,000 4,065,000 1,120,000 3,825,000 $ 4,683,041 3,665,438 2,691,207 1,292,500 352,238 1,186,718 $ 7,900,000 13,000,438 2,736,207 5,357,500 1,472,238 5,011,718 Total $ 21,606,959 $ 13,871,141 $ 35,478,100 Fiscal Year Principal Interest Total FY03/04 $ 21,606,959 $ 13,871,141 $ 35,478,100 FY04/05 27,200,000 8,285,530 35,485,530 FY05/06 28,640,000 6,843,222 35,483,222 FY06/07 30,200,000 5,274,945 35,474,945 FY07/08 31,865,000 3,608,120 35,473,120 FY08/09 33,630,000 1,843,358 35,473,358 Total $ 173,141,959 $ 39,726,316 $ 212,868,275 l...art 43 — Debt Service Fund Operating Transfer 96% T 72 — Debt Service Revenue Source t J01 - 2004 Investment Income 4% 173 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Proj Actual Budget Actual Estimated REVENUES Interest $ 1,265,504 $ 1,556,548 $ 1,055,000 $ 1,679,000 $ 1,561,600 0.3% 48.0% Operating Transfer In 36,280,972 61,442,245 35,550,000 46,085,300 35.478,100 -42.3% -0.2% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND $ 37,546,476 $ 62,998,793 $ 36,605,000 $ 47,764,300 $ 37,039,700 -41.2% 1.2% Table 73 — Debt Service Expenditures FY 2001 - 2004 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 % Change % Change Actual Actual Revised Budget Proj Actual Budget Actual Estimated EXPENDITURES Professional & Support $ 29,804 $ 210 $ - $ - $ -100.0% 0.0% Principal Payments 22,478,844 24,068,939 24,888,000 24,888,000 22,073,100 -8.3% -11.3% Interest Payments 12,530,366 11,476,956 10,663,000 10,663,000 13,405,000 16.8% 25.7% Cost of Issuance 433,148 - 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND $ 35,472,162 $ 35,546,105 $ 35,551,000 $ 35,551,000 $ 35,478,100 -0.2% -0.2% 174 COMMUNITY PROFILE Riverside County is the fourth largest county in California, stretching westward nearly 200 miles from the Colorado River and comprising more than 7200 square miles that include 24 incorporated cities. Riverside County can trace its beginning back to 1893 when voters approved the formation of a new county. The area was carved from had previously been part of San Bernardino and San Diego counties. In its 100+ years of existence, the county's economy has diversified and prospered. Originally, Riverside County was a very agricultural area, known for a wide variety of crops grown on its fertile soils. The county remains a strong agricultural area, but is increasingly becoming a leader in manufacturing, transportation, construction and tourism. The success of the area has brought dramatic population growth to Riverside County. During the 1980's the county was the fastest growing county in the state. While it's population growth continues, jobs are also increasing as many firms relocate to the area, as they move away from older communities. The economic outlook for Riverside County remains bright with more firms moving into the area, while existing employers expand. At the same time, the area is preparing for its future as well, in supporting better education. The county is home to a number of colleges and universities including the University of California, Riverside. DATE OF INCORPORATION: OCTOBER 11, 1883 FORM OF GOVERNMENT: COUNCIL-MANAGER Chart 44 - Population 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 — 800,000 600,000 — 400,000 200,000 — 0 rims �o'�o �o'�`L �°�oh (3 ���� ��' �°�o'� �°�(°5 Q:\ OHO � �p`L ti (1 r 175 Chart 45 — Age Composition (%) 75-84 years 5% 65-74 years 7% 60-64 years 55-59 years 4% 45-54 years 11% Chart 46 — Gender Composition (%) FEMALE 50%-/ Chart 47 — Racial Composition (%) Am erican Indian 1% Asian or Pacific Islander 4% Hispanic 36% Black 6% 85 years and over 1% 35-44 years 16% 25-34 years 13% Under 5 Fyears 8% 5-9 years 9% 10-14 years 9% 15-19 years 8% 20-24 years 6% 2 or more Races 2% MALE 50% W hite 51% Chart 48 — New Home Sales 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 . ,s 1990 1992 1994 Chart 49 — Unemployment Rate 1996 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 2000 2002 Chart 50 — Retail Sales (%) $13.2 Billion Other 13% •\ Apparel Store 4% Automotive- 32% Building Material 11% General -Merchand. 18% Household 4% Food Stores 7% Eating & Drinking 11% Chart 51 — Household Income 2000(%) $100,000 to $150,000 to $200,000 $150,000 $200,000 and over/ - 7% N. 2% 1% / $75,000 to $100,000 — 11% $50,000 to $75,000 21% $35,000 to $50,000 14% $0 to $10,000 10% $10,000 to $15,000 6% $15,000 to $25,000 14% $25,000 to $35,000 14% AGENDA ITEM 8A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Six 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 recurring contracts be approved at the beginning of each year. All other contracts are bid on a periodic basis ranging from three to five years. Schedule of Recurring Contracts Consultant Name Description of Services Budget FY02-03 Budget FY 03-04 Dollar Change Percent Change Bechtel Infrastructure Program Management 82,138,641 82,036,689 8(101,952) (5.0%) Best, Best and Krieger General Legal Services 733,000 732,700 (300) 0.0% Inland Transportation Services Commuter Assistance Program Management 1,267,695 1,385,343 117,648 9.3% Public Financial Mgmt. Investment Advisor 45,000 20,000 (20,000) (44.0%) Valley Res. & Planning Congestion Management 60,000 75,000 15,000 25.0% All these items have already been included in the FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget and as such no budget adjustment is required. Agenda Item 8A 179 AGENDA ITEM 8B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending April 30, 2003. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status on contracts reported by projects, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending April 30, 2003. Attachment: Monthly Report — April 2003 Agenda Item 8B 180 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/R. PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMIT MENTS AGAINSTAUTH MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 04/30/03 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design/ROW HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. $7,700,000 $7,650,641 99.4°%: $87,334 $7,415,409 96 9% (2042) (3000) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 $7,700,000 $7,650,641 99 .4% $87,334 $7,415,409 96.9% ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (RO2041 9954,9966, $69,847,655 $29,514,368 42 .3 % $3,284,999 $25,059,858 84.9% (RO2142) (RO2141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 869,847,655 $29,514,368 42 .3% $3,284,999 $25,059,858 84.9% ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ./ROW (3003) $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96.5% $120 $986,745 35 .3% Realignment study & Right turn lanes (RO9961) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96.5% $120 $986,745 35 .3 % ROUTE 86 PROJECTS Avenue 58 to Avenue 66 (Segment 2) $20,253,000 $19,500,000 96 .3 % Project Complete $18,060,000 92.6%, $33,860,000 $33,760,000 99 .7% Proj ect Complete $31,013,510 91.9% SUBTOTAL ROUTE 86 $54,113,000 $53,260,000 $0 $49,073,510 92 .1% ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction $11,902,100 $10,374,324 87.2% $9,230 $9,537,425 91.9 % (RO9101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (RO3008) $2,954,000 $2,954,000 100 .0 % $0 $2,109,519 71.4% Mary Street to 7th Street HOV design & ROW(3005) $1,274,430 $1,062,025 83.3% $11,973 8486,650 45 .8% Sndwall Landscaping (RO9933,9946,2059.3601) $1,603,450 $1,603,450 100. 0% $0 $869,264 54.2% SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 $17,733,980 $15,993,799 90.2% $21,203 $13,002,858 81.3% ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (RO9219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) $16,946,856 $16,946,856 100.0% $120 $15,619,534 92.2% 3410,9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629 (3400-3405) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111 $16,946,856 $16,946,856 100. 0% $120 $15,619,534 92.2% Page 1 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % CO MMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COM MITMENTS AGAINST AUTH . MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 04/30/03 TO DATE COM MITMNTS TO DATE 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) $6,726,504 $5,878,173 87 .4 % $5,704,897 97.1 % SUBTOTAL 1-215 $6,726,504 $5,878,173 87.4% $0 $5,704,897 97.1 % INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946) $440,000 $400,000 90.9% $0 $312,519 78 .1 % SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE $440,000 $400,000 90 ,9% $0 $312,519 7&1% PROJECT & CONSTR. M GMT SERV. (Agree ment (02-31-081)) 82,138 .641 $2,027,483 94 .8% $157,957 $1,242,750 61,3%: SUBTOTAL BECHTEL $22,138,641 $2,027,483 94 .8% $157,957 $1,242,750 ' 61.3% PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES North/South Corridor study (R09936) $25,000 $25,000 100.0% $0 $0 0 .0 % SUBTOTAL PROGRAM PLAN & SV CS. $25,000 $25,000 100.0 % $0 $0 0.0 % PARK-N-RIDEJINCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 $2,323,177 $2,323,177 100.0% $139,855 $1 .938.656 83.4% 2127,2138,2139 SUBTO TAL PARK -N -RIDE $2,323,177 $2,323,177 100,0% $139,855 $1,938,656 83.4 % COM MUTER RAIL StudleslEngineeringlConstruction $23,685,414 $22,943,070 96.9% $1,458,119 $21,693,558 94.6% (R O 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028) 2031,2027,2120 R02029,2128, 3800- 3811,3813, 3814) Station/Site ACq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2026,2056,4000-4007,4198,4199,4009,3812 $13,900,329 $13,900,329 100.0% $286.285 89,773,899 70 .3 %' SUBTOTAL CO MMUTER RAIL $37,585,743 $36,843,399 98. 0% $1,744,404 $31,467,457 85 .4% TO TALS $218,475,053 $173,656,831 79.5% $5,435,992 $151,824,193 87 .4% Page 2 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL . MEETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REP ORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A " LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION CO MMITMENT 04/30/03 ADVANCES BALANCE COMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $618,934 $0 38.7% SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN $1,600,000 $0 $1,600,000 $618,934 $0 38.7% CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Inte rchanges & (1) $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $2,743,653 $0 52 .6% Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA $5,212,623 $0 $5,212,623 $2,743,653 $0 52 .6 %' CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements $1,936,419 $1,936,419 $1,114,714 $0 57.6 % CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements $1,324,500 $1,324,500 $762,458 $0 57.6 % CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road improvements $5,094,027 $5,094,027 $2,932,415 $0 57.6% CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts $2,139,067 $2,139,067 $1,231,370 $0 57.6% CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improvements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $636,997 $0 42 .5 % TO TALS $18,806,636 $0 $18,806,636 $9,403,544 $0 50 .0% NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Status as of: 4/30/03 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 8C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Budget Adjustments STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve appropriation budget adjustments. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Adjustment 1 At the end of last fiscal year, Sunline Transit had a carryover balance available for use. The amount totaled $855,537. Staff is requesting a budget adjustment to pay the funds to Sunline Transit. These expenditures are part of the Short Range Transit Plan. Sufficient balances are available in the fund balance to cover this appropriation adjustment. Adjustment 2 Staff is requesting an adjustment for General Business Insurance expenditures. Due to September 11, the insurance industry has adjusted liability rates significantly. As a result, property insurances for the Commission have increased. Based on prior history, the Commission had budgeted $160,000 for insurance costs, however, the actual costs are $235,000. In addition, equipment purchased for the new offices was higher than expected. These two additional costs have resulted in the need to increase the appropriation by $100,000. Staff is requesting an increase to accommodate the increase in costs. Sufficient unreserved fund balance exists to cover these increases. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 02-03 Amount: $700,000 Source of Funds: Fund Balances Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 252-26-86101 $600,000 Increase S-12-73401 $100,000 Increase Fiscal Procedures Approved: _ ___ �3��=���� Date: 05/27/03 Agenda Item 8C 184 AGENDA ITEM 8D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Ivan Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution No. 03-027, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Amendment to Agreement for State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 03-027, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Amendment to Agreement for State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On November 5, 2002, the measure to extend the expiration of the sales tax measure to June 30, 2039 was passed by the required two-thirds majority of the electorate of Riverside County. On April 9, 2003, an agreement, No. 03-19-065, between the State Board of Equalization and the Commission to amend the agreement for State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes. In order to process the amendment, the State Board of Equalization has requested that Commission adopt a resolution to authorize the amendment of the agreement. Staff is, therefore, requesting adoption of the resolution authorizing the amendment of the agreement for State administration of district transactions and use taxes. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 03-027 2) Agreement No. 03-19-065 Agenda Item 8D 185 RESOLUTION NO. 03-027 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE AGREEMENT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATION OF DISTRICT TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAXES WHEREAS, on May 26, 1989, the State Board of Equalization and the Riverside County Transportation executed an agreement for State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes; WHEREAS, under the agreement, the State Board of Equalization administers and enforces the Commission's Transactions and Use Tax imposed under Ordinance 88-1 and 88-2 as authorized by Public Utilities Code Section 240000 et seq. and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7252.22; WHEREAS, Ordinance 88-01 provided the tax to be imposed for a period of twenty (20) years; WHEREAS, on November 5, 2002, Ordinance No. 02-001 extending the expiration date of the tax to June 30, 2039 was approved by the required two-thirds majority of the electorate of Riverside County; WHEREAS, on April 9, 2003, the Commission approved Agreement No. 03-18- 065, an agreement with the State Board of Equalization amending the agreement for State Administration of District Transaction and Use Taxes; WHEREAS, the State Board of Equalization requires a Resolution to authorize the amendment of the agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Board of Commissioners authorize the amendment of the agreement for State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1 1 th day of June, 2003. Ron Roberts, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Commission Agenda Item 8D - Attachment 1 186 Agreement N o. 03-19-065 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATION OF DISTRICT TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAXES On May 26, 1989, the State Board of Equalization (the Board) and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) executed an Agreement for State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes (the Agreement). Under the Agreement, the Board administers and enforces the RCTC Transactions and Use Tax imposed under Ordinance No. 88-1 and 88-2 and authorized by Public Utilities Code Section 240000 et seq. and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7252.22. Ordinance No. 88-1 provides that the tax shall be imposed for a period of (20) twenty years. On November 5, 2002, the required two-thirds majority of the electorate of the County of Riverside voting on the issue, voted to approve Ordinance No. 02-001 extending the expiration date of the tax to June 30, 2039. All other statutory requirements for extension of the termination date have been met. The Agreement is hereby amended to substitute the original termination date of June 30, 2009 with June 30, 2039, the RCTC having met all the specified conditions. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION By (Executive Director) (Date) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (Signature) (Print Name) (Date) RCTC-PASSED 187 AGENDA ITEM 8E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 03-12-071 — Contract for Information Technology Equipment Purchase, Maintenance, and Repair Service STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 03-12-071, for the purchase, maintenance, and repair service of computer network system to Jaguar Computer Systems, Inc.; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel Review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Over the years, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has expanded its computer network to accommodate increase in staff and the addition of various accounting and records software. To follow through with the direction of the Commission, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was released in April 18, 2003 with proposals requested to be submitted by May 19, 2003. The released RFP included rigid requirements regarding response time for emergency and non -emergency service calls because the Commission does not have IT staffing. The Department of Administrative Services oversees the IT function and has assigned its Senior Administrative Assistant to perform minor fixes but has relied on consultant for major service needs for office and network systems. Because of the Commission's staffing limitation for computer service needs, the released RFP required a four-hour response time for non -emergency service calls and a one -hour response time for emergency service calls. This response -time requirement limited the number of responses to our request for proposals. Jaguar has met the response and staffing requirement, and the maintenance rates are within the rates being charged in the industry. Agenda Item 8E 188 Jaguar has been in existence for 24 years. They are the largest independent systems integrator within the Inland Empire with product Authorizations and Certifications for various information technology equipment manufacturers. Some of their customers that they provide service to include Yamaha Corporation of America, Yamaha Motors, County of Riverside Child Support Services and Human Resources, City of Riverside, and the Riverside County Probation Department. The proposed service contract rates with Jaguar will be based upon the amount of time spent on site, from $105 per hour for a project manager to $65 per hour for a technician. The service that is frequently required by the Commission is at the technician or a network engineer ($85.00) level. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2003-04 Amount: N/A — The amount in the budget included maintenance for all RCTC equipment (not just computers and network) Source of Funds: Split LTF/Measure/FSP Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: June 11, 2003 Agenda Item 8E 189 AGENDA ITEM 8F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs "Committee as a Whole" Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Update on the Moreno Valley -San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor PLANS AND PROGRAMS "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Moreno Valley - San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached for your information is a copy of the Notice of Preparation to start the California Environmental Quality Act work on the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor. This notice has been sent out to over 500 agencies and individuals to inform them of the start of the CEQA work for this CETAP corridor and to solicit their comments by June 10, 2003. Included in the transmittal letter was a notice of two public scoping meetings. Meetings will be in an Open House type format and run from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00pm. The meetings will be held on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 at the City of Loma Linda Senior Center and on Thursday, June 5, 2003 at the City of Moreno Valley City Hall. Additionally, newspaper advertisements regarding the NOP and the upcoming public scoping meetings were included in the May 12th editions of the Press Enterprise and the San Bernardino County Sun and on May 16th in La Prensa. Attachments: 1) Transmittal Letter 2) Notice of Preparation 3) Public Notice Agenda Item 8F 190 Governments SAN BAG Moreno Volley to San Bernardino County Corridor T.w�Jnvf.�Pf-' �yerenfulw Working Together May 6, 2003 Subject: Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Dear: Responsible Agencies, Elected Officials, and Interested Parties Attached is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) or a public notice of availability of the NOP for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County transportation corridor in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor (Corridor) study was initiated through the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). The main purpose of the Corridor study is to identify specific transportation solutions that can help improve mobility between State Route 60 and Interstate 10. The study is a joint effort between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). The purpose of the NOP is to describe the proposed project, solicit input regarding the scope and content of the analysis in the Draft EIR, and describe the potential environmental impacts that the Draft EIR will evaluate. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15060 and 15063, an Initial Study is not required and is not included with the NOP. The Draft EIR will be prepared as a Program EIR (CEQA Section 15168) to provide analysis sufficient to support the preservation of right-of-way for transportation facilities in the circulation elements of the appropriate local General Plans. A more detailed level of environmental evaluation resulting in a Focused or Supplemental EIR will be required prior to construction of the Corridor. The RCTC and SANBAG would appreciate your comments, suggestions, or concerns regarding potential environmental impacts related to the proposed project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but no later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please submit your comments by June 10, 2003. In your response, please note the primary contact person for your agency or organization. Written comments regarding the NOP may be sent via regular mail or fax to the following: 191 Riverside County Transportation Commission Ms. Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Fax: (909) 787-7920 Or San Bernardino Associated Governments Mr. Ty Schuiling, Director of Planning and Programming 472 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92401-1421 Fax: (909) 885-4407 In addition, public scoping meetings have been scheduled at two locations in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The meetings will be held from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The dates and locations are as follows: Wednesday, June 4, 2003 City of Loma Linda Senior Center 25571 Barton Road Loma Linda, CA 92354 Transit access available from RTA Bus Route 25 and Onmitrans Bus Routes 2 and 200. Thursday, June 5, 2003 City of Moreno Valley City Hall 14177 Frederick Moreno Valley, CA 92552 Transit access available from RTA Bus Route 16. Thank you in advance for any comments. If you have any questions about the proposed project or the environmental review process, please contact Ms. Cathy Bechtel at (909) 787-7141 or Mr. Ty Schuiling at (909) 884-8276. Sincerely, Cathy Bechtel Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development Riverside County Transportation Commission Ty Schuiling Director of Planning and Programming San Bernardino Associated Governments Attachment: Notice of Preparation or Notice of Availability of the NOP 192 NOTICE OF PREPARATION of an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) for the MORENO VALLEY TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CORRIDOR in RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Lead Agencies: Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) niers-Jae County is isporintion Commission May 2003 193 Governments SAN BAG Working Together NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MORENO VALLEY TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CORRIDOR STUDY Introduction This document is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for transportation improvements between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The purpose of the NOP is to describe the proposed project, the location of the project, the probable environmental effects of the project that will be evaluated in the EIR, and solicit input regarding the scope and content of the analysis to be included in the EIR. This NOP is being issued in accordance with Section 15082(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Background The Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor (Corridor) Study was initiated through the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) being undertaken jointly by the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). CETAP is one component of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), which also includes the Riverside County General Plan update and a Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for Riverside County. The main purpose of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Study is to identify specific transportation solutions that can help improve mobility between State Route 60 (SR -60) and Interstate 10 (I-10). The study is a joint effort between RCTC and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). A Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Policy Advisory Committee, involving RCTC, SANBAG, the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, numerous resource agencies, and the Cities of Banning, Colton, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Moreno Valley, Perris, Redlands, Rialto, Riverside, San Bernardino and Yucaipa, has been established to help guide the study efforts. Two public information meetings were held in Moreno Valley and San Bernardino County in April 2001 to obtain input from residents, businesses, and other stakeholders in the area. The input from these meetings was used to define the alignments to better avoid and minimize impacts to the community and the environment. Two public scoping meetings will be held during the NOP public comment period (one in each County) to solicit input from the public on the scope of significant issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR. According to current projections by the Southem California Association of Governments (SCAG) and SANBAG, the Inland Empire's population is expected to reach over 5.5 million by 2025, and employment is expected to more than double. Due to the fast pace of development, opportunities are being lost to preserve land for transportation facilities. Therefore, an important goal of this effort is to complete environmental documentation on a schedule sufficient for use in preserving right-of- way for regional transportation facilities. 1 194 The objective of the proposed EIR is to provide environmental analysis of transportation improvements within the area generally bounded by 1-10, Riverside Avenue (west of Interstate 215 [I-215]), and SR -60 to allow agencies to proceed with the protection of right-of-way for the proposed alignments. The EIR will be prepared as a Program E1R (CEQA Section 15168) to provide analysis sufficient to support the preservation of right-of-way for the improvements by inclusion of the proposed alignments in the circulation elements of the appropriate local General Plans. Portions of the proposed transportation improvements may already be included in local General Plans, but portions of their alignments may need to be refined to coordinate with the location of the core facility. Identification of the alignment in a General Plan does not suggest that funding is available for such facilities, nor does it suggest the sequencing or phasing of their construction. A more detailed level of environmental evaluation resulting in a Focused or Supplemental EIR will be required prior to construction of any of the improvements. Actual constnrction of the improvements may be a number of years away, but it is important to make these decisions early to be certain that the facilities will be constructed to allow land development to take place in an orderly, efficient, and predictable manner. According to SCAG's 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) for fiscal years 2002/2003-2007/2008, there are several improvements planned on I-10, 1-215, SR -91, and SR -60 within the vicinity of the proposed Corridor. • • • • • • SR -60: two High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are proposed from I-215 to Redlands Boulevard (Project ID #46360). SR -91: HOV lanes are proposed through the City of Riverside from Mary Street to the junction of SR -60/1-215 (Project ID #RIV010212). There are several interchange improvements proposed on I-10, including modifications to the interchanges at Riverside Avenue, Pepper Avenue, Tippecanoe Avenue, and California Street. In addition, one mixed flow lane is proposed in each direction on I-10 from Orange Street to Ford Street (Project ID #47440). The Riverside I-215 Corridor Improvement Project proposes to widen 1-215 from six to eight lanes from the junction of SR-60/SR-91/1.215 to the split of SR -60/I-215, including mainline/interchange improvements, HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, and a southbound truck climbing lane (Project ID #0121D). Portions of the project are already complete. The I-215 North in San Bernardino from I-10 to SR -30 will add two HOV lanes and operational improvements. 1-215: proposed HOV flyovers connecting SR -60 and 1-215. At this time, the general project limits extend along I-215 from just south of the existing I-215/SR-60 interchange in Riverside to Orange Show Road, north of the existing 1-215/1-10 interchange in San Bernardino. These improvement projects are independent of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Study, and the environmental effects of these projects have been or will be addressed in separate environmental documents for each project_ 2 195 Project Goals and Objectives The goal of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Study is to accomplish the objectives listed below to the extent possible within the financial and physical constraints that exist in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. • • • • • • • • Improve safety on the existing highway network between Moreno Valley and San Bemardino County Reduce travel times between Moreno Valley and San Bemardino County Improve the projected future vehicle Level of Service (LOS) and reduce the amount of existing and future congestion on north -south arterials between Moreno Valley and San Bernardino County Improve access to employment centers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties (March Air Reserve Base, San Bernardino International Airport, Loma Linda medical complex, etc.) Improve transit opportunities between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Implement transportation facilities that will support the vision and land use plans within Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Implement transportation facilities that will protect the environment and community character between Moreno Valley and San Bernardino County Preserve right-of-way and secure concurrence from appropriate local, regional, and State agencies sufficient to include the proposed alignments in the circulation elements of the appropriate local General Plans Project Location Figure 1 depicts the regional location, surrounding vicinity, and project location for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor. The Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor study area focuses on the area generally bounded by I- 10, I-215, and SR -60. The project study area encompasses portions of the Cities of Rialto, Colton, Grand Terrace, San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Redlands, and Yucaipa in San Bernardino County and the Cities of Moreno Valley, Calimesa, and Riverside in Riverside County. The Cities of Rialto, Colton, San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Redlands, Yucaipa, and Calimesa are located along the I-10 freeway, beginning west of I-215 at the City of Rialto, traveling east towards the City of Calimesa at the Riverside County line. The City of Grand Terrace is located along I-215, south of the I-10/1-215 interchange. The City of Riverside encompasses the junction of I-215/SR-60/SR-91, and the City of Moreno Valley is located along SR -60, east of I-215. 3 196 Figure 1 Ri alto Iw A I`nw 1>> a 1 2 BARTON RD ♦ Colton 1 1 ♦ ¢ I 1 n � Gra nd Terrace • 1 I AN ,t IM— w�,A r �.r ri r S an Tim oteo �, , �?' ♦ Riverside LEGEN D Core Facility (Expressway) Xrix Tunnel Section M'"". Arterial Improvements Riverside Count ♦• San Bernardino County Landfill •t — Riverside County Redlands Yucaipa Box Springs Mo untain Reserve L os Airggia Cmmry San Bernardino Co uury Core Facility Study Area Sanitary Landfill Moreno Valley Qrraege Cinrnl7 Pr oject Location San Diego Co unty Gov ernm ents SAN B AG Working T og ether Calimesa Imperi al County Corogy 1 1 0 3 Kilometers N0 2 Miles !.•LST iloreno to 88 CounrylRegionolc dr (5/6/03) Project Location Moreno V alley to San Bernardino County Corridor Project Description The Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor includes the preservation of right-of-way for a "core facility" and "arterial improvements." The core facility includes a new transportation corridor that connects the SR -60/I-215 interchange in Box Springs (at the west side of Moreno Valley) with Barton Road, connecting to I- 10 via existing planned California Street, between the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands. The arterial improvements include connections -to the core facility from other arterial roadways within the project study area. The core facility and arterial improvements are described in more detail below. Core Facility The core facility is proposed as a limited access expressway from the I-215 to Barton Road. The expressway begins at the SR -60/I-215 interchange and generally follows Morton Road north to the Box Springs Mountain Reserve. A four lane tunnel (two tubes of two lanes each) approximately 2.98 kilometers (1.86 miles) in length and 12 meters (40 feet) wide would be constructed under Box Springs Mountain, north of Moreno Valley. The expressway travels east of the closed Riverside County Landfill, crossing the San Bernardino County line on the west side of the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill. As shown on Figure 1, the shaded area is the Core Facility study area where the core facility will be aligned from the Riverside County line to a connection at Barton Road. This portion of the alignment will be determined through the public scoping process associated with this NOP. The expressway will have intersections or interchanges at Pigeon Pass Road, Reche Canyon Road, and Barton Road. At -grade intersections may be built at intersecting arterial streets between 1-215 and I-10 in an early phase, with interchanges constructed when traffic demand warrants. In addition, it is possible that the section from Pigeon Pass Road eastward could be built in an initial phase, with the section from Pigeon Pass Road to 1-215 reserved for a later phase, due to the high cost of the tunnel portion. The expressway will be designed as a rural -type cross section (no curbs) consistent with local and/or Caltrans standards. The design will include narrowing in the tunnel and mountainous sections of the expressway to reduce costs and to integrate with the environment. The maximum right-of-way width required in the expressway section will be approximately 120 feet plus additional width for cut and fill. The area to be studied for the expressway would be in the range of 300-1,000 feet to allow for flexibility in future alignment decisions that best accommodate facility design features and that avoid and minimize potential impacts. RCTC, SANBAG, and local governments will work actively with property owners within the study area to minimize the environmental study areas so that the actual alignment can be more accurately identified during the scoping period. The limited access expressway section will be four lanes (two lanes in each direction), with additional lanes as needed at intersections or interchanges. The arterial section along California Street will contain six lanes with turn lanes sufficient to accommodate projected left and right -turning traffic. The expressway sections will include landscaped medians, excluding the tunnel section under Box Springs Mountain Reserve. The arterial section of the core facility along California 5 198 Street will be designed in compliance with cross-section standards of the City of Loma Linda. The expressway will provide for habitat connectivity and wildlife crossings at appropriate locations, where feasible. No through trucks will be allowed on the expressway. The desired speed is 65 mph, with 55 mph allowable in areas of difficult topography. Access will not be provided to the expressway in areas where no development is planned. In general, any access will be at intersections with other roadways, with no direct access to adjacent properties in areas along the expressway section. Access to businesses will be provided along the California Street section. Arterial Improvements Arterial improvements that connect to the core facility are proposed as controlled access arterials (i.e. private driveways will be redirected to a possible frontage road and enter at a traffic signal, to the extent possible). These elements include the preservation of right-of-way along Riverside Avenue and other existing arterial roadways in the Reche Canyon area, such as Reche Canyon Road, Reche Vista Avenue, and Pigeon Pass Road. The proposed arterial improvements include the widening of the existing arterials to four lanes and will include signalization and intersection improvements consistent with local and/or Caltrans standards. Each arterial improvement is described in more detail below, and is shown on Figure 1. Pigeon Pass Road. Pigeon Pass Road will be widened, paved and realigned to a four lane arterial at the north end of Moreno Valley. The arterial will connect to the core facility southeast of the closed Riverside County Landfill and north of the Box Springs Mountain Reserve (see Figure 1). If the tunnel section of the core facility is not constructed until a subsequent phase, improvements to Pigeon Pass Road southerly toward SR -60 may need to be considered as part of the interim solution. Reche Canyon Road North. Reche Canyon Road will be widened to a four lane arterial from its connection at the core facility to Barton Road in the City of Colton. The arterial will be realigned across from Hunts Lane and will continue north on Hunts Lane to its existing connection with I-10. Reche Vista Drive. Reche Vista Drive will be widened and realigned to a four lane arterial from Perris Boulevard at the north end of Moreno Valley to Reche Canyon Road. Reche Vista Drive intersects Reche Canyon Road north of Moreno Valley. The existing Reche Canyon Road will be widened to a four lane arterial from its intersection with Reche Vista Drive to its connection with the core facility. Riverside Avenue. Riverside Avenue will generally proceed from the core alignment across or around the closed Riverside County landfill, circumvent the Spring Mountain Ranch development on the north, connect to Main Street in the community of Highgrove in unincorporated Riverside County, proceed westerly across 1-215 to Riverside Avenue, and follow Riverside Avenue north to 1-10. In addition, La Cadena Drive will be realigned to allow an elevated intersection with 6 199 the Pigeon Pass -Riverside Avenue arterial west of I-215. Signalization would be required. However, this does not assume a new interchange with I-215 at this location. The realigned portion of La Cadena would match the existing La Cadena roadway. Environmental Review Process This section discusses the environmental review process necessary for the completion of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor EIR. Since RCTC and SANBAG, have committed to prepare an EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15060 and 15063, an Initial Study has not been completed for this NOP. This NOP contains a description of the environmental issues and analysis proposed to be provided in the EIR. A Program EIR will be prepared for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Study, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The EIR will evaluate potential project related impacts anticipated to result from implementation of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor, and will include preliminary mitigation measures to minimize the identified impacts. The EIR is intended to provide the necessary CEQA clearance for the proposed facilities so that the proposed alignments may be included in the circulation elements of the appropriate local General Plans. The EIR analysis will be based on conceptual engineering design (i.e., a facility centerline, typical cross section, and right-of-way line), including plan and profile. Subsequent environmental evaluation will be required prior to construction of the project to address construction -level impacts. The CEQA Guidelines require preparation of objective analysis and documentation to inform decision makers, the general public, and responsible agencies of the direct and indirect environmental effects of a proposed action and mitigation measures that reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts. RCTC and SANBAG are serving as the joint Lead Agencies for CEQA. Caltrans, the County of Riverside, the County of San Bernardino, and the affected Cities are Responsible Agencies for the EIR. After its publication, the Draft EIR will be available for public review and comment, and multiple public hearings will take place. After all comments have been responded to, RCTC and SANBAG may certify the Final EIR. If the project were given environmental approval under CEQA, RCTC and SANBAG, in cooperation with the Responsible Agencies, could move forward with the preservation of right-of-way for all or part of the project, and proceed with the next phase of engineering and environmental studies. Local jurisdictions can also use the Final EIR as the CEQA documentation for their General Plan Amendments. Probable Environmental Effects The following explanation of probable environmental effects of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Study is provided to help guide the analysis in the forthcoming EIR document and to provide information to the public and agencies reviewing this NOP. 7 200 Aesthetics Construction of the proposed transportation facilities will change the overall visual character within the project study area. Visual impacts may include cut and fill areas on Reche Canyon Drive as well as a large bridge structure near the Box Springs Mountain Reserve. In addition, roadway embankment areas may be highly visible in the Reche Canyon area within and from the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands. A preliminary visual analysis will be prepared to address potential visual impacts of the proposed project. The analysis will describe the existing visual characteristics of the proposed facilities and the surrounding area and will identify any significant visual resources or scenic vistas within the facilities. Impacts will be assessed in terms of modifications to land forms and other visual features, as well as any light and glare that may result from project implementation. Key issues to be considered in this analysis are removal of vegetation (trees, etc.), the alteration of significant landforms, and the construction of roads and highway improvements where none presently exist. Air Quality Regional and local air quality may be affected by the construction of the proposed transportation facilities. An air quality analysis including a carbon monoxide (CO) hot spot analysis will be prepared to identify potential impacts to regional and local air quality. The air quality analysis will discuss both short-term impacts resulting from construction, as well as long-term impacts resulting from project operation. The analysis will be based on regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to determine if the proposed facilities would result in any exceedance of SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District) established emission thresholds. Biological Resources The proposed facilities may impact sensitive biological resources, such as plant life, wildlife, and sensitive natural communities. Potential impacts include direct loss of habitat from grading or other construction activities, direct loss of animals and plants by project construction, loss or disruption of wildlife movement corridors, and habitat fragmentation. The construction of the core facility will result in direct impacts to biological resources, specifically in undeveloped areas such as the "Badlands" (near San Timoteo Canyon) and the Box Springs Mountain Reserve. The construction of the proposed auxiliary tunnel through the Box Springs Mountain Reserve will require significant cut and fill, resulting in a direct loss of wildlife habitat. Biological resources in the Blue Mountain area will also be impacted by the proposed arterial improvements along Pigeon Pass Road and Reche Vista Drive. A biological resources assessment will be prepared to identify biological resources (including sensitive species and habitat types) known to exist and potentially occurring within the Corridor and will include a discussion of habitat linkage and wildlife corridor issues. The assessment will also identify areas that potentially qualify as wetlands and other jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The results of the biological resources assessment will be summarized in the EIR. The EIR shall discuss consistency with relevant local, regional, and State habitat conservation plans. Portions of the facilities are proposed within the Riverside 8 201 County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Riverside County MSHCP is presently in draft form and is scheduled for adoption in mid -2003. A San Bernardino Valley Wide MSHCP is currently in the preliminary planning stages, and no specific schedule is available regarding its implementation. Measures will be taken to ensure that the proposed improvements are consistent with any newly adopted plans related to the each MSHCP. Impacts to biological resources will be estimated in the EIR based on the relationship of the proposed improvements to known biological resources as identified in the Riverside County MSHCP and any San Bernardino Valley environmental initiatives. The analysis will identify linkage crossings, core crossings, and edge impacts related to the MSHCP. Within Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, mitigation for impacts to habitat areas may be provided through the proposed conservation areas defined in the existing and proposed biological reserves. Cultural Resources The proposed improvements have the potential to affect both prehistoric and historic cultural resources. Potential impacts include direct loss of resources from grading or other construction activities, as well as indirect effects resulting from construction of new transportation facilities that may affect the historical context of a particular resource. Potential impacts to cultural resources will be identified in a cultural resources assessment. The assessment will include the results of a records search conducted through the Archaeological Information Center at UC Riverside and the San Bernardino County Museum. The records search will be used to determine the location of known archaeological sites and any prehistoric resources that are listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Due to varying transportation improvements and geologic formations in the project area, there is a high likelihood that the proposed facilities will impact paleontological resources. A paleontological assessment will be prepared to analyze potential impacts to fossil resources. Geology and Soils A geotechnical report will be prepared to discuss potential geological impacts of the proposed project. In addition, a preliminary geotechnical feasibility report will be prepared to identify potential geotechnical, geologic, hydrogeologic, and seismic hazards related to the construction of the proposed tunnel. The results of the reports will be summarized in the EIR and will focus on the increased potential for landslides and/or seismic hazards. The EIR will also discuss the increased potential for soil erosion and impacts on mineral resources. Hazards and Hazardous Material A hazardous waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA) will be prepared for the proposed facilities. A records search of agency databases will be conducted to determine whether the proposed project would impact known hazardous waste sites; a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 will be reviewed. Field surveys will be conducted as necessary to determine the potential 9 202 presence of unknown hazardous wastes within the corridor that could be impacted by construction of the proposed project. Potential hazardous waste impacts could occur from soil or groundwater contamination that exists within properties to be acquired for the project or where contamination on an adjacent property would pose a health risk to construction workers. Potential impacts related to hazardous materials identified in the ISA and potential safety hazards related to the construction of the proposed facilities will be summarized in the EIR. Hydrology and Water Quality A surface water hydrology technical report will be prepared to evaluate the location of the proposed facilities in relation to existing watershed drainage areas and defined blue line streams. The evaluation will initially focus on opportunities to avoid impacts to surface water, where feasible, by shifting alignments. Existing flow control structures will be identified, and the facilities will be examined for their position within the watershed in relation to the continuity of the riverine corridors affected. Potential impacts to water quality include the direct effects of dredging or filling of streams, rivers, and lakes, as well as indirect effects to water resources resulting from increases in runoff from impervious surfaces (roads, bridges, etc.). A water quality technical report will be prepared to evaluate potential impacts to water resources and will identify the location of impaired stream segments and water bodies in relation to the proposed facilities. The report will identify designated beneficial uses of stream segments affected by the proposed project and areas of significant slope (> 15 percent), which may contribute to erosion and water pollution as a result of uncontrolled runoff. The proposed project may affect federally designated floodplains_ A floodplain evaluation will be prepared to identify the existing floodplain setting, and evaluate potential floodplain impacts and encroachments. The determination of the affected floodplains will he based on the latest available Flood Insurance Rate Maps for incorporated and unincorporated areas of Riverside and San Bernardino County. Land Use and Planning The proposed facilities may have an impact on the residential population and local business community within the project area. A community impact assessment will be prepared to evaluate the potential impacts related to land use and planning within the project study area. Construction of the core facility in undeveloped areas in the cities of Loma Linda, Colton, and Redlands may conflict with local plans and regulations. The analysis of land use compatibility associated with the project shall address consistency with relevant local, regional, and State regulations and plans. Discussions of environmental justice, right-of-way displacements, relocation assistance, business impacts, neighborhood cohesion, and fiscal impacts will be included and summarized in the EIR. The community impact assessment will also evaluate impacts to agricultural resources, including the identification of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Corridor. 10 203 Noise Noise impacts will be limited to developed areas and sensitive land uses along the proposed facilities. The construction of the proposed facilities may result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels within the Corridor, specifically in the cities of Moreno Valley, Loma Linda and Redlands. Residential areas and areas of sensitive land uses, such as Canyon Springs High School along Pigeon Pass Road, will experience increased noise levels during project construction. Existing noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed facilities will be documented in the EIR. A noise study will be conducted to assess potential noise impacts, including increased noise exposure resulting from increased vehicular traffic within the Corridor. Construction impacts would result from noise generated by construction equipment such as graders and pile drivers. Population and Housing A community impact assessment will provide a description of housing, employment, and population conditions within the regional vicinity, local communities, and project study area. The preservation of right-of-way for the proposed facilities may result in residential and commercial displacements within the project study area. Residential displacements may occur along Reche Canyon Road, Reche Vista Drive, and Pigeon Pass Road as a result of the proposed arterial improvements. In addition, areas along Riverside Avenue and California Street may experience residential and/or commercial displacements. Discussions of environmental justice, right-of- way displacements, relocation assistance, business impacts, neighborhood cohesion, and fiscal impacts will be included in the community impact assessment and summarized in the EIR. The proposed facilities may indirectly induce economic or population growth through the extension of roads and construction of transportation facilities in previously undeveloped areas. A discussion of potential growth -inducing impacts as a result of the proposed project will be included in the EIR. Public Services and Utilities The EIR will discuss the potential for adverse impacts to public services (fire, police, schools, and other public facilities) and utilities (gas, water, electricity, solid waste, and wastewater). Potential impacts to public services include delays to emergency vehicles during construction, effects on schools, and access to public facilities. Several schools within the project area, such as the Immanuel Baptist School and Canyon Springs High School, will experience indirect impacts as a result of noise from increased vehicular traffic, and may be directly impacted if land acquisition is required. Potential impacts to public utilities include direct irnpacts where the project may require relocation of existing utilities. For example, a set of three tower electric transmission lines that cross the core facility at the County line north of the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill may require relocation as a result of the proposed improvements. Potential impacts to existing public services and utilities will be discussed in the EIR. 11 204 Recreation Impacts to designated parks/recreation areas within the Corridor may occur. Neighborhood pants such as Colony Park and the Hidden Springs Community Park may experience increased noise levels during construction of the proposed arterial improvements. The Box Springs Mountain Reserve will be directly impacted by the proposed tunnel and its connection to the core facility. In addition, equestrian trails in the Reche Canyon area may directly impacted by the proposed improvements along Reche Canyon Road. A recreational resources technical report will be prepared and incorporated into the EIR to assess potential impacts to recreation areas. The report will include an evaluation of impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational .facilities. Transportation/Traffic While the proposed facilities are expected to have a beneficial effect on regional traffic circulation, the EIR will analyze the effect of the facilities on both regional and local traffic conditions. Adverse impacts may occur on other facilities where traffic volumes are increased as a result of the capacity increase provided by the proposed facilities. A traffic impact analysis will be prepared to evaluate both the beneficial and adverse impacts to transportation and circulation. Cumulative Effects The implementation of the proposed facilities will result in physical impacts to the surrounding natural and urban environment. These impacts, when combined with other existing and/or planned projects in the study area, may result in a cumulative impact to specific resources. The EIR will address the potential cumulative impacts for each of the environmental topics discussed above. 12 205 Governments SAN BAG Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor x -: WorLing Tuneth .'r PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS FOR THE MORENO VALLEY TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CORRIDOR EIR WITHIN WESTERN RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES WHAT'S BEING PLANNED? The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) intend to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Study. The main purpose of the study is to identify specific transportation solutions that can improve mobility between State Route 60 (SR -60) and Interstate 10 (1-10). Due to the fast pace of development in this area, opportunities are being lost to preserve land for new or expanded transportation facilities. The objective of the proposed EIR is to provide environmental analysis and disclosure of potential impacts related to proposed transportation improvements within the area generally bounded by 1-10, Riverside Avenue (west of Interstate 215), and SR -60 to allow agencies to proceed with the preservation of transportation facilities within local planning documents. Actual construction of the improvements may be a number of years away. More detailed environmental analysis and supplemental environmental documentation will be required prior to construction of any new or expanded facilities identified through this study. WHY THESE MEETINGS? This is the first step in completing the draft EIR document. SANBAG and RCTC invite interested individuals, organizations, State, and local agencies to provide information about the project area as well as to give them an opportunity to discuss issues or questions they may have about the proposed facilities. An information packet describing the purpose of the project, the project location, and the environmental study area is being mailed to relevant federal, State, regional, and local agencies. Information will be available to the public at the scoping meetings on June 4 and 5, 2003. Information packets may also be requested by contacting Cathy Bechtel (RCTC) or Ty Schuiling (SANBAG)_ If you would like to be placed on the project mailing list, please send your name and address to Cathy Bechtel (RCTC) or Ty Schuiling (SANBAG). Ms. Bechtel's and Mr. Schuiling's contact information is provided below. WHERE YOU COME IN Public Comments: Comments should focus on specific social, economic, or environmental concerns. Written comments on the scope of project and impacts to be considered in the EIR document should be submitted to Cathy Bechtel (RCTC) or Ty Schuiling (SANBAG) by June 13, 2003. Written comments may also be submitted at the public scoping meetings on June 4 and 5, 2003. Public comments received will become part of the public record, and each comment will be considered in the environmental document. People with special needs should contact Cathy Bechtel (RCTC) or Ty Schuiling (SANBAG) at the contact information below. The meeting locations are accessible for people with disabilities. WHAT, WHEN AND WHERE The public scoping meetings for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor EIR will be held in an "open -house format," and project representatives will be available to discuss the project throughout the meetings. No formal presentations will be made at the meeting. Informational displays and written materials will be available at the scoping meetings or by request from Cathy Bechtel (RCTC) or Ty Schuiling (SANBAG). The date, time and location of the scoping meetings: Wednesday, June 4, 2003, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. City of Loma Linda Senior Center 25571 Barton Road Loma Linda, California 92354 RTA Bus Route 25 Omnitrans Bus Routes 2 and 200 Thursday, June 5, 2003, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. City of Moreno Valley City Hall 14177 Frederick Moreno Valley, California 92552 RTA Bus Route 16 Please contact Riverside Transit Agency for bus times at 1.800.800.7821 or contact Omnitrans at 1.800.966.6428 CONTACT INFORMATION Cathy Bechtel, RCTC P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Phone: 909.787.7141 FAX: 909.787.7920 cbechtel@rctc.org Ty Schuiling, SANBAG 472 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92401-I421 Phone: 909.884.8276 FAX: 909.885.4407 TSchuiling@sanbag.ca.gov 206 AGENDA ITEM 8G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs "Committee as a Whole" Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Status Report on the Winchester to Temecula CETAP Corridor PLANS AND PROGRAMS "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file a status report on the Winchester to Temecula CETAP Corridor. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The work on the draft final environmental documents for the Winchester to Temecula CETAP Corridor is progressing on schedule. In order to allow the Federal Highway Administration to take all actions to allow issuance of a Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor by August 15, 2003, a number of key actions must occur over the next few months. Our current schedule identifies completion of the final EIS/EIR by May 30, 2003. We are completing a joint federal and state environmental document under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RCTC is the lead agency for CEQA and will need to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). While this was originally scheduled to occur at the June 11, 2003 Commission meeting, staff is now scheduling this action for the July 9, 2003 Commission meeting. This will allow time for RCTC to meet its legal requirements under CEQA to provide written proposed responses to public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR (PRC 21092.5). The Federal Highway Administration is scheduled to publish the Notice of Availability of the final EIS on June 20, 2003. A 30 -day public comment period on the document will be provided with the comment period closing on July 22, 2003. This will lead us to completing all work required to allow issuance of a federal Record of Decision by August 15, 2003. Agenda Item 8G 207 AGENDA ITEM 8H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs "Committee as a Whole" Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency — Unmet Needs Hearing Testimony and Responses PLANS AND PROGRAMS "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE", CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Make a finding that based upon a review of the requests for services received through the "Unmet Transit Needs Hearing" process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, there are no unmet transit needs remaining which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley Area; 2) Reaffirm the Commission's definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet" Standards; and, 3) Adopt Resolution No. 03-026, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Finding that There are No Unmet Transit Needs that are Reasonable to Meet in the Palo Verde Valley Area". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State law requires that prior to making any allocations of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) not directly related to public transit, the Commission must identify the unmet transit needs in the area and determine those that are reasonable to meet. At least one public hearing must be held to solicit comments on unmet transit needs. The only area that this determination of unmet needs is applicable to is the Palo Verde Valley where it is anticipated that not all funds will be needed for transit. In the Western County and Coachella Valley, all available local transit funds are being used for transit service. Agenda Item 8H 208 The Commission held a public hearing in Blythe on March 6, 2003. Commissioners Robert Crain, Dick Kelly, George Thomas, and Roy Wilson, together with Chris Millen, CAC/SS T AC member, acted as the hearing board. Notice of the hearing was advertised in the Desert Sun, Palo Verde Valley Times and the Riverside Press Enterprise. Notices of the hearing were mailed to social service agencies in the area, the local college, medical facilities, and the public. Flyers in both English and Spanish were posted on the transit vehicles and made available to the riders. Six (6) people provided comments at the hearing and one (1) person provided a written comment regarding the service needs in the area. Attached is a summary of the comments received. Staff worked with the City of Blythe to determine what improvements were reasonable to meet based on the projected productivity. Requests for improved transportation to the college with additional pick up points, additional transportation (other than Dia/-A-Ride service), increased Dial -A -Ride service, and coordination of transportation services to the veterans' hospital and/or Palm Desert were requested at the unmet transit needs hearing. The following information provides an update as to possible implementation of additional transit services in the Palo Verde Valley: • Request for improved transportation to the college with additional pick up points: In FY 2003, PVVTA was approved to reroute the college shuttle. Implementation of that revised route is scheduled for May 2003. In addition, PVVTA is requesting approval to implement two additional fixed routes. If approved, there will be three fixed routes that will operate between the college and Blythe, to Palm Desert or Loma Linda and within Blythe. • Request for additional transportation other than Dial -A -Ride services: With the implementation of the two fixed routes and the re-routing of the college shuttle, evening and weekend service will be available. In addition, the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) will be promoted in FY 2004. The TRIP program provides mileage reimbursements to volunteer drivers for people unable to use other transportation services. • Request for more Dial -A -Ride services: Additional Dial -A -Ride Services are planned during FY 2004. If approved by the Commission, Dial -A -Ride Services will be enhanced and promoted between Ripley, Palo Verde, and Blythe. Agenda Item 8H 209 • Request to coordinate transportation services to the Loma Linda Veterans Hospital and/or Palm Desert: PVVTA plans to implement, during the month of September, bus service from Blythe to the Loma Linda Veterans Hospital and/or to connect with SunLink in Coachella Valley. PVVTA staff will work with passengers traveling to scheduled appointments within the timeframe of the bus schedules to return home. In addition, PVVTA staff will develop a card so that a veteran can show the doctors' office that he/she is a PVVTA/SunLink rider and needs to be on the bus by a specified time. The City of Blythe recently hired a full-time Transit Manager to monitor and manage the day-to-day transit operations of PVVTA. Previously, the position was held by the City Manager with the Finance Director providing budgetary oversight and development of the Short Range Transit Plan. As the need for additional transit service increased in the Palo Verde Valley, it became more difficult to meet the demands required to operate an effective transit service. Since the position has been filled, implementing the above services should not pose too difficult a challenge; however, RCTC staff will work closely with PVVTA staff to provide assistance as needed. Information on the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing was presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) at their May 8, 2003 meeting. After review of the proposed service changes for FY 2004, members of CAC/SSTAC recommended approval of this agenda item. Prior to allocating any Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for street and road purposes, the Commission must adopt by resolution a finding that there are no unmet transit needs that can be reasonably met by existing or proposed service contained in the Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside County. The Commission previously adopted a definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet." The definitions are as follows: "Unmet Transit Needs are, at a minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional Short Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional Transportation Plan (Regional Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded." "Reasonable to meet shall include the following factors: community acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term and long term), and cost effectiveness including the ability to meet the required fare box ratios." Agenda Item 8H 210 Based upon the above definitions, the implementation of the increased services identified above, and the recommendation by the CAC/SSTAC, staff recommends that the Commission make a finding that there are no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley. Attachments: 1) Summary of Testimony 2) Resolution No. 03-026 Agenda Item 8H 211 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FISCAL YEAR 2004 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING Blythe City Hall March 6, 2003 Summary of Oral Testimony, Written Testimony, and Staff Responses NAME/ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS SUMMARY OF COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE Max Schroenrock Need for improved The current College Shuttle will Desert Alliance for transportation to the be rerouted and hours Community college with additional increased. In FY 04, there will Empowerment pick up points. ultimately be three fixed routes that will operate between the Need for transportation college and Blythe, to Palm to Loma Linda and/or Desert or Loma Linda and Palm Desert. within Blythe. Request for additional TRIP will also be promoted in transportation other than FY 04 for rural residents that Dial -A -Ride services. do not have access to public transit. William Densmore Thanked the Unmet New intercity bus service Riverside County Transit Needs Panel and between Blythe and Palm Department of staff for firming up plans Desert or Loma Linda will be Veterans' Services for transportation from Blythe to the Veterans' implemented in September, 2004. Medical Center in Loma Linda and Palm Desert. Staff will work with passengers encouraging them Stressed the need to to schedule appointments coordinate transportation within the time frame of the services with the clinic bus schedule. Also, a card will schedules at the medical be developed that a rider can center. show to the doctors' office indicating that he/she is a PVVTA/ SunLink rider and needs to be on a bus by a certain time. Agenda Item 8H — Attachment 1 212 1 NAME/ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS SUMMARY OF COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE Tom Henry Riverside County Veterans Advisory Committee, District 4 Member Reinforced William Densmore's comments regarding the need for Transportation to the Veterans' Medical Center in Loma Linda. Stressed the need to coordinate transportation with the specialty clinics. New intercity bus service between Blythe and Palm Desert or Loma Linda will be implemented in September, 2004. Staff will work with passengers encouraging them to schedule appointments within the time frame of the bus schedule. Also, a card will be developed that a rider can show to the doctors' office indicating that he/she is a PVVTA/ SunLink rider and needs to be on a bus by a certain time. Rudolfo Pinion Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment Requested the development of a consistent, comprehensive fixed route transportation system. Requested that a feasibility study be explored to identify transportation needs. The current College Shuttle will be rerouted and hours increased. In FY 04, there will ultimately be three fixed routes I that will operate between the college and Blythe, to Palm Desert. or Loma Linda and within Blythe. TRIP will also be promoted in FY '03-04 for rural residents not accessible to public transit. A feasibility study was recently conducted. As a result, expanded service including weekend hours is proposed for FY 04. Margit Chiriaco Rusche Requested transportation from Blythe to Indio/Indio to Blythe During FY 04, a fixed route will be implemented which will provide service from Blythe to Indio. Agenda Item 8H — Attachment 1 2 213 NAME/ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS SUMMARY OF COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE Mary Evans Requested that fixed route public bus service be available on Saturday and Sunday. The new fixed route services are scheduled to operate on Saturday and Sunday. The new service will be implemented in FY 04. Joe Strepy Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment Requested low cost public transit services between Ripley and Blythe to access jobs, shopping and schools. Dial -A -Ride between Ripley, Palo Verde and Blythe will be enhanced and promoted in FY 04. When Dial -A -Ride is not operating, TRIP will be available to residents in those unincorporated areas. Agenda Item 8H — Attachment 1 3 214 RESOLUTION NO. 03-026 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING A FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA WHEREAS, the Commission has identified the transit needs of residents in the Palo Verde Valley area, including the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities and the transit dependent; and WHEREAS, the Commission has held a properly noticed public hearing on March 6, 2003, and solicited written comments, to gather information to assist in identifying unmet transit needs in the Palo Verde Valley area; and WHEREAS, the Commission has defined "Unmet Transit Needs" as, at a minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional Short Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional Transportation Plan (Regional Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded; and WHEREAS, the Commission has defined "reasonable to meet" as including the following factors: community acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term and long term), and cost effectiveness including the ability to meet the required fare box ratios; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code section 99401.5, the Commission has consulted with the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council regarding the transit needs of the Palo Verde Valley area; and WHEREAS, an analysis of the existing public transportation services (Dial -A - Ride and Fixed Route) in the Palo Verde Valley has been completed, and with the planned improvements that will be included in the FY 04 - 06 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan, was found to be adequate to meet the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, the transit dependent and the general public. Agenda Item 8H — Attachment 2 215 NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves: That the Commission adopts the finding that there are no unmet transit needs in the Palo Verde Valley area of Riverside County that are reasonable to meet. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 11th day of June, 2003. Ron Roberts, Chairperson Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda Item 8H - Attachment 2 216 AGENDA ITEM 8'I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs "Committee as a Whole" Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Advisory Council Tanya Love, Program Manager Transportation THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plans PLANS AND PROGRAMS "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE", CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to review and approve, in concept, the Fiscal Year 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and RCTC's Regional Rail Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County FY 2004-06 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) covers the three apportionment areas of the county and is comprised of plans for the municipal operators, the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, the Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and RCTC's Regional Commuter Rail program. This item is requesting that the SRTPs be approved in concept as requests for FY 2004 financial allocations will be made at the June Committee and July Commission meetings. The SRTPs were presented to members of RCTC's Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) at their May 8, 2003 meeting. After review of the proposed service changes, members of the CAC/SSTAC recommended approval of the FY 2004 SRTPs. Following is a summary of service highlights proposed for FY 2004: City of Banning: The City of Banning's Municipal Transit System (Banning) provides fixed route, ADA complementary paratransit, and senior and persons with disabilities Dial -A - Agenda Item 81 217 Ride service. Service is provided to the City of Banning, Cabazon, and the commercial area of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians' Reservation. The primary uses of these services are for transportation to medical appointments, workshop programs for persons with disabilities, shopping areas, employment and connections with other transit agencies. City of Beaumont: The City of Beaumont's Municipal Transit System (Beaumont) provides fixed route, and ADA complementary paratransit services for seniors and persons with disabilities. Although Beaumont's fixed route service is relatively new (implemented February 1999) it averages approximately 11 passengers per hour. Combined Note for the Cities of Banning and Beaumont Transit Services: In April of 2000, the Pass Area cities of Beaumont, Banning and Calimesa requested and received funding to implement a regional transit system feasibility study to determine if a single transit system to serve the Pass Area was needed. The consulting firm of Nelson/Nygaard was hired to conduct the study and a Transit Task Force was formed to oversee the work performed. The Task Force was made up of elected representatives from the Cities of Banning, Beaumont and Calimesa, as well as staff from the County of Riverside, RCTC, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency and Morongo Band of Mission Indians. In December 2001, the Transit Task Force accepted Nelson/Nygaard's first report entitled the "Pass Area Existing Conditions and Transit Needs Assessment Study." At the same time, the Transit Task Force recommended that the contract with Nelson/Nygaard be terminated and that staff from the Cities of Banning and Beaumont compile an implementation plan for review by the Transit Task Force. That plan was completed, reviewed by members of the task force and approved by both Banning and Beaumont's City Councils. Unfortunately, due to staffing issues, problems with driver recruitment, fueling capacity issues and a change in policy board representation, the only change implemented during FY 2003 was the elimination of the need for residents to transfer from one Dial -A -Ride system to another. The FY 2004 SRTP for both Banning and Beaumont proposes the following service changes to implement the plan that was approved in FY 2003: • A single user-friendly ride guide containing all transit services in and through the Pass Area. Date of proposed implementation 7/03; • Extended local service hours to better coordinate with regional services provided by SunLine Transit Agency and Riverside Transit Agency. Date of proposed implementation: 10/03; Agenda Item 81 218 • Creation of a fixed route trunk line connecting the Beaumont, Banning and Cabazon commercial areas. Date of proposed implementation: 10/03; • Fixed route deviations to provide service to major employers. Date of proposed implementation: 7/03; and • Style standards that will give the Banning and Beaumont transit systems a single system appearance. Fares, transfers and passes will be standardized between the two public providers. Style standards will be developed for exterior bus graphics (and interior colors on future vehicle purchases), bus stop signs, bus stop benches and amenities. Proposed date of implementation: 7/03 — first phase to consist of bus logos. The Pass Area Transit Task Force met in April to ensure that the plan approved in FY 2003 is implemented during FY 2004. It is anticipated that the task force will continue to meet until all changes are implemented. City of Corona: The City of Corona (Corona) operates a general public Dial -A -Ride program as well as a fixed route service known as the "Corona Cruiser" which consists of two routes. Corona closely coordinates all transfers with both RTA and RCTC's Commuter rail services. During FY 04, Corona is proposing the initiation of Saturday service on the Corona Cruiser. If approved, the service will operate from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The proposed Saturday service is in response to an on -board survey as well as two public meetings. Corona's Dial -A -Ride currently operates from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. In addition, effective July 2003, both of the Corona Cruiser routes will serve the new North Main Corona Metrolink Station. At the same time, service to the West Corona Metrolink station will be discontinued based on higher demand for service at the new station. City of Riverside — Special Services: Riverside Special Services (Riverside) operates a Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Dial -A -Ride. Service is provided within the Riverside city limits. The Special Services Program functions as an alternative to the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) fixed route system for seniors and persons with disabilities unable to use fixed route service. All services operated by Riverside are closely coordinated with RTA. Agenda Item 81 219 Riverside is proposing to add one additional vehicle to their service to accommodate Inland Regional Centers' ADA riders. Since the City of Riverside annexed additional square miles, requests for services continue to increase and the number of ADA riders continues to grow. As a result, Riverside Special Services is requesting approval to eliminale same day service. This change, if approved, would be consistent with RTA's ADA service. Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency: The City of Blythe recently hired a full-time Transit Manager to monitor and manage the day-to-day transit operations of the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA). Prior to that time, the position was held by the City Manager with the Finance Director providing budgetary oversight and development of the SRTP. PVVTA is planning the following major service improvements during FY 2004: • Re-routing of the Gold Line (commonly referred to as the College Shuttle) to include additional pick up points and expanded hours; • Implementation of a second fixed route: Blue Line. This will be a city circulator providing riders with access to shopping, education, social service and recreational areas within Blythe; If approved, both of these services would run from Monday through Friday, 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Weekend service (8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) would also be added. • Implementation of a third fixed route: the Red Line will provide intercity service between the Coachella Valley and the City of Blythe. This service will provide transportation for residents traveling to the Palm Desert VA Outpatient facility or VA Hospital in Loma Linda. If approved, the Red Line would operate three days a week (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Service will connect with SunLine's SunLink service; • Dial -A -Ride (DAR) service will change from a general public DAR to a Seniors and Persons with Disabilities system. A general public DAR service will be available for the unincorporated county areas including Mesa Verde, Ripley and Palo Verde; • Bus stop amenities (benches, bus signs, etc.) will be ordered. Currently, there are no bus stop amenities; passengers interested in riding the fixed route system have to "flag the bus to stop"; and Agenda Item 81 220 • A public outreach program including the development of a web -site which will provide both route and schedule information together with the creation of comment cards will be implemented. A Transit Information Center will also be designed in an effort to better serve the public. Riverside Transit Agency: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides both local and regional transportation services with 35 fixed route and demand response Dial -A -Ride services. RTA is the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency for western Riverside County and is responsible for coordinating transit services throughout the approximately 2,500 square mile service area. During FY 04, RTA is proposing the following changes: • Improved on -time performance and reliability; Less congestion in the Downtown Bus terminal by continuing to allow buses to board and de -board passengers at the Terminal, but re -directing several of the layovers to occur at a nearby location beyond the Terminal; • Creation of new transfer points which can develop into future prominent transit hubs; • Improved service hours: earlier start times and later end times for selected routes based on customer comments; and • Improved circulation and increased bus stops to eliminate long walking distances. To accommodate the hours for the improved services, schedule adherence and modest frequency improvements, a 15.5% system wide increase in hours on the Directly Operated routes is projected. Additional hours added for the same improvements to the Contracted routes results in a 17.5% projected increase. Lastly, additional hours projected for Dial -A -Ride services are an increase of 31 %. If approved, these planned improvements are expected to generate a 12.5% increase in ridership in FY 2004. SunLine Transit Agency: The SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) provides both local and regional transportation services with 12 fixed routes and demand response Dial -A -Ride services. Sunline is the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency and is Agenda Item 81 221 responsible for coordinating transit services in the Coachella Valley. SunLine's service area consists of approximately 1,120 square miles. Following are the highlights of SunLine's proposed FY 2004 SRTP: • No changes are planned in service delivery; and • The service area that SunLine serves went from two small urbanized areas to one large area (population over 200,000). As a result, SunLine will receive an increase in federal funding which will be spent on capital purchases. Examples of purchases planned include: 1) purchase and development of eleven (1 1) acres of land immediately north of SunLine; 2) replacement of three support vehicles; and 3) installment payment for the acquisition of property on Varner Road (boarders SunLine's property). As a result of a fare increase in FY 2002, SunLine experienced a decline in reported ridership during FY 2003. This decrease may have been caused by a lack of consistent operator procedures in fare box operations. During FY 2004, SunLine will continue to monitor ridership and projects that ridership will rebound during the year. Regional Commuter Rail: RCTC's Commuter Rail consists of the Riverside to Los Angeles Line, the Inland Empire to Orange County Line (IEOC), and the Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton Line (91 Line). Following are the highlights of the Commuter Rail's STRP: • To accommodate demand, during FY 2004, an additional route has been scheduled to run off peak on the IEOC line; • Parking at the La Sierra and Downtown Riverside Commuter Rail station will be expanded to accommodate the growth in rail ridership; and • New cars have been ordered and are expected to go on-line during FY 2006. Agenda Item 81 222 Projected Ridership and Operating Costs: The following table provides projected FY 2004 ridership and operating costs per hour: Summary of Ridership and Operating Costs FY 04 Operator ' Fixed Route Unlinked Passenger Trips Fixed Route Operating Costs per Hour Paratransit Unlinked Passenger Trips Paratransit Operating Costs per Hour Banning 247,292 $66.31 10,000 $42.92 Beaumont 90,000 $43.42 35,000 $47.33 Corona 127,900 $44.32 73,520 $44.76 Commuter Rail 2,388,992 Not Available* Not Applicable Not Applicable Riverside Special Services Not Applicable Not Applicable 182,692 $38.67 PVVTA 11,797 $40.13 22,044 $46.57 RTA _ 7,761,986 $63.16 284,008 $34.89 SunLine 3,620,506 $98.84 110,587 $61.52 Total/Average 14,248,473 (total trips) $59.36 (average cost) 717,851 (total trips) $45.23 (average cost) It is projected that during FY 2004, a total of 14,248,473 passenger trips will be provided on fixed route services. Projected operating costs for fixed route services range from a low of $40.13 (PVVTA) to a high of $98.84 (SunLine). A total of 717,851 paratransit trips are projected to be provided during FY 2004. Costs for these trips range from a low of $34.89 (RTA) to a high of $61 .52 (SunLine). *Operating cost per revenue hour information is not available for the Commuter Rail program. Expenses incurred by Commuter Rail are driven by "train miles" or "hours of service" by the train crews, not by vehicle hours. It is projected that operating costs per train mile during FY 04 will be $38.40. Attachment: Fiscal Year 2004 Short Range Transit Plans Agenda Item 81 223 ITEM 8J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: FROM: Riverside County Transportation Commission Plans and Programs "Committee as a Whole" Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003 Transit Operators' Second Quarter Report PLANS AND PROGRAMS "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2003 Mid -Year Transit Operators' Report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Under Public Utility Code Section 99244, the Commission must annually identify, analyze, and recommend potential productivity improvements, which could lower the cost of transit operations. Part of that process includes the review of ridership data from the public operators. The attached report represents county -wide public transportation ridership, operating and financial information for the first two quarters of FY 2003 for the eight public operators. As part of the Triennial Performance Audit, a Transit Operator Performance Improvement Program (PIP) was developed and includes the following eight performance indicators: 1) Operating Cost per Revenue Hour - should increase no more than CPI; 2) Farebox Recovery Ratio — per RCTC policy and PUC requirements; 3) Subsidy per Passenger — should increase no more than CPI; 4) Subsidy per Passenger Mile — should increase no more than CPI; 5) Subsidy per Revenue Hour — should increase no more than CPI; 6) Subsidy per Revenue Mile — should increase no more than CPI; 7) Passengers per Revenue Hour - percentage increase consistent with population growth or national average, whichever is greater; and, 8) Passengers per Revenue Mile - percentage increase consistent with population growth or national average, whichever is greater. Agenda Item 8J 224 The first two performance indicators: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour and Farebox Recovery Ratio are mandatory per the Public Utilities Commission. For FY 2003, transit operators have prepared their SRTP's to meet a minimum of three of the remaining six performance indicators. As outlined in the PIP, ridership reports are presented to the Commission a minimum of twice a year. The attachment provides data and performance statistics for all eight of the public operators for the period July 1 through December 31, 2002. It should be noted that not all of the operators are tracking all of the performance indicators since, per the PIP, operators have the option of selecting three of the six indicators to track performance. Items not tracked are indicated with an "--"; items that don't apply or where information was not available are indicated as "Not Available" or "Not Applicable". The following table provides summary data on ridership and operating costs per operator: FY 2003 Mid -Year Summary of Ridership and Operating Costs July 1, 2002 — December 31, 2002 Operator Fixed Route Unlinked Passenger Trips Fixed Route Operating Costs per Hour Paratransit Unlinked Passenger Trips Paratransit Operating Costs per Hour Banning 116,476 $65.39 4,541 _ $45.05 Beaumont 32,963 $42.08 14,314 $44.13 Corona 48,095 _ $37.32 34,939 $38.97 Commuter Rail 1,090,865 Not Available* Not Applicable Not Applicable Riverside Special Services Not Applicable Not Applicable 78,296 $48.07 PVVTA 4,081 $14.79 10,614 $37.22 RTA 3,353,776 $66.44 110,531 $41.16 SunLine 1, 661,993 $89.11 51,465 $55.93 Total/Average 6,308,249 $52.52 (average cost) 304,700 (total trips) $44.36 (average cost) The total number of public transportation trips provided by fixed route (bus and rail) and paratransit for the first six months of FY 03 was 6,612,949. Of those trips 6,308,249 (95%) were fixed route and 304,700 (5%) were paratransit trips. Operating cost per revenue hour for fixed route service (excludes the cost of Agenda Item 8J 225 commuter rail*) averaged $52.52 per hour. Operating costs ranged from a low of $14.79 (Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA)) to a high of $89.11 (SunLine Transit Agency). Operating cost per revenue hour for paratransit services averaged $44.36. Costs ranged from $37.22 (PVVTA) to $55.93 (SunLine). *Operating costs per revenue hour information is not available for the Commuter Rail Program. Expenses incurred by Commuter Rail are driven by "train miles" or "hours of service" by the train crews not by vehicle hours. During the first two quarters, the operating cost per train mile was $39.45. Attachment: Data and Performance Statistics Agenda Item 8J 226 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT Att achment 1 FY 03 FIXED ROUTE - ANNUAL ACTUALS July, 2002 through March, 2003 Data Elements - System Wide T otal City of Banning Transit City of Beaumont Transit City of Coro na Transit Commuter Rail - Riverside Line Commuter Rail - IEOC Line Commuter Rail - 91 Line Palo Verde Valley Transit Riversid e Transit Agency SunLine Transit Agency Total - All Providers Unlinked Passenger Trips 116,476 32,963 48,095 526,790 377,918 196,157 4,081 3,353,776 1,661 993 8,308,249 Passenger Miles -- - 163,175 20,031,952 12,713,250 5,729,187 - 19,298,592 12,373,610 70,309,767 Total Actual Vehicles Revenue Hours 5,290 4,058 7,456 - -- -- 1.150 189,016 72,576 279,546 To ta l Actual Vehicle Rev enue Miles 76,444 53,045 93,981 90,649 100,567 70,911 18,637 2,937,041 1,126,029 4,567,704 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 78,908 - 102,441 -- -- -- 19,147 3,243,528 1,157,969 4,601,993 Collisions 0 -- 1 - -- -- - 10 0 11 Total Revenue Vehicle System Failures 29 -- 7 -- -- -- 440 141 617 Total Valid Passenger Complaints 9 -- 4 -- - - 378 211 602 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 46,587 a 3,960 -- -- -- 181,012 79,961 311,500 Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 34,926 -- 3,336 - -- -- -- 164,711 75,562 278,535 To tal Operating Expenses $329,850 5170,748 5278,229 55,416,350 53,981,350 5948,100 517,013 12,557,718 6,467,114 530,168,470 Total Passenger Fare Revenues 547,601 510,667 524,745 52,740,482 52,012,138 5843,853 $3,460 2,646,360 1,238,349 59,367 ,655 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) 5252,249 $160,079 5253,484 52,677,868 51,969,212 5304,247 513,553 9 ,911 ,355 5,228,755 520,800,805 Performance Statistics • System Wide „ - Operating Cost Pe r Revenue Hou r 565,39 542.08 $37 .32 614 .79 566 .44 569,11 Fare box Recovery Ratio 14. 20% 6.25% 8.89% 20.34 % 21.07% 19.15% Subsidy per Passenger 52. 69 $4,86 55 .27 53.32 $2,96 53.15 i The South er n Califor nia Regional Rail Subsidy per Passenger Mile - 50 51 50.42 , . Su bsidy per Revenue Ho ur 556.10 539.45 S34.00 Authority is in the process of fina i zing FY 02 511.79 552.44 572.05 • Subsidy Mile perrs 20.66 53,021 52.70 financial statements and as a result, is -, 53.37 22.90 perevRnve Passengers Revenue Hour 20.66 8.12 6.45 reluctant toprovide operating costs for p 9 3.55 17.74 22 .90 Passengers per R evenue Miles 1.44 0. 62 0.51 Commuter Rail pri or to finalization of any audit - 1.14 1,48 Revenu e Miles Betwe en Collisions 113,388 - 93,981 adjustm ents . -- 293,704 1,125 ,029 % Trips 0n -Time 72% -- - 91.0 % 94 .50% •' Complaints per 1,000 Passengers 0.00008 0.00000 0.00008 0.00000. 0 .00011 0.00013 ,Total Mlles Between Road calls 2,645 - 13,426 -- -- 5/12/200310:55 AM 227 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORT ATION COMMISSI ON TRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT FY03 ADA/PARATRANSIT - ANNU AL ACTU ALS July, 2002 through March, 2003 Data Elements - System Wide Total City of Banning Transit City of Beaumont Transit City of Corona Transit City of Riverside Specialized Transit Palo V erd e Valley Transit Riverside Transit Agency SunLine Transit Agency Total - All Providers Unlinked Passenger Trips 4,541 14,314 34,939 78,296 10,614 110,531 51,465 304,700 Passenger Miles - -- 144,360 339,620 - 1,108,626 1,083,375 2,675,981 Total Actual Vehicles Revenue Hours 1,019 3,558 7,014 19,270 2,772 54,516 23,406 111,555 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 17,374 37,173 109,893 334,070 -- 974,471 400,194 1,873,175 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 18,462 -- 118,638 336,554 20,692 974,471 458.022 1,926,839 Collisions 0 -- 1 2 -- 2 0 5 Total Revenue Vehicle System Failures 2 -- 3 22 - 43 38 108 Total Valid Passenger Complaints 2 - 6 0 43 76 127 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 4,259 - 6,786 81,570 109,045 45,411 247,071 Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 4,191 -- 6,680 78,265 - 103,016 42,077 234,229 Total Operating Expenses $42,788 $157,016 273,325 891,918 $103,180 2,244,048 1,309 .080 $5,021,355 Total Passenger Fare Revenues $3,587 $15,770 42,100 79,108 $13,240 77,294 104,401 $335,500 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) _ $39,201 $141,246 231.225 812.810 $89,940 2,166.754 1,204,679 $4,685,855 Performance Statistics - System Wide Operating Cost Per Reve nue Hour $45,05 $44.13 838.97 $48.07 $37.22 $41.16 $55.93 Farebox Re covery Ratio 7.93% 10.04% 15 .40 % 8.95% 12.83% 3 A4% 7.98% Subsidy per Passenge r $9. 26 $9 87 $6.62 $10.69 $8.47 $19.60 $23 .41 , Subsidy pe r Passenger M ile Subsidy per Revenue Hour -- $41.47 -- $39 70 $1.60 $32.97 $2.45 $43.76 - $32 .45 $.75 $39.75 $1.1 $51.447 Subsidy pe r Re venue Mile $2.39 $3.80 $2.10 $2.51 -- 82.22 $3 .01 Passe ngers per Revenue Hour 4.48 4.02 4.98 4.09 3.83 2.03 2 .20 Passengers per Revenue Miles 0.26 0.39 0 .32 0.24, - 0.11 0.13 Reven ue Miles Between Collisions -- - 109,893 250,324 - 487,236 400,194 Trips On -Tim e 98.0% -- 98.4 % 95.80% - -- 92.66% Complaints per 1,000 Passengers 0.00045 0.00000 0.00017 0.00000 0 .00000 0.00039 0.00148 Total M iles Betwe en Roadcalls 27,514 -- 36,631 20,860 - - -- , 5/12/20 6 AM L_ J • 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs "Committee as a Whole" Tanya Love, Program Manager Eric Haley, Executive Director THROUGH: SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2004 Minimum Fare Revenue Ratio for the Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency PLANS AND PROGRAMS "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Fiscal Year 2004 Minimum Fare Revenue to Operating Expense Ratio of 17.4% for the Riverside Transit Agency and 16.11% for SunLine Transit Agency; 2) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required ratio; and, 3) Request Caltrans' concurrence with the methodology and ratios for Fiscal Year 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) serve both urbanized and non -urbanized areas of Riverside County. Therefore, their minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio required by State law falls somewhere between the 10% requirement for non -urbanized area services and 20% requirement for urbanized area services. The Commission is responsible for calculating the intermediate ratio. The methodology used to calculate the minimum ratio required was developed by the Commission and originally approved by the State. The methodology is still applicable and is attached for your review. Calculations used consist of the following: R = .1Cn+.2Cu Cn + Cu R = Required Ratio Cn = Costs of Services in Non Urbanized Areas Cu = Costs of Services in Urbanized Areas Agenda Item 8K 229 The costs for new or expanded services are exempted from the calculation for the first two full fiscal years of operation. Using the above formula and the RTA and SunLine Short Range Transit Plans, the minirnurn required ratios for RTA and SunLine in FY 2004 are 17.4% and 16.11% respectively. Upon adoption of the required ratio by the Commission, Caltrans must also approve the ratios. The ratios are then fixed for the year and cannot be changed even though actual revenues and expenses may differ from the SRTP estimates. Attachment: Rules and Regulations for Determining Required Fare Revenue Agenda Item 8K 230 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR DETERMINING REQUIRED FARE REVENUE TO OPERATING COST RATIOS FOR TRANSIT OPERATORS SERVING BOTH URBANIZED AND NON -URBANIZED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY Based on the latest annually adopted Short Range Transit Plans for Riverside County, the Riverside County Transportation Commission with the cooperation of the transit operator will determine separately the operating cost of those transit services provided in non -urbanized areas and the operating cost of those services in urbanized areas. 1) For the purpose of this calculation, the operating cost in the urbanized areas shall include the cost of fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within an urbanized area. The operating cost in the non -urbanized area shall include the cost of all fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within a non -urbanized area. 2) For fixed route lines operating partly within an urbanized area and partly within a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to the urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the route miles in the non -urbanized area and the route miles in the urbanized area. 3) For demand response systems serving both an urbanized area and a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the population of the urbanized area served and the population of the non -urbanized area served. 4) The costs of extension of public transit service pursuant to Section 99268.8 of the PUC shall not be included in any of these calculations. 11. The required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost in compliance with PUC Sections 99268.3 and 99268.4 shall be calculated as follows: R .1Cn + .2 Cu Cn + Cu R is the required ratio Cn is the operating cost in non -urbanized areas Cu is the operating cost in urbanized areas. Agenda Item 8K - Attachment 1 231 III. Annually, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall calculate the required revenue to operating cost ratio for each transit operator serving both urbanized and non -urbanized areas and submit this calculation to Caltrans. Caltrans shall approve the required ratio prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and the ratio shall not be subject to change. Agenda Item 8K - Attachment 1 232 AGENDA ITEM 8L RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs "Committee as a Whole" Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Beaumont's Request to Reallocate Capital to Operating Funds PLANS AND PROGRAMS "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to reallocate $25,168 in Local Transportation Funds from capital to operating for the City of Beaumont's Transit Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Beaumont's (Beaumont) financial audit for FY 02 indicates that there is an operating deficit in the amount of $25,168 as a result of operating expenses exceeding revenue. To cover the deficit, Beaumont is requesting that unused capital funds previously awarded be reallocated to operating funds. The capital funds are available since actual costs came in less than anticipated. Following is an itemized list of unused capital funds: $ 3,154 Radio Station $ 855 Bus stop signs $ 277 Bus stop benches $20,882 Dial -A -Ride vehicles $ 25,168 Total This request was reviewed and approved at Beaumont's City Council meeting on March 18, 2003. Agenda Item 8L 233 AGENDA ITEM 8M RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs "Committee as a Whole" Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs Edward C. Gonzalez, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests PLANS AND PROGRAMS "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,175/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 to the existing Riverside, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore, and Mira Loma buspools; and, 2) Continue the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their home to work commutes along the SR 91 corridor. The Commission adopted the Measure "A" buspool subsidy in October 1990 and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1,175 ($25/seat/month) in support of commuter buspool operations. The subsidy rate has not changed since inception of the policy. To provide additional guidance, the Commission established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff to report to the Commission when a buspool's ridership falls to 25 or below and seek direction regarding the continuation of the buspool's subsidy. To further accommodate riders, the current contract providers, Tourcoach and Odyssey Coach, have provided buses to transport 47 riders each and have accessible coaches available for use on the route if a person with disabilities purchases a monthly buspool pass. Agenda Item 8M 234 To renew its annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to request in writing continuation of funding from the Commission for the new fiscal year. Included as Attachment e the FY 2003 0A t letter- the 1 are the � � GVVJ-V`t request letters from one existing buspoois. The Buspool Data Table below shows just how successful the buspools have been this current fiscal year as each one far exceeds the minimum ridership level of 25 passengers. The Commissions' subsidy is the shot in the arm that makes these buspools more attractive as an alternative to driving in their single occupancy vehicles for the 130 plus round trip work commute. BUSPOOL DATA RIVERSIDE BUSPOOL MORENO VALLEY BUSPOOL MIRA LOMA BUSPOOL LAKE ELSINORE BUSPOOL Start Date June 1995 February 1996 August 2001 September 2002 Park and Ride Stops _ Galleria at Tyler, Corona Moreno Valley Mall Mira Loma, Corona Elsinore WalMart, Corona Monthly Fare $170 $175 $170 $165 RCTC Subsidy $25 _ $25 $25 $25 Fare with RCTC Subsidy $145 _ $150 $145 $140 Fare with RCTC and Employer ($21) Subsidies $124 $129 $124 $119 MONTHLY RIDERSHIP LEVEL Average 44 42 44 37 Highest 44 43 45 42 Lowest 40 38 44 30 Like all commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage commuters to use alternative modes of transportation, the Measure "A" $25/seat/month subsidy is administered as a "user side subsidy." Unlike all of the other incentives, which have a 3 -month term, the buspool subsidy is on -going. This annual subsidy remains cost-effective in comparison to the typical public transit subsidy rate of 80%. While the monthly cost of each existing buspool varies according to the number of route miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission's monthly subsidy represents an average subsidy rate of 15%. When taking other factors into consideration such as the reduction of vehicles on SR 91 during morning peak periods, the number of vehicle miles saved and the elimination of mobile source emissions, the annual buspool subsidy is an effective use of Measure "A" commuter assistance funds. Agenda Item 8M 235 The four existing buspools have completed all requirements for funding as set forth by the Commission including submittal of: 1) monthly ridership reports; 2) semi- annual operations status reports; and 3) annual funding continuation requests. These reports allow staff to monitor the activities of the buspools to track ridership levels, monitor marketing efforts, and ensure availability to persons with disabilities. The Proposed Fiscal Year 2003-2004 RCTC Budget contains a line item in the amount of $84,600 to provide buspool subsidies. Based on the established monthly $1,175 buspool subsidy policy, the funds are sufficient to support the four existing buspools and two new start-up buspools if needed. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2003-04 Amount: $84,600 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Funds Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 226-41-81030 Fiscal Procedures Approved: c-__ Date: 05/19/03 Attachments: 1) Letter from Angela Abruscato, Riverside Buspool Coordinator 2) Letter from Harlan Alpert, Moreno Valley & Mira Loma Buspool Coordinator 3) Letter from Sandra Daley, Lake Elsinore Buspool Coordinator Agenda Item 8M 236 May 08 03 03:15p Raytheon Systems Company (310)647-9291 p. 1 ANGELA ABRUSCATO Riverside Buspool 2565 W. Irvington Ave. San Bernardino, CA. 92407 May 7, 2003 Attn.: Edward Gonzalez, Staff Analyst Commission Riverside County Transportation P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA. 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Gonzalez, In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), 1 ant requesting an extension of funding for Lite period of July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 for the "Riverside" to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. I ain the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. C a The monthly cost to operate this buspool from fl arc a is $ 7 cl bet 0 per rider. ttR rTers dd s a $25 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining is provided Ridership on this buspool has averaged 44 passengers per month over the last year. The following is the Riverside to El Segundo buspool schedule: AM Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival PM Arrival Galleria at Tyler, Riverside Corona Park & Ride Lot Raytheon, El Segundo Raytheon, El Segundo Corona Park &. Ride Lot Galleria at Tyler, Riverside 4:20 a.m. 4:30 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 3:20 p.m. 4:30 p.m. 4:45 p.m. -Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Aerospace Corporation and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles and electronic messaging from these employers. These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee coordinators. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Sincerely, Angela t"4kSruscato Riverside Buspool Coordinator 237 05/08/2003 THU 09:45 FAX 310 336 1208 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT U002 HARLAN ALPERT Send correspondences to: Aerospace Corporation 2350 E. El Segundo Blvd. El Segundo, CA 90245-4691 May 7.2003 Attn.: Edward Gonzalez, Staff Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commis8iOn P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA. 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Oonralr; ,, In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), 1 am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 for the Moreno Valley to El Segwiclo Commuter Buspool- Tam the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. The monthly cost to operate this buspool from Tourcoach is 5175. RCTC provides a $25 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining 5150 is provided between the riders and their employers. Ridership on this buspool has averaged 42 passengers per month over the last year. The following, is the Moreno Valley Buspool Schedule; AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival Moreno Valley Mall Raytheon, El Segundo Raytheon. E1 Segundo Moreno Valley Mall 4:00 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 3:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Aerospace Corporation and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles and electronic messaging from these employers. These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators_ Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Sincerely, Harlan Alpert Moreno Valley Buspool Coordinator 238 05/08/2003 THLT 09:45 FAX 310 336 1208 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 0001 HARLAN ALPERT Send correspondences to: Aerospace Corporation 2350 E. El Segundo Blvd_ El Segundo, CA 90245-4691 May 7, 2003 Attn.: Edward Gonzalez, Staff Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA. 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Gonzalez In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 for the Mira Loma/Corona to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. I am the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer_ The monthly cost to operate this buspool from Tourcoach is $170_ RCTC provides a $25 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining $145 is provided between the riders and their employers. Ridership on this buspool has averaged 44 passengers since it started in August 2001. The following is the Mira Loma/Corona Buspool schedule: AM Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival PM Arrival Mira Loma Park & Ride Lot 4:15 a.m. Corona Park & Ride Lot 4:30 a.m. El Segundo 5:30 a.m. l Segwnclo Corona Park & Ride Lot Mira Lorna Park & Ride Lot 3:00 p.m 4:30 p.m. 4:45 p.m. Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Aerospace Corporation and the Los Angeles Air Force base_ Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles and electronic messy ig from these employers. These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Harlan Alpert Mira Loma/Corona Buspool Operator 239 SANDRA DALEY 4203 Havenridge Drive Corona, CA. 92883 May 9, 2003 Atm.: Edward Gonzalez, Staff Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA. 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Gonzalez In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC), I am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 for the Lake Elsinore/Corona to El Segundo Commuter BuspooL I am the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. The monthly cost to operate this buspool from Silver State Coach is $165, RCTC provides a $25 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining $140 is provided between the riders and their employers. Ridership on this buspool has averaged 37 passengers since it started in September 2002. The following is the route schedule: Schedule AM Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival AM Departure Lake Elsinore WalMart Corona Park & Ride Lot El Segundo El Segundo Corona Park & Ride Lot Lake Elsinore WalMart 4:30 a.m. 5:10 a.m. 6:05 a_m. 4:15 p.m_ 5:15 p.m. 5:40 p.m_ Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Aerospace and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles and electronic messaging from these employers_ These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators. Thank you for your support of this buspool program_ andra Daley Lake Elsirtore/El S do Buspool 240 ENDA ITEM 8N RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Fiscal Year 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to amend the Fiscal Year 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The Measure "A" Plans for the City of Palm Springs was approved by the Commission at its July 10, 2002 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted Plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City of Palm Springs is requesting to amend their FY 2003 Measure "A" Plan to increase funding by $416,000 for the Gene Autry/Ramon Median Island Landscape project and reduce funding by $5,000 and $140,000 for the Tachevah Drive Traffic Safety project and the Racquet Club and Avenida Caballeros Signal project, respectively, to allow adequate funds to complete the work. The overall Measure "A" Budget for FY 2003 will increase by $271 ,000, with the additional revenues coming from the City's Measure "A" fund balance. Attachment: Letter from the City of Palm Springs with Revised Schedule Agenda Item 8N 241 64165 City of Palm Springs Department of Public Works and Engineering 3200 E. "Iahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 323-8253 • Fax: (760) 322-8360 • Web: www.ci.palm-springs.ca.us May 7, 2003 Mr. Jerry Rivera Measure A Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: FY 2003-07 Local Measure A Program (Adjustment to FY 02/03 of 5 -Year Plan) Dear Mr. Rivera: This is a request for an amendment to the current Palm Springs FY 02/03 Measure A Plan: No. of 02/03 MEASURE A LISTED PROJECT Prior Amt. New Amt, Net Change 18* Tachevah Drive Traffic Safety (Desert Hospital) $ 5,000 $ -0- $ 5,000(reduction) 6 Racquet Club & Avenida Caballeros Signal $ 150,000 $ 10,000 $ 140,000(reduction) 11 *Gene Autry/Ramon Median Island Landscape $ 10.8,000 $ 524,000 $ 416,000(increase) TOTALS: $ 263,000 $ 534,000 $ 271,000(increase) *(2001/2002 Projects Continued to 02/03) The additional $271,000 is available in the City's Measure A Fund balance as a result of higher than expected sales tax revenue and interest income over the last three years. (Please see Ernst & Young Audit Report - 6/30/02) The City respectfully requests that the Commission consider an arnendinent to the current Palm Springs FY 02/03 Measure A Plan, redistributing the indicated funds, with a net increase of$246,000 in Measure A Funds. If you have any questions, please call Bob Mohler at (760)323-8250 or Marcus Fuller at (760)323-8253 extension 8744. RECEW MAY 0 9 Z0°3 Sincerely, David J. Barakian Director of Public Works/City Engineer xc: Bob Mohler, Grants & Government Affairs Manager Marcus Fuller, Senior Civil Engineer Torn Kanarr, Director of Finance/Treasurer Nancy Klukan, Accounting Manager Attachments: 1. "Revised" 2003/07 Measure A Plan 2. Ernst & Young Audit Report - 06/340/02 Pncr Office Box 2743 • Pa1m Springs, California 92263-2743 RI VERSI DE COUNTY TR Ai,,PO RTATIO N COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOC AL F UNDS PROGRAM Agen cy: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Spri ngs Page 2 of 3 Robert L. Mohler (Grants and Go vernme nt Affairs Manager) J une 14, 2002(** Rev. 5/7/03) FY 2003-07 5- Yr. Meas ure A Local Streets & Roads Program (FY 2002-03) ITEM MEASURE NO. PROJECT NAM E/LIMITS (2001/02) PROJECT TYPE TOTAL "A" COST FUNDS (1-5) (Carried Forward from Previous Page) (01/02 Projects Carried O ver to 02/03) $4,647,000 $647,000* JI 2001/02 Pro jects Contin ued: 6* ARHM Overlays (Stevens, Ave.34,Golf C1.,Mesq.) Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix (Contract Crews) 465,000 465,000 7* In dian Can yon/ I-10 Interchange (Design Only) Design New 6- La ne I nterchange at I-10 1,500,000 200,000 8* Bridge Misc. Repairs- 00/01 (Annual Program) Repairs to Various Palm Springs Bridges 100,000 100,000 9* Ann ual SB-821 Schoo l Sidewalk Grant (00/01) Local Measure A match ($66,500 SB821) 95,000 66,500 10* CMAQ- PM -10 Mitigation- Various Locations Local CMAQ Match for Paving Projects 500,000 100,000 11* Gene Au try/ Ramon Median Island Landscape 2000/01 TEA Gra nt (Local Match) 1,152,000 **524,000 (Subtotal of New 2001/02 Projects Above) $3,812,000 $1,455,500** * 2001/02 Projects Contin ued to 2002/03 _ YR. 2001/02 SUBT OTALS $8,459,000 $2,102,500** **NOTE: Revised letter from Dav e Barakian of City of Palm Springs to Jerry Rivera dated Mav 7, 2003 243 RIVERSIDE CO UNTY TR ANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUN DS PROG RAM A gency: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Springs Page 3 of 3 Robert L. Mohler (Grants and Gover nment Affairs Ma nager) J une 14, 2002(** Rev. 5/7/03) FY 2003-07 5- Yr . Measure A Local Streets & Roads Program (F Y 2002-03) ITEM N O. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ME ASURE FUNDS (1-11) *2001/02 Projects continued to 2002/03_ (From two previous pages) $8,459,000 $2,102,500* 12.* Annual Street Crack Filling (Contract) Crack Fillin g (Contract Crews) 50,000 50,000 13.* ARHM Street Overlay(s) Asphalt -Rubber O verlays (Contract Crews) 375,000 375,000 14. * LED Retro fit of City -Wide Traffic Signals I nstall E nergy Saving LEDs (City Match) 400,000 40.000 15.* G ene Autry/Palm & I-10 In terchan ge Construction City share ofJoi nt C ounty/C VAG ( Design) 12,228,000 500,000 16. * Indian Canyon RR Bridge @ WW Riv er (Design) 4 -lanes (80% HBRR Grant) -design o nly 1,600,000 40,000 17.* E.Palm Canyon & S.Palm Can. Traffic Sig nal Modifications 100,000 100,000 18.* Tachevah Drive Traffic Safety (Desert Hospital) Lighted Walk 5,000 0** Total 2001/02 Projects S.T. $14,758,000 $1,105,000** 2001/02 TOTALS Cont. to 2002/03 $23,217,000 $3,207,500** NOTE: These projects are 2001/02 Projects continued to 2002/03* L .4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAi•l,PORTATION COMMISSIO N ME ASURE "A" LOC AL FUNDS PROGRAM Agency: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Spri ngs Page 1 of 1 Robert L. Mohler (Grants and Go vernment Affairs Manager) J une 14, 2002 (* *Re v. 5/7/03) FY 2003-07 5- Yr . Meas ure A Local Streets & Roads (FY 2002-03) ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOT AL COST MEASURE "A" FUN DS 1. Annu al Street Slu rry Seals (Contract) Various Locations (Contract Crews) 200,000 90,000 2. _, A nnu al Street Crack Filling (Contract) Vario us Locations (Contract Crews) 50,000 0 3. Traffic Signal Flow Improv emen ts Various Locations 150,000 50,000 4. E. Palm Canyon & S. Palm Can yon Traffic Signal Modification 50,000 50,000 5, E. Palm Can yon & Araby .Dr. Traffic Signal Modification 150,000 150,000 6. Racquet Club & Aven ida Caballeros Traffic Signal Installation 150,000 **10,000 7. Sunrise Way & Sunny Dunes Rd. Traffic Signal Installation 106,000 106,000 8. Farrell Dr. & Baristo Rd. Left- Turn Phasing 125,000 125,000 9. Tachevah Drive @ Hospital Lighted Walk 25,000 25,000 10. Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Project Install Concrete Sidewalks behind curbs 70 ,000 40,000 11. Mesquite Aven ue Widening (D esert Way -Demuth Park) S. lfi Street (Added budget- see $239 K in 01/02) 525,000 _ 286,000 12. Sunrise Way Traffic Signal Interconn ect State STIP Grant ($120K Grant/$40K Match) 160,000 3,000 13. Tahquitz Canyon Dr. Traffic Signal In terconn ect Federal STP Grant ($599K Grant/$156K Match) 755,000 186,000 14: Indian Canyon Drive 2 -Way Conversion Revise Ex ist. 1 -Way Roadway to 2 -Way 100,000 290,000 2002/03 TOTA LS (New Projects) $2,606,000 **$1,411,000 A dd: 2001/02 Projects "Continued" to 2002/03* (See Pages 1-3 for 2001/02) $23,217,000 * *$3,207,500 "Continued" 2001/02 & New 2002/03 Projects Combin ed 2002/03 TOTAL S $25,823,000 **$4,618,500 **N OTE: Rev ised per letter from Dav e Barakian of City of Palm Springs to Jerry Riv era da ted Mav 7, 2003 245 AGENDA ITEM 80 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: TO: June 1 1, 2003 FROM: Riverside County Transportation Commission John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy position: Support — SB 87 (Hollingsworth, R -Temecula) as amended 3/20/03; Oppose Unless Amended -- AB 496 (Correa, D -Santa Ana) as amended 3/28/03; and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update On May 24, 2003, Congressman Ken Calvert hosted a local briefing with Congressman Don Young (R -Alaska). Congressman Young is Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The briefing was attended by a number of local elected, business and community leaders from Riverside, Corona, and Norco including RCTC Commissioners Robin Lowe, Frank Hall, Jeff Miller, and John Tavaglione and Commission Alternate Joy Defenbaugh. As Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congressman Young will oversee the process that leads to the eventual approval of the federal omnibus transportation act (TEA 21) that is set to expire this year. On May 14, 2003, the Bush Administration released its proposal for the bill titled, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Act (SAFETEA). Earlier in the month, Congressman Young dismissed the President's plan as not being enough to address the nation's transportation needs. The Congressman reiterated that stance during his local briefing and stated that the proposed $350 billion funding level is more of a maintenance level effort rather than the Agenda Item 80 246 comprehensive transportation plan that is needed. During his recent briefing he also dismissed even the title of SAFETEA and suggested that the proper title should be Transportation Efficiency Act for Logistics and Utilization (TEA LU) The President's proposal calls for virtually no growth in highway and mass transit programs but does allow greater flexibility to use federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds on freight movement projects. The Administration also is relying on the use of public -private partnerships, similar to the Alameda Corridor Project, to solve the country's freight corridor and gateway deficiencies. Congressman Young expressed his optimism that a bill could be approved this year but conceded that a temporary, short-term authorization could be needed this year prior to approving a much more comprehensive bill in the future. As for the local briefing, the audience with the Chairman provided an excellent opportunity to discuss important transportation issues which led to a significant emphasis on traffic problems on State Route 91 and the need for a new corridor to Orange County. The gathering also included discussion of goods movement issues such as the need for grade separations, and the onerous effect of restrictive environmental regulation. Overall, the briefing provided an excellent opportunity for Chairman Young to learn of local issues and demonstrated an ongoing and effective working relationship between Congressman Calvert and the Chairman which could be very important in obtaining needed funding in the future. Congressman Calvert and his staff should be congratulated for what turned out to be an effective and important opportunity to meet with Chairman Young. On another federal matter, staff is continuing to monitor efforts regarding legislation that would weaken the state's ability to keep out triple trailer trucks. Staff recently met with a representative from the national group, Coalition Against Bigger Trucks. Once legislation is introduced, staff will return to the Commission with a suggested position on the bill. State Update A contingent of RCTC Commissioners as well as representatives from UC Riverside and organized labor attended the May 21 meeting of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in Sacramento. Commissioners Ron Roberts, Robin Lowe, Marion Ashley, Bob Buster, and John Tavaglione were among those in attendance who participated in presenting RCTC's case to secure state funding of the 60/91/215 Interchange. The CTC did not make any funding decisions during their May meeting opting to take testimony in May before acting in June. The general reaction to RCTC's presentation was positive and staffs of RCTC, Caltrans, and the CTC are working to ensure the project remains on track. Agenda Item 80 247 Also, John Ferrara, Assistant Secretary of Transportation, stated that the project remains a personal priority for the Governor. The next meeting of the California Transportation Commission is scheduled for June 25-26 in Santa Ana. On the evening of May 21, the California Transportation Foundation hosted its annual Tranny Awards for transportation excellence during the past year. The event is attended by legislators, Caltrans officials, local transportation directors and members of the California Transportation Commission. This year, RCTC took home two of the Tranny Awards. One was given to the Commission for the reauthorization of Measure "A" and Executive Director Eric Haley also was recognized as the Tranny Person of the Year. In other state news, the Budget continues to dominate the focus of the Governor and the Legislature. The Governor released the May Revision to the proposed 2003-04 State Budget on May 14, 2003. The Revision recognizes the importance of transportation construction by making several significant changes from the January Budget proposal. The most significant change is to only partially suspend Proposition 42, the sales tax on gasoline revenue shift to transportation. The partial suspension will allow $207 million to flow to TCRP projects for cash flow needs and fund staff resources for those projects. The remaining $938 million in Proposition 42 funds will, in effect be loaned to the General Fund, however, loan repayment is not scheduled until June 2009. RCTC/SANBAG's remaining sponsored bill, AB 427 (Longville) continues to proceed through the legislative process. AB 427, a bill cosponsored with the Self -Help Counties Coalition that deletes the 20 year term limit for transportation sales tax expenditure plans in order to allow a term longer than 20 years passed out of Assembly Transportation Committee on May 5, 2003 on a party -line vote of 13-7. AB 427 was taken up on the Assembly Floor on May 15, 2003 and passed on a party line vote of 48-27. Senate Bill 87 This month, staff seeks Commission action on two state bills. The first is Senate Bill 87 authored by Dennis Hollingsworth (R -Temecula). This bill is sponsored by the City of Temecula and will authorize the California Transportation Commission to relinquish to the City of Temecula portions of State Route 79 that are located within the city limit or within Temecula's sphere of influence. Temecula is seeking the relinquishment in order to provide the city with more flexibility and control in making improvements to the road within the city. This bill is widely supported and received a unanimous 40-0 vote in the Senate on April 10, 2003. Agenda Item 80 248 It is also supported by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. A positive position by the Commission will add RCTC's support for efforts by Temecula, and Senator Hollingsvvor t h to improve the process in making improvements to this important highway. Assembly Bill 496 Another bill that staff seeks a Commission position is Assembly Bill 496 by Assemblyman Lou Correa (D -Santa Ana). The Commission previously took a WATCH position on the bill, but due to severe reservations regarding the transportation impacts of this legislation, staff seeks a change in position to OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED. AB 496 would create the Santa Ana River Conservancy and the Santa Ana River Conservancy Fund in order to acquire and direct the management of specified public lands in the Santa Ana River Watershed area. The bill further directs the management, powers and duties of the Conservancy when it is established; including a governing board that would have equal representation from Riverside, Orange and San Bernardino Counties. Certainly, there is widespread support to protect the Santa Ana River and enhance the surrounding environment. The Santa Ana River is an important natural resource that should be protected. As currently written, AB 496 has the potential of impacting a number of important transportation improvements. This would include efforts to widen and improve State Routes 71 and 91 and it could also impact the eventual development of a new highway corridor to Orange County. It is staff's opinion that AB 496 be amended to conform with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). SCAG is required to develop and maintain a 20 -year transportation plan, known as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Local and regional transportation projects and programs cannot be implemented unless they are included in the RTP. The RTP is designed to meet federal air quality emission reduction targets and conform to the regional Air Quality Management Program. SCAG adopted the current RTP in April 2001, and will approve a new plan in 2004. Projects on State Routes 71 and 91 can be mitigated to protect the Santa Ana River, however transportation agencies might not get the chance if AB 496 fails to recognize the need for these projects and prevents their construction. The concern regarding transportation impacts should not be minimized, especially since one of the reasons that some people support the bill is in order to prevent an Orange County plan to extend Route 57. AB 496 has garnered a significant level of support and opposition from organizations throughout the region. For example the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Transportation Corridor Agencies have taken OPPOSE positions to the bill. The Orange County Transportation Authority has taken an OPPOSE Agenda Item 80 249 UNLESS AMENDED Position, while the City of Santa Ana and Mayor Ron Loveridge of Riverside are listed as official supporters of the bill. Currently, the bill is in limbo because it has been amended to preclude general fund dollars for the proposed Conservancy. While the amendment is helpful, staff believes that it would be prudent for the Commission to express its concerns regarding the transportation impacts of this bill as forcefully as possible. Legislative Matrix Staff has updated the Commission's legislative matrix and will continue working to update its information to improve its value as a reference document for the Commission. The newest matrix has been reformatted for easier reading and has been updated to include most bills of transportation significance. Commission positions have also been included and clearly stated for easy reference. Attachments: 1) Legislative Analysis — SB 87 (Hollingsworth) 2) SB 87 (Hollingsworth) 3) Legislative Analysis — AB 496 — (Correa) 4) AB 496 (Correa) 5) Legislative Matrix - Federal 6) Legislative Matrix - State Agenda Item 80 250 BILL: SB 87 (Hollingsworth, R -Temecula) Introduced January 27, 2003 Amended March 20, 2003 SUBJECT: Directs the California Transportation to relinquish portions of State Route 79 to the City of Temecula STATUS: Passed Senate 40-0 SUMMARY AS AMENDED MARCH 20, 2003: SB 87 is sponsored by the City of Temecula and is intended to provide the city with more control and flexibility over the portions of State Route 79 that are located within the city and the city's sphere of influence. Cities often seek to take over maintenance and improvements on state highways located within their city in order to speed improvements and ensure local control. As part of this bill, the California Transportation Commission would be directed to relinquish these portions of Route 79 "upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interest of the state." As an example, similar action was taken by the California Transportation Commission last month in response to legislation sought by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This bill has no registered opposition and is being sought by a local city with the intent of making transportation improvements and benefiting the entire process. Staff recommends that the Commission add its support to the City of Temecula and Senator Hollingsworth on this bill. Staff Recommends: SUPPORT Agenda Item 80 - Attachment 1 251 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 20, 2003 SENATE BILL No. 87 Introduced by Senator Hollingsworth January 27, 2003 An act to repeal and add amend Section 379 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to highways. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 87, as amended, Hollingsworth. State Highway Route 79. Existing law requires the California Transportation Commission to relinquish to any city or county any portion of any state highway within the city or county that has been deleted from the state highway system by legislative enactment. These relinquishments become effective upon the first day of the next calendar or fiscal year, whichever first occurs after the effective date of the legislative enactment. This bill would th route dcsc. „lion f tat H �i , . ^,J • R. .te LaaV 79. The bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Temecula a specified portion of State Highway Route 79 that is located within Temecula's city limits or sphere of influence, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the commission and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION Stet: ., 379 of the Streets and Highways Code 2 98 SB 87 —2- 1 SECTION 1. Section 379 of the Streets and Highways Code is 2 amended to read: 3 379. (a) Route 79 is from: 4 Or} 5 (1) Route 8 near Descanso to Route 78 near Julian. 6 (-13). 7 (2) Route 78 near Santa Ysabel to Route 15 near Temecula. 8 {e} 9 (3) Route 15 near Temecula to Route 74 near Hemet. 10 (d) 11 (4) Route 74 near Hemet to Route 10 near Beaumont. 12 (b) Notwithstanding this section, the commission may 13 relinquish to the City of Temecula the portion of Route 79 located 14 within Temecula°s city limits, or the sphere of influence of the city, 15 upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best 16 interest of the state. 17 (c) The relinquishment shall become effective immediately 18 after the county recorder records the relinquishment resolution 19 that contains the commissioner's approval of the terms and 20 conditions of the relinquishment. 21 (d) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both 22 of the following shall occur: 23 (1) The portion of Route 79 relinquished shall cease to be a 24 state highway. 25 (2) The portion of Route 79 relinquished may not be considered 26 for future adoption under Section 81. 27 (e) The City of Temecula shall ensure the continuity of traffic 28 flow on the relinquished portion of Route 79, including any traffic 29 signal progression. 30 (f) For relinquished portions of Route 79, the City of Temecula 31 shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of 32 Route 79. 33 is repealed. 34 SEC. 2. Section 379 is added to the Streets and Highways 35 Code, to read: 36 i gs 37 in-Te nG"u v er-s-t ` 1 in Riverside_, &tnd from Butterficld 38 Stage Road to Interstate 1.5 in Temecula: 39 (b) Notwithstanding subdivision ( .', 40 relinquish to the City of Temecula th o• Lion of 79 th t 98 P -3— SB 87 1 l teed .th T l ;r.. y _ El "fin ��.h�" o f .n fl e o f 2 3 the best interests of the state. 4 �(- #, 7 5 effeeti a irnmediaFtely aft-er th - a.. the rh «r„ �iz"'iiir viuu cur.. 6 ' 7 approval of the tcrrns and conditions of the relitarishmen. 8 d) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment under 9 subdivision (b), both of the following shall occur: 10 11 state highway. 12 (2) The portion of Route 79 relinquish d d'cr subd:_ti: (b) 13 may not be considered f . 14 nsure the continuity o 15 rFl.7i.i l.i I J LL141 u11l1lt.. al.� 16 signal progression. 17 , 18 ; haii nt in . g flife Ling ■i otorists to the contin° --1Of 19 Route 79. 0 98 P BILL: AB 496 (Correa, D -Santa Ana) Introduced February 14, 2003 Amended March 28, 2003 Amended May 29, 2003 SUBJECT: Establishes the Santa Ana River Conservancy to Acquire and Direct Public Lands in the Santa Ana River Watershed Area STATUS: Passed 9-3 Assembly Natural Resources Committee on April 29, 2003, has been referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee SUMMARY AS AMENDED MARCH 28, 2003: AB 496 would establish, until January 1, 2011, the Santa Ana River Conservancy to acquire and direct the management of public lands in the 2,800 square mile Santa Ana River watershed area and would prescribe the management, powers, and duties of the conservancy. The bill would also create the Santa Ana River Conservancy Fund, but this provision would not become operative until the Legislature appropriates, or a bond act approved by the voters allocates, the necessary funds. The Santa Ana River Conservancy would have the power to: • Prepare a Santa Ana River Parkway and Open Space Plan to establish policies and priorities for conserving the Santa Ana River and its watershed; identify underused public open spaces; and identify low impact recreational and open space needs; • Acquire, operate, administer, and maintain public lands; • Adopt regulations governing public use of conservancy lands and facilities and may provide for the enforcement of those regulations; • Regulate land use on lands it owns, manages, or controls consistent with local land use policies; • Undertake site improvement projects, regulate public access, and rehabilitate degraded areas; • Receive, spend, and award funds from voter -approved statewide park bonds; • Develop open space and recreational opportunities; • Restore and preserve habitat and natural resources; • Provide master plan guidance for the Santa Ana River; and • Enhance local flood control efforts. The conservancy would not be able to levy a tax or exercise eminent domain. Agenda Item 80 — Attachment 3 255 The Santa Ana River watershed area covers about 2,800 square miles in parts of Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. A watershed is a region drained by a stream, lake, or other body of water. The 96 -mile Santa Ana River begins north of the San Gorgonio Wilderness in the San Benardino National Forest and empties into the Pacific Ocean. It is the largest stream system in Southern California. The California State Legislature created the California State Coastal Conservancy in 1976. Since then, seven other conservancies have been created: Santa Monica Mountains (1979), California Tahoe (1984), Coachella Valley Mountains (1990), San Joaquin River (1992), San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains (1999), Baldwin Hills (2000), and the San Diego River (2002). EFFECTS ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Under state and federal law, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the six county region that includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial counties. SCAG is required to develop and maintain a 20 -year transportation plan, known as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Local and regional transportation projects and programs cannot be implemented unless they are included in the RTP. The RTP is designed to meet federal air quality emission reduction targets and conform to the regional Air Quality Management Program. SCAG adopted the current RTP in April 2001, and will approve a new plan in 2004. As presently proposed, the development of the Santa Ana River Parkway and Open Space Plan and acquisition and regulation of property by the Santa Ana River Conservancy could conflict with efforts to implement transportation plans and projects contained within the RTP that lie within the Santa Ana River watershed area. This conflict could hamper the region's efforts to conform with federal air quality requirements and impede RCTC's ability to provide mobility to the regional economy and Inland Empire residents. In the absence of recognition of the RTP and the mobility and air quality improvement that it provides, AB 496 could impact needed and approved transportation improvements. These projects may include, but are not limited to, improvements to SR -91, SR 71, SR 210, SR 60, 1-15, 1-215, and major regional arterial improvements. Agenda Item 80 — Attachment 3 256 To ensure air quality conformity and regional mobility, staff recommends AB 496 be amended to require the conservancy's Santa Ana River Parkway and Open Space Plan to conform with the RTP. Additionally, the conservancy should be subject not only to the general and specific plans of the local agencies that have jurisdiction in the area the conservancy proposes to take action, but should likewise be subject to the RTP adopted by the SCAG. Given the grave potential impacts this bill could have on already -planned improvements, staff has been monitoring the progress of the bill as directed by the Commission in May. While the bill is being hampered by funding concerns, there is still a possibility that it could move forward at a future date. For that reason staff recommends that the Commission state its objections to the bill based on transportation impacts and to oppose the bill unless it is amended. Budget and Implementation Committee and Staff Recommends: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED Agenda Item 80 — Attachment 3 257 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 28, 2003 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -2003-04 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 496 Introduced by Assembly Member Correa (Coauthors: Assembly Members Daucher, Harman, Maddox, and Negrete McLeod) (Coauthor: Senator Soto) February 14, 2003 An act to add and repeal Division 23.6 (commencing with Section 33807) to of the Public Resources Code, relating to the Santa Ana River Conservancy. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 496, as amended, Correa. Santa Ana River Conservancy. Existing law authorizes various conservancies to acquire, manage, direct the management of, and conserve public lands in the state. This bill would, until January 1, 2011, establish the Santa Ana River Conservancy to acquire and direct the management of specified public lands in the Santa Ana River watershed area and would prescribe the management, powers, and duties of the conservancy. The bill would also create the Santa Ana River Conservancy Fund, but this provision would not become operative would prohibit the conservancy from implementing the funding authorization until the Legislature appropriates, or a bond act approved by the voters allocates, the necessary funds. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: no. 98 P AB 496 — 2 — The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Division 23.6 (commencing with Section 2 33807) is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: 3 4 DIVISION 23.6. SANTA ANA RIVER CONSERVANCY 5 6 ,\riicic 1. Gencrp1 Provisions and Definitions 7 8 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS and DEFINITIONS 9 10 33807. This division shall be known, and may be cited, as the 11 Santa Ana River Conservancy Act. 12 33808. (a) The Santa Ana River is the largest stream system 13 in southern California. As a unit, the watershed covers an area of 14 about 2,700 square miles in parts of Orange, San Bernardino, and 15 Riverside Counties. The river has been subjected to intense 16 development and is in need of restoration, conservation, and 17 enhancement all along its length. 18 (b) Given the opportunities available, the state finds and 19 declares that the Santa Ana River and its tributary, the Santiago 20 Creek, constitute a unique and important open -space, 21 environmental, anthropological, cultural, scientific, educational, 22 recreational, scenic, and wildlife resource that should be held in 23 trust to be preserved and enhanced for the enjoyment of, and 24 appreciation by, present and future generations. 25 33809. For purposes of this division, the following terms have 26 the following meanings: 27 (a) "Board" means the governing board of the Santa Ana River 28 Conservancy. 29 (h) "Conservancy" means the Santa Ana River Conservancy. 30 (c) "Territory" means the entire length of the Santa Ana river 31 River and the watershed areas that are located within the counties 32 of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino. 33 98 P — 3 — AB 496 1 Article 2. The Santa Ana River Conservancy 2 3 CHAPTER 2. THE SANTA ANA RIVER CONSERVANCY 4 5 33815. There is in the Resources Agency, the Santa Ana River 6 Conservancy, which is created as a state agency for the following 7 purposes: 8 (a) To acquire and manage public lands within the Santa Ana 9 River watershed, and to provide recreational opportunities, open 10 space, wildlife habitat and species restoration and protection, 11 wetland protection and restoration, protection and maintenance of 12 the quality of the waters in the Santa Ana River for all beneficial 13 uses, lands for educational uses within the area, and natural 14 floodwater conveyance. 15 (b) To provide for the public's enjoyment, and to enhance the 16 recreational and educational experience on public lands in the 17 territory in a manner consistent with the protection of land and 18 natural resources, and economic resources in the area. 19 33820. The conservancy shall do all of the following: 20 (a) Establish policies and priorities for the conservancy 21 regarding the Santa Ana River and its watershed, and conduct 22 necessary planning activities, in accordance with the purposes set 23 forth in Section 33815. 24 (b) Give priority to river related projects that create expanded 25 opportunities for recreation, greening, aesthetic improvement, and 26 wildlife habitat along the corridor of the river and inparts of the 27 river channel that can be improved for the above purposes without 28 infringing on water quality, water supply, and necessary flood 29 control. 30 (c) Approve conservancy -funded projects that advance the 31 purposes set forth in Section 33815. 32 (d) Prepare a Santa Ana River Parkway and Open Space Plan. 33 The plan shall accomplish, at minimum, all of the following: 34 (1) Determine the policies and priorities for conserving the 35 Santa Ana River and its watershed in accordance with the purposes 36 of the conservancy as set forth in Section 33815. 37 (2) Identify underused, existing public open spaces and 38 recommend ways to provide better public use and enjoyment in 39 those areas. 98 AB 496 — 4 1 (3) Identify and prioritize additional low -impact recreational 2 and open space needs, including additional or upgraded facilities 3 and parks that may be necessary or desirable. 4 33822 . The board shall consist of the fallowing voting 5 members and _ 6 (a) 7 33825. The board shall consist of 13 voting members and nine 8 nonvoting members appointed as follows: 9 (a) The 13 voting members of the board shall consist of all of 10 the following: 11 (1) Secretary of the Resources Agency, or his or her designee. 12 (2) Director of Finance, or his or her designee. 13 (3) One public member appointed by the Governor, who resides 14 within the watershed and has expertise in economic development, 15 agriculture or conservation, wildlife, and natural resources. 16 (4) Three public members appointed by the Governor, who 17 reside within the watershed and are selected from a list submitted 18 by all of the following: 19 (A) Orange County Council of Governments. 20 (B) Western Riverside Council of Governments. 21 (C) San Bernardino Association of Governments. 22 (5) One member of the Board of Supervisors of Riverside 23 County, appointed by the majority of the members of that board. 24 (6) One member- of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino 25 County, appointed by the majority of the members of that board. 26 (7) One member of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, 27 appointed by the majority of the members of that board. 28 (8) One member of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, 29 appointed by the majority of the members of that authority. 30 (9) One public member appointed by the Senate Committee on 31 Rules, who resides within the watershed and has expertise in 32 conservation, wildlife, and natural resources. 33 (10) One public member appointed by the Speaker of the 34 Assembly, who resides within the watershed and has expertise in 35 conservation, wildlife, and natural resources. 36 (11) One representative designated by the Governing Councils 37 of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Soboba Band 38 of Luiseno Indians. 39 (b) The nine ex officio, nonvoting members of the board shall 40 consist of all of the following officers or an employee of each 98 -5 — AB 496 1 agency designated annually by that officer to represent the office 2 or agency: 3 (I) Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation. 4 (2) District Engineer of the United States Artny Corps of 5 Engineers. 6 (3) Secretary of the California Environmental Protection 7 Agency 8 (4) Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region of the United 9 States Forest Service. 10 (5) General Manager; Eastern Municipal Water District. 11 (6) General Manager; Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 12 (7) General Manager; Orange County Water District. 13 (8) General Manager, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water 14 District. 15 (9) General Manager; Western Municipal Water District. 16 33826. (a) The term of each voting member of the board shall 17 be two years, or until the member's successor is appointed, 18 whichever is longer. A vacancy shall be filled within 60 days of its 19 occurrence by the appointing authority. 20 (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person may not continue 21 as a member of the board if he or she ceases to hold the office that 22 qualifies him or her to be appointed as a member of the board. The 23 membership on the board held by the person shall terminate if the 24 person ceases to hold the qualifying office or membership. 25 (c) The voting members of the board shall elect a chairperson, 26 vice chairperson, and other officers, as necessary, from among the 27 board members. The board shall determine the terms of those 28 offices. 29 (d) A member of the board who is not a full-time public 30 employee shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed one hundred 31 dollars ($100) per regular meeting, not to exceed 12 regular 32 meetings per year, and shall be reimbursed the actual and 33 necessary expenses incurred in the performance of his or her 34 duties. A member may waive compensation. 35 (e) The conservancy may employ an executive officer and 36 other necessary staff to perform functions that cannot be provided 37 by the existing personnel, by others on a contract basis, or by 38 volunteers, and may enter into a contract for services requiring 39 knowledge, experience, and ability not possessed by the 40 conservancy staff. The board shall approve those contracts. 98 AB 496 — 6 — 1 33830. (a) A quorum shall consist of a majority of the voting 2 members of the board. All meetings of the board shall be held in 3 accordance with the Bagley -Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 4 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of 5 Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). 6 (b) An action of the board affecting a matter shall be taken by 7 a majority vote of the membership of the board, a quorum being 8 present. 9 (c) The governing board shall adopt its own rules and 10 procedures necessary to conduct its business. 11 12 Article 3. Powers and Duties 13 14 CHAPTER 3. POWERS and DUTIES 15 16 33840. The conservancy may manage, operate, administer, 17 and maintain the lands and facilities it acquires in accordance with 18 the purposes set forth in Section 33815. The conservancy may 19 adopt regulations governing public use of conservancy lands and 20 facilities and may provide for the enforcement of those 21 regulations. 22 33841. (a) The conservancy may acquire real property or an 23 interest in real property pursuant to the Property Acquisition Law 24 (Part 11 (commencing with Section 15850) of Division 3 of Title 25 2 of the Government Code) within the conservancy's territory 26 from willing sellers and at fair market value, upon a finding that 27 the acquisition is consistent with the purposes of the conservancy 28 as set forth in Section 33815. The conservancy may acquire the 29 property itself or may coordinate the acquisition through other 30 public agencies that have the authority to acquire property and that 31 have available funding or land to exchange. The conservancy may 32 hold a remainder interest in property in those instances in which 33 an owner desires to sell the property and retain a life estate, and 34 may create and administer a mitigation land bank and arrange land 35 exchanges, consistent with the purposes set forth in Section 33815. 36 The overall objective of the land acquisition program shall be to 37 assist in accomplishing land transactions that are mutually 38 beneficial to the landowner and the conservancy, and that meet the 39 conservancy's purposes. Neither the conservancy nor the State 98 -7— AB 496 1 Public Works Board may exercise the power of eminent domain 2 pursuant to this division. 3 (b) To the extent not in conflict with another law, the 4 conservancy may exercise the right of first refusal for surplus 5 public agency property located within its territory for the purposes 6 of the conservancy, as et set forth in Section 33815, subject to the 7 conditions and provisions of the adopted Santa Ana River Parkway 8 and Open Space Plan, and shall conform to all relevant general and 9 specific plans and zoning regulations of local, agencies within the 10 territory of the conservancy. 11 (c) Prior to entering into an agreement to acquire an interest in 12 real property, or to lease, rent, sell, exchange, or transfer real 13 property or an interest therein or an option acquired under this 14 division, within the territory of the conservancy for open space or 15 conservation purposes, the conservancy shall provide 30 days 16 written notice to the legislative body of the affected local agency, 17 if that project was not included in the Santa Ana River Parkway 18 and Open Space Plan. 19 33842. (a) The conservancy shall have, and may exercise, all 20 rights and powers, expressed or implied, necessary to carry out the 21 purposes of this division, except as otherwise provided. 22 (b) The conservancy may not levy a tax, exercise the power of 23 eminent domain, or regulate land use, except on lands it owns, 24 manages or controls. 25 (c) The conservancy shall be subject to all laws, regulations, 26 and general and specific plans of the legislative body of the local 27 agency that has jurisdiction in the area in which the conservancy 28 proposes to take action. 29 33843. The conservancy may do all of the following: 30 (a) Sue and be sued. 31 (b) Enter into contracts with a public agency, private entity, or 32 person necessary for the proper discharge of the conservancy's 33 duties, and enter into a joint powers agreement with a public 34 agency, in furtherance of the purposes set forth in Section 33815. 35 (c) Lease, rent, sell, exchange, or transfer real property or 36 interest therein or an option acquired under this division to a local 37 public agency, state agency, federal agency, nonprofit 38 organization, individual, or other entity pursuant to terms and 39 conditions approved by the conservancy for management 98 AB 496 —8- 1 purposes, in accordance with the purposes set forth in Section 2 33815. 3 (d) Initiate, negotiate, and participate in an agreement for the 4 management of land under its ownership or control by a local 5 public agency, state agency, federal agency, nonprofit 6 organization, individual, or other entity, and initiate, negotiate, 7 and participate in an agreement for the management of land under 8 the ownership or control of those entities by the conservancy, in 9 accordance with the purposes set forth in Section 33815. 10 (e) Enter into an agreement with a public agency, private entity, 11 or person necessary for the proper discharge of the conservancy's 12 duties for the purposes set forth in Section 33815. 13 (f) Recruit and coordinate volunteers and experts to conduct 14 interpretive and recreational programs and assist with construction 15 projects and the maintenance of parkway facilities. 16 (g) Undertake, within the territory, site improvement projects, 17 regulate public access, and revegetate and rehabilitate degraded 18 areas, in consultation with another any other public agency with 19 appropriate jurisdiction and expertise, in accordance with the 20 purposes set forth in Section 33815. The conservancy may also, 21 within the territory, upgrade deteriorating facilities and construct 22 new facilities as needed for outdoor recreation, nature 23 appreciation and interpretation, and natural resources projection. 24 The conservancy may undertake those projects by itself or in 25 conjunction with another local agency; however, the conservancy 26 shall provide overall coordination of those projects by setting 27 priorities for the projects and by ensuring a uniform approach to 28 projects. The conservancy may undertake those projects after 30 29 days written notice to the legislative body of the local agency that 30 has jurisdiction in the area in which the conservancy proposes to 31 undertake that activity. 32 33844. (a) The conservancy may award grants to local public 33 agencies, state agencies, federal agencies, and nonprofit 34 organizations for the purposes of this division. 35 (b) A grant to a nonprofit organization for the acquisition of 36 real property or interests in real property shall be subject to all of 37 the following conditions: 38 (1) The purchase price of an interest in land acquired by the 39 nonprofit organization may not exceed fair market value as 40 established by an appraisal approved by the conservancy. 98 — 9 — AB 496 1 (2) The conservancy approves the terms under which the 2 interest in land is acquired. 3 (3) The interest in land acquired pursuant to a grant from the 4 conservancy may not be used as security f©r a debt incurred by the 5 nonprofit organization unless the conservancy approves the 6 transaction. 7 (4) The transfer of land acquired pursuant to a grant shall be 8 subject to the approval of the conservancy and the execution of an 9 agreement between the conservancy and the transferee sufficient 10 to protect the interests of the state. 11 (5) The state shall have a right of entry and power of 12 termination in and over all interests in real property acquired with 13 state funds, which may be exercised if an essential term or 14 condition of the grant is violated. 15 (6) If the existence of the nonprofit organization is terminated, 16 title to all interest in real property acquired with state funds shall 17 immediately vest in the state, except that, prior to that termination, 18 another public agency or nonprofit organization may receive title 19 to all or a portion of that interest in real property, by recording its 20 acceptance of title, together with the conservancy's approval, in 21 writing. 22 (c) A deed or other instrument of conveyance whereby real 23 property is acquired by a nonprofit organization pursuant to this 24 section shall be recorded and shall set forth the executory interest 25 or right of entry on the part of the state. 26 33845. (a) The Santa Ana River Conservancy Fund is hereby 27 created in the State Treasury. Moneys in the fund shall be 28 available, upon appropriation, for the purposes of this division. 29 (b) The fee revenue and all other revenue received pursuant to 30 this division shall be deposited in the fund. 31 (c) The conservancy shall administer funds appropriated to it, 32 and may expend those funds for capital improvements, land 33 acquisition, or support of the conservancy's operations, in 34 accordance with the purposes set forth in Section 33815. The 35 conservancy may also accept revenue, money, grants, goods, or 36 services contributed to it by a public agency, private entity, or 37 person and, upon receipt, may use the revenue, money, grants, 38 goods, or services for capital improvements, land acquisitions, or 39 support of the conservancy's operations, in accordance with the 40 purposes set forth in Section 33815. 98 AB 496 — 10 — 1 Article 4. Limitations 2 3 CHAPTER 4. LIMITATIONS 4 5 33850. Nothing in this division shall be interpreted to grant 6 the board any regulatory or governing authority over an ordinance 7 or regulatory measure adopted by a city, county, or special district 8 that pertains to land usc, water rights, or environmental quality. 9 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, the 10 conservancy may not take an action that does any of the following: 11 (1) Interferes or conflicts with the exercise of the powers or 12 duties of a watermaster, public agency, or other body or entity 13 responsible for groundwater or surface water management or 14 groundwater replenishment as designated or established pursuant 15 to an adjudication or statute. 16 (2) Interferes or conflicts with a provision of a judgment or 17 court order issued, or rule or regulation adopted, pursuant to an 18 adjudication affecting water or water management in the Santa 19 Ana River watershed and basin. 20 (3) Impedes or adversely impacts a previously duly adopted 21 flood control project, or a maintenance agreement to operate the 22 project. 23 (4) Results in the degradation of water quality, or interferes or 24 conflicts with one or more of the following: 25 (A) An action by a watermaster or public agency that is 26 authorized pursuant to statute. 27 (B) A water right or adjudication including, but not limited to, 28 an action relating to water conservation, groundwater recharge, 29 conservation or storage of water or both, the pumping of 30 groundwater, water treatment, the regulation of spreading, 31 injection, pumping, storage, or the use of water from local sources, 32 stormwater flows and runoff, or from imported or reclaimed water 33 that is undertaken in connection with the management of the Santa 34 Ana River or a branch, stream, fork, or tributary thereof, a 35 groundwater basin, or groundwater resource. 36 (5) Interferes with, obstructs, hinders, or delays the exercise of 37 a water right by the owner of a public water system, including, but 38 not limited to, the construction, operation, maintenance, 39 replacement, repair, location, or relocation of a well or water 40 pumping, treatment, or storage facility, pipeline, or other facility, 98 -11— AB 496 1 or property necessary or useful to the operation of the public water 2 system. 3 (b) The conservancy shall provide written notice to every water 4 association in the jurisdiction of the conservancy of a proposed 5 action, policy, or project that may affect a water right or water 6 delivery system at least 45 calendar days prior to the date set for 7 approval of those matters by the conservancy. 8 (c) The conservancy shall consult with other conservancies 9 within the Resources Agency prior to implementing a project 10 pursuant to this division in which there may be a jurisdictional 11 overlap between those conservancies. Each of those conservancies 12 shall make its best effort to resolve issues regarding a project 13 development that is carried out pursuant to this division in a 14 mutually advantageous and environmentally beneficial manner. A 15 dispute between the conservancies shall be referred to the 16 Resources Agency for resolution. 17 (d) As used in this section, "adjudication" means a final 18 judgment or order entered in a judicial proceeding adjudicating or 19 affecting water rights, surface water management, or groundwater 20 management. 21 22 Article 5. Repeal 23 24 CHAPTER 5. REPEAL 25 26 33860. (a) The conservancy may not implement Section 27 33845 shall not become operative until the Legislature 28 appropriates funds necessary to implement this division, or until 29 a bond act approved by the voters of this state includes an 30 allocation of funds for the purposes of this division. 31 (b) This division shall remain in effect only until January 1, 32 2011, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, 33 that is enacted before January 1, 2011, deletes or extends that date. 0 98 P RIVERS/ ;,OUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION - POSITION V FEDERAL LEGISL ATION — UPDATED May 27, 2003 Legislati on/ Author Descripti on Bill Status Position Date of B oard Adoption H.R. 697 Millender- M cDonald (Los Angeles) Designates 1-710 as a new high -priority transportation corridor in ISTEA Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastucture H. R. 1150 Miller (Brea) Directs the Secretary of Transportation to award grants to OCTA for the purchase of 46 buses for intercounty express bus service. Two of the identified routes serve Riverside County . Coauthored by Rep. Calvert - Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastucture H.R. 1617 Lipinski (Illinois) Establishes a National Rail Infrastructure Program to provide grants for railroad infrastructure that could include grade separations . Grants wo uld be financed by excise ta xes on railroad equipment and rail passenger tickets. Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Ways and Means Committee S 725 Bingaman (New M exico) Tribal Transportation Program Improvement Act of 2003 — pro vides additional funding for Tribal transportation needs . Referred to Committee on Indian Affairs S 821 Harkin (Iowa) Establishes the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Act of 2003. Would authorize federal grants to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cells Referred to Committee on Natural Resources Agenda Item 80 — Attachment 5 269 RIVERS 3OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITION V STATE LEGISLATION — UPD ATED May 27, 2003 Legislati on/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 114 Nakano Permits hybrid -electric vehicles to use HOV Lanes regardless of the number of passengers in the car . Referred to Assembly Transportation AB 420 Longville Includes county welfare -to -work programs among alternative transportation methods in a county congestion management program. AB 427 Longville Changes enabling legislation that permits some counties (including San Bernardino and Orange but not Riverside) to impose half -cent transportation sales tax programs by eliminating the 20 -year time limit . Passed Assembly 48- 27 Inland Empire Legislative Program Sponsored AB 467 Dutra Requires transit operators who have automated ticket machines with video instructions to also include an audio feature Passed Assembly 73- 2 AB 496 Correa Creates the Santa Ana River Conservancy to direct the management of public lands along the river. This could impact potential transportation projects on Routes 71 and 91. Passed Assembly Natural Resources and referred to Appropriations Committee WATCH Staff Recommends: OPPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED 5/14/03 6/10/03 AB 1289 Benoit Would allow additional franchises for privately owned toll roads and would prohibit the state from granting non -competition clauses in order to support the toll facility. Referred to Senate Transportation Committee ACA 7 Dutra Reduces voter threshold for transportation sales tax measures to 55 percent Passed Assembly Elections Committee and referred to Assembly Transportation SUPPORT ACA 9 Levine Allows local jurisdictions to approve special taxes for infrastructure projects with only a majority vote. The bill includes a number of restrictions and specifications on how this could be imposed. Passed Assembly Local Government and referred to Assembly Elections Committee A CA 11 Levine Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local bond measures for specified infrastructure projects. Passed Assembly Lo cal Government and referred to Assembly Elections Committee Agenda Item 80 — Attachment 6 270 Legislation/ Auth or Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption ACA 14 Steinberg Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local special taxes for either general infrastructure needs or specified housing, open space and neighborhood enhancement projects. Passed- Assembly Local Government and referred to Assembly Elections Committee _ SB 87 Hollingsworth Would relinquish part of State Route 79 to the City of Temecula. Passed Senate 40-0 Staff Recommends: SUPPORT 6/10/03 SB 234 011er Allows persons with disabilities driving a vehicle with a disabled placard or license plate to use an HOV lane regardless of the occupancy of the vehicle. Failed Assembly Transportation SB 380 McClintock and Murray Requires Caltrans to evaluate and establish standards for all existing HOV lanes in accordance with specified criteria. Furthermore Caltrans would be required to conduct a traffic model study comparing the alternatives of establishing an HOV lane, establishing a HOT Lane, adding a mixed flow lane or not doing anything at all when considering new HOV Lanes. Passed Senate Transportation Committee and is now Senate Appropriations Suspense File. SB 427 Dunn Spot bill regarding Caltrans procedure when acquiring homes for highway projects. The final text and intent of this bill has yet to be determined. No action taken SB 541 Torlakson Indexes the state gas tax to ensure that it increases with inflation . Failed passage in Senate Transportation. Reconsideration has been granted. SB 585 Soto States need for statewide general obligation bond for impacts of freight movement. No dollar figure or details on eligible expenditures have been included. (Spot bill) No action taken SB 701 Florez Authorizes the sale of State General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $4.55 billion for air pollution reduction and control efforts which would include reducing emissions from farming, purchasing clean fuel v ehicles, advancing propane technology, and biomass to energy programs. If approved, it would go to state voters in March 2004. Referred to Senate Environmental Quality Committee SB 708 Florez Makes changes to the California Smog Check program which would expand the repair assistance program and increase the fine for unlawful motor vehicle exhaust. _ Passed Senate Transportation Committee and referred to Appropriations and Judiciary Committees Agenda It 30 — Attachment 6 Legislat°- ,/ Auth Description Bill Status P ositi on DP`s of Board option SB 795 Karnette Allows Service Authorities for Freeway Emergencies (S AFES) to use excess call box revenues to operate the Freeway Service Patrol Passed Senate Transportation Committee and referred to Appr opriations SB 957 McClintock Authorizes the Governor to declare a "traffic congestion emergency" and requires Caltrans to prepare a report on transportation delay Failed Senate Transportation, reconsideration granted. WATCH 5/14/03 SB 981 Soto and Romero Imposes a 40 cent per barrel fee on oil refined in California to pay for air quality programs Passed Senate En vironmental Quality Committee and referred to Senate Re venue and Taxation SCA 2 Torlakson Would lower the threshold on half -cent sales tax measures to a simple majority but would require that at least 25 percent of the revenues be spent on "smart growth planning." Passed Senate Transportation and Constitutional Amendments Committees . SEEK AMENDMENTS SCA 7 Murray Would require that all loans made to the General Fund from transportation sources such as the STIP be repaid with interest Senate Appropriations — Hearing date pending SUPPORT 5/14/03 Agenda Item 80 — Attachment 6 272 AGENDA ITEM 8P RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: i June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs "Committee as a Whole" John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 91 Project Plan Per AB 1010 PLANS AND PROGRAMS "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Draft State Route 91 Project Plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Assembly Bill 1010 (Correa), which was signed by Governor Davis last year, enabled the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to purchase the 91 Express Lanes from the privately held California Private Transportation Company (CPTC). The main purpose of the legislation was to affect a change to public agency ownership of the toll roads that would eliminate a non -competition clause that prevented improvements to the public non -toll portions of State Route 91. The non -compete area extended far beyond the boundaries of the toll facility to encompass an area that reached all the way to 1-15 in Corona. The elimination of the non -compete clause would then free Caltrans, RCTC, and OCTA to be able to pursue a number of transportation improvements along the corridor. As part of the AB 1010 legislation, OCTA is required to adopt a plan of improvements for the State Route 91 area. Legislators inserted the language in order to ensure that the change in ownership would actually result in action to improve the highway. Another concern was how toll road revenues would be spent. The legislation severely limits how toll revenues can be spent to the payment of debt service on the acquisition and on needed transportation improvements along the freeway corridor. By requiring a plan, the Legislature would be assured of a publicly adopted list of improvements that could possibly be funded through the toll revenues. Agenda Item 8P 273 The legislation requiring the plan is quite clear in that it mandates OCTA to adopt the plan and to work cooperatively with RCTC and Caltrans in developing the plan. Yet another entity overseeing the plan is the bi-county State Route 91 Advisory Committee that was created by AB 1010 and is comprised of representatives of RCTC and OCTA, as well as Caltrans and an ex -officio member from SANBAG. The very first work toward identifying potential projects was completed as a joint effort by Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 and resulted in the completion of an Alternatives Analysis that was presented to the Commission in February. OCTA has sought to refine this information and complete a more comprehensive plan and retained the services of a URS, a nationally -recognized engineering firm. URS' Project Manager Doug Smith will provide an oral presentation of the plan process and results for this meeting. Adoption of the plan by the Commission is not required by law, but staff has brought the item to the Committee and the entire Commission because of its importance and impact on the county's transportation network. ADDITIONAL PROGRESS ON THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR In April, the California Transportation Commission approved $4.94 million in funding to add a westbound travel lane on State Route 91 between the Riverside County Line and the State Route 241 toll road. Adding this previously "dropped" lane will benefit westbound travelers from Riverside County. Caltrans is also working to extend the benefit of this project all the way to Green River Road. What is proposed is a re -striping that would change the configuration of the double HOV Lanes and ease congestion at this crowded chokepoint. A groundbreaking for the entire project is planned for late June when the project is expected to begin construction. STATE ROUTE 91 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES The State Route 91 Advisory Committee has met monthly since January and has proven to be an effective forum for discussion of transportation issues between elected officials in Riverside and Orange County. RCTC's representatives on the Committee include Chairman Ron Roberts, Corona Councilman Jeff Miller, Lake Elsinore Councilman Robert Schiffner and Supervisors Bob Buster and John Tavaglione (who was elected as the Vice Chairman of the Advisory Committee). Riverside City Councilman Ameal Moore serves as an alternate. The main issue that confronted the Advisory Committee during its first few meetings was the issue of whether or not to allow carpools of three or more to travel for free in the Express Lanes. This provision was included in the original franchise with the state but has transitioned to a half-price policy because the toll Agenda Item 8P 274 road's revenues fell short of necessary debt coverage. During the effort to approve AB 1010 a number of OCTA Board Members indicated support for eliminating the HOV fee for carpools of three or more and some, including OCTA Chairman Tim Keenan voiced their support. However, a presentation was made to the Advisory Committee that indicated potential concerns with the impact that allowing free carpools might have on the flow of the Express Lanes. Of particular concern was the impact that it might have on the eastbound early evening rush hour. After a delay to allow for additional information the Advisory Committee approved a suggestion to allow carpools of three or more to use the Express Lanes for free at all times with the exception of 4:00 — 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. This action was approved by the OCTA Board of Directors in April and began taking effect on May 19. During those two hours on weeknights, carpools will continue to be able to travel for half of the posted toll. The Advisory Committee will continue to meet on a regular basis and will have significant involvement with efforts to study a new transportation corridor between the two counties. While the Committee is only advisory, the level of communication between the two counties has been productive and has the potential for aiding consensus on future transportation policy matters. Agenda Item 8P 275 AGENDA ITEM 8Q RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Program "Committee as a Whole" Karen Leland, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of April averaged 4,095, a 6% decrease from the month of March. The Line has averaged an overall decrease of 9% from a year ago April 2002. April on -time performance averaged 92% inbound (-5% from March) and 98% outbound (+17% from March). Inland Empire -Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of April averaged 3,499, a 2% increase from the month of March. The line has averaged an overall increase of 25% from a year ago April 2002. April on -time performance averaged 81% inbound (-6% from March) and 86% outbound (-4% from March). Agenda Item 8Q 276 91 Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metroiink's 91 Line for the month of April averaged 1,678, a 3% increase from the month of March. The Line has averaged an increase of 1,439% from a year ago April 2002 due to the addition of peak - period service on the 91 Line in May 2002. April on -time performance averaged 82% inbound (-3% from March) and 82% outbound (-8% from March). Rideshare 2 Rails (R2R) Program Rideshare ffin111111.S Rideshare Incentives: As of April 30th active enrollment totaled 165 (Riverside -Downtown 49, Pedley 11, La Sierra 36, West Corona 21, North Main Corona 48), freeing up 83 spaces for new riders. RTA Express Bus Shutt/e: Ridership for the month of April averaged 21 one-way trips per day, a 1% increase from the month of March. Station Activities La Sierra Metrolink Station: On April 21St, 130 spaces were opened to Metrolink passengers. The shuttle service provided by RTA from the AMF Bowling Center to the Metrolink station was discontinued on Friday, April 18th, and the parking spaces at the Bowling Alley have been restored to original status. North Main Corona Station — "Welcome to Our Neighborhood" Demonstration Project: During the months of February, March and April, six local businesses offered discounts to Metrolink passengers who board at the station. In exchange, these businesses were supplied with train schedules at their locations and have been designated as Station Community Partners. Approximately 1,200 coupon booklets containing discounts were distributed to Metrolink passengers at North Main Corona. The results of the promotion are as follows: # of Coupons Redeemed Neighborhood Partner Feb Mar Apr Total Burger King .50 Off Coupon 17 _ 17 1.00 Off Coupon 41 41 Lamppost Pizza 37 37 Main Street Brewery 18 18 Fender Museum 50 50 Jitterccinos 3 7 10 A-1 Transmission 0 0 0 0 Total Coupons 166 7 0 173 % of Total Distributed Agenda Item 8Q 277 14% As indicated, coupons for Burger King, Lamppost Pizza, and the Main Street Brewery were good through February 28, 2003. Coupons for Jittercinnos and A- 1 Transmission were good through March and April respectively. Since there were no coupons redeemed at A-1 Transmission, RCTC inserted into the Spring 2003 edition of Station Update approximately 450 coupons good towards a discount on a smog check. In addition to the 50 coupons redeemed, the Fender Museum also held a drawing for a free Fender guitar. RCTC Metrolink Station Daily Activities: Daily activities are recorded by station security guards. Attached is summary data covering April 2003. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Performance Summaries - April 2003 2) RCTC Metrolink Stations Daily Activity Report - April 2003 Agenda Item 8Q 278 METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES April 2003 11►V111 METROLINK � C METR SINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS 38,000 36,000 Jul -02 Aug -02 Sep -02 Oct -02 Nov -02 Dec -02 33,708 Jan -03 34,988 Feb -03 35,472 Mar -03 Apr -03 QS= Ha1'cd}, +Unadj Avg 2 AOR .xIs PERCENT PASSENGERS ON -TIME vs TRAINS ON -TIME * 100.0% 95.0% -- 90. 0% — 85,0% - 80. 0% Ap 02 May * Within 5 -Minutes Of Schedule Include s Weekend Service Jr� Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov ❑ Passen ger O TP% 17 Train OTP% I Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 03 3 METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) 96% 95% 94% 96 % 94% 96 % 93% 95% 92 % 92% Apr 02 May 02 Jun 02 Jul 02 Aug 02 Sep 02 Oct 02 Nov 02 Dec 02 Jan 03 Feb 03 Mar 03 Apr 03 ®% Arriving Within 5 -Minutes Of Scheduled Time I 282 4 OT-13MoNew % of Train Delays By Responsibility April 2003 Other 6% OP Agree 2% 1ncEudes Weekend Service SCRIW-Contractor 6% 4% UPRR Vandalism 4% 2% Mechanical 9% 67% SIG -Contractor 8% SCRRA 9% Includes Weekend Serv ice 6% % of Train Delays By Responsibility 12 Month Period Ending April 2003 Vandalism 4% 2% Mechanical 10% BNSF 38% PERFORMANCE CHARTS - BACK-UP 11 � 11METROLINK METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKD AY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED ROUTE _ Ventura Co my Antel e Valley San .1 BBarnar4inc Burbank ''- Turns Riverside Orange County lnl Emp OC R„ iFu;ll# IA 'TOTAL SYSTEM .'Vs ,f .. Cr ange tiOr:MO Apr 02 3,441 4,913 10,124 507 4,524 5,848 2,791 109 32,257 -3% May 02 3,565 5,597 10,039 525 4,288 5,794 2,916 847 33,571 4% Jun 02 3,781 5,694 10,286 533 4,202 5,651 2,982 1,165 34,294 2% Jul 02 3,664 5,840 9,817 510 4,159 5,519 2,958 1,292 33,7591 -2% Aug 02 3,506 5,694 9,688 524 4,047 5,556 3,092 1,378 33,485 -1% Sep 02 3,689 5,495 10,141 531_ 4,222 5,432 3,053 1,546 34,109 2% Oct 02 3,770 5,704 10,328 541 4,380 5,465 3,140 1,584 34,912 2% Nov 02 3,759 6,011 10,411 532 4,444 5,372 3,139 1,492 35,160 1% Dec 02 3,402 5,437 9,516 497 4,031 4,802 2,730 1,617 32,032 -9% Jan 03 3,673 5,253 10,112 536 4,393 5,148 2,997 1,596 33,708 5% Feb 03 3,727 5,370 10,248 _ 551 4,559 5,540 3,360 1,633 34,988 4% Mar 03 3,919 5,384 10,546 553 4,377 5,655 3,414, 1,624 35,472 1 Apr 03 3,880 5,584 10,652 598 4,095 5,599 3,499 1,678 35,585 0% % Change Apr 03 vs Mar 03 -1% 4% 1% _ 8% -6% -1% 2% 3%L 0%� % Change Apr 03 vs Apr 02 13% 14% 5% 18% -9% -4% 25% 1439% 101 285 7 ADR Mo Table AVERAGE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY PASSHOLDERS ON A MTR AK THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW Apr -02 May -02 Jun -02 Jul -02 Aug -02 Sep -02 Oct -02 Nov -02 Dec -02 Jan -03 Feb -03 Mar -03 Apr -03 % Change Apr 03 vs Mar 03 W.r ekday < §attird ay 96 86 95 86 74 422 556 726 692 797 848 865 951 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 99 33 102 73 159 128 119 82 128 98 284 13i 199 19� 253 -37% 85 108 itifiekdgy 96 105 95 82 620 806 765 47 24 951 TLT A1-': Saturday Sunday (1) (1) (1) (1) 122 128 230 142 246 18 10 1059 271 (1) (1) (1) (1) 41 88 229 104 116 144 218 132 10% -39% 10% 27% 27% -62% -58% 11 % % Change ` Apr 03 vs Apr 02 891% (1) (1) 882% (1) (1) 890% (1) Prior to Rail 2 Rail, Amtrak Step-Up/No Step -Up program was only good on Amtrak weekday trains. (2) Rail 2 Rail program started September 1, 2002. (3) Missing data has been adjusted by using the lowest ridership count for the respective train, day of week and month. changevs prlor m onth 9f1da ltcia Sa urd ay Sunday (1) -10 % (1) 9% -10% -14% 473% 32% 30% -5% 16% 6% 2% 11 % (1) (1) (1) (1) 5% 80% -38% 10 % (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 115% 160 % -55% 12% 24% 51% -39 % _J 8 pert summ-Rail 2 Ralt5/6/2003 METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS INCEPTION TO DATE 39,000 FY 02/03 36,000 - 33,000 30,000 - 27,000 - 24,000 0 —Q 21,000 - 15,000 } 12,000 9,000 6,000 C.1 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Apr May Jun Mar FY 01/02 FY 00/01 '`4fy 99/00 FY 97/98 FY 96/97 FY 95/96 X FY 94/95 FY 93/94 Zqi ADR MoNew.xls San Bernardino Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips A vg Daily Riders 3500 '' 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 'Note: Sept Includes LA County Fair Riders) San Bernardino Line Sunday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Avg Daily Riders 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 600 Note: Sunday Service Began 06!25100 Apr -02 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr -03 In Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service A verage Daily Passenger Trips 2500 a) ce 2000 p 1500 rn Q 1000 Apr -02 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr -03 289 11 METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY Per centage of Trains Arrivi ng Withi n 5 Minutes of Schedul ed Time LATEST 13 MONTHS touto �? ant t V u... to ' n- : t � >��#,Y Out rife 'Valle . /�Ia�e.. . �' Irk Out -$ r': ar irti ;: � n d c� :. I Cut .13-.,�bah � _ � In ° r' �.. ,.�s Out R21ver i e .. : d ` ;try Cut : ran :` CoLlnt � .. 9f� , .�1� IA '= Out' nd E : 1 E" rnp � So • .No:,,: RhWF i J . I t.�, In Out T :. I to �� � to tcl hilt TottI -`. 1,pr02 99% 100% 97% 93% 98% 95% 100 % 99% 94 % 98% 91 % 96% 97% 94% 95% 95% 96% 96% 9E% vlay 02_ 99% 97% 98% 98% 97% 96% 100% 98 % 96% 92% 89 % 87 % 87% 92% 87% 83% _ 95% 94% 94% lun 02 99% 98% 98% 99% 98% 96% 99% 97% 95% 97% 93% 96% 94% 90% 95 % 90% 97% 96% 96% Jul 02 99% 99% 98% 95% 98% 99 % 100 % 99%, 99% 96% 91 % 95% 93% 90 % 92% 92% 97% 96 % 96% 4ug 02 100% 97% 99% 96%' 96% 91 % 100 % 99% 97% 95% 89% 91% 92% 90%, 91% 90% 96 % 94 % 95 % Sep 02 _ 98% 99% 95% 94%I 94% 91% 98 % 98% 96 % 98% 85% 92 % 94 % 84°/a 89% 92%' 94% 93% 94% Dct 02 99% 98% 99% 99% 96% 95% 98% 95% 95°Jo 96 % 92 % 96 % 93% 93% 92% 96% 96% 96% 96 % Jov 02 98% 97% 98% 97% 94% 84% 100% 99 % 97% 98% 88°/6 89 % 92% 95% 86 % 94% 94% 93% 94% Dec 02 98% 97% 98% 97% 97% 91% 99% 100% 97% 97% 96% 97% 90% 93% 93 % 96% 96% 95% 96% Jan 03 99% 98% 89% 89% 95% 85% 97% 97% 93% 97% 94% 97 % 90 % 89 % 92% 98% 94 % 93% 93 % Feb 03 97% 96% 95% 92% 95% 95% 100% 96% 95 % 91% 96% 93 % 93 % 93% 91% 92% 95% 94 % 95% Mar03 97% 99% 88% 92% 94% 94% 99% 97% 97% 81% 87% 93% 87% 90% 85% 90% 92% 93% 92% 4pr 03 98% 97% 96% 97% 97% 94% 99% 99% 92% 98% 76 % 85% 81 % 86% 82 % 82% 91% 93% 92% 'eak Perio d Trains A rriving Within 5 Minu tes of Schedu led Time 1pr03 ea k Period Trains 99% 99% Avt itte SIZB_:rsuge>. 96% 95%, 99% 93% Uit Tur: s ; Fib/: Route Ow..Route iixi mpiO Route 100% 99% 92% 99% 75 % 86% 74% 83% 'Fttt:'i ibi€ tst>Outbd 82% 86% 89% 93% 91 % Jo adjustments have been made for relievable delays. ' erminated trains are considered OT if they were on -time at point of termination. Annulled trains are not included in the on -time calculation. tiverside route OTP represents on -time performance against schedules temporarily modified for the UPRR tie replacement program. O TP against regular schedule is 73% inbound, and 85% outbcund. s- 12 OT•13MoNew CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS APRIL 2003 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CAUSE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INLJOC R/F/L TOTAL % of TOT Signals/Detectors 1 0 5 0 1 4 4 1 16 7% Slow Orders/MOW 0 1 2 0 0 0 5 1 9 4% Track/Switch 0 0 1 0 3 1 3 0 8 3% Dispatching 1 0 2 0 7 62 24 31 127 54% Mechanical 1 2 15 0 0 2 0 1 21 9% Freight Train 2 .1 1 0 0 2 0 1 7 3% Amtrak Train 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 5 2% Metrolink Meet/Turn 0 10 1 1 0 1 1 0 14 6% Vandalism 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 2% Passenger(s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% SCRRA Hold Policy 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 3% Other 1 0 3 0 1 9 5 1 20 8% TOTAL 11 18 31 2 13 83 43 36 237 100% Saturday SNB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saturday AVL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sunday SNB 1 0 0 0 0 OI 0 1 0 4 6 2g1 0304CAUS FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION APRIL 2003 MINUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL TOTAL % of TOT NO DELAY 403 414 515 226 221 278 187 130 2374 79.2% 1 MIN - 5 MIN 26 96 114 14 12 59 34 32 387 12 .9% 6MIN -10 MIN 7 8 14 2 5 34 16 10 96 3 .2% 11 MIN - 20 MIN 3 8 7 0 6 38 17 13 92 3.1% 21 MIN - 30 MIN 1 1 5 0 1 5 4 9 26 0.9%'' GREATER THAN 30 MIN 0 1 5 0 1 6 6 4 23 0.8% ANNULLED 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 0 19 0.6% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD 440 528 660 242 246 420 264 198 2998 100 % TRAINS DELAYED >0 min 37 114 145 16 25 142 77 68 624 20.8% TRAINS DELAYED > 5 min 11 18 31 2 13 83 43 36 237 7 .9% 14 0304FREQ n+iti n,rrr.,. 1 - Standard Procedures 1 A - RCTC Staff on Site 1B - Customer Assistance 1C - Ambassador on Site 2 - Criminal Incidents 2D - Criminal Behavior 4 - Maintenance/Repairs 4B - TVM / Validator Machine 4C - Elevator 4D - Station Cleaning 4E - Landscaping 4F - Dumpster/Porta Potti 5 - Miscellaneous 5A - Miscellaneous Activity 6 - Parked Overnight * 6A - Parked Ovemight 7 - Overflow * 7A - Veh. In Overflow 9 - Empty Spaces * 9A - Empty Spaces 91 - R2R Vehicles 91A - R2R Vehicles 92 - Vehicles Parked • 92A - Vehicles Parked Daily Activity Report Metrolink Stations Generated from 4/1/2003 to 4/30/2003 Riverside Pedlev La Sierra W. Corona 2 13 17 0 12 15 2 13 2 0 13 0 N Corona Total 1 5 13 64 3 37 Total 32 27 17 O 0 Total 1 3 0 4 7 1 0 0 2 2 O 0 3 3 6 1 4 1 13 17 106 Total 15 15 7 4 O 14 Total 4 0 24 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 11 1 0 1 4 2 16 4 0 18 2 0 8 13 4 54 2 2 22 14 2 11 5 Total 24 2 0 0 11 5 58 0 2 6 22 48 6 0 48 58 Total 0 0 79 0 58 0 0 292 0 0 58 371 Total 79 0 9 1 0 292 8 1 0 7 371 26 Total 9 1 33 0 8 1 0 0 7 409 26 442 Total 33 0 0 0 409 442 * Value is averaged over the data entry days 293 Friday, May 09, 2003 palfaggl 14-aurpfo rmeiou C ummIa3Io,, Riverside - Downt own Activity Detail Report Metrolink Stati ons Date Time Activity Log # Description Activity Type Activity Subtype # Vehicl es 4/7/2003 6:07pm 68277 2 vehicles were broken into 2 - Criminal Incid ents 2D - Criminal Behavior 0 srce��ar rern-.-,nrni : r--. :;; :i .-c�.��::: •:-i� ra�•.y �.�,r.-:�-•:':.. .,,;r +• •r• MMC S==77. z-.+^acmWMFz:gas-ac+.r- . M+r.- c±cxOniellr 754WC:::s:�� I7=7T01=15s,747A7 7-arr:. ;-:•,� :� ar =. Friday, May 09, 2003 Page 1 of I L� r AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs "Committee as a Whole" Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Reconsideration of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore CETAP Corridor PLANS AND PROGRAMS "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve acceleration of the CETAP internal east -west corridor work to a project level environmental document; 2) Direct staff to seek federal legislation identifying the CETAP internal east -west corridor as Ramona/Cajalco, south of Lake Mathews; and, 3) Direct staff to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan including details on budget, schedule, and implementation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) began almost four years ago as part of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). When the RCIP began in 1999, it was undertaken as a way to expedite the construction of infrastructure improvements while being cognizant of the importance of quality of life issues for our residents, including open space and conservation of the environment. The RCTC, as the transportation planning agency for the county, was charged with identifying the locations for four new multi -modal transportation facilities under the process known as CETAP. The four priority corridors currently under study are Winchester to Temecula, Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County and Riverside County to Orange County. This agenda item will focus on the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (HCLE). A draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/REIR) is currently being prepared for the HCLE corridor. Ten alternative alignments are being considered with the alignments generally grouped Agenda Item 9 295 along Ramona/Cajalco/EI Sobrante in the north and along SR 74 in the southern portion of the study area (14 alternatives were considered in the draft environmental documents; four were dropped prior to the start of the SEIS/REIR preparation). A total of seven public hearings were held to receive public comments on the draft environmental documents and proposed alternatives. Through those hearings, as well as continued public comment received after the formal close of the comment period, much focus has been placed on the alternatives along Ramona/Cajalco/EI Sobrante. In particular, RCTC has received numerous requests for consideration of an alignment south of Lake Mathews. Currently there are four alternatives which travel along Cajalco (la, 1 b, H1 and H3). The alternative which traversed south of Lake Mathews was actually removed from consideration by the Commission very early in the CETAP alternatives analysis process (June 2000) due to potential conflicts with the existing Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Reserve, which covers much of the area just east and south of Lake Mathews. Subsequent to that alternative being eliminated, substantial biological analysis and transportation studies have been completed and public comment received for the 14 alternatives that were studied in the Draft EIR/EIS for the HCLE Corridor. Our reports have always noted that the alternatives which provide the greatest transportation benefit are those grouped along Ramona/Cajalco. However, staff has continued to have concerns with the engineering challenges of constructing a large transportation facility along the north side of the Lake Mathews dam. Additionally, we have heard many community concerns regarding construction of a major transportation facility north of the lake and the potential adverse impact it would have on area residents, including displacement of many new residences in this area. The public and local jurisdictions have expressed support for transportation improvements, but recommend they be done south of Lake Mathews. The requirements of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan must be recognized; its Implementation Agreement provides for transportation improvements as long as there is acquisition of occupied SKR habitat to replace disturbed habitat. Back in early 2000, when the RCIP was in its infancy, improvements to Cajalco through the SKR Reserve were thought to be absolutely out of the question. Given the work on the MSHCP and the significant reserve structure that will be formed, additional transportation improvements through this reserve beyond those currently permitted appear to be possible. Staff has been exploring options to determine how best to respond to requests from the public and our member agencies to consider an alternative south of Lake Mathews. If we were to introduce a new alternative into the environmental process at this point for a Tier 1 analysis, the federal NEPA/404 process would require that the new alternative be analyzed at the same level as the other 10 alternatives. This would require an extension to our current schedule (from Agenda Item 9 296 February 2004 to at least February 2005) and an estimated additional $ 1 .5M to complete the analysis. Additionally, while this alternative could be added if we have the support of our partner federal agencies (Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife, and the Army Corps of Engineers), there would be no guarantee that this new alternative would be selected as the preferred alternative for right of way preservation in this Tier 1 environmental process. As you will recall, in order to be eligible for future federal dollars for construction, the federal agencies must concur with the preferred alternative. As mentioned earlier, the original reason for CETAP was to expedite the construction of transportation corridors. The Tier 1 process was undertaken to identify needed right of way until funding and support was available for future completion of a Tier 2, project level environmental document. Through the public hearing process we heard a great deal of testimony stating that we have significant transportation problems that need fixing today, not 10-20 years from now. The Ramona/Cajalco corridor was identified in our transportation modeling as the corridor that would provide the greatest transportation benefits, and support for improvements along that corridor has been voiced by the public and a number of local jurisdictions. Given the need to make transportation improvements sooner versus later, coupled with RCTC's recent reauthorization of Measure A which identifies some future funding for the CETAP corridors and the Western County's initiation of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) which includes improvements to Ramona/Cajalco, staff is recommending an acceleration of the CETAP process right into a project level NEPA document. Congressman Calvert has expressed support for sponsoring federal legislation which would identify the Ramona/Cajalco alignment, south of the lake, as the CETAP east -west corridor. This would mean the other 10 alternatives would no longer be considered under CETAP and work on the east -west corridor would focus solely on the new alignment. Legislation would be helpful in concentrating the work of the Federal Resource Agencies on the Ramona/Cajalco alignment south of the lake as we move forward on development of a project level environmental document. Currently, this alternative is not identified as a Covered Activity under the draft MSHCP. We must work closely with the County and Resource Agencies to develop language for inclusion in the proposed plan which would outline requirements for coverage of this alternative and/or recognize plans for a future plan amendment. Additionally, an action plan including details on budget, schedule and implementation will be developed and presented for the Commission's consideration in the new few months. Agenda Item 9 297 CETAP has long been a model for environmental streamlining, and as such, has received recognition under President Bush's Executive Order 13274 for Environmental Stewardship and Transportation inirasiructure Project Reviews. The work completed to date on CETAP for the east -west corridor has been very helpful in identifying the location for much needed transportation improvements. We believe this recommendation to accelerate into a project level document is consistent with the original goal of CETAP and the President's Executive Order --to construct needed transportation corridors in an expedited fashion, while balancing the needs of the community and environment. Agenda Item 9 298 ,06109/2003 06:19 FAX 02 AGENDA ITEM 9 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE DEDICATED TO ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE LAND USE June 8, 2003 EHL The Hon. Ron Roberts, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 RE: Agenda lltun 9, Hearing Date June 11, 2003: RECONSIDERATION OF THE HEMET TO CC A/LAKE ELSINCI E CCRRIDOR Dear Chairman Roberts and Commissioners: This agenda item would more forward the LHIAP east -west internal corridor as Ramona/Cajalco, n111ning south of Lake Mathews, as a project level environmental document. Staff would be directed to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan including details on budget, schedule, and implementation. As you know, the south of Lake Mathews route would bisect an existing multiple species reserve — lands that are mitigation for other impacts, including lands that secure regional permits for take of the Stephens' kangaroo rat. This is a precedent -setting endeavor, and prone to controversy. According the draft Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), additional land, beyond the MSHCP, will be required as mitigation, presumably to expand the 1 k Mathews reserve and thereby compensate for the impacts of fragmentation. The Endangered Habitats League is concerned that, given the pace of development and subdivision approvals, opportunities for meaningful and adequate mitigation will be rapidly foreclosed. Even if not foreclosed, the cost of acquisition could easily multiply by the time environmental documents are completed. Such outcomes could jeopardize construction of the corridor. For this reason, we urge you to get out ahead of the issue, and look toward proactive and cost-effective mitigation banking. Thus, as part of your direction to staff at this time, we urge that the action plan include provisions that, to the extent possible, proactively identify and implement mitigation opportunities. Early consultation with the wildlife agencies, as well as input from the CETAP Advisory Committee and the private sector, such as land trusts, would be a helpful part of this process. We look forward to continuing to work with you on environmentally sound solutions. Sincerely, Dan Silver, MD Executive Director cc: Eric Haley, Executive Director Board of Supervisors Interested parties 8424-A SANTA MoMicA BLVD_. #592, Los ANGELES, CA 90069-4267 • WWW EHLEAGUE_ORG • PHONE 213.8042750 4 FAx 323.654.1931 REVISED AGENDA ITEM 10 Changes are Highlighted RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: San Jacinto Branch Line Ad Hoc Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Locally Preferred Transit Alternative for the I-215/San Jacinto Branch Line (Riverside to Romoland) Corridor SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt "Alternative E: Commuter Rail with New Connection to Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead at Rustin Avenue" as the Locally Preferred Transit Alternative for the San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor; and, 2) Direct staff to explore acquisition of additional right-of-way for a future Highgrove Station to serve the Inland Empire -Orange County Line. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor is approximately 20 miles long with a width of approximately 2 miles. The corridor begins in the City of Perris where it generally follows the 1-215 freeway and the San Jacinto Branch Line north through Moreno Valley to the City of Highgrove and then southwest toward downtown Riverside. The 1-215 Freeway is one of the most congested roadways in the region and travels through the heart of the study corridor providing the only existing option for travelers along the 1-215 corridor between the City of Perris and downtown Riverside. The San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor Alternatives Analysis Study effort has identified improved and cost-effective transit options that minimize adverse environmental impacts and improve travel times within the study corridor. As a result of the Analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires that a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) be selected for the San Jacinto Branch Line/ 1-215 Corridor. The selection of the LPA is the result of an 18 -month long process of evaluating transit alternatives to address the existing and forecasted Agenda Item 10 transportation deficiencies in the corridor. With the aid of public involvement, these transportation alternatives include the no -build, improved/express bus, and commuter rail. A presentation by the consultant team, STV, Inc, will be made to the Ad Hoc Committee that outlines the evaluation results of the following alternatives: Alternative A: No Build Alternative B: Transportation System Management/Express Bus Alternative C: Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative D: Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative E: Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue Public Involvement A Technical Advisory Committee was convened early in the study to review and comment on the technical work performed by STV, the project consultant. The Committee has met with the consultant and staff on two occasions during the course of the study. The Committee is comprised of the following representatives: • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) • Caltrans, District 8 • City of Moreno Valley • City of Perris • City of Riverside • March Joint Powers Authority • Metrolink • Riverside Transit Agency • Southern California Association of Governments • University of California at Riverside In addition to the formal committee meetings, staff has had additional meetings with representatives from BNSF, the City of Riverside, March Joint Powers Authority, and Metrolink. A total of six public meetings were held for the SJBL/I-215 Corridor Study in Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris. The first series of three meetings, held, in the evening, once in each city in February 2002, were informative about the project in general and the planning process. An identical format was used at each of these public meetings. The agenda called for presentations and displays of information regarding the corridor and the alternatives of the study. An informal question and answer session and group discussions followed the presentation. Participants were Agenda Item 10 also encouraged to provide written comments on surveys that were distributed at the meetings. Comments from the first series of meetings indicated that commuter rail was a favorable alternative, although some participants were interested in seeing transit improvements to all modes. A recurring environmental concern was the need to improve air quality. Noise impacts of potential improvements were also cited by some participants. The second series of three meetings, again held, in the evening, once in each city, occurred last month. These meetings presented the results of the evaluation of the alternatives and the staff recommended alternative. Participants were also encouraged to provide written comments on surveys that were distributed at the meetings. The alternatives evaluated have advantages and disadvantages associated with each improvement to the existing conditions within the study area. However, based on the evaluation of alternatives and input from the public, staff is recommending that the Ad Hoc Committee select Alternative E as the LPA for this Corridor. Alternative E provides the best opportunity to implement a quality transit alternative within the corridor that serves the needs and goals of the study, and one that is not impeded by either highway/roadway congestion or railroad access and operational issues. In particular, it should be noted that Alternative E provides the least amount of negative impact related to the need for grade separations as the proposed rail lines for Alternative E currently have no more than two trains/day operating on the lines. The new Metrolink service proposed would only increase the number of trains/day to ten; a small number in comparison to Alternatives C&D which would increase the number of trains/day to 95 in the segment between Highgrove and Riverside. Additional Consideration Comments from the second series of meetings indicated that Alternative E: Commuter Rail with new connection on the Union Pacific rail line was favored. However, citizens representing the area of Highgrove expressed a preference for Alternative C: Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback primarily because the alternative identified a potential station in Highgrove. After careful evaluation, Alternative C is not a cost-effective project, principally because the turnback at Highgrove adds a minimum 10 -minute delay penalty to the train trip. However, a potential station at Highgrove has always been envisioned Agenda Item 10 by RCTC as part of the current Inland Empire -Orange County Line (IEOC) service. Today, RCTC owns 1.4 acres of land in Highgrove; an insufficient amount of right- of-way for a future station. Therefore, staff is also recommending that the Commission direct to staff to explore the acquisition of additional right-of-way for a future Highgrove Station to serve the IEOC service. Attachment: Executive Summary of San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis Agenda Item 10 SAN JACINTO BRANCHLINE/I-215 CORRIDOR STUDY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT - JUNE 11, 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Riverside County Transportation Commission STV Incorporated EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — June 11th, 2003 Alternatives Analysis Report INTRODUCTION The San Jacinto Branchline (SJBL) / I-215 Corridor Study is being sponsored by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). RCTC is Riverside County's primary transportation agency charged by state law with the responsibility of planning and funding transportation improvements. The SJBL / I-215 Corridor Study was undertaken to examine possible solutions to the reduced mobility of residents in western Riverside County resulting from increasing levels of highway congestion. This study represents the Alternatives Analysis (AA) component of an overall project development process. AA is the process for reaching a broad consensus on exactly what type of improvement(s) best meet locally defined goals and objectives for a specified study area. Contained in another document, but also an important component of this study, is an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the transportation alternatives reviewed. An EA examines and documents the expected environmental impacts (e.g. natural resources, wetlands, land use) of the proposed transportation alternatives for the defined study area and details any necessary mitigations. The procedures followed by the SJBL / I- 215 Corridor Study ensures that this report ultimately advocates a transportation solution that is accepted by the general public, will be adopted into plans and budgets by the RCTC and the regional Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and is compliant with local, state, and federal guidelines and procedures. The study area for this project is a transportation corridor located in western Riverside County, part of the Inland Empire region of Southern California. The corridor extends approximately 19 miles southeast from the city of Riverside toward the cities of Perris and Romoland. The central transportation facilities in this corridor include a lightly used rail freight line, the SJBL, and I-215, a limited access freeway. Both the SJBL and I-215 run approximately parallel to one another for the length of the corridor. This study corridor is depicted in Exhibit 1. BACKGROUND Riverside County has a current population of over 1.6 million residents, with the vast majority living in the western portion of the county. Following decades of explosive population growth, by 2025 the population of Riverside County is projected to grow to 3 million. The region's existing freeway facilities have not been able to accommodate the growing trip volumes without experiencing extensive congestion, thus new transportation alternatives will be needed to accommodate the future growth. Currently, the major transportation facilities in the corridor, I-215 and SR60, are experiencing unsatisfactory levels of service, a measure based on factors such as travel times and speed, and evidenced by increasingly poor volume/capacity (V/C) ratios. These facilities are forecasted to continue with unsatisfactory levels of service even with programmed roadway improvements over the coming years, including additional lanes and the implementation of HOV lanes. With most major highways in the corridor having limited expansion potential, this study proposes public transit investments to accommodate current and future mobility needs. San Jacinto Branchline/ 1-215 Corridor Study 1 Exhibit 1: Study Area Map San Jacinto Branchline / I-2'15 Corridor Study Study Area BNSF Main Line San Bernardino RTAB TermIn9l MIX BLV' R RSID IG GROVE UP Riverside Industrial Lead OLEANnER AVE _ CA4JALCu Rn 1 RCTC San Jacin ROAD — AREA ANALYZED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL RAILROAD ASSESSMENT 0 1 2 3 4 Miles Riverside County Transportation Commission wn By: STV Incorporalod Source: SCAG N A o Branchline t ELLJS AVE San Bernardino County Riverside County ROPI©L..AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — June 11`h, 2003 Alternatives Analysis Report Transit operators in the corridor include the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). RTA provides bus service to western Riverside County, while SCRRA operates Metrolink commuter rail services throughout the Southern California Region. Three Metrolink routes serve the city of Riverside, operating on track owned by the region's two predominate railroad companies, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and the Union Pacific. The entire length of the SJBL, however, was purchased by RCTC from the predecessors of the BNSF in 1993. This presents a valuable opportunity to utilize the SJBL for an extension of the existing commuter rail service into the study corridor, and the build alternatives documented in this report investigate variations of this concept. PURPOSE AND NEED The SJBL / I-215 corridor is in need of an improved transportation system independent of the ever growing and increasingly congested roadway system. The needs of the SJBL / I-215 corridor were developed through outreach to the public, affected communities, stakeholders and concerned individuals. The needs identified are listed below: • The Need to Reduce Roadway Congestion • The Need to Provide Transit Travel Options to Growing Population and Employment • The Need to Coordinate Transportation Planning and Community Development • The Need to Explore Under -Utilized Transportation Resources A set of goals and objectives has also been developed based upon these needs. Defining the project's goals and objectives is a key step in determining what is specifically desired from the project investment. The goals and objectives succinctly define the purpose for the project and how the transportation needs will be satisfied. The goals of the SJBL / I-215 Corridor Study are to: • Improve the Transportation System with Alternative Travel Choices • Promote Community/Transit Oriented Development • Minimize Adverse Environmental Impacts • Invest and Deploy Resources Effectively and Efficiently TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES Five alternatives were proposed, including a 'No Build', Transportation System Management (TSM), and three build scenarios. The No Build Alternative is used to illustrate conditions throughout the length of this study (present -2025) if no transportation improvements relating to this study are made. Programmed improvements for the corridor include the addition of HOV lanes along I-215 and SR 60. The TSM Alternative consists of low -capital improvements to existing transit facilities and services. The TSM alternative prepared for this study consists of an express bus service, primarily on I-215, between Perris and Downtown Riverside. This alternative, Alternative B, is proposed to have six new passenger stations within the SJBL / I-215 corridor and would provide access to two existing stations including the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station and the RTA Downtown Bus Terminal. Express bus service would reach the Downtown Metrolink station during peak periods such that connections San Jacinto Branchline/ 1-215 Corridor Study 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — June 11th, 2003 Alternatives Analysis Report to departing (AM), and arriving (PM) trains can be provided. Vehicles for express bus service would be regular fixed route 40 -foot buses or over -the -road coaches. As FTA guidelines require a TSM to provide the basis of comparison to the higher cost, high capital investment build alternatives, the express bus service represents the minimum investment that could be made to address the study needs. The study proposes three build alternatives, all of which consist of implementing commuter rail service between Perris and downtown Riverside via the San Jacinto Branchline right-of-way: • Alternative C — Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback • Alternative D — Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street • Alternative E — Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue Each alternative represents an extension of the Metrolink 91 Line, currently providing service from Riverside to Downtown Los Angeles via Fullerton. All alternatives propose four intermediate stations between Riverside and Perris. The differences among the three commuter rail alternatives include the various options to connect the SJBL to the BNSF mainline for service to the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. The initial service, to be implemented in 2008, would operate three trains from Perris to Riverside with continuing service to Los Angeles during the morning peak. In addition, two mid- day, off-peak trains would operate daily, one in each direction. In the afternoon peak, three trains would operate from Los Angeles to the city of Perris. The headways on the new service would be approximately 50 to 60 minutes during the peak periods. For all the alternatives, the new service will utilize diesel locomotives and bi-level commuter coaches and cab cars from the existing Metrolink fleet. Alternative C proposes an alignment that follows existing track and uses the connection to the BNSF at Highgrove. The existing connection would require trains to reverse direction at Highgrove and would also require additional train movements on the BNSF mainline into Riverside. The time needed to reverse the train, including a required Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) brake check, results in a significant delay. Also, it is important to note that the agreement for train movements between RCTC and BNSF does not allow for expansion, creating a constraint to adding more trains in future years as demand for the service grows. Alternative D proposes a new, curved connection track at Citrus Street between the SJBL and the BNSF mainline, thus negating the need for a turnback operation at Highgrove as required in Alternative C. This alternative would also utilize the BNSF mainline to access the Downtown Riverside Station, but the option of building a new track in the BNSF right-of-way could help to address the operating flexibility issues of running trains on track not owned by RCTC. Alternative E proposes a new connection track to the Union Pacific (UP) Riverside Industrial Lead (RIL) for an approach to Riverside along Massachusetts Avenue. The SJBL crosses this track approximately one mile south of Highgrove and the purchase of the UP RIL alignment would provide direct access into the Downtown Riverside Station. Detailed maps of Alternative E can be reviewed in Exhibit 2 - Exhibit 3. San Jacinto Branchline/ 1-215 Corridor Study 4 Exhibit 2: Alternative E - Overview Map San Jacinto Branchline /1-215 Corridor Study Alternative E: Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue Overview Map RTAB', Terminal Lining T f V RSID CF RST - H1G GROVE SPRUCE STATION UCRL9TATUON Z 4 ALESSANDRO STATION .._ ^\ OLEANDER AVE AJALCO RD POTENTIAL ROAD STATION �--� ALIGNMENT RAILROAD Connty Transportation l ralisportatiion Commission Fr .,-:Inc., •ot... Source: SOAO ALYPTUS AVE ONWOOD AVE 'SANDRO iiLVD MARCH AIR • RESERVE BASE ELLIS AVE MAPES RD San Bernardino County Riverside County MORENO VALLEY RRIS ramp ROMOLAN Exhibit 3: Alternative E - Detail Map San Jacinto Branchline /1-215 Corridor Study Alternative E: Approach to Riverside - Detail Map BNSF MainLine RCTC SJBL UP RIL PROPOSED NEW TRACK/ CONNECTION City of Riverside 1000 2000 3000 Feet Riverside C OMi'14 Truyrspartadon C vrr t, i. krn By: STV, Inc. Riverside 9 Metrolink Station 05/05/03 I New Connection 14ni'.•ewrgily A..tYo I_I11h�c Kin EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — June 11th, 2003 Alternatives Analysis Report RIDERSHIP AND COST FOR ALTERNATIVES The patronage forecasting for this study was performed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) utilizing the existing and approved SCAG regional travel demand model. The forecast year coincides with the latest SCAG Tong -range plan, which has a forecast year of 2025. The amount of riders each alternative is able to attract is determined by a comparison between the travel time for the alternative and the highway travel time between the same locations. The TSM / Express Bus alternative operates on I-215 and is therefore subjected to increasing highway congestion throughout the forecast years. Travel time for the commuter rail alternatives is independent of increasing highway congestion and remains constant from implementation until 2025. See Exhibit 4 for a comparison of travel time and ridership for each alternative. Exhibit 4: Alternative Travel Time and Ridership Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 2010 2025 2010 2025 2010 2025 2010 2025 Travel Time (Perris -Riverside) 45 min. 54 min. 42 min. 42 min. 35 min. 35 min. 33 min. 33 min. Daily Passenger Boardings 960 900 1,570 2,210 1,670 2,480 1,670 2,480 The operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the proposed alternatives and TSM improvements were determined, along with the capital costs for construction and upgrade of necessary facilities. The O&M costs for the TSM / Express Bus alternative are less than half of the cost for any of the rail services in both 2010 and 2025. A large reason for the lower costs is that there is no right-of-way to maintain since the express bus operates on highways. Despite lower O&M costs for Alternative B, the express bus service does not carry the same number of passengers as any of the rail services. Also, as the express bus is expected to lose 7% of its ridership by 2025, largely due to longer travel times on the increasingly congested highways, the cost to operate the service increases. The costs for the three build alternatives are nearly identical because the alternatives differ only slightly in terms of operation. These costs, as well as the capital costs are presented in Exhibit 5. The total capital expenditure associated with the TSM alternative is estimated to be approximately $7.3 million. Alternative C has a capital cost of $84.8 million, and is the least costly of the commuter rail alternatives because existing tracks and connections are utilized. Alternative D proposes a new connection to the BNSF and an additional track in the BNSF right-of-way. The total capital cost for this alternative, including these improvements is $99.7 million. Alternative E has a capital cost of $101.8 million and includes the purchase of the UP RIL and some property acquisitions needed for the connecting tracks. Since the RCTC owns the SJBL, no right-of-way costs for the alignment portions on the SJBL are included in the capital cost estimate. Instead, the majority of capital costs for the commuter rail improvements involve the upgrade and rehabilitation of the existing SJBL track for higher speeds, smoother rides, and safer passenger operation. San Jacinto Branchline/ 1-215 Corridor Study 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — June 11th, 2003 Alternatives Analysis Report Exhibit 5: Alternative Costs Costs in Thousands of Dollars Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 2010 2025 2010 2025 2010 2025 2010 2025 O&M Cost $1,971 $2,424 $5,474 $6,455 $5,288 $6,240 $5,012 $5,864 Capital Cost $7,252 $84,765 $99,733 $101,764 Notes: O&M Costs increase from 2010 to 2025 with service increases to meet increased ridership. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES The alternatives were evaluated based upon criteria that measured the ability of each transit solution to satisfy the goals of the study. A matrix was developed (see Exhibit 6) to score each alternative and compare alternatives with one another, based upon the following evaluation criteria: • Operational Issues • Railroad Access • Travel Time • Property Needs • Capital Costs • Operating Costs • Ridership • Environmental • Maximize Under-utilized Resources • Improve Travel Choices in the Corridor For Alternative B, while the capital cost was considerably lower, the performance of the alternative was deemed insufficient to meet the needs of commuters in the corridor. This is especially true in light of an estimated increase of travel time from 45 minutes in 2010 to 54 minutes in 2025 due to increasing congestion levels on the major highways and arterials used by the express bus service. The evaluation of Alternative C revealed operational issues resulting from a significant delay caused by the turnback movement in Highgrove. Also, the reliance on the BNSF mainline tracks to approach Riverside is governed by an agreement that currently does not permit sufficient commuter train movements to meet the passenger demand in the outer years. Operational issues for Alternative D were improved compared to Alternative C with the elimination of the turnback movement. However, the potential for impacts with BNSF freight operations still exist. The evaluation of Alternative E revealed that despite being the most costly alternative, the use of the RIL to provide direct access to the Downtown Riverside Station was an important asset. Travel time for Alternative E was also the shortest, at 33 minutes between Perris and Riverside. The evaluation results indicate that Alternative E provides the best opportunity to implement a quality transit alternative within the corridor that serves the needs and goals of the study, and one that is not impeded by either highway/roadway congestion or railroad access and operational issues. San Jacinto Branchline/ 1-215 Corridor Study 8 Exhibit 6: Evaluation Matrix for Alternatives Altern ative O perational Iss ues Railroad Access Iss ues Tr avel Tim e Prop erty Needs Capital Costs Operating Costs Ridership Envir onm ental (Pr eliminary) Improv e Tra vel Ch oices Ma ximize Under - Utilized Res ources Alternative B TSM / Express Bu s • Ope ratio n on casting highways and roadways such as 1-215 and University Avenue . subject re 0.lsnn9 an d fuse automobile congestion which will ne gative ly 0000 negativetravel times. D oes 001 travel on railroad lights -of -way resulting In no relmW n .-..-.., &ale:. 45 ani mates In 2010 fro m Perris to Riverside • 54 min ut es in 2025 from Perils to Riverside • Us es existing highway and ro adways • Property would be needed for park and rile lots with no displacement s. ;7 .3 M $2.3 M Annually 064 2010-Bda Mirhg 901 2025 -Boarding • No land acquisitions for bus alignment; acquisition of vacant ands f or p ark & deb ts • Low air qu ality benefits due m small n ode shift • No noise Impacts • Minimal mitigation n eeded • Improves travel . bon lys signific ant eff ect on fut ure quality of s ervice • Does not use abundant railr oad light s - of -way s uch as San Jacinto Bra nchline and UP RIL Rating 0 • O • • • O • 0 0 Alternative C Commuter Rail with Turnback at Highgrove • Requlrestumback mo vem ent at Hlghgmve cau sin g 30 -minu te delay in ove rall tr avel time betw een Pe nis an d RWedde . FRA re quked brake tests ail mo o ther safety Pedures require d when reversing train dire ction. • Potential for delays to Ore s Ma inline due toBNSF dis patching control • Curre nt 0115F / RCTC operating agreement allows 16 o re -wa y train movements w ith capecay • for Initial 5701 service only. • Serv ice inaso eao in outer and We an years cannot be a cco mmodated withou t new agreemen t • 42 mi nute s in 2010 fr om Rlverskl e to Purls. 12 nhl nutec In 2025 from Riverside to Perris. • Unimpeded by current and fuse automobil e con gestion du e to use of exclu sive right- of-way • 0 full displacements 0 partial dispWcen ent / remnfiguratkm • pr operty wood be n eeded for park and Ide lots w0h no displac ement ° M ;6 .5 M A nnually 1,573 2010 Boarding 2,210 2025 -Boarding • Ho 11,00 acq uisiti ons for r ail alig nment; acquisitio n of vacant lands for st atk ss • Moderate air quality benefits due to node shift • Noise Impact s in Perris and Hlghgr ove • Modn ne eded erat e ssol25 • Impr oves travel daces • C ongestion do es not affect future q uality of s ervic e • T rudu� nuvemox uality of surviv e • Use of abundant railr oad rights - of -way suds as S an ladnto °arxhll ne • Use s heavily traveled BNSF Mainli ne from t59hgr ovc to Riverside Stati on. Rating 0 0 • GI? a G C riii Alternative D Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street • 250900 ,00 525. 00500115 007-- Main line operatio ns Recces Impac ts era grim • Metr oRnk Inland Empi operations • EFmina[es torMadc movement and brake safety test at Hw lghrgre. • • Curre nt BNSF / RCTC operating agreement a lo ws 16 one- way train moVaren ts with qty for initial SAIL service only.Rive rside a m No guee on exc lusiv e use of 9th tra ck with poten tiai dela ys due to BNSF dispatching con trol. • 35 min utes in 2010 from Riverside to Perris. • 35 P ". ."1. 2171 horn to Pe rris. • Unknpetled by current and future automobile co n1eslbn due to us e of exclus i right-o f-way 0 full displacement • 1 partial displace ment /recon figuration • Rope r, mows needed for pa rk ride lot with no displacemen t $gg ,7 M ;6.2 M Annually 1,673 2010 -Boa d g 2,483 2025 -Boarding • Acquisiti on of vacant land for rail• connection; acgo6loorrs of vac ant la nds for stati ons F5X1rral e au 90900 I xvsefis due m mod e shift • N oise Impac t in Paris • Mod er at e 0 0gahor,t-,]m1 er a •Improves travel chokes • Co getlo n does not affect f uture quality of se y e • Quality elf strike remains st able • Use of abu ndant railroad rlght - of -way such as San ladnto Branchline • uses h vity t raveled BNSF M from to Riverside — Rating - I —GO — ii) • Q 0 • ,r�, ! • Q Altern ative E Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP at Rustin Avenue - - • 1000 ten Ito with BNSF Ma in line operation Re du ce s impact with Me trd lnk Inland Empire operations • Eliminates hhn ba dt hsrrent and brace sa fety test at Hlghrgrwe. • Eliminates capacity constraint re late d to service Ino' eas es In ou te r • Requires operating agreement with UP. • Freight operations on UP R Riverside de Industrial cad are minimal with one daily toucher. • UP has significa nt Interest in selling RIL to RCTC • 33 rn ann. in 2010 from Riverside to Pecs. • 33 minutrs Ie 2025 from Riverside to Pura • Unimpeded by c urre nt and future a utomobile con gestion due to us e of occlusive right-of-way men 2 full displac emen ts • 1 partial displacement / reconfiguration of open parcels • Property wou ld be needed for park and ride lots with n o2025-OoaMing 09piao emen t ;101.8 M 05.9 M Annually 1,673 2010 -Boarding 2,483 • A cq uisiti on of occupied bu siness forimpr ov esAltern ative rail connection; acquisitions of vaca nt la nds for s>arbm • Moderate air quality benefit due to mode shift • Nois e Impacts in Pecos and Riv erside • Moderate mitigation needed need _ �� • Co g. n does not affect f ut ur e quality of service Qusipy of serv ice remains stable Use of abundant railroad right - of -way such as S an Jadnto Branedlne and UP Ri versid e I nd ustrial Iced. • Does not use heavily trav eled BNSF Mainli ne_ • Unimpeded ac res to Riverside Station Rating to • • O O f� ! • a GOOD= • FAIR = POOR= 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — June 11th, 2003 Alternatives Analysis Report THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternative E is recommended as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and will be carried forward in the project development process, including the adoption of Alternative E into the most current SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (MPO Long Range Plan). In preparation to further refine Alternative E, a financial plan has been prepared to detail the projected costs of implementation into the Rail Program budget at RCTC. The estimates indicate that Alternative E can be supported by the current mix of federal, state and local funding sources available to the Rail Program. Additional funds are anticipated to be available from the FTA, made specifically available through grants for eligible fixed guideway projects such as proposed by Alternative E. Also, the stability of the Measure A sales tax revenue for RCTC, with taxing authority for transportation projects authorized through 2039, provides a consistent source of funds for capital projects. Current debt associated with the initial Measure A authorization will be paid off in 2009, and RCTC enjoys a very favorable bond rating. The review indicates that RCTC has demonstrated the financial ability to construct and support the operational costs of Alternative E without adverse impact on other agency programs or commitments. Public comment affirmed Alternative E as the LPA, and most comments were generally positive, with residents eager for rail service to be introduced in the corridor. One concern raised was that Alternative E did not provide direct service to Highgrove. It is recommended that rail service to Highgrove be provided as a new station on the existing Metrolink Inland Empire -Orange County Line, which currently travels through Highgrove. Comments also indicated some concern over the use of the UP RIL, where a portion of the alignment runs within a city street in Riverside. At this conceptual stage, however, the discussions with the city indicate that they do not perceive this as infeasible. Safety and access issues will be further analyzed in the next stage of Preliminary Engineering (PE). CONCLUSION The Alternatives Analysis process documented in this report resulted in the selection of Alternative E as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). This represents completion of the first step towards the full implementation of the project. The next step is adoption of Alternative E by the RCTC board and entering the project into the Regional Long Range Transportation Plan. RCTC will also prepare and submit a request to the Federal Transit Administration for Alternative E to enter into PE. By following the FTA process, implementation of Alternative E will be eligible for federal dollars to construct the project — with 50% of the capital investment cost of $101.8M being requested. Upon completion of PE, an updated New Starts Application will be resubmitted to the FTA with a request to enter into Final Design and a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA). It is at this stage that the FTA will decide to support the project with their financial commitment, while also giving approval for the final construction drawings to be prepared. Implementation of Alternative E with Federal funds is dependent on the rating received at this second submission of the application. With a FFGA, the final design and construction phase is expected to take approximately four years and commuter rail service on the SJBL would begin in early 2008 San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 10 LATE BREAKING AGENDA ITEM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: SunLine Transit Agency's Fiscal Year 2004 Short Range Transit Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Place SunLine Transit Agency's (SunLine) Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for Fiscal Year 2004 on hold until issues regarding the Fiscal Year 2002 financial audits for SunLine and SunLine Services Group (SSG) are fully explored; and, 2) Allocate Fiscal Year 2004 Funds to SunLine, on a monthly basis, pending resolution of issues involving the relationship between SunLine and SSG. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff from Ernst & Young LLP (E&Y) recently presented the Fiscal Year 2002 draft financial audit of SunLine and SSG to its Board of Directors. The following issues were identified in the audit reports: 1) SunLine advanced $751,000 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to its affiliate SSG to cover administrative expenses for salaries and benefits; and 2) SSG borrowed $865,787 from a bank to purchase fifty taxicabs which were leased to private cab operators. SunLine, not SSG, guaranteed the loan. On Monday, June 9, 2003, Executive Management from Coachella Valley Association of Governments, SunLine, and RCTC met to begin formulating a strategic plan to address issues raised in the fiscal audit. The potential of SSG formally being designated as the research arm of SunLine along with all associated costs, will be included as part of the planning process. Staff is recommending that SunLine's FY 2004 SRTP be placed on hold until audit issues and the relationship between SunLine and SSG can be fully explored. To cover transit's operating costs, staff is further recommending that funding be allocated to SunLine on a monthly basis. If approved, the monthly operating allocation will be based on FY 2003 funding levels and will be presented at the June 23, 2003 Plans and Programs Committee and the July 9th Commission meeting for consideration. AGENDA ITEM 10 Oral Presentation RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: San Jacinto Branch Line Ad Hoc Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Locally Preferred Transit Alternative for the I-215/San Branch Line (Riverside to Romoland) Corridor Jacinto Staff will present the San Jacinto Branch Line Ad Hoc Committee recommendation on the Locally Preferred Transit Alternative for the I-215/San Jacinto Branch Line (Riverside to Romoland) Corridor. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor is approximately 20 miles long with a width of approximately 2 miles. The corridor begins in the City of Perris where it generally follows the 1-215 freeway and the San Jacinto Branch Line north through Moreno Valley to the City of Highgrove and then southwest toward downtown Riverside. The 1-215 Freeway is one of the most congested roadways in the region and travels through the heart of the study corridor providing the only existing option for travelers along the 1-215 corridor between the City of Perris and downtown Riverside. The San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor Alternatives Analysis Study effort has identified improved and cost-effective transit options that minimize adverse environmental impacts and improve travel times within the study corridor. As a result of the Analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires that a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) be selected for the San Jacinto Branch Line/I- 215 Corridor. The selection of the LPA is the result of an 18 month long process of evaluating transit alternatives to address the existing and forecasted transportation deficiencies in the corridor. With the aid of public involvement, these transportation alternatives include the no -build, improved/express bus, and commuter rail. Agenda Item 10 299 A presentation by the consultant team, STV, Inc, will be made to the Ad Hoc Committee that outlines the evaluation results of the following alternatives: • Alternative A: No Build • Alternative B: Transportation System Management/Express Bus • Alternative C: Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback • Alternative D: Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street • Alternative E: Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue Public Involvement A Technical Advisory Committee was convened early in the study to review and comment on the technical work performed by STV, the project consultant. The Committee has met with the consultant and staff on two occasions during the course of the study. The Committee is comprised of the following representatives: • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) • Caltrans, District 8 • City of Moreno Valley • City of Perris • City of Riverside • March Joint Powers Authority • Metrolink • Riverside Transit Agency • Southern California Association of Governments • University of California at Riverside In addition to the formal committee meetings, staff has had additional meetings with representatives from BNSF, the City of Riverside, March Joint Powers Authority, and Metrolink. A total of six public meetings were held for the SJBL/I-215 Corridor Study in Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris. The first series of three meetings, held in the evening, once in each city in February 2002, were informative about the project in general and the planning process. An identical format was used at each of these public meetings. The agenda called for presentations and displays of information regarding the corridor and the alternatives of the study. An informal question and answer session and group discussions followed the presentation. Participants were also encouraged to provide written comments on surveys that were distributed at the meetings. Agenda Item 10 300 Comments from the first series of meetings indicated that commuter rail was a favorable alternative, although some participants were interested in seeing transit improvements to all modes. A recurring environmental concern was the need to improve air quality. Noise impacts of potential improvements were also cited by some participants. The second series of three meetings, again held, in the evening, once in each city, occurred last month. These meetings presented the results of the evaluation of the alternatives and the staff recommended alternative. Participants were also encouraged to provide written comments on surveys that were distributed at the meetings. The alternatives evaluated have advantages and disadvantages associated with each improvement to the existing conditions within the study area. However, based on the evaluation of alternatives and input from the public, staff is recommending that the Ad Hoc Committee select Alternative E as the LPA for this Corridor. Alternative E provides the best opportunity to implement a quality transit alternative within the corridor that serves the needs and goals of the study, and one that is not impeded by either highway/roadway congestion or railroad access and operational issues. In particular, it should be noted that Alternative E provides the least amount of negative impact related to the need for grade separations as the proposed rail lines for Alternative E currently have no more than two trains/day operating on the lines. The new Metrolink service proposed would only increase the number of trains/day to ten; a small number in comparison to Alternatives C&D which would increase the number of trains/day to 95 in the segment between Highgrove and Riverside. Additional Consideration Comments from the second series of meetings indicated that Alternative E: Commuter Rail with new connection on the Union Pacific rail line was favored. However, citizens representing the area of Highgrove expressed a preference for Alternative C: Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback primarily because the alternative identified a potential station in Highgrove. After careful evaluation, Alternative C is not a cost-effective project, principally because the turnback at Highgrove adds a minimum 10 minute delay penalty to the train trip. However, a potential station at Highgrove has always been envisioned by RCTC as part of the current Inland Empire -Orange County Line (IEOC) service. Today, RCTC owns 1 .4 acres of land in Highgrove; an insufficient amount of right- of-way for a future station. Therefore, staff is also recommending that the Ad Hoc Committee direct to staff to explore the acquisition of additional right-of-way for a future Highgrove Station to serve the IEOC service. Agenda Item 10 301 DRAFT CITY OF BANNING BANNING MUNICIPAL TRAP SIT SYSTEM FY 2004 - 2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 Fare Structure 4 Population Served 5 Fleet Characteristics 5 Facilities 6 SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS 6 Fixed Route 6 Dial -A -Ride 7 Ridership Projections ...................... 7 RIDERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS 8 Ridership Demographics 8 Major Destinations ... 9 PASSENGER AMENITIES 10 SERVICE RELATED ISSUES ,... ....,..,,....10 REGIONAL SERVICES AND ADJACENT TRANSIT SYSTEMS 11 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 11 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 12 NEW SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION 13 Consolidated Ride Guide for Pass Area Services .. 13 Extending Local Service to 7:00 PM 13 Single System Appearance in Banning and Beaumont 13 Renaming/Rerouting of Fixed Routes 14 Route 1 Commercial Area Trunk Route (Banning Cabazon Route) 14 Routes 2, 3, and 4 14 Route 5 (Banning Northern Route) 14 Route 6 (Banning Southern Route) 15 Marketing Plan for Transit in the Pass Area 15 Customer Satisfaction Surveys 15 Multi -year Banning and Beaumont Dial -A -Ride Coordination/Consolidation Plan 15 Research Day Pass vs. Transfers 16 Sunday Service ... 16 REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 16 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 16 Title VI 16 Alternatively fueled vehicles (RCTC Policy) 17 STA Compliance 17 TABLES 18 Table 1: Fleet Inventory 18 Table 2: Transit Service 19 Table 2a: Fixed Route Transit Service 19 Table 2b: ADA-Paratransit Service 20 Table 2c: System -wide Transit Service 21 Table 2d: Exempt Transit Service 22 Revised 04/24/03 1 DRAFT Table 3: Individual Route Information 23 Table 4: Summary of Funds Requested for FY 04 24 Table 4a: Dial -A -Ride Office Furniture 25 Table 4a: Bus Stop Amenities 26 Table 4a: Computer Software 27 Table 4a: Driver Relief Vehicle 28 Table 5: Summary of Funds Requested for FY 05 and FY 06 29 Table 5a: FY05 — Bus Stop Amenities 30 Table 5a: FY05 — Dial -A -Ride Vehicle 31 Table 5a: FY06 — Bus Stop Amenities 32 Table 6: Progress to Implement Prior Audit Recommendations 33 Table 7: Projected Expenses & Revenues 34 APPENDIX A: EXISTING ROUTE MAPS 35 Northern Route 35 Southern Route 36 Cabazon Route °'"""°" 37 APPENDIX B: PROPOSED ROUTE MAPS 38 Route 1 38 Route 5 39 Route 6 40 Revised 04/24/03 2 DRAFT INTRODUCTION The Banning Municipal Transit System provides fixed route, ADA complementary paratransit, and frail elderly and persons with disabilities Dial -A -Ride service to the City of Banning, Cabazon (an unincorporated area of Riverside County), and the commercial area of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Reservation. at Land — I ^ Springs -�.F •� N.l!' ' BANNING MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SYSTEM SERVICE ARE hartA 1 O 2001 Microsoft Cocp. AlI n!1t is reset vet Ban no riunIclpil . rte n Bernardino S y. pimtiorrt Fart- .0 a/wongn Indian Reservation Keldee tk [�I The transit system began as one inner city fixed route in April 1973, then expanded to two routes in September 1985. Fixed route service to Cabazon and the commercial area of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Reservation began in July 1995. Dial -A -Ride service for the elderly and persons with disabilities began in October 1985. The primary uses of these services are for transportation to medical appointments, workshop programs for persons with disabilities, shopping areas, employment, and connections with other transit agencies. In the spring of 2000, the Pass Area cities of Banning, Beaumont and Calimesa requested grant funding from the Riverside County Transportation Commission to hire a consultant to conduct a study of the transit needs of Pass Area residents and businesses. The study sought to design a single seamless transit system within the Pass Area that is easy for Pass Area residents to understand and use. A Transit Task Force was formed to review the work of the consultant. The task force was made up of representatives from the City of Banning, City of Beaumont, City of Calimesa, County of Riverside, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside Transit Agency, Sunline Transit Agency, and Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Revised 04/24/03 3 DRAFT The research phase of the study was completed in December 2001 and the task of developing a transit system plan that addresses issues raised by the study was turned over to transit operator planning staff. The Pass Area Transit Plan has been developed and has completed the public comment period. The final plan will be presented to the Banning City Council for final approval at its first meeting in May 2002. Central to the plan is a greater integration of the local transit services in the Pass Area. To this end the Banning Municipal Transit System is working closely with the Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency. The plan also identified areas were local transit services could be improved or enhanced. This Short Range Transit Plan incorporates the elements of the Pass Area Transit Plan that address service within this system's service area. Fare Structure The Pass Area Transit Study recommends the standardization of fares between the Banning and Beaumont transit service, creating one fare structure that is followed by both agencies and simplifying navigation of the transit systems for the transit customer. This standardization will result in the first increase in fares for the Banning Municipal Transit System in over a decade. The proposed changes to the fare structure were presented to the public at advertised open house meetings and a public hearing. No opposition to the change was voiced. The new fare structure will take effect in July 2003. The fixed route fare will remain at $.50/one-way trip. A zone fare of $.25 is introduced for travel between Banning and Cabazon/Morongo Reservation service areas. (The route is twice the length of any other route in the system. The zone fare will help recover the cost of operating the additional miles.) Ten -ride punch passes are still offered for $4.50 each; senior citizens can purchase the passes at a reduced cost of $4.00/pass. Below is a table showing the exiting fare structure and the proposed changes. FIXED ROUTE FARE STRUCTURE Category [Current Fare PEAK HOURS & OFF PEAK HOURS: Full Fare $.50 Northern/Southern $.75 Cabazon Proposed Fare $.50 $.50 Zone(s) Elderly None 50/$.75 25 $.50 Disabled $.50/$.75 $.50 Student Transfer (within system) Transfer (other operator) Free Other Discounts 10 Rides/$4.50 / 10 Rides/$6.75 $.50/$.75 $.50 Free Free Free 10 Rides/$4.50 Seniors: 10 Ride/$4.00 Revised 04/24/03 4 DRAFT The fare structure for dial -a -ride will change as well. It will increase from $.75/one-way trip to $1.00/one-way trip. The cost of the 10 -ride punch pass will increase from $6.75/10 -ride punch pass to $9.00/10 -ride punch pass. Below is a table showing the existing fare structure and the proposed changes. DIAL -A -RIDE FARE STRUCTURE 'Category Current Fare 'Proposed HOURS: Fare PEAK HOURS & OFF PEAK Full Fare $0.75 $1.00 Zone(s) None None Elderly $0.75 $1.00 Disabled $0.75 $1.00 Student NA NA Transfer (within system) Free Free Transfer (other operator) Free Free Other Discounts 10 Rides/$6.75 10 Rides/$9.00 Population Served The residential population within the Banning Municipal Transit System's service is anticipated to grow significantly over the next five years from a year 2000 population of 26,745 to 35,563 in 2006. The community is ethnically diverse with a make up of: Caucasian (52%), Hispanic (30%), Black (8%), Asian (5%), and American Indian (2%). Senior citizens (age 65+) make up 27% of the population, indicating a potential for significant growth in the demand for Dial -A -Ride services. Youth (age 18 and under) also make up a significant portion of the population (27%). Almost half of the population (48%) has a household income of less than $25,000. This indicates a significant need for transit services. Jobs in the service area are also anticipated to grow significantly over the next five years from 10,446 in 2000 to 13,478 in 2006. A significant number (2,850) of the jobs are located along the commercial development area of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Reservation, away from residential neighborhoods. Fleet Characteristics The Banning Municipal Transit System operates five fixed route vehicles (three in revenue service and two in reserve). All of which are CNG powered, equipped with bicycle racks, and ADA compliant with wheelchair lifts and tie -down stations. Two of the fixed route coaches, purchased in 1995, have not performed up to expectations and have continued to be significant maintenance problems. The unreliability of the vehicles is evident when one looks at their Total Vehicle Miles. (See Table 1.) Since 1996, the Revised 04/24/03 5 DRAFT vehicles have been "out -of -service" with numerous mechanical breakdowns and have only logged 183,034 and 202,542 total miles. For comparison two coaches received in 1999 have an average of 142,400 total vehicle miles. Replacement vehicles were ordered in fiscal year 2003 and will be delivered by December 2003. The new vehicles are anticipated to significantly reduce fleet maintenance costs. The transit system also operates three Dial -A -Ride vehicles (two in revenue service and one in reserve) that are gasoline powered and ADA compliant with wheelchair lifts and tie -down stations. See Table 1 for individual vehicle characteristics and replacement schedule. Facilities The system does not own administrative or maintenance facilities. Administrative services for the transit system are provided by staff from various City of Banning departments. Responsibility for overall administration of the transit system is provided by the Community Services Department. Maintenance of the vehicles is provided by the Fleet Maintenance Division. SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS System -wide ridership in FY 2002 was 244,974. In FY 2003, ridership is estimated to drop by roughly 6% to 231,162. This is largely from system reliability issues from revenue vehicle failures and capacity constraints from using smaller vehicles on the fixed -route system. Fixed Route Banning's two inner city fixed routes operate on one -hour headways serving most of the residential and commercial areas within the City of Banning. The Northern Route provides service to the residential areas of the City of Banning that lie north of the I-10 freeway and the commercial areas along Ramsey Street and Highland Springs Avenue. (See Appendix A for Route Map.) The Southern Route provides service to the residential areas south of the I-10 freeway, a small residential section north of Ramsey Street at the east end of the City of Banning and the commercial areas along Ramsey Street and Highland Springs Avenue. (See Appendix A for Route Map.) The Cabazon Route operates on a one -hour and seventeen -minute headway. It deviates four times a day with a twelve -minute extension to serve a remote residential area of Cabazon. The route provides service to the residential area of Cabazon, Cabazon Community Center, Casino Morongo, Cabazon Outlet Malls, and the commercial areas along Ramsey Street and Highland Springs Avenue. (See Appendix A for Route Map.) Revised 04/24/03 6 - DRAFT Fixed route service hours are: Monday - Friday 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (extends to 7:00 p.m. in October 2003) Saturday 8:00 to p.m. ,.Iii. 5:00 Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.* *Two Sunday demonstration routes are scheduled to start in July 2003. One will be a combination of the Northern and Southern Routes. The other will follow the Cabazon (Commercial Trunk) route. Limited service (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) is provided on Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, the day after Thanksgiving Day. No service is provided on New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Dial -A -Ride Dial -A -Ride provides service to seniors, persons with disabilities, and individuals certified for complimentary paratransit service under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Service hours for the dial -a -ride service are: Elderly and Disabled without ADA certification Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Saturday & Sunday No Service Persons with ADA Complementary Paratransit Certification Monday - Friday 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (7:00 p.m. in October 2003) Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday No Service Limited service (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) is provided on Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, the day after Thanksgiving Day. No service is provided on New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Dial -a -ride ridership in FY 2002 was 9,435. Ridership is anticipated to decrease by 4% in FY 2003 to 9,084. The projected decrease is due to a decrease in frail elderly demand for service. Dial -A -Ride ridership for FY 2003 is estimated at: Elderly — 3,007 (33%), Disabled (without ADA certification) —1,092 (12%), and ADA Certified — 4,985 (55%). Ridership Projections Ridership is expected to dip in the first quarter of FY 04 with the implementation of the service changes proposed in the Pass Area Transit Plan. However, once transit customers become familiar with the route changes, ridership is anticipated to increase. Overall, ridership on both the fixed -route and dial -a -ride services are expected to grow. The high percentage of senior citizens (31.6%) in Banning indicates a potential for significant growth in the demand for dial -a -ride service over the next five years. Revised 04/24/03 7 DRAFT The addition of a Pass Area commercial trunk line with an hour headway along the commercial corridors of Banning and Beaumont is anticipated to boost ridership after the initial dip. Providing service to major employers, the addition of Coombs Middle School and coordination with Banning High School's dismissal time are all anticipated to increase ridership. RIDERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS Ridership Demographics This section provides demographic information that creates a passenger profile including the gender, age, ethnicity, and income of the riders. More than two-thirds of the ridership (68%) are female. This number increases to 86% among riders age 62 to 79 years. Ridership Age 5% 8% ID Under 18 • 18 - 24 ❑25-44 ❑45-61 • 62 - 79 0 80 or over Ridership ethnicity closely parallels the population ethnicity presented earlier in this plan. Caucasian riders represent 48% of the system's ridership. Hispanic is the next most common ethnic group (34%). 3% Ridership Ethnicity_ 3% 47% o White/Caucasian ■ American Indian ❑ Hispanic o Asian ■ Black/African American O Other Revised 04/24/03 8 • 29% DRAFT The majority of riders have very low household income. Two-thirds (66%) earn less than $15,000 per year and 37% earn less than $7,500 per year. Low household income is especially prevalent among the oldest riders. 82% of those 62 years and older have household incomes of under $15,000. Ridership Household Income 37% 0 Under $7,500 ▪ $7,500 - $15,000 C $15,000 - $34,999 o $35,000 - $49,999 IN $50,O00+ Additional ridership statistics: • 85% of the system's fixed route ridership uses transit services at least three times a week • 23% of the system's Dial -A -Ride ridership uses transit services at least three times a week • 67% of the ridership use transit services for local trips within the Banning/ Beaumont/Cabazon area • 27% use transit for travel outside of the local service areas • 91% of the system's ridership do not have access to a car • Transit services are readily available with the majority of riders walking five minutes or less to the bus stop • The majority of rider households (87%) have English as their primary language. However, a significant minority (13%) have Spanish as their primary language. Major Destinations Major trip destinations include the commercial areas along Ramsey Street and Highland Springs Avenue, the San Gorgonio Hospital transfer point, Cabazon Outlet Mall, Casino Morongo, Beaver Medical and the medical offices adjacent to the San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, Riverside County Department of Public Social Services, Banning Mental Health and public health clinic. The Pass Area Transit Study identified that: • 40% of the trips made are for running errands. • 25% of the trips made are commuting to work. Revised 04/24/03 9 DRAFT' PASSENGER AMENITIES The system's fixed route buses are equipped with passenger operated bicycle racks. All revenue vehicles are equipped with wheelchair lifts and tie -down stations. Bus stops in commercial areas are equipped with benches. Waste containers are available at many of the commercial bus stops. Means of increasing the number of bus stops with shelters will be researched in the spring of 2003 and addressed in FY 2004. Flag down stops are utilized throughout the residential areas of Banning and Cabazon. Bus shelters are available at eleven of the system's more heavily used stops. SERVICE RELATED ISSUES Driver recruitment, vehicle reliability and fueling system capacity continue to be an issue for the transit agency. In FY 2003 driver recruitment has been continuous with limited response. In addition, three of the transit system's seven Bus Drivers retired within a three month period. The Equipment Repair Manager (fleet manager) also retired this year resulting in the position being vacant for four months. As discussed briefly earlier in this plan the unreliability of two fixed route coaches has adversely effected the system's ability to provide reliable service. An additional transit coach was intermittently out of service throughout the third quarter, and into the fourth quarter, of fiscal year 2003 due to an engine problem that the manufacturer is having difficulty troubleshooting. The system's only CNG fueling station has limited capacity and is shared with the Banning Unified School District. Consequently, if a vehicle is not fully fueled overnight, then it can be out of service for half of the day while fueling. Steps have been taken to replace the two transit coaches discussed above. Efforts are currently underway to upgrade the City's CNG fueling facility. With the focus of the Pass Area Transit Study being to develop a single seamless transit system that is easy for Pass Area residents to understand and use, the study identified a number of transit needs that are not being met and a number of areas where the existing services can be improved. Briefly, the research identified the following unmet transit needs for service within the Banning Municipal Transit System's service area: • An unserved residential area in Banning (along Wilson Street between Sunset and San Gorgonio). • Service for non-traditional works shifts and swing shifts throughout the Banning, Beaumont, Cherry Valley and Cabazon areas. Revised 04/24/03 - 10 - DRAFT • Local connections to the last run of regional routes • Local Sunday service The following are areas, identified by the study, where local transit service (including the Banning Municipal Transit System and the Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency) can be improved: • Eliminate one-way loops to reduce ride time on local routes • Eliminate multiple fare structures • Eliminate the lack of uniform headways • Develop a single system identity • Adjust route schedules to provide timed transfers between routes • Relocate transfer point, develop transit center • Increase marketing of transit services A result of the Pass Area Transit Study will be the closer coordination of service between the Banning Municipal Transit System and the Beaumont Municipal Transit Agcncy, including timed transfers, the cooperative operation of a Pass Area commercial area fixed route, and closer integration of the two dial -a -ride services. REGIONAL SERVICES AND ADJACENT TRANSIT SYSTEMS The Mayor of the City of Banning serves as a member of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. A City Councilmember sits on the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Board of Directors. A Councilmember also attends the Pass Area Transportation NOW Chapter meetings. The Banning and Beaumont transit systems work closely together. Transfers are coordinated between the Banning fixed route and Dial -A -Ride services, the RTA Line 31 to Hemet, Line 35 to Moreno Valley, Line 36 to Calimesa and the Beaumont fixed -route and dial -a -ride service at the San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital and along Highland Springs Boulevard. Transfers occur at the San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital Transfer Point and at bus stops along Highland Springs Boulevard. Connecting service to SunLink, an intercity service connecting the Pass Area to the Coachella Valley and Riverside, is provided. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The transit system in cooperation with the cities of the Pass Area, County of Riverside, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency and Morongo Band of Mission Indians, has recently concluded a study of the Pass Area's transit needs and developed a Pass Area Transit Plan. The study included an extensive research phase including public open houses, stakeholder meetings, telephone survey, and ridership surveys. Revised 04/24/03 - 11 - DRAFT Prior to adoption, public presentations of the draft plan were made at the Pass Area Transportation NOW Chapter, Open House meetings at the Banning and Beaumont Civic Centers (the presentation was recorded and televised on the local government access cable channel), and a public hearing held. The City's Transit Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Advisory Committee meets quarterly to review and provide input on transit services and to address issues specific to ADA services. Public participation regarding plan adoption was afforded at a public hearing, Banning City Council Meeting, Banning City Council Budget Workshop (public hearing) and at the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council meeting. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The Riverside County Transportation Commission adopted efficiency and effectiveness standards for transit operators. Progress towards meeting these standards is reported quarterly to the Commission. In fiscal year 2003, retiring Bus Drivers, a shortage of Bus Drivers, capacity issues with the system's fueling facility and the unexpected requirement to replace a failed engine adversely effected operating cost related standards. The farebox recovery ratio was adversely affected by the increase in operating costs noted above. Below is a table of the operating performance indicators adopted in the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Transit Operator Efficiency and Effectiveness Program and this plan's projections for the coming years. Banning Municipal Transit System Performance Statistic$ Unlinked Passenger Trips Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenge Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passengers per Revenue Hour Passengers per Revenue Mile Revenue Miles between Collisions % Trips On -Time Complaints per 1,000 Passengers Total Miles Between Roadcalls FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estimated % Increase /Decrease FY 2004 Projected % Increase /Decrease FY 2005 Projected % Increase /Decrease 244,974 231,417 -5.5% 213,177 -7.9% 225,868 6.0% $57.81 14.14% $2.57 N/a $49.64 $68.47 12.48% $3.23 N/a 18.4% -11.8% 25.7% $59.90 15.88% $2.34 N/a -12.5% 27.2% $61.57 2.8% 16.16% 1.8% -27.6% $59.92 20.7%; 19.1% $50.38 -16.0% $2.29 -2.1% Nis -- $51.62 2.5% $3.40 19.2 1.32 185,736 N/a $4.05 18.59 -3.6% $3.42 21.50 -15.6% 15.7% 1.26 184,073 -4.5% 1.46 o -1.0% 76.96% 146,057 -21% 100% 23.04% 0.00007 5,078 0.12986 3,012 1,855% -40.7° 0 146,057 0.00 -100% 4,849% $3.51 2.6%n 22,51 4.7% 1.53 4.8% 147,651 1.1% 100% 0% 0.00 0% 150,515 3.0% Revised 04/24/03 - 12 - DRAFT Note: The drop in rideship in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 is due to existing "non-exempt" services being replaced by new "exempt" services. New services are exempt from the performance standards for a period of two years. (See Tables 2A and 2D.) This transit plan meets the FY 2004 target for Operating Cost Per Hour, Farebox Recovery, Subsidy per Passenger, Subsidy per Revenue Hour, Subsidy per Revenue Mile, Passenger per Revenue Hour, and Passenger per Revenue Mile. This plan projects improved performance indicator statistics over the next two years. NEW SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION Based on findings in the Pass Area Transit Study, transit service in the Pass Area is proposed to change significantly over the next three years. These changes, and how they will effect the Banning Municipal Transit System are listed below. Consolidated Ride Guide for Pass Area Services Implementation Date: July 2003 To make travel in, to and through the Pass Area easier, a single map listing the routes and services provided in the Pass Area will be developed. The map will not have individual route information, but will have a contact phone number for each of the transit agencies serving the Pass Area. This project is a cooperative effort among the transit operators that provide service in and through the Pass Area. The SunLine Transit Agency is lead agency on this project. Extending Local Monday through Friday Service to 7:00 PM Implementation Date: October 2003 The Existing Conditions and Transit Needs Assessment identified that individuals transferring from the last run of regional connector routes are being stranded at the San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital transfer point because the local services stop at 5:00 PM (in Beaumont) and 6:00 PM (in Banning). To address this need, local service will be extended Monday through Friday to 7:00 PM. This will allow individuals transferring from almost all regional routes to get home. The only run that will not be served is the 7:00 PM arrival of RTA Route 36 from Yucaipa. This route arrives significantly later than the other regional routes. In addition, the Pass Area Transit Study showed that there are only a couple of passengers on this run. It is not cost effective to operate local service until 8:00 PM to serve the few riders that arrive on this one run. Single System Appearance in Banning and Beaumont Implementation Date: October 2003 The Banning and Beaumont transit systems will be coordinated to present the appearance of a single transit system to customers and the public. Fares, transfers and passes will be standardized between the two providers. Style standards will be developed for exterior bus graphics (and interior colors on future vehicle purchases), bus stop signs, bus stop Revised 04/24/03 - 13 - DRAFT" benches and amenities, and document and publication appearance. Operational policies, as they relate to the transit customer, will be coordinated. Beaumont Transit System' s operating hours will increase to equal Banning Municipal Transit System's operating hours. Operating days and holidays will be coordinated. The intent of this single system appearance is to simplify use of the transit systems for the transit customer. Whether the customer is boarding a Banning or Beaumont vehicle, he/she will pay the same fare, receive the same transfer, have to abide by the same policies, and read schedules that are presented in the same format. To the customer, it will appear that the Banning and Beaumont systems are a single transit system. Renaming/Rerouting of Fred Routes Implementation Date: July 2003 Below is a list of the fixed -routes operated by the Banning Municipal. Transit System. Information provided includes a brief description of service area, operational hours and the number of vehicles in service. Some routes have been modified to meet identified potential service demands. This transit plan includes renaming local fixed routes to present the appearance of a single local transit system. The current names are added for reference. Route 1 Commercial Area Trunk Route (Banning Cabazon Route) (M -F 6am — 7pm, Sat 8am — 5pm, two vehicles) The old Cabazon Route will be modified significantly to provide service to the commercial areas of Beaumont, Banning and Cabazon. The route has been extended down Sixth Street to Beaumont Avenue and then to the southwest residential area of Beaumont. The route will serve the Apache Trail and Seminole Drive commercial area heading in both directions and will increase service to the Esperanza and Elm area of Cabazon. The route will deviate on demand to the Arrowhead Bottling Plant at Bonita and Elm and to Duraplastics in Beaumont. A second vehicle will be placed on this route (one operated by Banning and the other operated by Beaumont) to reduce the headway to one -hour. (See Appendix B for route map.) Routes 2, 3, and 4 These routes will be operated by the Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency. Route 5 (Banning Northern Route) (M -F 6am — 7pm, Sat 8am — 5pm, one vehicle) Route 5 will replace the Banning Northern Route and will serve the residential areas North of Ramsey Street in Banning and the commercial areas along Ramsey Street and Highland Springs. The route will be modified to provide service to Coombs Middle School (on Wilson Street). In order to accomplish this, the route was shortened slightly at the Northeast end of Banning. (Route 6 will provide service to this area.) Route 5 will maintain a one -hour headway. (See Appendix B for route map.) Revised 04/24/03 - 14 - DRAFT Route 6 (Banning Southern Route) (M -F 6am — 7pm, Sat 8am — 5pm, one vehicle) Route 6 will replace the Panning Route will serve residential C Southern Route and will serve the leslUl,lll10.1 areas South of the I-10 freeway and the commercial areas along Ramsey Street and Highland Springs. The route will deviate on demand to provide service to the Deutsch Company for morning and afternoon shift changes. It has been modified to provide service to Wilson Street between Sunset Avenue and Highland Home Road. Route 6 will maintain a one -hour headway. The route is anticipated to fall behind schedule when required to deviate to the Deutsch Company. However, there is sufficient recovery time in the route to allow it to get back on schedule within the hour. (See Appendix B for route map.) Marketing Plan for Transit in the Pass Area Implementation Date: October 2003 Any changes to the existing transit services will need to be publicized. However, a significant need for increased marketing of the Pass Area transit services was identified in the Existing Conditions and Transit Needs Assessment, with 60% of non -riders in the Pass Area not being familiar with the transit systems. A comprehensive marketing plan will be developed to promote both the service changes identified within this plan, and the ongoing promotion of transit as a transportation alternative within, and out of, the Pass Area. The services of a consultant may be secured to assist with the development of the marketing plan. Customer Satisfaction Surveys Implementation Date: July 2003, October 2003 The success of the transit system depends largely upon the satisfaction of its customers. Customer satisfaction surveys will be distributed three months after the implementation of the service changes within this plan. Customer input will be taken into consideration in "fine tuning" the transit system. Then, the same surveys will be distributed three months after that to identify any changes in customer satisfaction. The information from the second survey will be reviewed and appropriate action taken. Multi -year Banning and Beaumont Dial -A -Ride Coordination/Consolidation Plan Implementation Date: July 2004 Though both DAR services operate quite efficiently (serving around 4.5 passengers per hour in fiscal year 2002), it is anticipated that greater customer convenience and some cost savings will be realized by the coordination or consolidation of the two services. The coordination/consolidation will be researched in FY 2004 with the recommendations being implemented in FY 05. A minor, but significant, step took place in FY 2003, with the adoption of a cooperative agreement between the Banning Municipal Transit System and the Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency, which allows each provider to travel into the others service area. Transfers for frail elderly and persons with disabilities traveling between the two systems have been eliminated to destinations in Banning and Beaumont. Revised 04/24/03 - 15 - DRAFT Research Dav Pass vs. Transfers Implementation Date: July 2004 (if determined to be feasible) Currently both the Banning and Beaumont Transit Systems use a paper transfer system for customers wishing to transfer between routes. Local service fixed -routes intersect in multiple locations, which creates a challenge in developing and enforcing transfer policies that are fair and convenient to both the customer and the transit provider. During FY 03 the potential of adopting a day pass will be researched with the intent of eliminating the paper transfer. The day pass offers the customer the maximum amount of flexibility in using the transit system and the ability to choose the most direct route for their chosen trips. Sunday Service Implementation Date: July 2003 The Existing Conditions and Transit Needs Assessment identified that 30% of local fixed route customers identified Sunday service as a need. The Banning Municipal Transit System will conduct two Sunday service demonstration routes to determine if there is sufficient need for the service. One route will be a combination of Routes 5 & 6 (serving the City of Banning), and the other will follow the same route as Route 1 (connecting Cabazon to Banning and Beaumont). The above services will be evaluated routinely over a six-month period to determine whether there is sufficient demand to continue the service. The farebox recovery ratio will be a primary standard that will be used. REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 The City of Banning submitted an Americans with Disabilities Act Paratransit Plan to the FTA on January 26, 1992. All fixed -route buses are equipped with ADA compliant wheelchair lifts and are accessible to persons with disabilities. A procedure is in place to provide service to wheelchair -bound customers in the event that a fixed route bus lift fails. Dial -A -Ride provides ADA complimentary paratransit service for the fixed route service. The system uses a self -certification process with professional verification. Trips must be scheduled one day in advance (and up to 21 days in advance). Same day service is available as a courtesy on a space -available basis. Title VI The Banning Municipal Transit System does not utilize federal funds for operating expenses. As such, Title VI requirements do not currently apply to the transit system. Revised 04/24/03 - 16 - DRAFT Alternatively fueled vehicles (RCTC Policy) The transit system's fixed -route buses are CNG powered. Dial -A -Ride vehicles (which are less than 33,000 lbs. GVW and 15 -passenger capacity) and driver relief/break vehicles are gasoline powered. STA Compliance This transit plan projects a system -wide operating cost per hour (exempting new service) that is less that the anticipated 2.8% increase in the Consumer Price Index. Revised 04/24/03 - 17 - TABLES Banning Municipal Transit System FY 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 1 - FLEET INVENTORY Year Built 1990 2002 1995 1995 1995 1998 M anufacturer Ford 1998 Ford 1998 2001 Ford Blue Bird 2001 2003 Model Ranger Ranger Blue Bird El Dorado El Dorado El Dorado El Dorado Collins Q -Bus El Dorado Q -Bus El Dorado Aerotech Transmark Seats 2 2 12 Transmark Aerotech Transmark 37 37 Ae ro tech Lift - Equip? No 12 33 33 No Yes 12 Type of Fuel Gas Gas Gas Yes 33 12 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes CNG Own or Lease Own Own CNG Gas Yes Yes CNG Own Own CNG CNG CNG Own FR Vehicle Support Support Own Own Gas Own DAR Vehicle 1 Own Own Own Acti ve/ Reserve/ Rehab* A A R 1 MR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R R Total Vehicle Miles 166,851 5,643 A A A 133,958 183,034 Year to Replace 2004 202,542 A A 229,926 2017 141,133 143,667 24,389 66,105 2005 2003* * 0 2003** 2002*** 2009 2009 2008 2012 2010 * A - Active, R - Reserve, MR - Major Rehab. ** Vehicles are scheduled for delivery in December 2003. ** * Vehicle is scheduled for delivery in May 2003. -18 - Revise 4/24/03 Table 1 Fleet Inventory.xls Banning Municipal Transit System FY 2004 - 2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2A - FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE Exc lude s exempt (new) servi ce FY 2002 Audit ed FY 2003 Estimat ed FY 2004 ' Plann ed FY 2005 Pl ann ed FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 3 2 67% 0 0 1 3 2 67% 0 0 0 2 1 50% 0 0 2 2 1 50°,4 0 0 0 3 2 67% 0 0 0 FINANCIAL c[AL DATA ..sue ,. ..,f r$494,349 Total Operating Expense s Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) W $655,933 $98,116 ,; $557,817 $761,193 $ 99,229 $661,9641$409,014 $ 85,335 $514,123 $ 90,455 $423,668 $ 876,800 $ 129,454 $ 747,346 OPERATING CHARACTER ISTICS g}x. Fs} fs:3, :; Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles To tal Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips r¢ 235,539 4 n/a ' 10,720 153,695 # 158,616 ?. 73,371 n/a 222,078 n/a 10,517 153,069 156,574 92,629 69,472 203,177 n/a 7,596 114,187 114,802 71,630 71,630 215,368 nfa 7,596 114,187 114,802 71,630 71,630 291,902 n/a 12,226 196,846 200,539 105,145 105,145 PERFO RMANCE CHARACTERISTICS yM $67.68v 17.59% $1.97 n/a $55. 78 $3. 71 28. 35 1. 89 100. 00% m $71.72 14 .76% $2.56 n/a $61 .13 $3.80 23.88 1.48 100. 00% Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passenger per Revenue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles Percentage of Trips on Time $61.19 14. 96% $2. 37 n/a y $52.04 fv $3.63 21.97 1.53 1>; n/a $72.38 13.04% $2. 98 n/a $62. 94 $4. 32 21. 12 1. 45 75.00% $65. 08 17.26% $2. 01 n/a $53. 85 $3. 58 26. 75 1. 78 100. 00% -19- 4/24/03 Table 2 Transit Services Banning Municipal Transit System FY 2004 - 2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2B - ADA-PARATRANSIT SERVICE Excludes exempt (new) s ervice FLEET CHARACTERISTI CS Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles De livered FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS Opera ting Cost per Re venue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passenger per Revenue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles Perce ntage of Trips on Time -20- 2 1 50% 0 0 0 $ 78,657 $ 5,752 $ 72,905 9,435 n/a 1,986 32,041 34,360 8,820 8,631 $ 39.61 7. 31% $ 7. 73 n/a $ 36.71 $ 2. 28 4.75 0. 29 97.86% FY 2003 Estimated 2 1 50 % 0 0 $ 90,991 $ 7,163 $ 83,828 9,084 n/a 1,930 31,004 33,087 8,865 8,642 $ 47.15 7.87% $ 9. 23 n/a $ 43.43 $ 2. 70 4.71 0.29 97.48% FY 2004 Pl anned 2 1 50% 0 0 1 10,000 n/a 2,320 31,870 34,012 9,492 9,492 $ 42. 92 9.04% $ 9. 06 n/a $ 39.04 $ 2.84 4. 31 0.31 100.00% FY 2005 Plann ed 2 1 50% 0 $103,565 $ 9,360 $ 94,205 10,500 n/a 2,436 33,464 35,713 9,967 9,967 $ 42 .51 9.04% $ 8.97 n/a $ 38.67 $ 2.82 4. 31 0. 31 100. 00% FY 2006 Pla nned 2 1 50% 0 0 1 $107,708 $ 9,734 $ 97,974 11,000 n/a 2,558 35,137 37,498 10,441 10,441 $ 42 .11 9 .04% $ 8 .91 n/a $ 38 .30 $ 2.79 4.30 0.31 100.00% 4/24/03 Table 2 Transit Services Banning Municipal Transit System FY 2004 - 2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2C - SYSTEM -WIDE TRANSIT SERVICE FY 2002 Audit ed FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Pla nned FY 2006 Planned A FLEET CHARACTERISTICS ., : ,.z,r:, ... <.? ..1 . .. ` :, ; } :t . , Peak -Hour Fleet = 5 5 4 4 5 Spare Vehicles 3 3 2 2 3 Spare Ratio 60% 60% 50% 50% 60% Energy Contingency Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 New Expansion Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0 0 0 New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 1 1 3 0 1 FINANCIAL DATA , Total Operating Ex penses rt + $734,590 5852,184 $593,931 $617,688 $i984,508 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $103,868 $106,392 $94,335 $99,815 $139,188 Net Operating Expenses (Subs idies) $630,722 $745,792 $499,596 $517,873 $845,320 O PERATING CHARACTERISTICS ;" Unlinked Passenger Trips 244,974 231,162 213,177 225,868 302,902 Passenger Miles }` n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Actua l Vehicle Revenue Hours 12,706 12,447 9,916 10,032 14,784 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 185,736 184,073 ' 146,057 147,651 231,983 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 192,976 189,661 148,814 150,515 238,037 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 82,191 101,494 81,122 81,597 115,586 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips n/a 78,114 81,122 81,597 115,586 PERFORMANC E CHARACTERISTICS . v.. ,. - :p.) Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $57.81 $68.47 $59. 90 $61 .57 $66.59 Farebox Recovery Ratio 14. 14% 12.48% 15. 88% 16.16% 14.14% Subsidy per Passenger ` z: ; $2. 57 $3. 23 $2.34 $2.29 $2 .79 Subsidy per Passenger Mile n/a n/a n/a nla n/a Subsidy per Revenue Hour $49.64 $59. 92 $50.38 $51.62 $57 .18 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $3. 40 $4. 05 $3.42 $3.51 $3.64 Passenger per Revenue Hour 19. 28 18. 57 21.50 22.51 20.49 Passenger per Revenue Miles 1. 32 1. 26 1.46 1. 53 1.31 Percentage of Trips on Time n/a 76. 96% 100. 00% 100.00% 100. 00%, -21 - 4/24/03 Table 2 Transit Services Banning Municipal Transit System FY 2004 - 2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2D - EXEM PT TRANSIT SERVICE FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) O PERATING CHARACTERISTICS Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Re venue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTIC S Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passenger per Revenue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles Percentage of Trips on Time Indicate date new service started (or will start) . Identify service i .e. route number/area FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Audited Estimate Planned n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a nfa n/a nfa n/a' n/a nfa n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 1 100% 0 0 0 nfa n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n la n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a nfa nla n/a $316,302 $ 23,313 $292,989 FY 2005 Planned 100% 0 0 0 $328,954 $ 27,976 $300,978 FY 2006 Plan ned nla n/a n/a n/a nla n/a n/a nla n/a 44,175 n/a 4,630 82,659 85,737 33,515 33,515 53,010 n/a 4,630 82,659 85,737 33,515 33,515 n/a n/a nfa n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a nfa n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $68.32 7. 37% $6.63 n/a $63. 28 $3.54 9.54 0. 53 100. 00% -22- $71.05 8.50% $5. 68 n/a $65.01 $3.64 11.45 0. 64 100.00% nla n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a July 2003 R oute 1 Beamont to Cabazon C ommercial Trunk R out e July 2003 R oute 1 - Sunday S ervice Beamont to Cabaz on C ommercial Trunk R oute July 2003 Route 7 - Banning Sunday Innercity Ban ning Route 4/24/03 Table 2 Transit Servic es Banning Municipal Transit System FY 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INFORMATI ON FY 2004 New S ervice Data Elemen ts Northern Route (Route 5) Southern Route (Route 6) ___________ 1 Trunkline Sunday InnercityRoute Banning SundayTotal - Total Fixed Route* Total Paratransir - System Wid e* Unlinked Passenger Trips 117,123 86,054 34,815 4,680 4,680 203,177 10,000-213,177 Passenger Miles -- --- --- -- - • - Vehicle Revenue Hours 3,798 3,798 3,798 416 416 7,596 2,320 9,916 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 54,621 59,566 68,488 6,573 7,598 114,187 31,870 146,057 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 54,435 60,367 70,131 7,093 8,513 114,802 34,012 148,814 Total Operating Expenses $ 244,338 $ 250,011 $ 260,246 $ 27,440 $ 28,616 $ 494,349 $ 99,591 ', 593,940 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $ 49,192 $ 36,143 $ 18,230 $ 2,106 $ 2,977 ' 85,335 $ 9,000 $ 94,335 Net Operating Expenses $ 195,146 $ 213,868 $ 242,016 $ 25,334 $ 25,639 ', 409,014 $ 90,591 $ 499,605 Performance Indicators 1- 1 Operating Cost Per Rev enue Hour $ _ 64.33 $ 65.83 68.52 $ 65 .96 $ 68 .79 $ 65.08 $ 42 .93 $ 59.90 Farebo x Recovery Ratio 20. 13% 14.46% 7 .00% 7 .67% 10 .40% 17.26% 9.04% Subsidy Per Passenger $ 1. 67 $ 2.49 ', 6 .95 $ 5 .41 $ 5 .48 $ 2.01 $ 9.06 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile --- --- --- _ _- Subsidy Per Revenue Hour $ 51. 38 $ 56.31 $ 63 .72 $ 60 .90$ 61.63 $ 53.85 $ 39.05 ' 50 .38 Subsidy Per Re venue Mile $ 3. 57 $ 3.59 $ 3.53 $ 3 .85$ 3 .37 $ 3.58 $ 2 .84 Passengers Per Rev enue Ho ur 30. 84 22. 66 9.17 11 .25 11 .25 26 .75 4 .311 21 .50 Passengers Per Revenue Mile 2. 14 1. 44 0.51 0 .71 0 .62 1 .78 0 .31 1 .46 * Information EXCLUDES New Service(s) which are EXEMPT for two years - 23 - Revise 4/24/03 Table 3 Individual Route Information.xls Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested f or FY 04 Project Description FY 04 Operating Assistance Fixed -Route & Dial -A -Ride Dial -A -Ride Office Furniture Bus Stop Amenities Computer Software Driver Relief Vehicle Capital Project Number (1) 04-1 04-2 04-3 04-4 Capital Subtotal Operating Subtotal Total: Capital and Operating Total Amount of Funds $910,233 $1,000 $5,000 $1,400 $20,000 TA Banning Municipal Transit System FY 04 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan 'Please show in actual dollar amounts: $100,000; $1,583,000, etc. $1,000 $5,000 $1,400 $20,000 LTF $27,400 (1) Number sho uld tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justification (2) Please identify source of " Other" funds. $792,585 Measure A $792,585 -24- 5307 $0 5311 PTA - CMAQ $0 FTA Discretionary Fare Box $117,648 Other (2) $011 $0, $117,648 $0 Revised 4/24/03 Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested.xls Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER 04-1 PROJECT NAME Dial -A -Ride Office Furniture PROJECT DESCRIPTION Replacement desk and computer furniture for Dial -A -Ride Dispatcher/Office Assistant. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Existing desk is literally falling apart. The desk drawers stick. There is not adequate space for computer equipment and workspace on the desktop. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None -25- Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER 04-2 PROJECT NAME Bus Stop Amenities PROJECT DESCRIPTION Bus stop signs, benches, and waste containers PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The above items are needed to both replace existing amenities that are worn out and purchase new to enhance existing bus stops. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. Unexpended balances of prior year projects are used to reduce the funding claim for capital purchase for the following year. - 26 - Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER 04-3 PROJECT NAME Computer Software PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of computer desktop publishing software for the development of the system's ride guides and other publications. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The system's current desktop publishing software is limited and dated. One of the needs identified in the Pass Area Transit Plan is improved marketing of the transit system. Quality publications will assist in marketing the system. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None - 27 - Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER 04-4 PROJECT NAME Driver Relief Vehicle PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of a replacement lightweight pickup truck for Bus Driver relief at shift changes. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The transit system has two lightweight pickup trucks that are used to by the drivers at shift changes. This truck will replace one that has a manual transmission and needs replacement. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE— OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. Unexpended balances of prior year projects are used to reduce the funding claim for capital purchase for the following year. -28- Table 5 - Summary of F unds R equested f or FY 05 and FY 06 Banning Municipal Transit System FY 05 and FY 06 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan (For planning purposes only - not approved) Please sh ow in actual dollar amounts: $100,000; $1,583,000, etc. Project Desc ription Capital Project Number (f) Total Amount of Funds STA LTF Measure A 5307 5311 FTA - CMAQ FTA Discretiona ry Fare Box Other (2) FY 05 Operating Assistance Fixed -Route & Dial -A -Ride Bus Stop Amenities Dial -A -Ride Vehicle w/ wheelchair lift & tiedowns, and radio FY 06 Operating Assistance Fixed Route & Dial -A -Ride Bus Stop Amenities Capital Subtotal Operating Subtotal To tal: Capital and Operating 05-1 05-2 06-1 $946,642 $5,000 $55,000 $984,508 $5,000 $0 $818,851 $5,000 $55,000 $845,320 $5,000 $1,729,171 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $127,791 $139,188 $266,979 $0 (1) Number should tie to Table 5A - Capital Project Justification (2) Please identify source of "Other funds. - 29 - Revis ed 4/24/03 Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested.xls Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER 05-01 PROJECT NAME Bus Stop Amenities PROJECT DESCRIPTION Bus stop signs, benches, and waste containers PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The above items are needed to both replace existing amenities that are worn out and purchase new to enhance existing bus stops. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) LTF PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. Unexpended balances of prior year projects are used to reduce the funding claim for capital purchase for the following year. - 30 - Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER 05-02 PROJECT NAME Replacement Dial -A -Ride Vehicle PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of a 12 -passenger replacement Dial -A -Ride vehicle with wheelchair lift and tie -downs and radio. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replacement vehicle purchase is per schedule on Table 1 of this Short Range Transit Plan. The vehicle is needed to continue current level of service to ADA, persons with disabilities, and the frail elderly. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) LTF PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. Unexpended balances of prior year projects are used to reduce the funding claim for capital purchase for the following year. - 31 - Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER 06-01 PROJECT NAME Bus Stop Amenities PROJECT DESCRIPTION Bus stop signs, benches, and waste containers PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The above items are needed to both replace existing amenities that are worn out and purchase new to enhance existing bus stops. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) LTF PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. Unexpended balances of prior year projects are used to reduce the funding claim for capital purchase for the following year. - 32 - Banning Municipal Transit System FY 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 6 - PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT PRIOR AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS Prior Audit Recommendation Action(s) Taken And Results (a) The City has been active in recruiting both part-time and on -call drivers. Two on -call Bus Driver positions were created in FY 2000. Currently both are vacant. The City will continue it's efforts to recruit qualified individuals to fill the vacant Bus Driver positions. Recommendation 1: Hire an additional on - call vehicle operator for both the fixed route and Dial -A -Ride services to avoid service disruptions caused by driver turnover and missed shifts. Recommendation 2: Conduct more routine evaluations of schedule adherence as part of fixed route system performance review. Staff is reviewing the method currently being used to determine on -time performance. Though random, there is some concern that the current procedure may not provide an accurate assessment of on -time performance. The procedure is under review and may be changed during the 4th quarter of FY 03 based on the results of that review. Recommendation 3: Refine marketing strategies to appeal to market segments that will be served by expansion initiatives outlined in the Short Range Transit Plan. The Pass Area Transit Study research also identified the need for a comprehensive marketing plan. This plan will be developed with the assistance of a consultant. It's anticipated that the marketing plan will be completed during FY 2004. Recommendation 4: Track repairs covered by warranty through the existing maintenance accounting system. The Fleet Maintenance Division is now tracking repairs covered by warranty. (a) If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant. - 33 - Revised 4/24/03 Banning Municipal Transit System FY 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 7 - PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUES Approved Current Plan ' Year Projected Financial Elements FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 Operating Expenses (less depreciation) $ 857,369 $ 910,233 $946,642 $984,508 Capital Expenses $ 668,275 $ 27,400 $60,000 $5,000 Total Operating & Capital Expenses $1,525,644 $ 937,633 $1,006,642 $989,508 Less Money on Hand or at RCTC* (Funds identified in RCTC's Audited Records.) Current Plan Year FY 03/04 LTF - _ $ 71,922 STA $ - Measure A $ - Farebox Revenues $ - Z)ther Grant Subsidies (please specify) $ - balance of Operating and Capital Expenses Needed $ 865,711 Less Money On -Hand at Your Agency LTF $ - STA $ - Measure A $ - Farebox Revenues $ 117,648 Other Grant Subsidies (please specify) $ - Balance Needed for Operating and Capital $ 748,063 Revise 4/24/03 - 34 - Table 6 Projected Expenses and Revenues.xls APPENDIX A Existing Route Maps BANNING MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SYSTE M NORTHERN ROUTE Monday - Friday: 6:00 AM - 6:00 PM Saturday & Holidays: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Wilso n s1. Sun La kes -a ca t a) 07 Legend 0 - Transfer Point - Time Point - Bus Route 0:00 - AM Time 0:00 - PM Time (bold type) 22nd Street 4-- a m ID m iz cn Nicolet 0 Is — 4 © ' Theodore Indian Sch ool F San Gorgonio Aless andro T a) ca rn L _ 2 cn Q. r a H offer George 0 Williams w ca w o 0 City Hall © Ind. Sch/ Aless. ® 8th & Nicolet © K -Mart ou Hospital ® 22nd & Ramsey o 4th & Ramsey ©0 o'A Banning Library Sunset @ Ramsey 6:00 6:11 6:17 6:20 6:27 6:33 6:37-:47 6:54 6:57 7:00 7:11 7:17 7:20 7:27 7:33 7:37-:47 7:54 7:57 8:00 8:11 8:17 8:20 8:27 8:33 8:37-:47 8:54 8:57 9:00 9:11 9:17 9:20 9:27 9:33 9:37-:47 9:54 9:57 10:00 10:11 10:17 10:20 10:27 10:33 10:37-:47 10:54 10:57 11:00 11:11 11:17 11:20 11:27 11:33 11:37-:47 11:54 11:57 12:00 12:11 12:17 12:20 12:27 12:33 12:37-:47 12:54 12:57 1:00 1:11 1:17 1:20 1:27 1:33 1:37-:47 1:54 1:57 2:00 2:11 2:17 2:20 2:27 2:33 2:37-:47 2:54 2:57 3:00 3:11 3:17 3:20 3:27 3:33 3:37-:47 3:54 3:57 4:00 4:11 4:17 4:20 4:27 4:33 4:37-:47 4:54 4:57 5:00 5:11 5:17 5:20 5:27 5:33 5:37-:47 5:54 5:57 BANNING MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SYSTEM SOUTHERN ROUTE Monday - Friday: 6:00 AM - 6:00 PM Saturday & Holidays: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM N Wilson un Lakes Highland Spri Ramsey a) cn f Lincoln a a) 2 o c c. CD; o CA: o a) c : au as U) Westward 0 K -Mart ® Westward & 22nd 0 San G. & Wesley 0 Hathaway & Williams 0 4th & Ramsey o 22nd & Ramsey 0E ors ©E Ho spital Sunset @ Ramsey City Hall 6:07 6:11-:21 6:27 6:32 6:37 6:41 6:46 6:55 7:00 7:07 7:11-:21 7:27 7:32 7:37 7:41 7:46 7:55 8:00 8:07 8:11-:21 8:27 8:32 8:37 8:41 8:46 8:55 9:00 9:07 9:11-:21 9:27 9:32 9:37 9:41 9:46 9:55 10:00 10:07 10:11-:21 10:27 10:32 10:37 10:41 10:46 10:55 11:00 11:07 11:11-:21 11:27 11:32 11:37 11:41 11:46 11:55 12:00 12:07 12:11-:21 12:27 12:32 12:37 12:41 12:46 12:55 1:00 1:07 1:11-:21 1:27 1:32 1:37 1:41 1:46 1:55 2:00 2:07 2:11-:21 2:27 2:32 2:37 2:41 2:46 2:55 3:00 3:07 3:11-:21 3:27 3:32 3:37 3:41 3:46 3:55 4:00 4:07 4:11-:21 4:27 4:32 4:27 4:41 4:46 4:55 5:00 5:07 5:11-:21 5:27 5:32 5:37 5:41 5:46 5:55 6:00 6:07 Williams Ica Barbour as 0)L L as Wesley Legend - Transfer Point 0 - Time Point - Bus Route 0:00 - AM Time 0:00 - PM Time (b old type) _3Ca_ BANNING MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SYSTEM CABAZON ROUTE Monday - Friday: 6:00 AM - 6:00 PM Saturday & Holidays: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM rn 0 0) 1 Sun Lakes Blvd. m rn 0© San Gorgonio Ho spital 0 In Sun set @ Ramsey 7:05-7:15 8:22-8:32 9:53-10:03 11:10-11:20 12:27-12:37 1:58-2:08 3:15-3:25 4:32-4:42 7:21 8:38 10:09 11:26 12:43 2:14 3:31 4:48 a) a) U) in Nicolet 0 Banning Library 7:27 8:46 10:17 11:34 12:51 2:22 3:39 4:56 Ramsey 1-10 Freeway City Hall (eastbound) 6:00 7:31 8:48 10:19 11:36 12:53 2:24 3:41 4:58 0 Cabazon Community Center 6:15 7:46 9:03 10:34 11:51 1:08 2:39 3:56 5:13 0 Esperanza & Elm 6:21 9:09 1:14 5:19 (effective 01/31/02) 0 Cabazon Country Store 6:31 7:48 9:19 10:36 11:53 1:24 2:41 3:58 5:29 0 Casino Mor ongo 0 Outlet Malls Legend - Transfer Point 0 - Time Point - Bus Route . _ . - Route Extention 0:00 - AM Time 0:00 - PM Time (bold type) 1 Seminole 111,103 .(1) KC >_ O �o■ - 1u) O r .2 iEca 1 .' r- . 1 -o C=b• •n ■ CO .i I or 1 co 11•111-11-111•MISS Esperanza 10 City Hall (westb ound), m Dolores ? Maxine � o ma rooning- ��j J 11 Ramsey @ S unset 0 K -Mart 6:35 6:40 6:46 6:55 7:01 7:52 7:57 8:03 8:12 8:18 9:23 9:28 9:34 9:43 9:49 10:40 10:45 10:51 11:00 11:06 11:57 12:02 12:08 12:17 12:23 1:28 1:33 1:39 1:48 1:54 2:45 2:50 2:56 3:05 3:11 4:02 4:07 4:13 4:22 4:28 5:33 5:38 5:44 5:53 6:00 APPENDIX 13 Proposed Route Maps Banning Municipal Tranist System R oute 1 (C ommercial. Trunk Route) 'WdRarnsey 02001 Mic rosoft Corp. All rk i-its reserved. Morongo Indian Res ervation RIVERSIDE San Bernardino Rational F orest - 38 - JI, t _}tl vi I. �,y HofieF St _ A = f%r St 1 Vjiaitla,,G.ai — _ 'JtltiM1,' ail t::ttJ_�1VI 31 Ifs D -I ilsan fit. : I n �s:� = , E]p0rl !_ o( J I� ' v c3o:l 3- I Bl Iv"4���4h5C0 104 tii s ii �It ct t 1-=1 ,1 yl !JIB m; x�VVwiliiarr�sSt• , u" `J iilia' t E �llarra =fit - VV,H-arA a ▪ t nc- risay; St L � Banning Municipal Tranist System Route 5 (Northern R oute) Ct 0 ; IEI e9Pher �Rd.." - r�I I } ` ' F r iiiI ;-).To �V' 1 rco _ TI. eador� St` ,I I, -:1--11 f 'W Gilroao t — � - _- E GxEm`ar� S•V- L_ � � �; _ � I � I , TIC l I� c l I I S�ili J H ���I :�— J �` - r `Du anrairrg 3I; i C-0161-1 ---.Chart . s --St - 39 - 3 Iii- J� �%Xe�C6ffi(I "IN'JN n 1? I Id I .! B VstB { ; yg • 2001 M icro soft Corp_ rill rights reserved. Banning Municipal Tranist System Route 6 (Southern R oute) -r 1 • l taffaTi r IDTf4°IIfiS W1 •citr. Nir et $t= F� I L I I I \ /�l4Wi arri jl� -V� 1lta �s t `-I 1..u11.11 -11u �Il (11 Hilltop -Rd —131 CD Coyote E Theodore, ?2 E Huffi- S1 1.-1 E iIson E-1 LI y' L 111iDIe1l If r?, !�i �lJll orterSt- _- __Qfd-Barring=lily Moroog oIndia n.. Re servation .. i iIr-- -40- DRAFT CITY OF BEAUMONT TRANSIT SYSTEM FY 2004 - 2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Prepared by Michael A. Pistilli, Transit Services Manager April 29, 2003 Table of Contents SRTP F/Y 2004-2006 Introduction .. . . Page #1 Table 1 Fleet Inventory Page #2 Table 2A Fixed Route Transit Services Page #3 Table 2B ADA-Paratransit Services Page #4 Table 2C System -Wide Transit Services (Excludes Exempt New Services) Page #5 Table 2D Exempt Transit Services Page #6 Table 2E System -Wide Transit Services (Includes Exempt (New) and Non -Exempt Services Page #7 Table 3A Individual Route Information (Exempt Services Planned for F/Y 2003-2004) Page #8 Table 3B Individual Route Information (Exempt & Non -Exempt Services Planned for FY 03-04Page #9 Table 4 Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2004 Page #10 Table 4A Capital Project Justification (Project Number FY 04-01 . Page #11 Table 5 Summary of Funds Requested for FY 05 and FY 06 .. Page #12 Table 5A Capital Project Justification (Project Number FY 05-1 Page #13 Table 5A Capital Project Justification (Project Number FY 06-1) . Page #14 Table 5A Capital Project Justification (Project Number FY 06-2) .. Page #15 Table 5A Capital Project Justification (Project Number FY 06-3) . Page #16 Table 6 Progress to Implement Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations . Page #17 Table 7 Projected Expenses and Revenues Page #18 List of Exhibits: A City of Beaumont/Cherry Valley Transit Service Area Map B Fixed Route and DAR Ride Guides C Key Performance Indicators D Proposed Pass Area Beaumont -Banning Transit Plan Route Map 5/9/2003 INDRODUCTION The City of Beaumont has operated the Transit System in Beaumont and Cherry Valley since August 1979. The initial system was one 15 mile long fixed route operating on a loop. Due to low productivity, the system was changed to a General Public Dial -A -Ride (DAR) in fiscal year 1980. This system increased service to the community by maintaining a 30 -minute time. Service was expanded to unincorporated areas of Cherry Valley and Highland Springs in FY 1982. In F/Y 1994 to 1995 the DAR system started operating at full load capacity, with eleven passengers per vehicle hour, the decision to implement a fixed route system was made. Passengers were experiencing extended ride time on the bus to reach their destination in addition to busy signals when trying to place their service requests. On January 30, 1998, the City Council of Beaumont approved and signed an agreement and work plan, with Jill Kollmann & Associates to plan and assist, with the implementation of a fixed route system to complement the DAR system. The operating plan was approved at a public hearing by the City Council on July 6, 1998. Fixed Route Services started operating on February 1, 1999. After three years of service, the fixed route is averaging 10.9 passengers per hour. In the spring of 2000 the Pass Area Cities of Beaumont, and Banning, along with the City of Calimesa requested and received funding from RCTC to implement a Regional Transit System Feasibility Study to determine if a single transit system to serve the Pass Area was needed. A consultant was hired and a task force was formed to oversee the work performed by the consultant. The Task Force finally accepted a Pass Area Existing Conditions and Transit Needs Assessment Study in December 2001. The Task Force recommended that Staff from the Cities of Beaumont and Banning compile an implementation plan. This Pass Area Transit Plan has been compiled and approved after several public hearings held in the Pass Area by the Councils of the Cites of Beaumont and Banning. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) approved the Short Range Transit Plan that provides the funding for the implementation of the Pass Area Coordinated Transit Services. This Plan proposes a coordinated transit system for the Pass Area that is operated by the Cities of Beaumont and Banning. This Short Range Transit Plan incorporates the planning elements of the Pass Area Transit Plan that effect the Beaumont Transit System Service. The Cities of Beaumont and Banning are implementing the Approved Plan with the coordinated DAR services placed into operation in February of 2003. Extended hours and a Commercial Trunk Line Route are the next elements of the Plan that are scheduled to be implemented over the next six months. Page 1 Table 1- Fleet In ventory City of Beaumont Sh ort Range Transit Plan F/Y 04-06 Year Built ` Manufacturer Model Seats Lift- Equip? Type of Fuel Own or Lease FR Vehicle DAR Vehicle Support Vehicle Active/ Reserve/ Rehab* Total Vehicle Miles** Year to Replace Bus # 1991 #2813 Bluebird GM P-30 17 Yes Diesel Own Yes 1 A 239,679 (1) FY 00-01 1991 #2813 l Bluebird GM P-30 17 Yes Diesel Own Yes A 241,695 (1) FY 00-01 1991 #2812 Bluebird GM P-30 17 Yes Diesel Own Yes N/A 22,278 FY 02-03 1995 #2802 Bluebird GM P-30 14 Yes Diesel Own Yes A 176,921 FY 04-05 1995 #2803 Bluebird GM P-30 14 Yes Diesel Own Yes A 170,524 FY 04-05 2000 #2816 Bluebird GM P-30 30 Yes Diesel Own Yes A 71,876 FY 09-10 2000 #2817 Bluebird GM P-30 30 Yes Diesel Own Yes A 66,726 FY 09-10 2000 #2818 Goshen ' Goshen II Ford E-450 16 Yes Diesel Own Yes A 50,743 FY 05-06 2000 #2819 Goshen Goshen II Ford E-450 16 Yes Diesel Own Yes A 45,887 FY 05-06 2001 #2820 Goshen Goshen II Ford E-450 16 Yes Diesel Own Yes A 36,431 FY 05-06 2001 #2821 Goshen Goshen II Ford E-450 16 Yes Diesel Own Yes A 33808 FY 05-06 1995 2887 Ford Crown Victoria N/A N/A _ Gas Own Yes Staff Vehicl e A 123,000 FY 05-06 1999 2700 Ford Ford E-450 Service Truck N/A N/A Gas Own Yes ServiceTruck A 5,400 FN 08-09 * A - Active, R - Reserve, MR - Major Rehab. **Use NTD Data from prior year 1. Process of Reprogramming funds approved in SRTP FN 00-01 for three 25 passenger CNG buses to purchase instead, two 30 passenger CNG buses in FN 03-04 Revised 5/9/2003 Table 1 Fleet Inventory.xls Page 2 City of B eaumont FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2A - FIXED ROUTE TR ANSIT SERVICE Excludes Exempt (New) Service Fixed Route 1 Starting 7-1-2003 Changes to Route 2 Route 1 FY 2002 Audited Changes to R oute 2 Starting July 2003 FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet 1 1 1 1 1 Spare Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 Spare Ratio 100% 100% 100% 100 % 100 % Energy Contingency Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 New Expansion Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0 0 0 New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 0 0 1 0 1 FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses $116,450 $145,587 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $11,779 $14,516, $16,000 $16,500 $16,500 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $104,671 $131,071 $149,000 $148,500 $148,500 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Unlinked Passenger Trips 33,764 32,240 35,000 35,500 40,000 Passenger Miles 37,468 31,875 51,300 51,500 51,500 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 2,829 2,825 3,800 3,800 3,800 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 37,468 31,875 51,300 51,500 51,500 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 38,385 32,156 52,298 52,298 52,2981 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 27,456 27,500 ' 32,448 32,448' 32,448 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 26,115 26,228 32,448 32,448 32,448 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $41.16 $51.54 $43.42 $43.42 $43.42 Farebox Recovery Ratio 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Subsidy per Passenger $3.10 $4.07 $4.26 $4.18 $3 .71 Subsidy per Passenger Mile $2. 79 $4.11 $2.90 $2.88 $2.88 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $37.00 $46.401 $39. 21 $39.08 $39.08 Subsidy per Revenue M ile $2. 79 $4.11 $2.90 $2.88 $2.88 Passenger per Revenue Hour 11.9 11.4 9.2 9. 3 10.5 Passenger per Revenue Miles 0.9 1. 0 0.7 0. 7 0.8 Percentage of Trips on Time 95. 1% 95.4% 100. 0% 100.0% 100. 0% Revised 5/9/2003 Table 2 Transit Services.xls Page 3 City of Beaumont FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2B - ADA-PARATRANSIT SERVICE Excludes Exempt (New) service FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 FY 2006 Planned Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet 4 4 5 5 5 Spare Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 Spare Ratio 25% 25% 20 % 20% 20% Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0 0 0 New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0 0 4 FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses $301,048 $355,445 $355,000 $360,000 $365,000 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $29,990 $35,776 $35,000 $36,500 $38,000 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $271,058 $319,669 $320,000 $323,500 $327,000 O PERATING CHARACTERISTICS 4 Unlinked Passenger Trips 29,847 31,467 35,000 36,000 37,000 Passenger M iles 79,114 72,500 75,000, 77,000 79,000 Total Actual Ve hicle Revenue Hours 6,946 6,860 7,500 8,000 8,200 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 79,114 72,500 75,000 77,000 79,000 Actual Vehicle Miles 84,165 74,250 76,850 78,000 80,500 (Total Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 22,790 25,500 28,000 29,000 29,560 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 19,576 24,500 28,000 29,000 29,560 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS ;' - Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $43. 34 $51.81 $47.33 $45.00 $44.51 Farebox Recovery Ratio 10% 10% 10% 10% 10 % Subsidy per Passenger $9.08 $10.16 $9.14 $8.99 $8 .84 Subsidy per Passenger Mile $3.43 $4. 41 $4.27 $4.20 $4.14 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $39.02 $46. 60 $42.67 $40.44 $39 .88 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $3.43 $4.41 $4.27 $4.20 $4.14 Passenger per Revenue Hour 4. 3 4.6 4. 7 4.5 4.5 Passenger per Revenue M iles 0.38 0.43 0. 47 0. 47 0.47 Percentage of Trips on Time 85.9% _ 96.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Revised 5/9/2003 Table 2 Transit Services .xls Page 4 City of Beaumont FY 04 - FY 06 ShortRangeTransit Plan TABLE 2C - SYSTEM -WIDE TRANSIT SERVICE E xcludes E xempt (New) Service FY 2002 Audit ed FY 2003 Estim ated FY 2004 Planned I FY 2005 Planned FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Flee t 5 5 6 6 6 Spare Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 Spare Ratio 40% 40% 33% 33%, 33% Energy Contingency Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 Ne w Expansion V ehicles Delivered 0 0 0 0 0 New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 0 0 1 0 5 FINANCIAL DATA - «. . '{: .2 .. . `. ,}. ... Total Operating Expenses $417,498 $501,032 $520,000 $525,000 $530,000 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $41,769 $50,292 $51,000 $53,000 $54,500 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $375,729 $450,740 $469,000 $472,000 $475,500 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS . ... . .. ..: :.,,f.. Unlinked Passenger Trips 63,6111 63,707 70,000 71,500 77,000 Passenger Miles 116,582 104,375 126,300 128,500 130,500 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 9,775 9,685 11,300 11,800 12,000 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 116,582 104,375 126,300 128,500 130,500 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 122,550 106,406 129,148 130,298 132,798 To tal Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 50,246 53,000 60,448 61,448 62,008 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 45,691 50,728 60,448 61,448 62,008 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS z , . „M$; :,;: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $42.71 $51.73 $46.02 $44.49 $44 .17' Farebox Recovery Ratio 100/0 10% 10% 10% 10% Subsidy per Passenger $5. 91 $7. 08 $6. 70 $6.60 $6.18 Subsidy per Passenger Mile $3. 22 $4.32 $3. 71 $3.67 $3.64 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $38. 44 $46. 54 $41. 50 $40.00 $39.63 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $3.22 $4. 32 $3.71 $3. 67 $3 .64 Passenger per Revenue Hour 6. 5 6. 6 6.2 6.1 6.4 Passenger per Revenue Miles 0. 55 0.61 0. 55 0. 56 0.59 Percentage of Trips on Time 90. 9% 95. 7% 100. 0% 100.0% 100. 0% Revised 5/9/2003 Table 2 Transit Ser vices.xls Page 5 Audited information required if second year of service TABLE 2D - EXEM PT TRANSIT SERVICE City of Beaumont FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan Commerical Trunk Line FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered FINANCIAL DATA R outes 2 and 3 FY 2002 FY 2003 Audited Estimated 2 1 50% 0 0 0 2 1 50% 0 0 0 Route 1 and Route 3 FY 2004 Planned 2 1 50% 0 0 1 FY 2005 FY 2006 Plann ed Planned 2 1 50% 0 0 2 1 50 % 0 0 0 Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS $204,289 $10,848 $193,441 $253,550 $11,548 $242,002 $330,000 $24,000 $306,000 $335,000 $33,000 $302,000 $345,000 $33,500 $311,500 Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 28,593 48,460 3,482 48,460 48,722 49,345 46,869 34,415 73,428 5,235 73,428 74,278 54,912 51,657 55,000 95,000 7,600 95,000 99,951 65,000 65,000 55,000 95,000 7,600 95,000 99,951 65,000 65,000 55,000 95,000 7,600 95,000 99,951 65,000 65,000 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS 7 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passenger per Revenue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles Perc entage of Trips on Time $58.67 5% $6.77 $3.99 $55.55 $3. 99 8.2 0. 6 95.0% $48.43 5% $7.03 $3.30 $46.23 $3.30 6. 6 0.5 94. 1 % $43.42 7% $5. 56 $3.22 $40. 26 $3.22 7. 2 1.0 100. 0% $44.08 10% $5.49 $3.18 $39.74 $3. 18 7.2 0.6 100.0% $45 .39 10% $5.66 $3 .28 $40 .99 $3.28 7.2 0.6 100. 0% Indicate date new service started (or will start). Identify service i.e . route number/area Fixed Route 1 -Date Started February 2002 Fixed Route 2 changes to Route 1 Commerical Trunk Line Route Starting July 2003 Fixed Route 3 Started Service February 2002 Revised 5/9/2003 Table 2 Transit Services.xls Page 6 City of Beaumont Transit System FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2E - SYSTEM -WIDE TRANSIT SERVICE Includes Exempt (New) and non- exempt services FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Plann ed FY 2005 Planned FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS 7 3 43% 0 0 0 8 3 38% 0 0 1 8 3 38% 0 0 0 8 3 38% 0 0 5 Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 7 3 43% 0 0 0 FINANCIAL DATA Total O perating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $621,787 $52,617 $569,170 $754,582 $61,840 $692,742 $850,000 $75,000 $775,000 $860,000 $86,000 $774,000 $875,000 $88,000 $787,000 O PERATING CHARACTERISTICS .Etna Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Ve hicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 92,204 165,042 13,257 165,042 171,272 99,591 92,560 98,122 177,803 14,920 177,803 180,684 107,912 102,385 125,000 221,300 18,900 221,300 229,099 125,448 125,448 126,500 223,500 19,400 223,500 230,249 126,448 126,448 132,000 225,500 19,600, 225,500 232,749 127,008 127,008 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS .4a t . ... :.:. : -� .pact+. .:.::. ..,. `� ✓ ;:.: ; .. .. .... -. .; . .; .. s:. Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passenger per Revenue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles Percen tage of Trips on Time $46.90 8% $6.17 $3. 45 $42. 93 $3. 45 7. 0 0. 56 92.9% $50.58 8% $7.06 $3.90 $46.43 $3.90 6.6 0. 55 94.9% $44.97 9% $6. 20 $3. 50 $41. 01 $3.50 6. 6 0. 56 100.0% $44.33 10% $6.12 $3,46 $39.90 $3. 46 6. 5 0. 57 100. 0% $44 .64 10% $5 .96 $3 .49 $40 .15 $3.49 6.7 0.59 100. 0% Revised 5/9/2003 Table 2 Transit Services.xls Page 7 City of Beaumont Transit System FY 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 3A - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INFORMATION Start Date July 1, 2003 Formely Start Dat e July 1, 2003 Formely Complete Table 3 for year that funding is being requested Data Elements C omm erical Trunk Line Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Total Fi xed Route* 35,000 Total Par atransit* 35,000 Total - System Wide * 70,000 Unlinke d Passerjser Trips 35,000 Passenger Miles 51.300 51,300 75,000 126,300 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 3.800 3,800 7,500 11,300 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 51,300 51.300 75,000 126,300 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 52.298 52,298 76,850 129,148 Total Opera ting Expenses $165,000 $165,000 $350,000 $515,000 To tal Passenger Fare Revenue $16,500 $16.500 $35,000 $51,500 Net Operating Expenses $148,500 $148,500 $315,000 $463,500 Performance Indicato rs $43.42 $45.58 Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 1 $43.42 $46.67 Farebox Recovery Ratio 10% 10% 10 % 10% Subsid Per Passen er $4.24 $4.24 $9.00 $6 .62 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 2. 89 2.89 4.20 3 .67 Subsidy Per Revenue Hour $39.08 $39.08 $42.00 $41 .02 Subsidy Per Revenue Mile $2.89 $2.89 $4.20 $3 .67 Passeng ers Per Revenue Hour 9.2 9.2 4 .7 6.2 Passengers Per Reve nue Mile 0. 68 0.68 0.47 0.55 Note Routes I and 3 are Exempt for Two Years. Route 2 and DAR services are non-exempt transit Services * Information EXCLUDES New Service(s) which are EXEMPT for two years Revise 5/9/2003 Table 3 Individual R oute Information.xls Page 8 City of B eaum ont Transit System FY 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 3B - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INFORMATION (Syst em Wide Exempt a nd Non -Exempt Services) Start Dat e July 1, 2003 Formely R oute 2 Compl ete Table 3 for year that funding is being requested Start D ate July 1, 2003 Formely Route 1 Start Dat e February -02 Data Elements C ommerical Trunk Line Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Total Fixed Route * T Total Paratra nsit* Total - System Wide* Unlinked Passenger Trips _ 35,000 35,000 20,.000 90,000 35,000 125,000 Passenger Miles 50,000 51,300 45,000 146,300 75,000 221,300 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 3,800 3,800 3,800 11,400 7,500 18,900 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 50,000 1 51,300 45,000 146,300 75,000 221 300 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 52,435 52,298 47,516 152,249 76,850 229,099 Total O eratin Ex enses $165 000 $165,000 $165,000 $495,000 $355,000 $850,000 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $16,000 $16,500 $16,500 $49,000 $35,000 $84,000 Net Operating Expenses $149,000 $148,500 $148,500 $446,000 $320,000 $766,000 • Performance Indicators Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $43. 42 $43 .42 $43 .42 $43.42 $47.33 $44 .97 Farebox Recovery Ratio 10% 10% 10 % 10% 10 % 10% Subsidy Per Passenger $4.26 $4.24 $7 .43 $4 .96 $9 .14 $6.13 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 2.98 ' 2.89 3.30 3.05 4 .27 3 .46 Subsidy Per Revenue Hour $39. 21 $39. 08 $39 .08 $39.12 $42.67 $40.53 Subsidy Per Revenue Mile $2. 98 $2. 89 $3 .30 $3 .05 $4.27 $3 .46 Passengers Per Revenue Hour 9. 2 9.2 5.3 7.9 4.7 6.6 Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0. 70 0. 68 0.44 0.62 0.47 0 .56 Note: Route I (Commerical Trunk Line) is Ex empt for Two Years startin g July, 2003, Route 3 Started February 2002, DAR services are non-exempt transit Services *Information Includes New Service(s) which are EXEMPT for two years and non-exempt Services Revise 5/9/2003 Table 3 Individual Route Information .xls Page 9 City of Beaumont Transit System Summary of Funds Requested FY 04 Short Range Transit Plan FY 04 - FY 06 Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 04 Please show in actual dollar amounts: $100,000, $1,583,000, etc . Project Description Capital Project Number (1) Total Amo unt of Funds STA LTF Measure A 5307 5311 FTA - CMAQ FTA Discreti onary Fare Box Other (2) Operating Costs F\Y 03-04 $850,000 $775,000 $75,000 Purchase additional replace- ment (1)30 Passenger bus F/Y 04-1 $200,000 $160,000 $40.000 Capital Subtotal 5170,000 Operating Subtotal $840,000 Total: Capital and Operating $1,010,000 $0 $935,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $40,000 (1) Number should tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justification (2) Source of Other Funds are M SCR CNG Fuel Grant . (3) Additional funds are to be added to funds approved in FN 2001 and ha ve been approved for reprogramming to purchase two 30 Passengers buses Revised 5/9/2003 Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested.xls Page 10 City of Beaumont Transit System SRTP F/Y 04-06 Table 4A -Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER F/Y 04-1 PROJECT NAME E Purchase One 30 Passenger CNG Replacement Bus PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase One 30 Passenger Replacement Bus with Wheel Chair Lift, Two -Way Mobile Radio and Security Monitoring System. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The Bus that this project will replace (Year -1991, Make -Bluebird, Present Mileage -245,679) has gone beyond its cost effective service life of 200,000 miles or seven years for a medium duty bus under FTA guidelines (Refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — ORPROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED There are prior projects or funds on balance. Page 11 City of Beaum ont Transit System FY 05 and FY 06 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 05 and FY 06 (For pla nning purposes only - not appr oved) Please show in actual dollar amounts: $100,000; $1,583,000, etc. Project Description Capital Pr oject Number (1) Total Amount of Funds STA LTF Measure A 5307 5311 FTA - CMAQ FTA Discretionary Fare Box Other (2) F/Y 2004-2005 Operating Costs $0 $860,000 5774,000 586,000 F/Y 2004-2005 Purchase (2) Replacement 30 Passenger CNG Buses F/Y 05-1 5600,000 $600,000 FN 2005-2006 Operating Costs 5875.000 5787,000 $88,000 FN 2005-2006 Purchase Computerized Transit System Operating Software FN 06-1 550.000 $50,000 I FN 2005-2006 Purchase (4) Replacement 16 Passenger DAR Buses with Wheelchair Lifts and Two - Way Radios FN 06-2 $400,000 5400,000 FN 2005-2006 Purchase Shop Equipment FN 06-3 $10,000 510.000 Capital Subtotal 51,060,000 1 Operating Subto tal $1,735,000 To ta l: Capital and O perating $2,795,000 $0 $2.621.000 50 50 $0 50 50 5174,000 50 (1) Number should tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justification (2) Please Identify sou rce of *O the r funds. Revised 5/9/2003 Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested.xls Page 12 Table 5A Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER F/Y 05-1 (Should tie to Table 5 — Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested) PROJECT NAME Purchase Two 30 Passenger CNG Replacement Buses PROJECT DESCRIPTION Two 30 Passenger CNG Powered Buses with Wheel Chair Lifts, Two -Way Mobile Radios and Security Monitoring systems. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replacement of buses under a capital replacement program that specifies when they have reached the end of their cost effective service life ensures safe and efficient transit services are provided. (Refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) LTF Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS O F A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None Page 13 Table 5A Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FP( 06-1 (should tie to Table 5 — Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested) PROJECT NAME Purchase Computerized Software to provide for data, services planning and Analysis Management. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of Software totally designed to support Public Transit Services and Operations. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This software will provide for efficient management of services and operations by having all aspects of transit operations under one data acquisition, analysis and management software program. (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) LTF Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None Page 14 Table 5A Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER F/Y 06-2 (should tie to Table 5 — Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested) PROJECT NAME Purchase of Four 16 Passenger DAR Buses with Wheelchair Lifts and Two -Way Radios PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of new DAR 16 Passenger buses to replace buses purchased in 1999 and 2001. These are classified as 5 Year or 100,000 miles buses and have reached the end of their life cycle. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replacement of buses under a capital replacement program that specifies when they have reached the end of their life cycle ensures safe and efficient Transit services are provided. (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) LTF Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None Page 15 Table 5A Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER F/Y 06-3 (should tie to Table 5 — Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested) PROJECT NAME Purchase of shop Equipment PROJECT DESCRIPTION Shop Equipment and diagnostic software to repair and maintain new buses PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Updated shop equipment and diagnostic tools are required to efficiently maintain and repair new buses when they are placed into operation. (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) LTF Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE_— OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None Page 16 City of Beaumont Transit System SRTP 04-06 TABLE 6 — PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT Prior Audit Recommendation (Conducted FY 01) The Triennial Performance Audit for F/Y 98 to F/Y 00, as found that the City of has made a reasonable effort to implement each of the prior Triennial Performance Audit recommendations. The F/Y 98 — F/Y 00 Triennial Performance Audit completed in April 2001 made new recommendations listed below: 1. Modify the procedures for removing fares form the vault at the end for the day to preclude the possibly of skimming fares by limiting access to the fare vault to the Transit Services Coordinator. 2. Reconcile fare box receipts to the driver ridership counts on a random, periodic basis to ensure that fare revenues are consistent with actual ridership counts by passenger type. 3. Increase resources dedicated to marketing new fixed routes services being rolled out in F/Y 2001. 4. Modify the procedures for reviewing the performance of the Transit Services Manager, which currently does not adequately ensure that the City of Beaumont clearly understands the capabilities and the performance of the Transit Services Manager with relation to official functional responsibilities. (1) If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant. Action(s) Taken And Results (1) Currently the bus drivers at the end of their shift only remove the locked fare vault from the bus fare box and then place them in a secured safe. The next day the Transit Services Coordinator processes the fares. A procedure has been setup to have the accounting department perform a quarterly reconciliation of the fare box and passenger counts in conjunction with the Transit Department Quarterly report to RCTC. Implementation for the first reconciliation is scheduled to be completed by April 30, 2002. The City of Beaumont Transit Dept. has an ongoing procedure to ensure new services is market and presented to the public. This ensures that the public receives information on upcoming services that are scheduled to be implemented. The Transit Services Manager recently completed a 10 Courses Management Training Certificate Program. The City Manager receives a quarterly evaluation report form the Transit Services Manager. Page17 City of Beaumont FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 7 - PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUES Approved FY 03 Current Plan Year Projected Financial Elemen FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 Operating Expenses (less depreciation) Capital Expenses 5860,250 $850,000 $160,000 $45,000 Total Operating & Capital Expenses $905,2501 $1,010,000 5860,000 $875,000 $600,000 $1,460,000 460,000 $1,335,000 Less Money on Hand at RCTC* (Funds identified in RCTC's Audited Records). Note: Information was provided during SRTP kick off.) LTF STA FY 04 Measure A Total Money on Hand $0 alance of Operating and Capital Expenses Needed $0 This section should tie to Table 4 and Table 5 - shows total amount of funding being requested for FY 04 and proiects amounts needed for FY 05 and FY 06 Less Money on Hand at your Agency Est.Operaling Balance F/Y 03 LTF Measure A Farebox Revenues Other Grant Subsidies (please specify) Balance Needed for Operating and Capital $0 $935,000 Revised Funding Amount Needed This represents the amount of money that your Agency is requesting to operate for FY 04. (Amount not to exceed funding apportioned to your transit area). Revised 5/9/2003 Table 6 Budget Sheet. xis Page 18 LIST OF EXHIBITS: Exhibit A City of Beaumont/Cherry Valley Transit Services Area MAP Exhibit B Fixed Route and DAR Passenger Ride Guide Exhibit C Key Performance Indicators Table Exhibit D Proposed Pass Area Beaumont -Banning Transit Plan Route MAP s ■ EXHIBIT A City of Beaumont Transit Sytem with 1/4 -Mile Fixed -Route Service Area e*I % 4ksk\\\ \V:4VN.. ,, a *V.,AW.\\NME\F-‘10___ \ .\ s\VW\\\Nkt%:\\\N\\\v- • .‘ ,Nkk n. es NP .N4C4'C*4 .4N \Nts\. \\N"; e\k\N1 1\1 kkV1 14th St `' 1 or LEGEND wZone 1 (Inside 1/4 Mile) Zone 2 (Outside 1/4 Mile) nimo Rou te 1 Route 2 �-- Ro l O 2 N-',-**‘k 14.\‘‘‘‘‘4X+,‘\ .\\.\\NT *s\N\AN\\\\NtJ\\\N\\N\4\N\\NlL\N ..\\\\\\\'\\\sNlj\N \ w� it kNk\\.\\‘)RWL%%Vk \\_k\\\_\*\\\\ \\\\"\i% \\1**VOtikil N 1V";' ..4,411v4vtgq. �r►r\r \\k1 Sind 1 ti L. \ r war \`**)',1 •\ '►1� �'t',ti. s: isles}; il4' ktp 14444, + `� 'r\\\\+�� *r F kts4N ��i�iiO �� \� 1 *'j+11 �%• t.& l \V4'y •= i�'�l ii, ► rc. 1 \.\ib\ \\4 k.AA► r k*SNN fa �1►`lttritil \\\`� tt��\1\_Yi rl 1 E�M1�� 1'�1��\ ;ft Allarillitrall n\ V4:4 • 11 k .iahfand a+pi e R. E cii4K St 0 u ROUTE 1 EXHIBIT B Library City Park Orchard Park 8'" St. & Penn. **Stater Bros/ Food for Less K -Mart Hospital , Civic Center 7:50 7:53 8:00 8:09 8:14 8:17 8:20-8:22 8:30-8:32 8:35 8:38 8:45 8:54 8:59 9:02 9:05-9:07 9:15-9:25 9:28 9:31 9:38 9:47 9:52 9:55 9:58-10:00 10:08-10:18 10:21 10:24 10:31 10:40 10:45 10:48 10:51-10:53 11:01-11:11 11:14 11:17 11:24 11:33 11:38 11:41 11:44-11:46 11:54-12:04 12:07 12:10 12:17 12:26 12:31 12:34 12:37-12:39 12:47-12:57 1:00 1:03 1:10 1:19 1:24 1:27 1:30-1:32 _ 1:40-1:50 1:53 1:56 2:03 2:12 2:17 2:20 2:23-2:25 2:33-2:43 2:46 2:49 2:56 3:05 3:10 3:13 3:16-3:18 3:26-3 :36 3:39 3:42 3:49 3:58 4:03 4:06 4:09-4:11 4:19-4:29 4:32 4:35 4:42 4:51 4:56 4:59 5:02-5:04 5:12(LS) O UG AR WAY BEAUMONT AVE. 3 PALM AVE.: 10TH ST j_ 1 CALIF. AVE d, CHERRY AVE . PENN. AVE. Downtown Transfer point for Beaumont Fixed Routes & RTA Routes 31,35 & 36 r NORTH HIGHLAND SPRINGS RD. TIMETABLE FOOTNOTES: • Bold Type indicates transfer point for Bea umont Fixed Routes, RTA & Banning Fixed Route. ** Indicates transfer point for Banning Fixed route only. • *Indicates transfer point for RTA Routes 31,35 a nd 36 . • (LS) Last Stop • Timetable subject to changes with advance notification. KEY S TOPS -- ROUTE 1 1. LIBRARY 2. CITY POOLIPARKS 3. ORCHARD PARK APTS. 4. 8l & PENN. AVE. 5. STATER BROS.\FOOD for LESS 6. K -MART 7. HOSPITAL 8. CIVIC CENTER * I ndicates flag stops allowed * Indicates transfer poi nts Transfer point for Beaumont Fixed Routes & DAR, Banning Fixed Route & DAR, RTA 31, 35 & 36 MAP NO T TO SCALE TIMETABLE ROUTE 2 t; MtilL J 1 r TIMETABLE FOOTNOTES: 6th Street & Egan Wells [ . .Stater Bros/ Fa Bank Food -Less 8:03 8:06 8:48 8:51 9:41 10:34 11:27 12:20 1:13 2:06 2:59 9:44 10:37 11:30 12:23 1:16 2:09 3:02 8:11 8:56 9:49 10:42 11:35 12:28 1:21 2:14 3:07 K -Mart Hospital 8:14 8:17-8:19 8:59 9:02-9:12 9:52 9:55-10:05 10:45 10:48-10:58 11:38 11:41-11:51 12:31 12:34-12:44 1:24 1:27-1:37 2:17 2:20-2:30 3:10 3:13-3:23 4:03 4:06-4:16 4:56 4:59-5:03 3:52 4:45 3:55 4:48 4:00 4:53 8t & Pe nn. 8:26 9:19 10:12 11:05 11:58 12:51 1:44 2:37 3:30 4:23 5:10 Orchard Cal Fed Library Park Apts . 7:50 7:56 8:31 9:24 10:17 11:10 12:03 12:56 1:49 2:42 3:35 4:28 5:15(LS) Downtown Transfer Point for Beaumont Fixed Routes & RTA Routes 31,35 &36 8:34 8:41 9:27 10:20 11:13 12:06 12:59 1:52 2:45 3:38 4:31 9:34 10:27 11:20 12:13 1:06 1:59 2:52 3:45 4:38 NORTH MAP NOT TO SCALE • Bold type indicates transfer poi nts for Bea umont DAR, RTA & Ban ni ng Fixed Route. • (LS) Last Stop • Timetable s ubject to changes with advance notification when possible. • Does not operate on Saturdays. • ** Indicates transfer point for Banning Fixed Route. • *Indicates transfer point for RTA and Fixed Routes 31,35 & 36 . KEY STOPS --- ROUTE #2 1 LIB RARY (Transfer Poi nt DA R to Fixed Route) 2 ORCHARD PARK APTS. (Transfer Point DAR to Fixed Route) 3 6th STREET & EGAN 4 WELLS FARGO BANK* 5 STATER BROS.\FOOD FOR LESS 6 K -MA RT 7 HOSPITAL 8 8TH & PENN. AVE. 9 C AL FED Indicates flag stops allowed (*Indicates tra nsfer points) Transfer point for Beaumont Fixed 7 Routes & DAR, Banning Fixed Routes &DAR & RTA Routes 31.35&36 HIGHLAND SPRINGS RD. TIMETABLE RO UTE 3 *Wells Fargo Bank 7:50 **Stater Bros/ Food -4 -Less 7:55 K - Mart Hospital EXHIBIT B Highland Springs Village Cherry Valley Market 7:58 8:01-8:03 8:08 Royal Coach 8:16 8:24 Orchard Park 8:32 8:38 8:43 8:46 8:49-8:59 9:34 10:30 11:26 9:39 10:35 11:31 9:42 10:38 11:34 9:45-9:55 10:41-10:51 11:37-11:47 12:22 1:18 2:14 3:09 12:27 1:23 2:19 3:14 12:30 1:26 2:22 3:17 12:33-12:43 1:29-1:39 2:25-2:35 3:20-3:30 9:04 9:12 9:20 9:28 10:00 10:56 11:52 10:08 10:16 11:04 11:12 12:00 12:08 10:24 11:20 12:48 1:44 12:16 1:56 1:04 1:52 2:00 1:12 2:08 2:39 3:35 4:05 4:10 5:01 (LS) 4:13 4:16-4:26 4:31 2:47 2:55 3:43 3:51 3:03 3:59 4:39 4:47 ORCHA RD ST. r e..w lwwrwarwwwwrw .I t • NANCY AVE. 1 7 4 CHERRY VALLEY BLVD. • 4:55 BROOKSIDE AVE. 8 4 CHERRY AVE. COUGAR WAY BEAUMONT AVE. Downtown Transfer point for Beaumont DAR to Fixed Route & RTA Routes 31,35 & 36 5 2 TIMETABLE FOOTNOTES • Bold type indicates tra nsfer points for Beaumont Fixed Routes, RTA & Banning Fixed Routes. • ** Indicates transfer point for Banning Fixed Route only. • * Indicates transfer point for RTA Routes 31,35 and 36 . • (LS) Last Stop • Timetable subject to change with advance notification . KE Y STOPS ---- ROUTE 3 1. WELLS FARGO BANK* 2. STARTER BROSWOOD for LESS 3. K -MART 4. HOSPITAL* 5. HIGHLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE 6. CHE RRY VALLEY M ARKET 7. ROYAL COACH 8. ORC HARD PAR K APTS . (Tra nsfer Point DAR to Fixed ro ute Indicates flag stops allowed (*Indicates transfer points) HIGHLAND SPRINGS RD. 1 Transfer point for Beaumont DAR, Banning Fixed Route & RTA 4 -4-" —j outes 31,35 &36 gi3 t NORTH MAP NOT TO SCI' F EXHIBIT B pIAL-A-RIDE SERVICE INF ORMATION The City of Beaum ont Dial -A -Ride (DAR) us a curb to c urb General Public and American With Disabilities (ADA) transportation service to locatio ns within the City of Beaumont and Cherry Valley Service Area. DA R s ervic e is offere d Monday - Friday, 8:00am to 4:30 pm. SHOW DAR SERVICE WORKS Passengers that qualify for DAR service simply call the DAR dispatcher an d giv e your pickup and destination locations and ho w many passengers will be traveling. Sa turda y Ser vice Re quire s a 24 hour reserva tion, a nd must be in by 4:30pm on Frida y or the pre ceding work day. To ke ep othe rs from waiting, please be rea dy when you call. Listen fo r the horn, board promptly an d have your fare ready. The bus will only wait two (2) min utes a nd the driver will n ot except bills la rge r than $1.00. • Service is a va ila ble to seniors (60+) and ADA certifie d passengers within the Bea umont/Che rry Va lley Serv ice a rea. Fa re for the service is $1. 00 per passenge r pe r de stina tion. • Ge nera l Public Passenge rs whose pickup a nd de stination are located in Zone 2 (R efer to Zone Map) fare for the se rvice is $1.50 per pa sse nger, per destination. • G en eral Public passe ngers located in Zon e 2 will use D AR to tra nsfer to the Fixe d Route when their destin ation is locate d inside the 1/4 mile area of the fixed ro ute. Fare for this serv ice is $1.00 per passe nger, per destination. • Children 5 years and under ride free, when acc oml by a payin g passenger. BUS SYSTEM POLICIES The following policies h ave bee n developed to help everyone to have a safe and pleasant trip. Thank You for yo ur cooperatio n. * H av e b us fare ready when you board . • Any a ction that int erferes with the saf e oper ati on of the bus or that compr omises th e safety of the dri ver or a ny of the passengers is not permitted a nd is gro unds for suspension of service. * Remain seated when the bus is in m oti on. Always wait till the bus comes to a c omplete stop before l ea ving y our se at. • Pl ease be patient when dri vers ar e securing mobility aides . • Eating, drinking smoking or abusive l angu ag e is not permitted on the bus . * Limit of three (3) carry on pack ages per paying passen ger. • Stro llers and carts must be folded pri or to boardin g the bu s. * Infa nts and small children m ust be held on y our lap, stan ding on the seats or running about the bus is not permitte d. * Animals other than serv ice animals are n ot pe rmitted on the bus. * We reserve the right to re fuse service to persons who are intoxicated, abusive, or pre sent a health and/o r sa fety hazard to others pa ssengers or the driv er. WILT IS (ADA) CERTIFIC AT ION The American s with Disabilities Act (ADA) requ ires that G overnment entities offer ADA service s for indiv iduals who can use fix ed route bus service becau se of their disabilities. If yo u need more informa tion on ADA Para transit Service, co ntact the Beaumo nt Tr ansit OiTie^ wt: (909) 769.8532 CITY OF BEAUMONT DEMAND RESP ONSE DIAL -A -RIDE FARE $1.00/$1.50 H ours of Operation M onday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30 pm Saturday 24 Hour Advanced Res ervati on Cl osed the Foll owi ng H olidays New Year's Day Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day INF ORMATION (949)769-8 EXHIBIT B HOW TO USE T HE BUS SYSTEM In the down t own area the bus will only stop at designated bus stops identified by the blu e and white bus stop signs. All oth er ar eas are flag stops a nd the bus will stop at any corn er. WHEN THE BUS APPRO ACHES: 1. Wave to the bus driver as th e bus appro ach es, this will let the drive r know that you want to bo ard the bus. 2. Stan d back fro m the curb so the driver is able to safely approach the stop. 3. Have exact change or bus pass ready when the bus arriv es, driver's do no t carry change. 4. If you need a transfe r, please a sk the driver when you board. AS YOU APPR OACH YOUR DESTINAT ION: 1. Pull the chime cord or let the driver know prior to your stop. 2. Please be sure to stay behind the white standee line. 3. For you r safety, please wait un til the bus comes to a complete stop be fore getting up, and wait until the bus departs befo re c rossing the street. TRANSFERS T ra nsfers are issu ed free of charge and are good for the base fare. They may not be use d for retu rn trips, and are only valid fo r da y of issue at designated transfer lo cations on ly. Transfers are acce pted by Bann ing Tra nsit, RTA an d Beau mont DAR. Whe n tran sferring to the Beaumont DAR an additional . 50 cents is require d to complete the trip. Altered or mutilated tran sfe rs will not be acce pt, BUS SYSTEM P OLICIES The following policies have been developed to help everyone to h ave a safe and pleasant trip. Thank You for y our c ooperatio n. * H ave your fare ready when you board, dri ver's do not c arry ch ange. * Any action that interferes with the s afe oper ati on of the bus or that compromises the safety of the driv er or a ny of the p assengers is not permitted and is grounds f or suspensio n of service. * Rem ain seated when the b us is in m otion . Always wait till the bus has c ome to a complete st op befor e le aving your se at. * Pl ease be p atient when dri vers are securing mobility aides . * Eating, drinking, sm oking or ab usi ve language is not permitted on the b us. * Limit of thr ee (3) carry on packages p er paying passenger. * Stro llers and carts must be f olded prior to boarding the bus. * Infants and small children must be held on your lap, standing on the seats or running ab out the bus is n ot permitted. * An imals other tha n service a nimals are not permitted on the bus. *We re ser ve the right to refu se ser vice to persons who are intoxicated abusive , or present a health and/or safe ty hazard to othe r passenge rs or the driver. ADA FAR AT RAN SIT SERVICE The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requ ires that the public transit operato rs prov ide Dial -A -Ride service for individu als who arc un able to use the fix ed rou te bus service becau se of the ir disability. If you would Iikc more info rmation on ADA Paratransit Service, co nta ct the Beaumo nt T ran sit Off ice at: (909)769-8532 CITY OF BEAUM ONT ROUTE 1 F ar e: $ .50 / person Hours of Op eration Monday - Saturday 8:0Oam - 5:00pm Clos ed the following holidays New Y ear's Day Memorial Day Ind ep endence Day Lab or Day Thanksgiving D ay Christmas Day I NF ORMATIO N (909) 769-8539 EXHIBIT C City of Beaumont Transit System SRTP FY 04-06 System Perf ormance Indicators Systemwide FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estimated % Increase/ -Decrease FY 2004 Projected % Increase/ -Decrease FY 2005 Project ed % Increase/ -Decreas e Performance Statistics Unlinked Passenger Trips 92,204 98,122 6 .4 % 125,000 27 .4% 126,500 1 .2% Operating Cost Per Revenue Hours $ 46.90 $ 50.68 8 .1 % $ 44.97 -11 .3% $ 44.64 -0.7 % Farebox Recovery Ratio 10 .5% 8.3% -21 .0% 10.0 % 20.5%0 10 .1% 1.0% Subsidy per Passenger $ 6.17 $ 7.06 14.4% $ 6 .20 -12.2% $ 5.96 -3.9 % Subsidy per Passenger Mile $ 3.45 $ 3 .90 13 .0% $ 3.50 -10.3% $ 3 .49 0.3% Subsidy per Revenue Hour $ 42.93 $ 46.43 8.2% $ 41.01 -11.7% $ 40.15 -2 .1% Subsidy per Revenue Mile $ 3.45 $ 3.90 13.0% $ 3 .50 -10.3% $ 3.49 -0 .3% Passengers per Revenue Hour 7.0 6.6 -5.7% 6.6 0.0% 6.70 1 .5% Passengers per Revenue Mile 0.56 0.55 -1 .8% 0.56 1 .8% 0.59 5 .4% Revenue Miles between Collisions 164,961 177,803 7.8% 221,300 24 .5 % 223,500 1.0% Trips On -Time 93.9% 94 .9% 1.1 % 100% 5.4% 100% 0.0% Complaints per 1,000 Passengers 0. 0541 0.0452 -16.5% 0 .0000 -100.0 % 0.0000 0.0 % Total Miles Between Roadcalls 6,478 11,563 78 .5 % 221,300 1813.9 % 126,500 -42 .8% L,nuiDii u Proposed Pass Area Banning - Beaumont Transit Plan Rout e Maps Callon's& rd 11 6t Cherry Valey Blvd Bro okside Ave Oak Valley Golf Club 14th St e St W 4th St lslgart ounty, Park 6 m 2 3 Highland 0Spftnga BEAUMONT TRANSIT SYSTEM LEGEND: Route 1Trunkilne Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Tripper Weatviard Ave.... I .;:iT1t11 J r „ \\Bob_ 1 BANNING TRANSIT SYSTEM LEGEND: Route 1 Tr unkllne Route 5 Route 6 Tripper Route .ce W Glk S 11 243 w �Il 191 I AC Dysart Equestrian Park Reservati on Copyright o 19!67001 Micro so ft Corp. aridity be su ppliers. All rights reserved. htKf:Nwww. mIao eoll.aorMneppolm 0 Copyright 2000 by Oeogra1No Dull Ted ndo gy, Ina. M dghte reserved. 0 7000 Navlga9on Tedrrrologles. All rights re served. TM s deli Includes Infonnatlon taken wllh permisalon from Cenadlsn aulhortlea 0 Her Majesty Me Owen In Right of Canada 0 Copyright 2000 by Cmnou eewdr Mlaon rrksin g Data end Systems Ltd. CE Transit Tnw° CORON 6hc) Ii7ge Transit Plan Update FY 2 Table of Contents City of Corona FY 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plan 1 Introduction.... 1 2 Table 1 Fleet Inventory 2 3 Table 2A Fixed Route Transit Service 3 4 Table 2B ADA-Paratransit Service 4 5 Table 2C System -Wide Transit Service 5 6 Table 2D Exempt Transit Service 6 7 Table 3 Individual Route Information 7 8 Table 4 Summary of Funds Requested for FY 04 8 9 Table 4A Capital Project Justification — FY 04 9 10 Table 5 Summary of Funds Requested for FY 05 and 06 13 11 Table 5A Capital project Justification — FY 05 and 06 14 12 Table 6 Progresses to Implement Triennial Performance Audit 22 13 Table 7 Projected Expenses and Revenues 23 City of Corona FY 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plan INTRODUCTION The City of Corona operates a general public Dial -A -Ride and a fixed route system `Corona Cruiser'. The City has operated the Dial -A -Ride service since April 1977. Corona Cruiser fixed route service began on February 5, 2001. Corona Cruiser currently operates along two routes — Blue Line and Red Line. The City has operated the service through private contractor since its inception. The contractor operates the service based on all inclusive hourly cost except, the fuel is provided by the City. ' Per RCTC Short Range Transit Plan guidelines, the text portion of the SRTP is to be submitted on a biennial basis and therefore, the attached City of Corona FY 04-05 SRTP does not include the same. However, it is important to point out proposed changes for FY 04: It is proposed that effective July' 2003, both of Corona Cruiser fixed routes - Blue Line and Red Line begin service to new North Main Corona Metrolink station; and at the same time, service to West Corona Metrolink station will be discontinued. This is based on higher demand for service at the new North Main Corona Metrolink station. Dial -A -Ride will continue to serve both Metrolink stations. Also proposed for FY 04 is initiation of Saturday service for Red Line effective July' 2003; and for Blue Line effective September' 2003. Proposed Saturday hours of operations for both Blue Line and Red Line are 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Blue Line Saturday service is proposed for September' 2003 such that it's implementation coincides with Riverside Transit Agency's Route 3 re -alignment to serve El Cerrito area. Proposed Saturday service is in response to April' 2003 on -board survey's overwhelming request for Saturday service, coupled with request for Saturday service during two previous Public Meetings. Effectiveness of Corona Cruiser Saturday service will be evaluated upon its first year anniversary. Page 1 City of Corona FY 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 1- FLEET INVENTORY Veh Number Year Built M anufacturer Model Seats Lift- Equip? Type of Fuel Own or Lease FR ! Vehicle D AR Vehicle Acti ve/ Reserve/ Rehab* Annual Miles For FY 01-02 _ Total Vehicle Miles** Total Veh. Sys . Failures Year to Replace 9432 1996 Ford E350 -Super Duty 14/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 34,422 193,344 2 2003*** 9433 1996 Ford E350 -Sup er Duty 14/2 Y es Gasoline Own 1 R 28,057 185,365 0 2003*** 9434 1996 Ford E350 -Sup er Duty 14/2 Yes Gasoline Own _ 1 R 32.133 188,785 0 2003*** 9435 1996 Ford E350 -Super Duty 14/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 33,931 191,169 0 2003* ** 9436 1997 Ford E350 -Super Duty 16/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 31,711 163,065 1 2004 9437 1997 Ford E350 -Super Duty 16/2 Yes Gas olin e Own 1 A 33,925 166,209 0 2004 9438 1998 Goshen Coach Sentry 18/2 Yes CNG Own 1 R 32,693 97,095 1 2005 9439 1998 Goshen Coach Sentry 18/2 Yes CNG Own 1 A 25,474 79,275 2 2005 9440 1999 Goshen Coach Sentry 18/2 Yes CNG Own 1 A 33.325_ 76 .911 0 2006 9441 1999 _ Goshen Coach Sentry 18/2 Yes CNG Own 1 A 39,606 84.126 0 2006 9442 1999 Goshen Coach Sentry 18/2 Yes CNG Own 1 A 40,091 94,000 1 2006 9443 2001 Fo rd E450 -Super Duty 16/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 12.451 12,451 0 2008 9444 2001 I Ford E450 -Super Duty 16/2 Yes Gasoline _Own 1 A 23 .453 23,453 0 2008 9445 2001 I Ford E450 -Super Duty 16/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 23,768 23,768 1 2008 ' *A - Active, R - Reserve, MR - Major Rehab. * *Use NTD Data from prior year - FY 01-02- Represents total vehicle miles at the end of FY 01-02 ** * Units 9432, 9433, 9434, 9435 are scheduled to be ordered in M ay' 2003 with delivery expected in September' 2003 Revise 5/12/2003 Table 1 Fleet Invent ory.xls Page 2 City of Corona FY 04 - FY -06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2A - FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE Excludes Exempt (New) service FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS - Peak -Hour Fleet 2 4 4 Spare Vehicles 0.5 1 1 Spare Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 Energy Contingency Reserve 0 0 0 New Expansion Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0 New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 0 2 3 FINANCIAL DATA - Total Operating Expenses W $366,000 $836,000 $868,000 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $28,000 $87,000 $94,000 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $338,000 $749,000 $774,000 O PERATING CHARA CTERISTICS Unlinked Passe nger Trips 49,500 144,400 144,400 Passenger Miles 163,000 475,000, 475,000 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 8,250 18,050 18,050 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 103,000 225,000 225,000 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 110,500 242,000 242,000 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 8000, 20352 20352 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 7200 18316 18316 PERFORMANCE CHA RA CTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $44.36 $46.32 $48 .09 Farebox Recovery Ratio 7.65% 10.41% 10 .83% Subsidy per Passenger $6.83 $5 .19 $5.36 Subsidy per Passenger Mile $2.07 $1 .58 $1.63 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $40.97 $41 .50 $42 .88 Subsidy per Revenue M ile $3.28 $3.33 $3.44 Passe nger pe r Revenue Hour 6. 00 8.00 8.00 Passenger per Revenue Miles 0.48, 0.64 0 .64 Pe rcentage of Trips on Time 90.00% 90.00% 90.00% FY 04 includes Blue Line. Blue Line was implemented on 2/5/01 and it's two full fiscal year ex emption expires on 6/30/03 FY 05 and FY 06 includes Blue Line and Red Line. Revised 5/12/2003 Table 2 Transit Services.xls Page 3 City of Corona FY 04 = FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TA BLE 2B - ADA-PARATRANSIT SERVICE Excludes Exempt (New) service FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 I Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet 7 7 7 7 7 Spare Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 Spare Ratio 0 .29 0 .29 0.29 0 .29 0.29 Energy Contingency Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 New Expansion Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0 0 0 New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 3 4 2 0 0 FINANCIAL DATA = Total Operating Expenses $546,569 $590,000 $658,000 $688,000 $716,000 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $80,661 $84,200 $92,000 $92,000 $92,000 Net O perating Expenses (Subsidies) $465,908 $505,800 $566,000 $596,000 $624,000 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Unlinked Passenger Trips 66,000 70,000 73,520 73,520 73,520 Passenger Miles 309,051 290,000 294,000 294,000 294,000 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 15,074 14,100 14,700 14,700 14,700 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 235,335 220,000 234,400 234,400 234,400 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 254,090 240,000 254,000 254,000 254,000 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Sche duled N/A 70,000 73,520 73,520 73,520 Total On -Time Reve nue Vehicle Trips N/A 64,400 67,640 67,640 67,640 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $36. 26 $41. 84 $44.76 $46.80 $48 .71 Fare box Recove ry Ratio 14.76% 14.27% 13.98% 13 .37% 12 .85 % Subsidy per Passenger $7. 06 $7.23 $7.70 $8 .11 $8.49 Subsidy per Passenger Mile $1.51 $1.74 $1. 93 $2.03 $2 .12 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $30.91 $35.87 $38.50 $40.54 $42.45 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $1. 98 $2.30 $2.41 $2.54 $2 .66 Passe nger per Rev enue Hour 4. 38 4. 96 5. 00 5.00 5 .00 Passenger per Revenue Miles 0. 28 0. 32 0.31 0.31 0.31 Percentage of Trips on Time 94.47% 92.00% 92.00% 92. 00% 92.00 % Revised 5/12/2003 Table 2 Transit Services .xls Page 4 City of Corona FY 04 = FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2C - SYSTEM -WIDE TR ANSIT SERVICE Excludes Exempt (New) service FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 ' Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet 7 7 9 11 11 Spare Vehicles 2 2 2.5 3 3 Spare Ratio 0 .29 0 .29 0 .54 0 .54 0.54 Energy Contingency Reserve 0 0 0 0 _ 0' New Expansion Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0 0 0 New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 3 4 2 2 3 FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses $546,569 $590,000 $1,024,000 $1,524,000 $1,584,000 To tal Passenge r Fare Revenue $80,661 $84,200 $120,000 $179,000 $186,000 Ne t Ope rating Expense s (Subsidies) $465,908 $505,800 $904,000 $1,345,000 $1,398,000_ OPERA TING CHARACTERISTICS Unlinked Passenger Trips 66,000 70,000 123,020 217,920 217,920 Passenger Miles 309,051 290,000 457,000 769,000 769,000 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 15,074 14,100 22,950 32,750 32,750 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 235,335 220,000 337,400 459,400 459,400 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 254,090 240,000 364,500 496,000 496,000 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled N/A 70,000 81,520 93,872 93,872 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips N/A 64,400 74,840 85,956 85,956 PERFORMA NCE CHARA CTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $36. 26 $41.84 $44 .62 $46 .53 $48 .37 Farebox Recovery Ratio 14.76% 14. 27% 11.72% 11 .75% 11 .74 % Subsidy per Passenger $7. 06 $7.23 $7.35 $6.17 ' $6.42 Subsidy per Passenger Mile $1.51 $1. 74 $1.98 $1.75 $1.82 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $30.91 $35.87 $39.39 $41 .07 $42 .69 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $1. 98 $2.30 $2.68 $2.93 $3.04 Passenger per Revenue Hour 4. 38 4. 96 5. 36 6.65 6 .65 Passenger per Revenue Miles 0. 28 0.32 0. 36 0.47 0.47 Percentage of Trips on Time N/A 92. 00% 91. 81 % 91.57% 91 .57% Revised 5/12/2003 Table 2 Transit Services .xls Page 5 Audited information required if second year of service TABLE 2D - EXEMPT TRANSIT SERVICE City of Corona FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan Indicate date new service started (or will start) . Identify service i .e. route numb er/area FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet 4 4 2 Spare Vehicles 1 1 0 .5 Spare Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 Energy Contingency Rese rve 0 0 0 New Expansion Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0 New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0 FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses $451,941 $658,000 $434,000 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $28,422 $56,000 $4-4,000 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $423,519 $602,000 $390,000 OPERA TING CHARA CTERISTICS Unlinke d Passenger Trips 43,381 100,000 78,400 Passenger Miles N/A 330,000 257,000 Total Actual Vehicle Reve nue Hours 12,185 15,000 9,800 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 178,934 188,000 122,500 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 185,695 205,000 131,500 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled N/A N/A 12,352 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips N/A N/A 11,117 PERFOR MA NCE CHA RACTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $37.09 $43.87 $44.29 Farebox Recovery Ratio 6.29% 8.51% 10.14% Subsidy per Passenger $9.76 $6. 02 $4.97 Subsidy per Passenger Mile N/A $1.82 $1.52 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $34. 76 $40.13 $39. 80 Subsidy pe r Revenue Mile $2. 37 $3. 20 $3.18 Passenger per Revenue Hour 3.56 6.67 8. 00 Passenger per Revenue Miles 0.24 0. 53 0. 64 Percentage of Trips on Time N/A N/A 90. 00%* New Fixed Route Service started on 02/05/01 Blue Lin e and Gree n Lin e routes from 02/05/01 to 06/30/02 Blue Li ne and Red Line r outes from 07/01/02 to present All r outes serves City of Corona area FY 04 Exe mpt Service includes Red Line. Red Line was impemented on 7/1/02 and it's two full fiscal yearexemption expires on 6/30/04 FY 03 Exempt Service includes Blue Line and Red Line. Blue Line was implemented on 2/5/01 and it's two full fiscal year exemption expires on 6/30/03 FY 02 Exempt Service includes Blue Line and Green Line . Green Line was implemented on 2/5/01 and was terminated on 6/30/02 due to low ridership. Revised 5/12/2003 Table 2 Transit Services.xls Page 6 City of Corona FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INFORM ATION FY 200312004 Complete Table 3 for year that funding is being requested Data Elements Blue Line Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 Line 5 Line 6 Line 7 Total Fixed Route FY 03/04 * Total Paratransit FY 03/04* System Wide FY 03/04* Unlinked Passenger Trips 49,500 49.500 73,520 123,020 Passenger Miles 163,000 163,000 294,000 457,000 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 8,250 8,250 14,700 22,950 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 103,000 _ _ _ 103,000 234,400 337.400 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 110,500 110,5001 254,000 364,500 Total Operating Expenses $366.000 $366,000 $658,000 $1,024,000 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $28.000 $28,000 $92 .000 $120,000 Net Operating Expenses $338,000 $338,000 $566,000 $904.000 Performance Indicators Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $44. 36 _ $44.36 $44.76 $44.62 Farebox Recovery Ratio 7. 65% 7.65% 13.98% 11 .72% Subsidy Per Passenger $6. 83 $6.83 $7.70 $7.35 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $2. 07 $2 .07 $1.93 $1.98 Subsidy_Per Hour $40.97 $40 .97 $38 .50 $39 .39 Subsidy Per Mile $3.28 $3 .28 $2 .41 $2.68 Passengers Per Rev enue Hour 6.00 6 .00 5 .00 5.36 Passengers Per Revenue M ile 0. 48 0.48 0 .31 0 .36 * Information EXCLUDES Fixed Route Red Line service. Red Line started on July 1, 2002 and the two-year exemption expires on 6/30/04. Revised 5/12/2003 Table 3 Individual Route Inf ormation.xls Page 7 City of Corona FY 04 Summary of Funds R equested Sh ort Range Transit Plan Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested f or FY 04 Please show in actual dollar amounts: $100,000; $1,583,000, etc. Proje ct De scriptio n Capital Project Number (1) Total Am ount of Funds S TA LTF Measure A 5307 5311 FTA - CMAQ FTA Discretionary Fare Box Other (2) FY 04 - Operating Assistance -Dial-A-Ride FY 04 - Operating Assista nce -Fixed Route FY 04 - 2 Dia l -A -Ride Repla cement Buses ( RI V32145) FY 04 - Mobile Data Terminal and Automatic Vehicle Locat or for 14 bu FY 04 - Re placement and Upgrade of Miscellan eous Equipments FY 04 - Ca pitalized Pre ventive M aintenance (3) Capital Subtotal Operating Subtotal Total: Capital and Operating C orona -04-01 Corona 04-02 Corona 04-03 Carona 04-04 $415,000 $1,298,000 $578,000 $720,000 $140,000 $100,000 $15,000 $160,000 $1,713,000 $24,000 $20,000 $15,000 $59,000 $486,000 $648,000 $32,000 $1,166,000 $0 $116,000 $80,000 $128,000 $324,000 $0 $0 $0 $92,000 $72,000 $164,000 $0 (1) Number should tie to Table 4A - Capita l Project Justification (2) Please identify source of 'Other funds (3) Capitalized Preventive M ainte nanc e will de fra y vehicle maintenanc e co sts whic h, are part of the opera ting expenses. Ve hicle mainte nance costs are i ncluded in purchas ed transportati on h ourly c ost; th e City pays to the c ontractor Revis ed 5/12/2003 Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested.xls P ag e 8 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona -04-01 (RIV32145) PROJECT NAME FY 04 — 2 Dial -A -Ride Gasoline Powered Replacement Buses (RIV32145) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Replace 2 gasoline powered Dial -A -Ride buses with 16-18 passenger seats, 2 wheelchair positions, complete with all necessary accessories, communication equipment, paint and graphics. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Unit numbers 9436 and 9437 are 1997 model year paratransit buses. In 2004, these buses will be 7 years old and will have well in excess of 200,000 miles. These proposed gasoline powered bus purchase meets RCTC policy (being 14,000 LB GVWR bus) and AQMD requirements (being paratransit buses and a fleet size of less than 15 buses) PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA 5307: $ 112,000 STA: $ 28,000 Total: $ 140,000 RTIP ID# RIV32145 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED FY 02-03: 4 Dial -A -Ride replacement buses will be ordered in May 2003 at the cost of approx. $260,000; resulting in unexpended balance of approx. $340,000 (RTIP ID # RIV32145). 5/12/2003 Page 9 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona -04-02 PROJECT NAME FY 04 - Mobile Data Terminal and Automatic Vehicle Locator for 14 buses. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase and Install Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) and Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) in 14 buses. Integrate the MDT and AVL with the automated dispatching software. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION ,MDT and AVL provide real time bus location; critical data collection and two way messaging. This will facilitate operational efficiency and system security, automation and enhanced customer service. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA - 5307: $ 80,000 STA: $ 20,000 Total: $ 100,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None 5/12/2003 Page 10 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona -04-03 PROJECT NAME FY 04 - Replacement and Upgrade of Miscellaneous Equipments. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project permits replacement and upgrade of various asset items owned by the transit system such as computer Hardware/Software, Phone System, Radio/Communication system equipment, Office Equipments, Bus accessories and Bus Stop amenities like poles, signs kiosks and benches. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION From time to time, need arises to replace the abovementioned items ,on an un-planned basis due to variety of reasons like breakdown, obsolescence etc. Availability of funds in a timely manner is crucial to replace such items in the interest of efficiency of transit operation. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA: $15,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED NONE 5/12/2003 Page 11 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona -04-04 PROJECT NAME FY 04 - Capitalized Preventive Maintenance PROJECT DESCRIPTION Capitalized Preventive Maintenance Costs PROJECT JUSTIFICATION FTA section 5307 allows funding for Capitalized Maintenance Costs. Vehicle maintenance cost is included in hourly cost per revenue hour paid to the transit service operator. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA 5307: $128,000 LTF: $ 32,000 Total: $160,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None 5/12/2003 Page 12 City of Corona FY 05 and FY 06 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 05 and FY 06 (For planning purpose s o nly - not appr oved) Please show in actual dollar amounts: $100,000; 51,583,000, etc. Project Description Capital Project Number (1) Total Amount of Fu nds STA LTF Measure A 5307 5311 FTA - CMAQ FTA Discreti onary Fare Box Other (2) FY 2004-2005: FY 05 Dial -A -Ride Operating Assista nce FY 05 Fixe d Route Operating Assistance FY 05 - 2 Fixed Route Replacement Buses (RIV010902) FY 05 - Replacement and Upgra de of Miscellaneous Equipments FY 05 - Capitalized Preventive M aintenance FY 2005-2006: FY 06 Dial -A -Ride Operating Assistance FY 06 Fixed Route O perating Assistance FY 06 - 3 Fixed Route Replacement Buses (RIV32145) FY 06 - 3 Fixed Route Expan sion Buses (RIV010511) FY 06 - Replacement and Upgrade of Miscellaneous Equipments FY 06 - Capita lize d Preventive M aintenance Capital Subto tal Operating Subtotal Total: Capital and Operating Corona -05-01 Corona -05-02 Corona -05-03 C ar ona -06.01 Corona -06-02 Corona -06-03 Corona -06-04 51,709,000 52,768,000 5605.000 5753,000 5325,000 $15,000 $166,000 5629,000 5781,000 5507,000 $507,000 $15,000 6174 ,000 54,477,000 i $0 5513,000 5666,000 $58.000 515,000 634,000 5537.006 $687,000 $87,000 $87,000 515,000 535 .000 $2,732,000 $0 5263.000 $132,000 5420.000 $420.000 5139,000 $1,380,000 $0 - $0 SO 542.000 $87,000 $92,000 $94,000 $365,000 $0 (1) Number sho uld tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justificatio n (2) Please identify source of ' Other" fu nds. R evised 5/12/2003 Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Request ed xis Page 13 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona -05-01 (RIV010902) PROJECT NAME FY 05 — 2 Fixed Route Replacement Buses (RIV010902) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Replace 2 CNG powered Fixed Route buses with 18-20 passenger seats, 2 wheelchair positions, lift, bike rack, all other necessary accessories, communication equipment, paint and graphics. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Unit #s 9438 and 9439 are 1998 model year fixed route buses. In 2005, these buses will be 7 years old and will have in excess of 150,000 miles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED1 FTA 5307: $ 260,000 (80% Federal Share) LTF: $ 65,000 Total: $ 325,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED NONE 5/12/2003 Page 14 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona -05-02 PROJECT NAME FY 05 Replacement and Upgrade of Miscellaneous Equipments. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project permits replacement and upgrade of various asset items owned by the transit system such as computer Hardware/Software, Phone System, Radio/Communication system equipment, Office Equipments, Bus accessories and Bus Stop amenities like poles, signs kiosks and benches. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION From time to time, need arises to replace the abovementioned items on an un-planned basis due to varieties of reasons like breakdown, obsolescence etc. Availability of funds in a timely manner is crucial to replace such items in the interest of efficient transit operation. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) LTF: $15,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED NONE 5/12/2003 Page 15 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona -05-03 PROJECT NAME FY 05 - Capitalized Preventive Maintenance PROJECT DESCRIPTION Capitalized Preventive Maintenance Costs PROJECT JUSTIFICATION FTA section 5307 allows funding for Capitalized Maintenance Costs. Vehicle maintenance cost is included in hourly cost per revenue hour paid to the transit service operator. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA 5307: $132,000 LTF: $ 34,000 Total: $166,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None 5/12/2003 Page 16 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona -06-01 (RIV32145) PROJECT NAME FY 05 — 3 Fixed Route Replacement Buses (RIV32145) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Replace 3 CNG powered Fixed Route buses with 18-20 passenger seats, 2 wheelchair positions, lift, bike rack, all other necessary accessories, communication equipment, paint and graphics. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Unit #s 9440, 9441 and 9442 are 1999 model year fixed route buses. In 2006, these buses will be 7 years old and will have in excess of ,150,000 miles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA 5307: $ 420,000 (83% Federal participation) LTF: $ 87,000 Total: $ 507,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED NONE 5/12/2003 Page 17 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona -06-02 (RIV010511) PROJECT NAME FY 06 — 3 Fixed Route Expansion Buses (RIV010511) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase 3 CNG powered Fixed Route expansion buses with 18-20 passenger seats, 2 wheelchair positions, lift, bike rack, all other necessary accessories, communication equipment, paint and graphics. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Corona's Fixed Route service `Corona Cruiser' was initiated with two routes in February, 2001. Since route changes effective July, 2002, it has enjoyed a steady increase in ridership. It is anticipated that in FY 05-06, a third route will need to be implemented in order to satisfy a growing demand for deviated fixed route/community shuttle in the City of Corona area. A third route was planned for implementation during FY 01-02; however, due to initial poor ridership, third route implementation was postponed to a later date when the existing two routes would enjoy healthy ridership. Third route will need two buses for regular daily operation and a third bus as a reserve. This 3 bus purchase will add to the existing 5 fixed route buses; resulting in total of 8 buses; 6 in regular daily operation, supporting 3 deviated fixed routes and 2 as reserves. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA 5307: $ 420,000 (83% Federal participation) LTF: $ 87,000 Total: $ 507,000 5/12/2003 Page 18 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED FY 02-03 included approved funding for this 3 fixed route expansion bus purchase in the amount of $451,000 (RIV10511): FTA 5307: $374,000 LTF: $ 77,000 Total: $451,000 For the reasons explained above, this purchase is postponed till FY 05-06. 5/12/2003 Page 18 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona -06-03 PROJECT NAME FY 06 Replacement and Upgrade of Miscellaneous Equipment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project permits replacement and upgrade of various asset items owned by the transit system such as computer Hardware/Software, Phone System, Radio/Communication system equipment, Office Equipments, Bus accessories and Bus Stop amenities like poles, signs kiosks and benches. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION From time to time, need arises to replace the abovementioned items on an un-planned basis due to varieties of reasons like breakdown, obsolescence etc. Availability of funds in a timely manner is crucial to replace such items in the interest of efficient transit operation. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) LTF: $15,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED NONE 5/12/2003 Page 20 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona -06-04 PROJECT NAME FY 06 - Capitalized Preventive Maintenance PROJECT DESCRIPTION Capitalized Preventive Maintenance Costs PROJECT JUSTIFICATION FTA section 5307 allows funding for Capitalized Maintenance Costs. Vehicle maintenance cost is included in hourly cost per revenue hour paid to the transit service operator. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA 5307: $139,000 LTF: $ 35,000 Total: $174,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None 5/12/2003 Page 21 City of Corona FY 2004 — 2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 6 — PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT Prior Audit Recommendation (Conducted FY 01) 1. Ensure that quarterly reports are prepared and submitted to RCTC Action(s) Taken And Results (1) Quarterly reports have been submitted to RCTC on a regular basis for both the Corona Dial A Ride and the Corona Cruiser. 2. Update Marketing material to publicize the new fixed route service and changes to Dial A Ride 'The City has an ongoing marketing process for the Corona Cruiser and the Dial A Ride with various methods used, such as updating all brochures as information changes, distributing fliers for meetings or schedule changes, updating the Transportation Page on the City of Corona web site, placing advertisements in local newspapers, sending direct mailers to schools and individual addresses as requested; conducting transit training meetings with specific groups. Having display and information booths at City Public events, such as "Public Works Week Event" held at Santana Park, Senior Health Fair event held at the Corona Senior Center, and New Metrolink Station Grand -Opening. Posters and fliers are placed in Bus Shelter kiosks with route information, schedules and updates, including events coordinated with or by other agencies, such as the RTA Holiday shopper trolley and the Metrolink Holiday train. These fliers and posters are also distributed to Corona Parks and Recreation Department office at City Hall, the City Managers office at City Hall, the City Clerks office at City Hall, the Water Billing office at City Hall, the Human Resources office at City Hall, the Corona Police Records Department at the Corona Police Department, the Corona Senior Center, the Corona Public Library, The Corona Chamber of Commerce office, along with Senior Citizen apartment complexes as follows: Casa Grande, Corona Community Villas, Crown Pointe, Vintage Terrace. These fliers and posters are also distributed to Peppermint Ridge (home for the developmentally disabled). (1) If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant. 5/12/2003 Page 22 City of Corona FY 04- FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 7 - PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUES Financial Elements Operating Expenses (less depreciation) Capital Expenses Current Plan Approved Year FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 Projected FY 06 $1,159.000 $1,298,000 $1,106,000 $415.000 $1.358,000 $506,000 $1.410,000 $1,203,000 Total Operating & Capital Expenses $2,265,000 ,713,000 1,864,000 $2,613,000 Less Money on Hand at RCTC* (Funds identified in RCTC's Audited Records). Note: Information was provided during SRTP kick off.) FY 04 Measure A Total Money on Hand Balance of Operating and Capital 'Expenses Needed Less Money on Hand at your Agency LTF Measure A Fareb x Revenues i er raniSubsidies tpEease ,pealyy $123.901** $164,000 Balance Needed for Operating and Capital** $1,425,099 This section should tie to Table 4 and Table 5 - shows total amount of funding being requested for FY 04 and protects amounts needed for FY 05 and FY 06 if revenue is available but will not be used this fiscal year, provide an explanation i.e. $XXX needed for service expansion in FY 05; $XXX needed for replacement buses in FY 06, etc. ** LTF Money on Hand of $123,901 = $80,901 Operating from Audited FY 01-02 and $43,000 Capital from projected FY 02-03 (savings from Bus Purchase) Revised Funding Amount Needed This represents the amount of money that your Agency is requesting to operate for FY 04. (Amount not to exceed funding apportioned to your transit area). **Indicate how much money is placed on reserves and indicate why i.e. $XXX for fuel costs; $XXX for demonstration service; etc. Revised 5/12/2003 Table 6 Budget Sheet. xis Page 23 DRAFT Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Fiscal Year 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .3 Service Characteristics 8 Rider Characteristics 9 Passenger Amenities 9 Service Related Issues 10 Regional Services and Adjacent Transit Systems 10 Public Participation 11 Key Performance Indicators .11 Service Implementation and Evaluation 12 Regulatory and Compliance Requirements ......13 Proposed Service Descriptions ...14 Tables Beginning on 22 2 INTRODUCTION Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) is a Joint Powers Agency between the City of Blythe and Riverside County. PVVTA began in January of 1978. The City of Blythe appoints three representatives and Riverside County appoints two representatives. PVVTA is funded by the Transportation Development Act (TDA). The funding is adminsinstered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). PVVTA's mission statement is: To provide the residents and visitors of the Palo Verde Valley a public transportation system that maximizes passenger use, comfort, convenience, safety and satisfaction while efficiently using financial resources to benefit our community. PVVTA's vision statement is: The vision statement of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency is to provide a transit service that allows anyone to go anywhere in the community easily and efficiently and that improves the quality of life in our community. Geographically, the Palo Verde Valley is located approximately 120 miles east of Palm Springs, California and 145 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona. The valley is approximately 210 miles from the Inland Empire. PVVTA provides a family of services such as the general public demand responsive service within the City of Blythe and surrounding unincorporated County areas in an area of approximately 18 -mile radius from Downtown Blythe. Unincorporated communities served include Palo Verde, Ripley and Mesa Verde. In addition, PVVTA provides a limited deviated fixed route service between Downtown Blythe and Palo Verde College and finally, Palo Verde Valley DesertTRIP provides transportation reimbursement to individuals unable to access PVVTA dial -a -ride or fixed route services. PVVTA services are known to the public as "Palo Verde Valley Transit". Starting July, the service will be known as Desert Roadrunner. PVVTA's transit services are provided under contract to EXCEED, a division of Valley Resource Center of Perris, California. EXCEED has been providing transit service to PVVTA since January of 1981. PVVTA also has an agreement with the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities to administer the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) that has been in place in July 1, 1995. 3 PVVTA's fare structure is market based, considering the ability to pay as an important factor. It therefore includes full fare and discounted ride tickets. The last fare increase was implemented on August 1, 2002. The last fare increase helped PVVTA keep fares in line with achieving a farebox recovery rate of 10% or better. No fare increase is anticipated for the term of this report. EXISTING FARE STRUCTURE Within the City of Blythe Category Fixed Route Dial -A -Ride Changes Proposed General Public $ 1.00 $1.75 None (ages 5 and up) Seniors*/Persons 50 cents $1.75 None with Disabilities (*age 60 or older) Transfer Free Free None GoPass: 10 GoPass $10.00 20 GoPass $20.00 To/From/Within Unincorporated County Areas (up to 18 miles away from Blythe) Category Fixed Route Dial -A -Ride Changes Proposed General Public $ 1.00 $2.25 None (ages 5 and up) Seniors*/Persons 50 cents $2.25 None with Disabilities (*age 60 or older) Transfer Free Free None GoPass: 10 GoPass $10.00 $17.50 None 20 GoPass $20.00 $35.00 None The Palo Verde Valley population varies greatly by season. Its permanent population has swelled to 27,508 residents. Each winter, approximately 74,000 seasonal residents return to the desert. In cooperation with the City of Blythe, County of Riverside and various other organizations within the valley, the community has formed the Palo Verde Valley Economic Development Corporation (PVVEDC). The PVVEDC is charged with recruiting new businesses and promoting the valley. Growth in the valley is expected to increase at an average of 2%. PVVTA forecast 2% growth as well in ridership, due to implementation of new transit services. The following marketing efforts will be undertaken to promote ridership growth. 4 1. Development of a marketing program which includes brochures, flyers, advertisements in local newspapers, TV and cable access channel, website, promotional materials, contest to name the bus and logo design. 2. Development of public outreach program which includes meeting with schools, employers, senior service programs, persons with disabilities programs, social service agencies, the general public, city departments and other organizations who would benefit from public transportation in the Palo Verde Valley. 3. Development of a travel training program to train persons about public transportation, including those with disabilities. 4. Participation in RCTC Rideshare program to encourage employers, residents and visitors of the Palo Verde Valley to rideshare. 5. Participation in American Public Transportation Association (APTA) PT2 and Communities in Motion campaign which focus on commuters not using public transportation. 6. Enhance and continue the Shop, Save & Get Home Free program with Albertsons and look at including more businesses within the Palo Verde Valley. Passengers who spend $5.00 or more at Albertsons and Rite Aid receive a free ride home on Dial -A -Ride or the fixed routes. PVVTA operates buses using diesel. The Agency proposes to explore using alternative fuels and to collaborate with Riverside County to use its fueling facility. PVVTA's fleet (see Table 1) consists of 4 El Dorado Aero Tech, 1 Ford E350 Van, 1 El Dorado Aero Elite, and 1 Chevrolet Van. PVVTA spare ratio is approximately 20%. Most of PVVTA's vehicles are in good condition despite their average age of 6 years and having accumulated an average of 99,000 miles. A phased replacement program is slated to start in Fiscal Year 2004. PVVTA is proposing to obtain two fixed route vehicles and two dial -a -ride vehicles. These buses will replace two 1997 dial -a -ride buses that will be placed in the energy contingency fleet and replace the 1991 Chevrolet van. PVVTA adheres to all Federal Transit Administration (FTA) mandated Preventive Maintenance Inspection criteria and is very proactive in maintenance efforts. 5 PVVTA will be adding the buses it retires from active service into the Energy Contingency Fleet starting in Fiscal Year 2004. PVVTA operates from the City of Blythe Public Works Central Garage located at West 14th Avenue and Main Street. The buses are stored and maintained here. PVVTA administrative staff is provided by the City of Blythe and is located at the Blythe City Hall, 235 North Broadway. The contractor that provides PVVTA transit services is EXCEED (division of Valley Resource Center) has their drivers, dispatchers based out of a leased space located on Hobsonway near Sears. In Fiscal Year 2004, PVVTA will explore moving the contractor into a City owned facility. Currently, there are three locations in Blythe suitable for PVVTA operations. 1) Hobsonway @ Agate, the former Employment Development Department offices, 2) Murphy @ Broadway, the former Parks Department office and 3) Blythe Railroad Depot, located at Rice @ Hobsonway. Some minor renovation and upgrading would be required at both locations. This fiscal year with the implementation of the fixed route service, an on street TransferCenter will be developed in front of Greyhound at Rice Street and Lovekin Boulevard. The three routes will have timed transfers to facilitate transfers between routes. PVVTA will work with City of Blythe and Riverside County planning departments to develop transit facilities such as pull outs, sidewalk pads, benches and shelters in new developments. 6 Palo Verde Valley Transit Fixed Route System Map & Dial -A -Ride Service Area Map General public passengers within the dark black line, which is Blythe city limits, are not eligible for Dial -A -Ride service. However, general public passengers may use Dial -A -Ride if boarding outside the city limits in unincorporated county areas to travel within unincorporated county areas and to and from the City of Blythe. 7 SERVICE CHARACTER1STCS PVVTA operates a general public demand responsive service with next day scheduling capabilities. Known as Palo Verde Valley Transit Dial -A -Ride, PVVTA continues to increase ridership especially by persons with disabilities. Service operates Monday -Friday from 6:00 am to 5:00 pm. There is no weekend or service on New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day or Christmas Day. Resources in Fiscal Year 2004 will be dedicated to enhancing dial -a -ride service, obtaining new vehicles, and modifying dial -a -ride to become a senior/persons with disabilities service in the City of Blythe and to transport everyone else in unincorporated county areas. Existing services will continue to be monitored by staff for efficiency. Palo Verde Valley Transit limited deviated fixed route service to the Palo Verde College operates Monday -Thursday from 7:25 am to 10:30 pm and Friday from 7:25 am to 7:30 pm. The route provides no weekend or service on New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day or Christmas Day. Resources in Fiscal Year 2004 will be dedicated to implementing a true fixed route system within the City of Blythe, to the Palo Verde College & Ehrenberg and to Palm Desert to meet SunLink for transporting passengers to the Coachella Valley and VA Hospital. PVVTA's Desert RoadTRIP program currently provides reimbursement to individuals who do not have access to local transportation. Staff will evaluate the feasibility of Desert RoadTRIP program being administered by PVVTA staff instead of The Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. Desert RoadTRIP will be marketed and promoted in conjunction with The Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities to persons who are seniors (age 60 years or older), persons with disabilities and truly needy that live outside Dial -A -Ride service area, such as Lost Lake, resort communities along U.S. Highway 95, etc. Desert RoadTRIP trips will be limited to medical appointments, pharmacy, social services, banking, recreation and grocery shopping and travel up to 300 miles a month, including using Greyhound (500 miles for a family). EXCEED, PVVTA's service contractor issues monthly ridership reports covering all operations that allows the Transit Manager to monitor performance on a current and timely basis. The following pages are a synopsis of PVVTA's Transit services. Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities, PVVTA's service contractor for Desert RoadTRIP issues quarterly reports covering the statistics of the Palo Verde Desert RoadTRIP program. This 8 allows the Transit Manager to monitor Desert RoadTRIP on a current and timely basis. In 2002, PVVTA's Dial -A -Ride service totaled 1,800 passengers on the average per month. A total of 21,825 passengers were carried in FY 2001/2002. PVVTA's deviated fixed route service, which began operation in August of 2001, totaled 565 passengers on the average per month. A total of 4,985 passengers were carried in FY 2001/2002. PVVTA's Desert RoadTRIP has carried 1,570 one way trips and over 69,431 miles of travel. The average trip length is 44.2 miles per trip at a reasonable cost of $8.98 per trip. Overall growth is expected to average 2% per year for the next two years. RIDER CHARACTERSITICS Currently 35% of all Dial -A -Ride passengers are persons with disabilities. 32% are seniors age 60 years and older and the remaining 33% general public passengers. 100% of all riders on the deviated fixed route are students attending the college. 45% of all TRIP passengers are persons with disabilities, 50% are seniors (Age 60 years and older) and the remaining 5% are low income general public passengers that have no access to alternative transportation. A ridership survey will be conducted on Dial -A -Ride, Desert RoadTRIP and the fixed route to futher understand PVVTA's passenger characteristics. Major destinations on Palo Verde Valley Transit include Big Kmart, Albertsons, Riverside County Department of Social Services, Palo Verde Hospital, Blythe Marina/state line, Palo Verde College, All Star Cinemas, post office and senior center/lunch program. Work, school and shopping are dominant purpose for trips, followed by social services, health care and recreation. A ridership survey will be conducted annually starting in Fiscal Year 2004 to assess our current ridership base and understand how PVVTA transit services are doing as a whole. PASSENGER AMENITIES As a demand responsive service, there are currently no passenger amenities. The deviated fixed route service also does not have any passenger amenities as well. Passengers need to flag the bus at a safe intersection along the route in order for the bus to stop. With the implementation of the fixed route system, funding for bus stop signs, information panels, shelters, bicycle racks, trash cans, benches and shelters will be sought to provide convenience to passengers waiting for the bus. 9 PVVTA will collaborate with interested parties on providing bus shelters, benches, soda machines and pay telephones at the major bus stops. PVVTA will also implement programs such as an "Adopt A Stop" program to reduce costs on bus stop maintenance. SERVICE RELATED ISSUES Similar to other transit agencies, PVVTA is constantly trying to provide services while adhering to regulations, mandates and performance requirements. Consistent with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan, PVVTA's goal is to increase per capita annual ridership. However it is often to difficult to do so in an environment characterized by abundant free parking and transit unfriendly development. In Fiscal Year 2004, PVVTA proposes to implement a new fixed route transit service on two routes and expand an existing route. One route will operate within the City of Blythe, the second route will operate between Blythe and Palo Verde College and the third route will operate between Blythe and the Coachella Valley to Palm Desert. The dial -a -ride service will also be modified to provide service to seniors and persons with disabilities within the City of Blythe and to general public in unincorporated county areas. PVVTA will also purchase bus stop amenities, new buses for dial -a -ride and fixed route services, office equipment, radios and a support vehicle for use by the Transit Manager. The provision of ADA service is an important need for the Palo Verde Valley. Dial -A -Ride will be modified to provide more ADA trips and less general public trips. The general public will have fixed route service to replace their ability to ride dial -a -ride. Dial -A -Ride will add two new vehicles to replace older 1997 model year vehicles. PVVTA will also implement a travel training program to teach passengers with disabilities how to use a fixed route transit service. During the Unmet Transit Needs process in March of 2003, 6 individuals provided comments regarding service needs in the Palo Verde Valley area. There were some requests for the Veterans service, implementation of a fixed route service, later night and weekend service. With the hiring of a Transit Manager for PVVTA, the requests listed above will be evaluated and where feasible implemented in Fiscal Year 2003/2004. REGIONAL SERVICES AND ADJACENT TRANSIT SYSTEMS PVVTA is the only transit operator in the City of Blythe and the Palo Verde Valley. Quartzsite Transit Services has a deviated fixed route that comes to Blythe every Tuesday; La Paz County Transit has a deviated fixed route from Ehrenberg to Blythe every Monday and Wednesday. Greyhound provides 10 intercity bus service between Blythe and Los Angeles, CA or El Paso, TX with intermediate stops in Riverside County such as Desert Center, Indio, Palm Springs, Corona and Riverside. PVVTA will coordinate with SunLine Transit Agency's SunBus, SunLink and SunDial services when and if the fixed route to Palm Desert is implemented in Fiscal Year 2004. Passengers will be able to transfer between Palo Verde Valley Transit and SunBus or SunLink at a discounted rate. In Fiscal Year 2004, PVVTA staff will attempt to better coordinate with social service agencies in arranging paratransit trips to reduce duplication and to work with RCTC to obtain a Consolidated Transportation Service Agency status (CTSA) for the Palo Verde Valley, if it is warranted. PUBLIC PARTICAPATION Starting in Fiscal Year 2004, PVVTA will implement a public outreach plan which will include developing comment cards, a way to telephone, email, mail, fax a comment, complaint or suggestion to the Transit Manager. Also it will be studied to form a transit advisory committee to assist PVVTA in implementing new services. PVVTA also participates in community events and local organizations. PVVTA encourges public participation at the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Unmet Transit Needs public hearing held in the City of Blythe every March, the PVVTA Board of Directors meetings, which are held on an as needed basis, RCTC, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee and RCTC Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee meetings held on a monthly basis. PVVTA Transit Information Center provides dial -a -ride information, reservations, cancellations, fixed route schedules and information. Operating Monday though Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, this center is also responsible for taking complaints and passing them to the Transit Manager. PVVTA has made a commitment to provide reliable, responsive information to the public and be proactive in responding to customer comments, complaints and suggestions. The Transit Manager will utilize transit services on a weekly basis to talk with riders and drivers to obtain comment. PVVTA's new website at www.paloverdevalleybus.com will provide route and schedule information, information about the transit agency and links to other transit providers. Customers will able to submit comments, complaints, concerns and suggestions through the website. 11 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PVVTA adheres to RCTC Performance Standards and reports quarterly to the RCTC. While new services are exempt from performance standards for the first two full fiscal years, PVVTA is required to meet several standards for the rest of its services. Key indicators for demand responsive and fixed route service are shown in Tables 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D. PVVTA also tracks on a monthly basis, farebox recovery ratio and passengers per hour as basic performance criteria. Services are in three categories based on population densities: Local Services, Intercity Services and Dial -A -Ride. SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION AND EVAULATION PVVTA implemented a limited deviated fixed route service in August of 2001, operating from the Palo Verde College Spring Street Campus to the main Palo Verde College campus in northwest Blythe. This route is the first phase of fixed route implementation by PVVTA. The second phase will begin on Monday, July 7, 2003 with the implementation of another route, Blue Route 1 within the City of Blythe. The final third route would be implemented in the Fall Quarter of 2003 and connect Blythe and Palm Desert for the general public and veterans. The new fixed routes will be able to deviate at least 3/4 of a mile away from the route with a prior day reservation. Palo Verde Valley Transit new service span will be 6:00 am to 10:30 pm, Monday -Friday, 7:30 am to 10:30 pm on Saturday and 7:30 am to 8:00 pm on Sunday. No service will be provided on New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Palo Verde Valley Transit Dial -A -Ride will be modified to provide service to seniors (age 60 years or older) and persons with disabilities within the City of Blythe and to the general public in unincorporated county areas. Dial -A -Ride will operate from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm, Monday -Friday, 8:00 am to 6:00 pm, Saturday and Sundays. No service will be provided on New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. After 8:00 pm, ADA paratransit service will be provided with a prior day reservation and will travel up to 3/4 of a mile away from the same fixed route that is operating. Desert RoadTRIP will be modified to provide service to seniors (age 60 years and older), persons with disabilities and truly needy passengers. PVVTA will study the feasibility of administering the program to save on administrative costs. Also, Desert RoadTRIP will only be available to perform trips to medical 12 appointments, pharmacy, social services, recreation activities and grocery shopping and there will be a limit on the number of miles that can be traveled in a month. PVVTA will request funds to obtain two new dial -a -ride buses to replace two 1997 dial -a -ride buses and two new heavy duty 35 foot fixed route buses to use on these new services. REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ADA PVVTA complies with all ADA regulations and has had no ADA denials in recent months. All buses are accessible to passengers using assist devices. Steady growth in Palo Verde Valley Transit Dial -A -Ride ridership has promoted a need to prioritize ADA compliance over service expectations of passengers. With the implementation of fixed route, dial -a -ride will be modified within the City of Blythe to provide better service to seniors (age 60 years or older), persons with disabilities and ADA certified passengers. Accessible bus stops will be located when the new fixed route service is implemented. All bus stop amenities purchased will be accessible to persons with disabilities. Title VI PVVTA is not obligated to meet Title VI requirements since PVVTA does not use federal funds. Should PVVTA start using federal funds, PVVTA will develop a Title VI report. Alternative Fueled Vehicles PVVTA will explore the use of alternative fueled vehicles such as Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) starting in Fiscal Year 2004. CAPITAL PROGRAM PVVTA will aggressively be capitalizing on major capital projects in Fiscal Years 2004, 2005 and 2006. New capital improvements include new dial -a -ride buses, new heavy duty 35 foot transit buses, new accessible support van, new radios, additional fareboxes for the two vans that do not have a farebox, office equipment for the Transit Manger and dispatcher, CNG slow fill dispenser and bus stop amenities for the new fixed route service. See Tables 4, 4A, 5 and 5A for a description of each capital improvement. 13 BLUE ROUTE 1: CITY CIRCULATOR SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF BLYTHE Blue Route 1 will serves the growing community of Blythe providing riders access to many civic, educational and county sponsored public social service office, Blythe City Hall, Big Kmart, All Star Cinemas, Albertsons, Rite Aid, Palo Verde Hospital, Colorado River Fair, Palo Verde Valley Unified School District schools, Employment Development Department, Department of Motor Vehicles, Post Office, Blythe Central Garage and Public Works Department, California Highway Patrol, Senior Nutrition Program, Blythe Senior Center, Blythe Recreation Center, Palo Verde Valley District Library, Palo Verde College Spring Street Campus and various shopping locations within the community. The route can deviate for passengers up to 3/4 of mile with one day advance reservation. Connections to Gold Route 2 (Palo Verde College/Hobsonway) and Red Route 3 (Coachella Valley Intercity) and Greyhound can be made at various locations within Blythe and at the on street TransferCenter at Rice Street @ Lovekin Boulevard. Blue Route 1 operates in a clockwise route providing a 60 minute frequency with one bus, seven days a week. Blue Route 1 will operate from 6:30 am to 10:30 pm, Monday -Friday, 7:30 am to 10:30 pm on Saturday and Sunday. No service will be provided on New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Service will be monitored for at least 6 months to one year. If ridership does not materialize, service will be reduced to meet actual demand. Blue Route 1 will begin operation on Monday, July 7, 2003. RECOMMENDATIONS:. 2004 Implement and monitor service for six months to one year. 2005 The addition of another bus to operate in the counter clockwise direction, Monday -Saturday assuming there is ridership demand. 2006-2007 Continue to monitor service. 14 Palo Verde Community Co llege 6th Avenue DeFrain Bo ulevard Proposed Fixed Routes and Current Activity Centers f or Blythe Chanslorway LEGEND 1 K -Mart and DPSS 10 2 Palo Verde H.S. 3 Palo Verde J.H.S. 4 Sunrise Apts. 5 Dept. of Publ Wks. 6 Blythe City Hall 7 Todd Park 8 Riv. Co. Admin. Ctr. 9 P.O./Federal Bldg. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 School Admin Ctr Albertsons Blythe Rec, Ctr. CHP & DMV Prof. Bldg. /Doctor Offices Miller Park Library Valley Resource Center • 4-* 10th Avenue 1 F—� Mai • . 1I1 14 Chanslorway O 0 #___ Route 2 - Palo Verde Colleg e Hobsonway O O Route1 - City Circulator 111 1 1 1 1 fl 1 14th Avenue GOLD ROUTE 2: PALO VERDE COLLEGE/HOBSONWAY PALO VERDE COLLEGE/MESA VERDE TO EAST BLYTHE/EHRENBERG Gold Route 2 will provide riders access between the City of Blythe and Palo Verde College. Selected trips will be provided to Mesa Verde and Ehrenburg. This feeder route provides connections to many civic, educational and county sponsored public social service office, Blythe City Hall, All Star Cinemas, Big Kmart, Albertsons, Rite Aid, Palo Verde Hospital, Colorado River Fair, Employment Development Department, Senior Nutrition Program, Blythe Senior Center, Post Office, Blythe Airport, Blythe Energy, Blythe Recreation Center, Palo Verde Valley District Library, Palo Verde College Spring Street Campus, Palo Verde College main campus and various shopping locations within the community. The route can deviate up to 3/4 of a mile for passengers with one day in advance reservation. Connections to Blue Route 1 (City Circulator) and Red Route 3 (Coachella Valley Intercity) and Greyhound can be made at various locations within Blythe and at the on street TransferCenter at Rice Street @ Lovekin Boulevard. Gold Route 2 operates on a two way route providing a 75 minute frequency with one bus, seven days a week. Gold Route 2 will operate from 6:00 am to 10:30 pm, Monday -Friday, 8:30 am to 7:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday. No service will be provided on New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Service will be monitored for at least 6 months to one year. If ridership does not materialize, service will be reduced to meet actual demand. Green Route 2 will begin operation on Monday, May 19, 2003 with weekday service and weekend service. This will replace the current college shuttle in place. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2004 Implement and monitor service for six months to one year. 2005 Separate Mesa Verde and Ehrenberg service from this route and develop a new route to meet the demands of these growing communities. 2006-2007 Continue to monitor service. 16 Palo Verde Community College 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6th Avenue DeFrain Boulevard Proposed Fixed Routes and Current Activity Centers for Blythe Chanslorway 10th Avenue 01 1 ID 1 10 01 LEGEND K -Mart and DPSS 10 School Admin Ctr. Palo Verde H.S. Palo Verde J.H .S. Sunrise Apts. Dept. of Publ Wks. Blythe City Hall Todd Park Riv. Co. Admin. Ctr. P.O. /Federal Bldg. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Albertsons Blythe Rec. Ctr. CHP & DMV Prof. Bldg./Doctor Offices Miller Park Library Valley Resource Center 10. f--1 I E-- 1 m 0 1 m 6:Qs Chanslorway O 0 t-- () Hobsonway O 14th Avenue Route 2 - Palo Verde College Route 1 - City Circ ulator RED ROUTE 3: COACHELLA VALLEY INTERCITY BLYTHE/PALM DESERT Red Route 3 will provides intercity service between the Coachella Valley from the City of Blythe. The route will provide service from Palo Verde Hospital, Palo Verde Valley District Library, Blythe City Hall, Palo Verde Valley School District offices, Post Office, Blythe Recreation Center, Senior Nutrition Program, Big Kmart, Albertsons, Blythe Energy, Blythe Airport, Chuckawalla State Prison, Ironwood State Prison, and Westfield Shoppingtown Palm Desert. No weekend service will be provided at this time. The route can deviate for passengers up to 3/. of a mile with one day advance reservation. The route would operate three days a week, initially on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Connections to Blue Route 1 (City Circulator), Gold Route 2 (Palo Verde College/Hobsonway) and Greyhound can be made at various locations within Blythe and at the on street TransferCenter at Rice Street @ Lovekin Boulevard. Connections to SunBus and SunLink at Westfield Shoppingtown, Palm Desert. This route will provide service to veterans traveling to the VA Hospital in Loma Linda. Veterans would have a guaranteed transfer to SunLink in Palm Desert with an one day in advance reservation to Palo Verde Valley Transit. Special fares will be charged on this route. General Public (ages 5-59 years old would pay $15.00 one way and $18.00 round trip. Service between Blythe, Mesa Verde and the prisons would be $2.25. Veterans (with I.D), seniors (ages 60 and up) and persons with disabilities would pay $ 8.00 one way and $10.00 round trip. A free transfer to SunBus and a $1.00 credit to SunLink will be provided upon request. For passengers transferring from SunBus and SunLink to Red Route 3 would receive a $1.00 credit off the fare. Red Route 3 consists of four round trips on weekdays to Palm Desert. Red Route 3 will operate from 5:00 am to 8:00 pm on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. No service will be provided on Monday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Service will be monitored for at least 6 months to one year. If ridership does not materialize, service will be reduced to meet actual demand or eliminated. Red Route 3 will begin operation in Autumn, 2003. 18 RECOMMENDATIONS: 2004 Implement and monitor service for six months to one year. 2005-2007 No changes recommended at this time. Red Route 3 Mop 19 DIAL -A -RIDE: PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT DIAL -A -RIDE Palo Verde Valley Transit Dial -A -Ride will provide demand responsive service within the City of Blythe and surrounding unincorporated county areas such as Mesa Verde, Chuckawalla State Prison, Ironwood State Prison, Ripley and Palo Verde. Seniors (age 60 years old and older), persons with disabilities and ADA eligible passengers would be eligible for dial -a -ride throughout the entire service area. This category of passengers would also be required to fill out certification application to determine eligibility. Once certified, a card would be issued to passengers. General public passengers (ages 5-59 years old) would be eligible for dial -a - ride service only within, to or from unincorporated county areas such as Mesa Verde, Chuckawalla State Prison, Ironwood State Prison, Ripley, and Palo Verde. Dial -A -Ride will operate from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm, Monday -Friday, 8:00 am to 6:00 pm, Saturday and Sundays. No service will be provided on New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. After 8:00 pm, ADA paratransit service will be provided with a prior day reservation and will travel up to 3/4 of a mile away from the same fixed route that is operating. Reservations for the ADA paratransit service would need to be made by prior day or the service will not operate. Same day reservations would be allowed, if a passenger called at least two hours in advance. Reservations could be made from one to seven days in advance. The modified Dial -A -Ride will begin operation on Monday, July 7, 2003. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2004 Implement and monitor service for six months to one year. 2005-2007 No changes recommended at this time. 20 Desert RoadTRIP: TRANSPORTATION REMBURSEMENT PROGRAM PVVTA's Desert RoadTRIP program currently provides reimbursement to individuals who do not have access to local transportation. Staff will evaluate the feasibility of Desert RoadTRIP program being administered by PVVTA staff instead of The Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. Desert RoadTRIP will be marketed and promoted in conjunction with The Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities to persons who are seniors (age 60 years or older), persons with disabilities and truly needy that live outside Dial -A -Ride service area, such as Lost Lake, resort communities along U.S. Highway 95, etc. Desert RoadTRIP trips will be limited to medical appointments, pharmacy, social services, banking, recreation and grocery shopping and travel up to 300 miles a month, including using Greyhound (500 miles for a family). Volunteer drivers will be recruited in Fiscal Year 2004 to anticipate for the growth in service. PVVTA is a partner in the Volunteer Driver Corps program. Desert RoadTRIP is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2004 Implement and monitor service for six months to one year. 2005-2007 No changes recommended at this time. 21 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 1 - FLEET INVENTORY Year Built Manufacturer M odel Seats Lift- Equip? Type of Fuel Own or Lease FR Vehicle DAR Vehicle Active/ Reserve/ Rehab* Total Vehicle Miles ** Total Veh. Sys . Failures*** Year to Replace 1991 Cheverolet Van 6/1 Yes Gas Own x R 1179.835 5 2005 1997 El Dorado Aerotech 16/2 Yes Diesel Own x A 141,432 16 2004 1997 El Dorado Aerotech 16/2 Yes Diesel Own x A 126,879 16 2004 1999 El Dorado Aerotech 16/2 Yes Diesel Own x A 103,081 13 2007 2001 Ford E350 15 No Gas Lease x A 49,942 10 2009 2002 El Dorado Aero Elite 22/2 Yes Diesel Own x A 23,564 8 2012 * A - Active, R - Reserve, MR - Major Rehab. **Use NTD Data fro m prior year * ** This relates to how many times the vehicle went to Central Garage for a repair order. Revised 05/12/2003 Table 1 Fleet Inventory .xls Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2A - FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE Excludes Exempt (New) service FY 2001 Audited FY 2002 Estimated FY 2003 Planned FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Ili WM= , N/A No = . Fixed i Route Service imitymNa N/A EXEMPT SERVICE MOW Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered N/A rNIA N/A FINANCIAL DATA _ ' 3 h,_ Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $0 matzuseNOME OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS mina IMINIMI Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles To tal Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 1 PERFORMA NCE CHARACTERISTICS 1401131120t 14 i tt:;i' ) 'Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passenger per Revenue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles Perce ntage of Trips on Time If' Y. Revised 05/12/2003 Table 2 Transit Services.xls Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2B - ADA-PAR ATRANSIT SERVICE Excludes Exempt (New) service fil FY 2001 ill Audited FY 2002 Estimated FY 2003 Planned FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet 3 3 3 2 2 Spare Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 Spare Ratio 15 % 10% 10% 10% 10 % Energy Contingency Reserve 0 0 0 2 2 New Expansion Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0 0 0 New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 0 1 0 2 0 FINANCIAL DATA lk iieliank EASMINNUFEatilliaififilliinilniq Total Operating Expenses $213,002 $230,349 $275,781 $284,055 $292,575 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $25,480 $25,863 $33,100 $34,095 $35,123 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $187,522 $204,486 $242,681 $249,960 $257,452 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 111111=1 ilitialf.inillION, Unlinked Passenger Trips 21,814 21,826 22,044 22,485 22,935 Passenger Miles 58,205 46,334 48,000 48,000 48,000 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 5,625 6,045 6,075 6,100 6,100 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 58,205 46,334 48,000 48,000 48,000 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 62,602 50,100 53,000 53,000 53,000 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 21,814 21,826 22,044 22,485 22,935 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 21,814 21,826 22,044 22,485 22,935 PERFORMANCE CHARA CTERISTICS 1 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $37.87 $38.11 $45.40 $46.57 $47.96 Farebox Recovery Ratio 11.96% 11. 23% 12. 00% 12 .00 % 12.00 % Subsidy per Passenger $9 $9 $11 $11 $11 Subsidy per Passenger Mile $3 $4 $5 $5 , $5 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $33 $34 $40 $41 $42 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $3 $4 $5 $5 $5 Passenger per Revenue Hour 3.87'80444 3.6105873 3.628642 3.6860656 3.7598361 Passenger per Revenue Miles 0.3747788 0.471058 0. 45925 0.4684375 0.4778125 Percentage of Trips on Time 100.00% 100,00% 100.00% 100. 00% 100.00% Revised 05/12/2003 Table 2 Transit Services .xls Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency FY04-FY06 Short Range Transit Plan TA BLE 2C - SYSTEM -WIDE TRANSIT SERVICE Excludes Exempt (New) service FY 2001 Audited FY 2002 Estimated FY 2003 Planned FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS liaimm mos= f •, Pea k -Ho ur Flee t 3 3 3 2 2 Spare Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 Spare Ratio 15% 10% 10% 10 % 10 % Energy Contingency Reserve i 0 0 0 2 2 New Expansion Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0 0 0 New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 0 1 0 2 0 FINANCIA L DATA ,fitinen " ; (•_ a'• Total Operating Expenses $213,002 $230,349 $275,781 $284,055 $292,575 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $25,480, $25,863 $33,100 $34,095 $35,123 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $187,522 $204,486 $242,651 $249,960 $257,452 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS .. ;y ,-'MOM Wattne WNW Unlinked Passenger Trips 21,814 21,826 22,044 22,485 22,935 Passenger M iles 58,205 46,334 48,000 48,000 48,000 Tota l Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 5,625 6,045 6,075 6,100 6,100 To tal Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 58,205 46,334 48,000 48,000 48,000 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 62,602 50,100 53,000 53,000 53,000 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 21,814 21,826 22,044 22,485 22,935 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 21,814 21,826 22,044 22,485 22,935 PERFO RMANCE CHARACTERISTICS ' " - Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $38 $38 $45 $47 $48 Farebox Recovery Ratio 11. 96% 11.23% 12.00% 12 .00 % 12 .00% Subsidy per Passenger $9 $9 $11 $11 $11 Subsidy per Passenger Mile $3 $4 $5 $5 $5 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $33 $34 $40 $41 $42 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $3 $4 $5 $5 $5 Passenger per Revenue Hour , 3.8780444 3. 6105873 3. 628642 3.6860656 3.7598361 Passenger per Revenue Miles :' 0.3747788 0.471058 0. 45925 0.4684375 0. 4778125 Percentage of Trips on Time 100. 00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Revised 05/12/2003 Table 2 Transit Services .xls Audited information required if second year of service Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2D - EXEMPT TRANSIT SERVICE Indicate date new service started (or will start) . Identify service i.e . route number/area FY 2001 Audited FY 2002 Estimated FY 2003 Planned FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS ,:aMan illelliii ;Malt alliallikairdita , Peak -Hour Fleet 4 No 1 1 3 4 Spare Vehicles c Fixed 1 1 1 2 Spare Ratio Route 10 % 10% 20% 30% Energy Contingency Reserve Service 0 0 0 0 New Expansion Vehicles Delivered 0 1 2 1 New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0 0 FINANCIAL DATA MOM MMUS Total Ope rating Expenses $55,510 $200,700 $220,735 $228,110 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $13,990 $30,985 $34,000 $37,000 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $0 $41,520 $169,715 $186,735 $191,110 OPERA TING CHARA CTERISTICSMK* _ aigiatkijk ifinMIt *Mai *Matt Un linked Passen ger Trips 4,985 11,235 11,797 12,387 Passenger M iles 26,425 56,805 59,000 61,000 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 2,370 5,170 5,500 6,000 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles .1. 26,425 56,805 56,805 56,805 Total Ac tual Vehicle M iles z 27,100 56,280 56,280 58,280 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 4. 4,985 11,235 11,797 12,387 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips " 4,985 11,235 11,797 12,387 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS R NM= 111111111M atiINPR Operating Cost per' Revenue Hour #DIV/01 $23 $39 $40 $38 Farebox Recovery Ratio #DIV/01 25.20% 15.44% 15.40% 16.22% Subsidy per Passenger #DIV/01 $8 $15 $16 $15 Subsidy per Passenger M ile #DIV/01 $2 $3 $3 $3 Subsidy per Revenue Hour #DIV/01 $18' $33 $34 $32 Subsidy per Revenue Mile #DIV/01 $2 $3 $3 83 Passenger per Revenue Hour #DIV/01 1 2. 103376 2. 173114 2. 144909 2.0645 Passenger per Revenue Miles #DIV/01 0. 188647 0. 197782 0.207675 0. 218062 Percentage of Trips on Time #DIV/01 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100. 00% Date 23 -Aug -01 Route Gold Route 2 Area Palo Verde College to Blythe/Ehrenberg Date 07 -Jul -03 Route Blue Route 1 Area Blythe City Circulator Date 01 -Oct -03 Route Red Route 3 Area Blythe to Coachella Valley (Palm Desert) Revised 05/12/2003 Table 2 Transit Services.xls Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INFOR MATION Complete Table 3 for year that funding Is being requested Data Elements Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 Line 5 Line 6 Line 7 Total Fixed Route' Total Paratransit ' Total - System Wide ' Unlinked Passenger Trips Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt $22,044 $22,044. $48,000 $6,075 Passenger M iles Until FY 06 Until FY 05 Until FY 06 $48,000' Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours - $6,075 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles _ $48,000 $48,000 $53,000 Total Actual Vehicle Miles - $53,000 Total Operating Expenses $2752781, $33,100 $275,781 , $33,100 Total Passenger Fare Revenue _ - - Net O ran Ex enses 242 681 242 681 - ' .� Mr= S45.40 $45 40` Perfor mance Indlcato rs~' Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 12% 12% Subsidy Per Passenger $11.00 _ $11 00 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $5 00 S5 00 Subsidy Per Hour _ _ - $40.00 $40.00 Subsidy Per Mile $5 .00 $5.00 Passengers Per Revenue Hour 3,6 3.6 Passengers Per Revenue M ile 0.45 0.45 * Information EXCLUDES New Service(s) which are EXEM PT for two years Revised 05/12/2003 Table 3 Individual Route Inlormation .xls Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency FY 04-06 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 04 Please show In actual dollar amount s $100,000; 81,583,000, etc. 'Capital Project De scriptio n ' Pr oject Number (1) foiaf - Am ount of Funds STA LTF Measure A 5307 5311 FTA - CMAQ FTA Discreti onary Fare Box Other (2) Operating Assistance DAR 2 DAR Replacement Vehicles Operating A ssistance FR Van Lease 1 Heavy Duty FR Bus Bus Stop Amenities ADA Support Vehicle Computer Equipment Capital Subto tal Operating Subtotal Total: Capital and Operating $319,055 $9,200 $10,000 $11,174 $8,641 8284.960 $140,000 $178,000 $260,000 $28,826 $891,786 $0 $0 $0 50 50 534,095 834,000 568,095 50 04-01 04-02 04-03 04-04 04-05 04-06 $140,00© $212,000 59 ,200 $260,000 810,000 $40,000 $8.641 $0 $0 $0 $0 80 $0 $0, $0 $0 $0 $0 80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0' $0 50 $0 5998,896 $39,015 (1) Number should tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justification (2) Please Identify source of -Other funds Revised 05/12/2003 Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested.xls Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) 04-01 PROJECT NAME Two Replacement Vehicles for Dial -A -Ride PROJECT DESCRIPTION To replace two vehicles that have exceed their useful lives for Dial -A -Ride service. The Dial -A -Ride buses were purchased in 1997 and both have 141,432 and 126,879 miles. By the end of 2003, the buses will be 7 years old and will require replacement. By FTA requirements, these buses will exceed their life expectancy of five years. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) These new buses will replace buses that have exceed their life expectancy of five years and by the time they are retired from service will have exceed 150,000 miles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $140,000 in LTF. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) 04-02 PROJECT NAME Van Lease for Dial -A -Ride Van PROJECT DESCRIPTION To continue paying the lease of the Dial -A -Ride Van obtained in 2001. The van is a lease to purchase. The terms of the lease is three years. This year should be the final payment. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) This vehicle is needed to assist in maintaining spare vehicles for when other dial -a -ride buses are down. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED). $9,200 in STA. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED Yes, the amount for the lease of the van was claimed last year. Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) 04-03 PROJECT NAME One Expansion Heavy Duty Fixed Route Bus PROJECT DESCRIPTION To purchase one heavy duty fixed route transit bus. The bus would be 35 feet long, powered by diesel and used on Blue Route 1, the City Circulator route. The bus is low floor, seats 31 passengers, has a capacity of 65 passengers and is accessible to wheelchairs and bicycles. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) The fixed route transit system is going to need larger, heavier duty vehicles. PVVTA does not have enough vehicles to operate the fixed route system, unless this bus is obtained. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $260,000 in LTF funds. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED $89,000 would be rolled over from last fiscal year to make up to remaining costs of this bus. Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) 04-04 PROJECT NAME Bus Stop Amenities PROJECT DESCRIPTION To purchase bus stop signs, shelters with solar lighting, benches, trash cans and information posts that will provide passengers with convenience and identification of bus stops for the fixed route system. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) These amenities would provide passengers with convenience and assist in providing identification for bus stops for the fixed route system. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $10,000 in STA. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. Table 4A — Capital Proiect Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) 04-05 PROJECT NAME ADA Accessible Van for Transit Manager PROJECT DESCRIPTION To provide an accessible support vehicle for the Transit Manager to use for meetings, presentations and as back up transportation for when a wheelchair lift on a bus goes down. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) This vehicle will provide a much needed support vehicle for the Transit Manager to get to various meetings outside of the service area, when transit is not readily available to use and to provide alternative transportation for wheelchair passengers when buses go down. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $11,174 in STA $28,826 in LTF. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) 04-05 PROJECT NAME Computer Equipment PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase a new computer and printer for Transit Manager and SchedulePro dispatch software for Transit Operations to use. This would improve dispatching for the contractor and also provide a newer, up to date computer for the Transit Manager. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) This much needed support equipment is to replace a computer in the 1990's that is not up to date and does not have sufficient memory to perform various programs or tasks. Dispatch software will provide the dispatcher with a reliable way to dispatch dial -a -ride vehicles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $8,641 in STA. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency FY 05 and FY 06 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 05 and FY 06 (For planning purposes only - not approved) Please show In actual dollar amounts: $100,000; $1,583,000, etc. Project Description Capitai `T otal Project Number (1) - Amount of Funds STA LTF Measure A 5307 5311 FTA - CMAQ FTA Discretionary Fare Box Other (2) Operating Assistance DAR Operating Assistance FR 1 Heavy Duty Expand FR Bus Repaint Fleet FareboxeslRadios 1 Replacement DAR Bus Capital Subtotal Operating Subtotal Total: Capital and Operating $327,575 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $5,000 $80,000 $95,000 $292,452 $183,948 $260,000 $736,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,123 $34,162 $69,285 $0 $218,110 05-01 05-02 05-03 06-01 $260,000 $10,000 $5,000 $80,000 $900,685] (1) Number should tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justification (2) Please identify source of 'Other funds. Revised 05/12/2003 Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested.xls Table 5A - Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 5 — Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested) 05-01 PROJECT NAME One Expansion Heavy Duty 35 foot Fixed Route Transit Bus PROJECT DESCRIPTION To purchase one heavy duty fixed route transit bus. The bus would be 35 feet long, powered by diesel and used on Blue Route 1, the City Circulator route. The bus is low floor, seats 31 passengers, has a capacity of 65 passengers and is accessible to wheelchairs and bicycles. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) The fixed route transit system is going to need larger, heavier duty vehicles. PVVTA does not have enough vehicles to operate the fixed route system, unless this bus is obtained. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $260,000 in LTF funds. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 5 — Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested) 05-02 PROJECT NAME Repaint Fleet PROJECT DESCRIPTION Repaints older buses in the fleet with an updated paint scheme that looks attractive. Six buses currently have the older paint scheme. The system has recently been renamed Desert Roadrunner and has adopted a new logo. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) This project would improve the identification of the bus among Palo Verde Valley residents, visitors and current transit riders. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $10,000 in STA. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 5— Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested) 05-03 PROJECT NAME New Fareboxes and Radios PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchases fareboxes and radios for new replacement and expansion buses coming online for PVVTA transit services. PVVTA would be obtaining two new heavy duty fixed route buses that would need radios and fareboxes. This would allow PVVTA to add this important piece of equipment to the buses. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Equipment that is needed for buses to operate in revenue service. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $5,000 in STA. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 5— Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested) 06-01 PROJECT NAME Purchase New Replacement Dial -A -Ride Bus PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchases a new dial -a -ride bus to replace a non -accessible Dial -A -Ride van. This van was purchased in 1991 and would have over 220,000 miles on it before being replaced. The van will also be 15 years old at the time of replacement. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) The replacement of this van with a larger transit bus for dial -a - ride is needed, since it would be wheelchair accessible and seat more people. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $80,000 in STA. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE -- OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None. TABLE 6 — PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT Prior Audit Recommendation (Conducted FY 01) PVVTA should modify the invoicing process by requiring VRC to provide full complement of reporting data collected through the MIDAS dispatching system. PVVTA should track complaints, road calls and accidents in order to facilitate a high level of analysis of performance throughout the contract period. PVVTA should implement procedures to ensure that vehicle service hours are reported correctly in State Controllers Report. Action(s) Taken And Results (1) Staff has worked with EXCEED and they are performing these functions. A new dispatch software is being obtained. PVVTA has developed comment cards, placed signs on board buses encouraging comments. A service form has been developed to track customer comments. Central Garage is tracking accidents and road calls on a Microsoft Access database. EXCEED has removed deadhead time from logs and invoices when calculating vehicle service hours. (1) If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant. Palo Vence Valley Transit Agency FY04-FYO6 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 7 - PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUES Financial Elements Operating Expenses (less depreciation) Capital Expenses Total Operating & Capital Expenses Approved FY 03 5501,481 598,200 $599.681 Current I Plan Year FY 04 5531,055 $467.841 $998,896 Projected FY 05 5545,685 $274,315 FY 06 5545,685 584.315 $820,000 $630,000 Less Money on Hand at RCTC' (Funds identified in RCTC's Audited Records). Note: Information was provided during SRTP kick off.) LTF 'STA Measure A Total Money on Hand Balance of Operating and Capital Expenses Needed 41:L. aW41 _ess Money on Hand at your Agency pz: FY04 5891,786 539.015 tt,.:%ir%2ki ILTF Measure A Farebox Revenues Other Grant Subsidies (pease specify) $0 50 5930,801 50 $0 $0 568,095 $0 Balance Needed for Operating and Capital" S998.896 This section should tie to Table 4 and Table 5 - shows total amount of funding being requested for FY 04 and projects amounts needed for FY05and FY06 *If revenue is available but will not be used this fiscal year, provide an explanation i.e. $XXX needed for service expansion in FY 05; $XXX needed for replacement buses in FY 06, etc. Revised Funding Amount Needed This represents the amount of money that your Agency is requesting to operate for FY 04. (Amount not to exceed funding apportioned to your transit area). "Indicate how much money is placed on reserves and indicate why i.e. $XXX for fuel costs; $XXX for demonstration service; etc. Revised 05/12/2003 Table 6 Budget Sheet. xis CITY OF RIVERSIDE SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FY 2004-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN UPDATE BACKGROUND As a paratransit operator, the City of Riverside, Special Transportation Services compiles a 3 year Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) that's updated every year. Riverside County Transportation Commission uses the SRTP to develop its regional transit capital programming documents that form the basis for funding decisions. The City of Riverside Special Transportation Services was established in June 1975 for the disabled and the frail elderly and provides dial -a -ride service in Riverside city limits. Riverside continues to stretch its boundaries with annexation on all sides resulting in a rapid growth rate according to statistical information from Riverside County. Riverside Special Transportation's goal is: 1) to provide service, which meets the mobility needs of the frail elderly and persons with disabilities throughout the city limits; and 2) to meet or exceed ADA requirements as set forth by the Federal Government for complementary paratransit in the City of Riverside in coordination with Riverside Transit Agency. Riverside Special Transportation Services is charged with the responsibility to initiate efficiencies that can be achieved through coordinated activities. CURRENT SERVICES Riverside Special Transportation provides approximately 156,000 rides annually and 50% of these rides are service for ADA riders along with the other remaining for seniors under the terms of the MOU with Riverside Transit Agency. (April 8th, 2003 Council action) FARES Riverside Special Transportation increased its fares effective September 2002 to $1.00 each way and implemented an Unlimited Premium Service of $70 per month. EQUIPMENT Riverside Special Transportation operates a total of 24 vehicles throughout the city limits, with a 20 percent spare ratio. The Agency operates 9 CNG vehicles, with all new equipment slated 1 for alternative fuel. All vehicles are equipped with wheelchair lifts to assist in transporting wheelchair riders. FY 2003/2004 SERVICE CHANGES The City of Riverside will expand service by providing one additional vehicle that will seat 20 passengers. Expansion of fleet is based on planning practices. Overcrowding and increased demand of service due to increased usage of ADA riders and seniors from Inland Regional Center. Also, increased rapid growth of residents residing in Riverside along with the closure of one local service provider for transportation services for seniors and developmentally disabled. In May, telephone surveys will be conducted to riders that same day service will no longer be available, effective, July 1, 2003 pending the public hearing and City Council approval. This change is needed due to the increase of ADA service challenges, as service requests continue to increase and the number of ADA eligible riders continues to grow. Another component is that the City of Riverside has annexed more square miles which requires the service to go to one end of the City to another and is working diligently in maintaining its 4 passengers per hour passenger capacity. All service changes were discussed at the ADA's quarterly meeting in Hemet, California in March 2003 and at the Mayors Commission on Aging meeting with no comments or questions. More information will follow throughout the change of service as needed. 2 City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 1 - FLEET INVENTORY Year M anufacturer Built M odel Seats Lift - Equip? Type of Fuel Own or Lease FR Vehicle DAR Vehicle Active/ Total Reserve/ Vehicle Rehab* Miles** Fixed Asset ID Year to Replace 1997 Ford 1997 Ford 1997 Ford E350 E350 E350 1998 Eldorado National 8 8 8 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Gas Own Gas Own Gas Own Gas Own Active 129,745 Active 168,997 Active 189,117 Active 154,665 H000192 2003 H000193 2003 2001 Chevrolet 2001 Chevrolet 2001 Chevrolet 2001 Chevrolet 2001 Chevrolet E350 E350 12 E350 E350 12 12 Yes Yes Gas Gas Own Own X H000194 2003 H000200 2003 X Active 41,894 Active 75,704 Active 66,881 Active 73,663 Active 74,252 Active 67,563 Active 63,128 Active 68,399 Active 62,965 Active 31,920 Active 31,298 H000206 2003 12 E350 12 2001 Chevrolet 2001 Chevrolet 2001 Chevrolet 2001 Chevrolet 2002 Ford 2002 Ford E350 E350 12 12 Yes Yes Gas Yes Yes Yes Gas Gas Gas Gas Own j Own Own Own Own X X X X X E350 12 Yes Gas Own E350 Goschen 12 12 Yes Yes Gas CNG Goschen 12 Yes CNG 2002 Ford 2002 Ford Goschen Goschen 12 Yes CNG Own Own Own Own X X X X H000207 H000208 H000209 H000212 H000213 H000214 2003 2003 2003 2004 2005 2005 H000215 H000216 2005 2005 Active 12 Yes 2002 Ford Goschen 2002 Ford Goschen 2002 Ford Goschen 12 Yes CNG Own Active CNG Own 12 Yes CNG Own 12 2002 Ford 2002 Ford Goschen 12 Goschen *FY 03 vehicles scheduled for delivery 7/31/2003. * No support vehicles. 12 Yes Yes Yes CNG CNG CNG Own Own Own X X Active 30.482 28,365 29,097 17,189 31.071 H000222 H000223 2005 2005 H000224 H000225 H000226 2006 2006 2006 Active H000234 2006 Active Active Active 17,992 17,424 H000235 H000236 2007 2007 H000237 2007 *Active, R - Reserve, MR - Major Rehab Revised 5/9/2003 Table 1 Fleet Inventory.xls City of Riverside Sp ecial Transportation Services FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2B - ADA-PARATRANSIT SERVICE IFY 2001 Audit ed FY 2002 Estimated FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replaceme nt Vehicles Delivered FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue 1Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips PERFORM ANCE CHARA CTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passenger per Revenue Hour Pa ssenger per Revenue Miles Percentage of Trips on Time *Exempt on farebox effectiv e until July 1, 2003 18 4 0 N/A N/A 5 FY 2003 Plann ed 18 4 0 N/A N/A 5' 18 4 0 N/A N/A 8 Excludes Exempt (New) service FY 2004 Planned 18 4 0 N/A NIA 1 FY 2005 Plann ed ..:. .:........... .. . .. .... 18 4 0 N/ A N/A 6 $1,428,965 $135,639 $1,293,326 141,497 552,087 33,792 487,433 552,090 147, 097, 141,498 $1,447,990 $124,360 $1,323,630 153,512 606,578 36,286 589,336 635,019 152,981 147,158 $1,445,855 $135,000 $1,310,855 159,652 630,841 37,737 612,909 660,420 159,100 153,044 $1,399,311 $1,455,283 $152,000 $158,080 $1,247,311 $1,297,203 166,038 656,075 39,246 637,425 686,837 165,464 159,166 172,680 682,318 40,816 662,922 714,310 172,083 165,532 $42.29 9.49% $9. 14 $2.34 $38.27 $2. 65 4. 19 0.29 96.19% $39.90 8. 59% $8.62 $2. 18 $36.48 $2.25 4.23 0.26 96.19% $38.31 9.34% $8.21 $2.08 $34.74 $2.14 4.23 0.26 96. 19% $35 .65 10.86% $7.51 $1.90 $31.78 $1 .96 4.23 0.26 96.19% $35.65 10 .86% $7.51 $1.90 $31 .78 $1 .96 4 .23 0,26 96 .19% Revised 5/9/2003 Table 2 Transit Services .xls City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2C - SYSTEM WIDE TR ANSIT SERVICE FLEET CHA RACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spa re Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve 'New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expense s (S ubsidies) OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Ve hicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS `> Operating Cost per Revenue Ho ur Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passenger per Reve nue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles Percentage of Trips on Time $ 1,455,283 $ 158,080 $ 1,297,203 *Exempt on farebox until July 1, 2003 FY 2001 Audited 18 4 0 N/A N/A 5 $1,428,965 $135,639 $1,293,326 141,497 552,087 33,792 487,433 552,090 147,097 141,498 $42.29 9.49% $9. 14 $2. 34 $38. 27 $2.65 4.19 0.29 96. 19% FY 2002 Estimated 18 4 0 N/A N/A 5 $ 1,447,990 $ 124,360 $ 1,323,630 153,512 606,578 36,286 589,336 635,019 152,981 147,158 $39.90 8.59% $8.62 $2.18 $36. 48 $2.25 4.23 0.26 96. 19% FY 2003 Planned 18 4 0 NIA N/A 8 1,445,855 135,000 1,310,855 159,652 630,841 37,737 612,909 660,420 159,100 153,044 $38.31 9.34% $8.21 $2.08 $34. 74 $2.14 4.23 0. 26 96. 19% FY 2004 Planned 18 4 0 N/A. 1 1 $ 1,399,311 $ 152,000 $ 1,247,311 166,038 656,075 39,246 637,425 686,837 165,464 159,166 $35 .65 10 .86% $7 .51 $1.90 $31.78 $1.96 4.23 0 .26 96.19 % Excludes Exempt (New) service FY 2005 Planned 18 4 0 N/A NIA 6 172,680 682,318 40,816 662,922 714,310 172,083 165,532 $35 .65 10 .86 % $7.51 $1 .90 $31 .78 $1 .96 4.23 0.26 96 .19% Revised 5/9/2003 Table 2 Transit Services .xls City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2D - EXEMPT TRANSIT SERVICE FY 2001 FY 2002 Audit ed Estimat FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Deliv ered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net O perating Expenses (Subsidies) O PERATING CHARACTERISTICS NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 243,691 $ 24,359 $ 219,332 $ 253,439 $ 25,333 $ 228,105 FY 2003 Planned 2 2 0 N/A 2 8 $ 162,394 $ 11,520 $ 150,874 FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned Unlinked Pas senger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passenger per Revenue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles Percentage of Trips on Time N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15,360 63,850 3,972 51,308 58,114 16,500 16,440 $40.88 7.09% $9.82 $2.36 $37.98 $2. 94 3.87 0.30 99.64% 23,040 95,795 5,958 76,953 90,658 25,740 25,647 $40.90 10.00% $9.52 $2.29 $36.81 $2.85 3. 87 0.30 99. 64% 23,962 99,627 6,196 80,031 94,284 26,770 26,673 $40.90 10 .00% $9.52 $2.29 $36 .81 $2.85 3.87 0.30 99.64% (2) Expansion v ehicl es Effective July 1, 2002 and exempt until July 1, 2004 (1) Expansion vehicle Effective July 1, 2003 and exempt until July 1, 2005 Revised 5/9/2003 Table 2 Transit Services.xls City of Riverside Special Transportation Servi ces FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INF ORMATI ON Complete Table 3 for year that funding is being requested Data Elements Unlinked Passe nger Trips Pass enger Miles To tal Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Rev enue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Operating Expen ses Total Pass enger Fare Reven ue Net Operating Expenses Line 1 Line 2 Lin e 3 Line 4 Line 5 Lin e 6 Line 7 Total Fixed Route* T otal Paratran sit* 166,038 656.075 T ot al - System Wide* 166,038 656,075 39,246 637,425 686,837 9,246 637,425 686.837 Perfo rmance Indicators O perating Cost Per Revenue Ho ur Farebox Rec overy Ratio Subsidy Per Passe nger, Subsidy Per Pa ssenger Mile Subsidy Per Hour Subsidy Per Mile Passengers Per Rev enue Hour Passengers Per Revenue Mile $1,399,311 $1,399,311 152,000 152,000 1,247,311 $1,247,311 $35.65 10 .86% $35.65 10.86% $7.51 $1.90 $7 .51 $1.90 $31 .78 $1 .96 4 .23 0 .26 $31 .78 $1.96 4 .23 0 .26 *Information excludes exempt service for two years . Revised 5/9/2003 T abl e 3 Individual R oute Information .xls Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 04 Pro ect Description Local Transportation Funds Operating Expenditures Replacement of 1 alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicle. Replacement vehicle w/lift radio, farebox and tie downs. Preventative Maintenance (cap for o ps expense) Purchase of 1-20 passenger alternative fuel DAR vehicle. Expansion vehicle with lift, radio, farebox and tiedowns. Purchase O ffice Equipment, Vehicle Loc ation Equipment and Software Capital Subtotal Operating Subtotal Tota l: Capital an d O pe ratin g Capital Project Total Amount Number (1) of Funds FY 04-1 FY 04-2 FY 04-3 FY 04-4 (1) Number sho uld tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justificatio n (2) Please identify source of "Othe r" funds. $1,819,361 $70,000 STA $100,000 $90,000 $30,000 5270,000 51,839,361 52,109,361 City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan LTF Measure A 50 51,643,002 512,000 50 516,000 56,000 534,000 $0 534,000 50 $20,000 $0 50 $0 51,663,002 51,663,002 50 $0 5307 $0 558,000 $0 580,000 501 574,000 $0 50 524,000 $236,000 $0 $236,0 5311 $0 $o $0 50 $0 FTA - CMAQ 50 50 50 $0 $0 Please show in actual dollar amounts: 5100,000; 51,583,000, etc. FTA Discretionary Fare Box $0 $0 50 $0 50 $o $0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Other (2) 5176,359 $0 50 50 50 50 $176,359 5176,359 50 50 50 50 50 $0 $0 50 Revised 5/9/2003 Summary of FY 04 Funds R equested.xls City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04 — FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan Table 4A — CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) FY 04-1 PROJECT NAME Purchase of 1 replacement alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicle. Replacement vehicle with lift, radio, farebox and tiedowns. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of 1 replacement alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicle. Replacement vehicle with lift, radio, farebox and tiedowns. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Purchase of 1 replacement alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicle. Replacement vehicle with lift, radio, farebox and tiedowns to replace a vehicle due to excessive mileage on vehicle and major repairs. PROJECT FUNDING Sl7LTRCEB RE UESTED) FTA STA Funding for the replacement of 1 alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicle. Funding source of 83% of the funds will be from the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 and State Transit Assistance of 17% funding to fund project. 83% 17% Total funds from each funding source requested. $58,000 $12,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None at this time. 9 City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04— FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan Table 4A — CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) FY 04-2 PROJECT NAME Preventative Maintenance for vehicle operations, repairs and parts for the 24 paratransit fleet. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preventative Maintenance for vehicle operations, repairs and parts for the 24 paratransit fleet. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Preventative Maintenance for vehicle operations, repairs and parts for the 24 paratransit fleet. If these funds are not received for the automotive repairs and parts the operational costs of these vehicles would prevent operations of the services needed to meet the day-to-day operations of these vehicles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA STA Preventive Maintenance funds needed for the vehicle operations, repairs and parts. Funding source of 80% of the funds will be from the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 and State Transit Assistance of 20% funding to fund project. 80% 20/0 0 Total funds from each funding source requested. $80,000 $20,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None at this time. 10 City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04— FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan Table 4A — CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) FY 04-3 PROJECT NAME Purchase of 1-20 passenger CNG alternative fuel DAR vehicle with lift, radio, farebox and tiedowns. Expansion vehicle. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of 1-20 passenger CNG alternative fuel DAR vehicle with lift, radio, farebox and tiedowns. Expansion vehicle. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Purchase of 1-20 passenger CNG alternative fuel DAR vehicle with lift, radio, farebox and tiedowns. Expansion of fleet is based on planning practices. Overcrowding and increased demand of service due to increased usage of ADA riders and seniors from Inland Regional Center. Also, increased rapid growth of residents residing in Riverside along with the closure of one local service provider for transportation services for seniors and developmentally disabled. PROTECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA STA Funding for the expansion of 1-20 passenger CNG alternative fuel DAR vehicle with lift, radio, farebox and tiedowns. Funding source of 83% of the funds will be from the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 and State Transit Assistance of 17% funding to fund project. Total funds from each funding source requested. 83% 17% $74,000 $16,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None at this time. 11 City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04 — FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan Table 4A — CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) FY 04-4 PROJECT NAME Purchase of Office Equipment, Vehicle Location Equipment and Software. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of Office Equipment, Vehicle Location Equipment and Software Equipment. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Purchase Office Equipment, Vehicle Location Equipment, and Software Equipment for the administration of the Special Transportation Services operations. Equipment age and condition reflects that the need to update the equipment is critical to the operations. In order to maintain efficiency standards as required by the Federal Transit Administration and Riverside County Transportation Commission and to maintain the same standards as other agencies. PROTECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA STA Purchase of Office Equipment, Vehicle Location Equipment and Software Equipment. Funding source of 80% of the funds will be from the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 and State Transit Assistance of 20% funding to fund project. 80% 20/0 0 Total funds from each funding source requested. $24,000 $6,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None at this time. 12 I City of Riverside Special Tra nsportation Services FY 05 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 05 (F or planning p urposes only - not approved) Pro je ct Description Local Tran sportation Funds O perating Expenditures Replaceme nt of 6 alternative fuel me dium duty DAR vehicles. Re place ment vehicles with lift, radios, farebo xe s and tiedowns. Preventative Maintenance (cap for ops e xpe nse) Purchase of Scheduling/ Dispatching Software and compute rs for office. w api a Proj ect Number (1) Capital Su btotal Operating Subtotal To tal: Ca pital and O peratin g FY 05-1 FY 05-2 FY 05-3 Pl eas e show in a ctual dollar amounts: 5100,000; $1,583,000, etc . T otal Am ount of Funds STA $1,892,135 5450,000 5100,000 5130,000 $660,000 $1,912,135 52,572,135 LTF $0 50 $0 $0 50 Me asure A 51,708,722 577,000 $20,000 526,000 $103,000 $1,728,722 S1,831,722 $0 5307 $0 $373,000 $80,000 5104,000 $0 $557,000 50 $0 50 5557,000 5311 50 0 FTA - CMAQ $0 $0 50 FTA Discretionary 0 $0 $0 50 50 Fare Box 50 $183,413 50 $0 Other (2) $0 $0' $0 $0 $0I 50 50l $183,413 50 5183,413 $0 0 50 $0 $d Revised 5/9/2003 Summary of FY 05 Funds Requested .xls City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04 — FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan Table 5A — CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 5 — Summary of FY 05 Funds Requested) FY 05-1 PROJECT NAME Purchase of 6 replacement alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicles. Replacement vehicles with lifts, radios, fareboxes and tiedowns. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of 6 replacement alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicles. Replacement vehicles with lifts, radios, fareboxes and tiedowns. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Purchase of 6 replacement alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicles. Replacement vehicles with lifts, radios, fareboxes and tiedowns to replace vehicles due to excessive mileage on each vehicle and major repairs. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (R,EOIIESTED) FTA LTF Funding for the replacement of 6 alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicles. Funding source of 83% of the funds will be from the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 and Local Transit Assistance of 17% funding to fund project. 83% 17% Total funds from each funding source requested. $373,000 $77,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None at this time. 14 City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04— FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan Table 5A — CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 5 — Summary of FY 05 Funds Requested) FY 05-2 PROJECT NAME Preventative Maintenance for vehicle operations, repairs and parts for the 24 paratransit fleet. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preventative Maintenance for vehicle operations, repairs and parts for the 24 paratransit fleet. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Preventative Maintenance for vehicle operations, repairs and parts for the 24 paratransit fleet. If these funds are not received for the automotive repairs and parts the operational costs of these vehicles would prevent operations of the services needed to meet the day-to-day operations of these vehicles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA LTF Preventive Maintenance funds needed for the vehicle operations, repairs and parts. Funding source of 80% of the funds will be from the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 and Local Transit Assistance of 20% funding to fund project. o 80% 20/a Total funds from each funding source requested. $80,000 $20,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None at this time. 15 City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04 — FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan Table 5A — CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) FY 05-3 PROJECT NAME Purchase of Scheduling/Dispatching Software and Computers for Office. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of Scheduling/Dispatching Software and Computers for Office. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Purchase of Scheduling/Dispatching Software and Computers for Office for the administration of the Special Transportation Services operations. Scheduling/Dispatching Software and Computers equipment age and condition reflects that the need to update is critical to the operations. In order to maintain efficiency standards as required by the Federal Transit Administration and Riverside County Transportation Commission and to maintain the same standards as other agencies. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA LTF Purchase of Scheduling/Dispatching Software and Computers for Office for the administration of the Special Transportation Services operations. Funding source of 80% of the funds will be from the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 and Local Transit Assistance of 20% funding to fund project. 80% 20% Total funds from each funding source requested. $104,000 $26,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None at this time. 16 City of Riverside Special Transportation S ervices FY 06 Summary of Funds Requested Sh ort Range Transit Plan Table 5.1 - Summary of Funds R equested f or FY 06 (For planning purposes only- not approved) Project Description Capital Pr oject Number (1) Total Amount of Funds STA LTF Measure A Local Transportation Funds Operating Expenditures Replacement of 4 alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicle s. Replacement ve hicles with lifts, radios, fareboxes, and tiedowns. Preventive Maintenance (cap for ops expe nse ) Capital Subtotal Ope rating Subtotal Total: Capita l and Operating FY 06-1 FY 06-2 $1,967,821 $300,000 $100,000 $380,000 51,987,821 52,367,821 0 0 50 50 50 $1,777,072 551,000 520,000 551,000 $1,797,072 $t848,072 Please show in actual dollar amounts: 5100,000; 51,583,000, etc . 5307 5311 FTA - CMAQ FTA Discr etionary Fare Box Other (2) 50 0 50 so so $249,000 $80,000 5329,000 $0 5329,000 0 $0 0 $0 $o $0 50 50 $190,749 so l $o $0 $0 50 0 50 $190,749 $190,749 50 50 $0 $0 50 Revised 5/9/2003 Summ ary of FY 06 Funds Requ est ed .xls City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04 — FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan Table 5.1A — CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 5.1 — Summary of FY 06 Funds Requested) FY 06-1 PROJECT NAME Purchase of 4 replacement alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicles. Replacement vehicles with lifts, radios, fareboxes and tiedowns. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of 4 replacement alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicles. Replacement vehicles with lifts, radios, fareboxes and tiedowns. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Purchase of 1 replacement alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicles_ Replacement vehicles with lifts, radios, fareboxes and tiedowns to replace vehicles due to excessive mileage on vehicle and major repairs. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA, _ LTF Funding for the replacement of 4 alternative fuel medium duty DAR vehicles. Funding source of 83% of the funds will be from the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 and Local Transit Assistance of 17% funding to fund project. 83% 17% Total funds from each funding source requested. $249,000 $51,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None at this time. 18 City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04— FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan Table 5.1A — CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 5.1 — Summary of FY 06 Funds Requested) FY 06-2 PROJECT NAME Preventative Maintenance for vehicle operations, repairs and parts for the 24 paratransit fleet. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preventative Maintenance for vehicle operations, repairs and parts for the 24 paratransit fleet. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Preventative Maintenance for vehicle operations, repairs and parts for the 24 paratransit fleet. If these funds are not received for the automotive repairs and parts the operational costs of these vehicles would prevent operations of the services needed to meet the day-to-day operations of these vehicles. PROJECT FUNDING SOI7RCES E LTESTED FTA LTF Preventive Maintenance funds needed for the vehicle operations, repairs and parts. Funding source of 80% of the funds will be from the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 and Local Transit Assistance of 20% funding to fund project. 80% 20% Total funds from each funding source requested. $80,000 $20,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED None at this time. 19 TABLE 6 — PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT Prior Audit Recommendation (Conducted FY 01) Ensure fiscal and compliance audit is submitted to the State Controllers within 180 days of the end of the fiscal year. Ensure consistency in the reporting of Full Time Employees (FTE's) and other data between the report to the State Controller's Office and Federal Transit Administration reports. Action(s) Taken And Results (1) The City has been working collaboratively with the submittal of the State Controllers report with our auditors to complete in a timely manner. The City should adhere to TDA data reporting. The City modified its drivers log to account for lunch breaks in the calculation of deadhead hours. Resolved as requested by the audit recommendation. The City has complied with this prior recommendation in early October 2002 and has adhered to their requirements. (1) If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant. 20 City of Riverside Special Transportation Services FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 7 - PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUES Financial Elements Operating Expenses (less depreciation) Capital Expenses Total Operating & Capital Expenses Approved FY 03 Current Plan Year FY 04 $1,839,361 $270,000 $2,109,361 Projected $1,912,135 60,000 $2,572,135 FY 06 $1,987,821 3380,000 Less Money on Hand at RCTC* (Funds identified in RCTC's Audited Records). Note: Information was provided during SRTP kick off.) Measure A Total Money on Hand Balance of Operating and Capital Expenses Needed Less Money on Hand at your Agency Measure A Farebox Revenues Zither Grant Subsidies (please specify) Balance Needed for Operating land Capital** FY 04 0 0 0 0 1,906,330 26,672 0 176,359 0 1,906,330 4 7,821 This section should tie to Table 4 and Table 5 - shows total amount of funding being requested for FY 04 and protects amounts needed for FY 05 and FY 06 *If revenue is available but wit not be used this fiscal year, provide an explanation i.e. $XXX needed for service expansion in FY 05; $XXX needed for replacement buses in FY 06, etc. If any funds are still remaining in our project accounts, they will be used this year to fulfill our proposed projects that remain open. "Indicate how much money is placed on reserves and indicate why i.e. $XXX for fuel costs; $XXX for demonstration service; etc. Revised Funding Amount Needed This represents the amount of money that your Agency is requesting to operate for FY 04. (Amount not to exceed funding apportioned to your transit area). Revised 5/9/2003 Table 6 Budget Sheet. xls 21 Riverside Transit Agency jYiott glan�e 9ftta'fi,fit 2004 - 2006 UPDATE Riverside Transit Agency May 12, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. System Overview 1 II. Tables Table 1 Fleet Inventory 12 Table 2 Summary of Route Information 14 Table 3 Individual Route Information 18 Table 4 FY 2004 Transit Projects 25 Table 4A FY 2004 Capital Project Justification 26 Table 5 FY2005/06 Transit Projects 43 Table 5A FY2005/06 Capital Project Justification 45 Table 6 Progress to Implement Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations 51 Table 7 Projected Expenses and Revenues 52 III. Appendix • FY2003 Annualized Actual & FY2004 Budget Summary SYSTEM OVERVIEW The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) was established as a Joint Powers Agency on August 15, 1975 under authority of Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, as amended, of the Government Code of the State of California. RTA is governed by a board of directors comprised of elected officials from the 14 cities in western Riverside County and four members of the County board of supervisors. RTA is the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) for Western Riverside County and is responsible for coordinating transit services throughout the approximate 2,500 square mile service area, providing driver training, assistance with grant applications and development of Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs). Serving a population of over one million, RTA is funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transportation Development Act (TDA), the Southern California Air Quality Management District (AQMD), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ). RTA's Mission Statement is: "The Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside County's multi -modal transportation provider, shall provide for a variety of transportation needs in a cost effective and efficient manner, for all the residents of our member communities. The Agency is committed to providing safe, reliable, courteous, accessible, and user-friendly transit services to our customers." CURRENT SERVICES RTA provides both local and regional services throughout the service area with 40 fixed -route and 14 demand - responsive services using 49 paratransit vehicles & 66 peak full- size buses. In the cities of Corona, Beaumont and Banning, RTA coordinates regional services with municipal transit systems. In Riverside, RTA coordinates with the City's Riverside Special Services, which provides ADA complementary service to RTA's fixed -route services. RTA also closely coordinates services with Omnitrans and provides transfer opportunities in Colton, Grand Terrace and Loma Linda. Peak -hour services are also provided to all Metrolink stations in the service area. Transfer agreements have been made with the City of Corona, Omnitrans and Metrolink. Through local community advocacy groups such as Transportation NOW chapters, RTA coordinates closely with other transit agencies, public agencies and local businesses. RTA buses connect with Metrolink trains at all Riverside area stations. RTA SRTP 2004/2008 Page 1 RTA provides internal transfer opportunities at several points throughout the service area, usually at major activity centers such as shopping malls, governmental centers and hospitals. While some services are frequent in densely populated areas such as Riverside, RTA attempts to provide "lifeline" level of services in lower density outlying areas. These services, while less productive, balance productivity with minimal basic services. New services have recently been provided in Menifee, San Jacinto and the unincorporated areas in rural Riverside County. American with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary services are provided throughout the service area either by RTA or, under the terms of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), with the cities of Corona, Riverside, Beaumont and Banning. RTA-provided services have not adhered to the regulated 3/4 mile distance from a fixed route, and generally provide ADA complementary service anywhere within the service area. An additional forty hours per week has been added to the demand — response services planned for FY 2003/2004 to improve capacity and provide much -needed regional paratransit services. RTA continues to support Inland Empire Commuter Services (IECS) with the provision of informational materials and by outreach to western Riverside County employers. GENERAL DAY PASS S2.50 Each Gt /11 alwbirwait New day passes and the 31 —Day Pass, below, allow for multiple trips during the course of a day and eliminate the need for transfers. GENERAL 31 -DAY PASS S34 Each G+ FARE STRUCTURE RTA increased fares in January 2000 to $1.00 each way and implemented a Day Pass for $2.50. Ridership has recovered from the slight dip after the fare increase and showed a modest increase of 2% in FY 2003. It is anticipated that F.Y. 04 will show a 12.5% increase in ridership due mainly to the new commuter routes becoming effective in July. The use of transfers was eliminated and most riders pay cash or use day passes. No fare increase is seen in the near future. New fareboxes were installed on all directly operated route vehicles in F.Y.'03 and a 31 -Day Pass was introduced at the same time. RTA SRTP 2004/2008 Page 2 POPULATION TO BE SERVED While RTA services are for the general public, RTA plans to place more emphasis on commuter services. As outlined in the Strategic Plan, the new commuter routes will be implemented in July 2003 and provide access to San Diego County, the Montclair Transcenter and to additional Metrolink stations. A Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) feasibility study is currently underway by a Team from the University of California at Berkeley, UCRiverside and UCLA. BRT service is targeted for commuters as well. Preliminary recommendations suggest implementation of necessary infrastructure improvements first, followed by an actual BRT Route implementation in 2006. The Agency's marketing and media advertising campaigns coordinate closely with the American Public Transportation Association's, APTA's, (PT)2 national education and outreach program that focuses on commuters not currently using public transportation. FLEET RTA operates a total of 102 fixed route peak -hour vehicles and 49 paratransit vehicles throughout the service area with a 19% spare ratio and approximately 28% contingency. Directly operated services are in the core area of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris and adjacent areas, and contracted services are provided in the outlying areas. The Agency operates 75 CNG vehicles, with all diesel equipment slated for RTA SRTP 2004/2008 Page 3 retirement. In December 2002 the purchase of all CNG buses was complete. RTA-owned dial -a -ride vehicles are gasoline powered and all are equipped with wheelchair lifts. Many supervisory vehicles are also equipped with wheelchair lifts to assist in transporting wheelchair riders in case of any lift failure. RTA adheres to all Federal Transit Administration (FTA) mandated Preventive Maintenance Inspection criteria and is very pro -active in maintenance efforts. RTA currently has 50 buses in its Energy Contingency Fleet to allow for the transition of service change vehicles and in anticipation of future BRT service. Vehicles are replaced according to FTA criteria. FACILITIES The RTA main office is located in Riverside and includes Administration, Operations and Maintenance departments. Approximately 255 employees are located at this location. The Hemet facility opened to maintenance and operations in June 2000, and also houses contracted services and the Information Center. Approximately 100 employees work at this facility. This second facility allows for closer coordination with contractors by having them under the same roof with administrative staff. In addition, approximately 20 of the CNG expansion vehicles operate out of this facility, to share capacity with the Riverside facility. The new CNG fueling station with public access opened at the Hemet facility in the fall of 2002. RTA operates a transit hub in downtown Riverside that allows for timed transfers. One of RTA's goals is to develop Transit Centers throughout the service area to allow for more convenient transfers, the provision of informational material and the purchase of several types of fare media. RTA is aggressively seeking funding for such facilities. Many discussions have been held with City staff(s) to determine locations, land assembly options and types of facilities appropriate to each area. SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS Ridership is expected to increase in FY 2004 by close to 12.5% percent over the previous year to over 8 million trips. Directly operated fixed route ridership is expected to increase by 12.8% percent to approximately 6.7 million trips, and contracted fixed routes will increase by 6.98% Many of the ADA Intercity dial -a -ride services have increased ridership by 31%, while overall dial -a -ride services are up 29% for FY 2004. Some dial -a -ride services have decreased ridership due to the implementation of new fixed route services. ADA services continue to increase in keeping up with existing demand and service expansion. PROJECTED GROWTH In FY 2003, RTA underwent the largest vehicle expansion in Agency history. The added vehicles, 40 -foot RTA SRTP 2004/2008 Page 4 expansion buses will address improved peak hour service and span of service hours; allow for better trip frequencies and improved schedule adherence. Four new commuter routes are planned to go into service July, 2003, per the Strategic Plan, to provide faster services to Oceanside and Montclair; from Southwest Riverside County to the Corona Metrolink Station; South Central Riverside County to the Riverside Metrolink Station and Downtown Riverside. Working with the RCTC, RTA plans to develop a transit center at the new Corona No. Main Street Metrolink Station. After a month of public hearings, outreach and an On -Board survey conducted on all routes during January, 2003, RTA will implement slated improvements to headways, schedule adherence and connecting routes to go into effect on several Riverside routes in late May 2003 based on public testimony. Several areas will benefit including: > Riverside ➢ Moreno Valley > Sun City > Temecula ➢ Murrieta ➢ Hemet ➢ Perris ➢ Jurupa ➢ Rubidoux ➢ Corona/Norco New Commuter routes & Local route improvements will go into effect; Commuter Routes: ➢ Temecula/ Corona ➢ Temecula/Oceanside ➢ Riverside/Montclair ➢ Temecula/ Sun City/Perris/Moreno Valley/Riverside Local routes > Sun City Circulator > Hemet: local routes and Ladybug shuttle re -design > Route 3; re -design 9/03 > Routes 23/24; re -design 9/03 Promotions with local schools increase the awareness of public transit and encourage ridership. RIDER CHARACTERISTICS The Title VI survey conducted in the year 2000 showed the typical RTA rider as a young Hispanic female with low income and no other means of transportation. A more recent On -Board survey conducted in January 2003 reports a Hispanic ridership of 38% with female riders at 54% and male riders at 46%. The age span of the RTA rider is between ages 13 through 34 yrs old. Over half of RTA riders have incomes of less than $20,000 annually. RTA has increased Hispanic advertising and has developed advertising specific to young people. Additional outreach to downtown Riverside employers has become a priority as parking in downtown is now severely constrained and traffic increases. For example, staff has been working with the Downtown RTA SRTP 2004/2008 Page 5 Riverside Partnership and employers to design a lunch-time trolley. RTA currently serves all major activity centers such as shopping centers, medical facilities, schools, government centers, residential areas and major employment sites. Most trips are to work, personal business/shopping and school - based, followed by medical trips. PASSENGER AMENITIES RTA is pursuing an aggressive program to improve bus stop amenities. A large number of bus stop benches, poles, trash cans and shelters have been purchased and during the past year 250 benches were placed at stops. New bus benches are more graffiti resistant and discourage loitering because a person cannot lie down on them. New schedule holders have also been placed at many bus stops. Automated Traveler information Systems (ATIS) are planned for several bus stops to lay the foundation for the anticipated Bus Rapid Transit corridor and feeder routes to the main line. This feature will also be added to main transit hubs/ transit centers within greater Riverside and other points where there is connecting service in Western Riverside County. Using the number of boardings and alightings per stop, bus stop shelters will be placed at stops based on the number of boardings per day (minimum of 50 boardings per day) and at major activity centers such as senior centers. Bus stop signs, benches and trash receptacles will continue to be placed at as many of the approximate 4,000 stops as possible. RTA crews continue to maintain bus stops. RTA staff will continue to work with jurisdictions to make as many bus stops ADA accessible as possible. SERVICE RELATED ISSUES Similar to other transit agencies, RTA strives to provide more services while adhering to regulations, mandates and performance requirements. Consistent with Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan, RTA's goal is to increase per capita annual ridership from the current average of six to eight. However, it is often difficult to do so in an environment characterized by abundant free parking and transit un-friendly development. As one of the fastest growing counties in the State of California, on -time performance has become an issue as traffic has increased. With expansion equipment that arrived in FY2002/2003, RTA will add vehicles to existing routes in an effort to ensure on -time performance, especially during peak hours. As part of RTA's participation with SunLine Transit in the SCAG Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Project, RTA hopes to encourage cities to allow buses signal prioritization in order to better adhere to schedules and for the pre- planning of Bus Rapid Transit. The provision of ADA services remains a challenge as service requests continue to increase and the number of ADA eligible riders continues to grow. During FY RTA SRTP 2004/2008 Page 6 2003/2004 RTA will replace eight Paratransit vehicles and will purchase five expansion Paratransit -size vehicles for contracted routes. At some point in the near future, the RTA Board of Directors may need to determine the viability of general public dial -a -rides. Because of capacity constraints these may need to be limited to service for seniors and ADA riders only. In addition, the Board may need to determine whether it should begin to adhere to the ADA mandated 3/4 -mile distance from either side of a fixed route service. RTA currently serves many riders well outside of that boundary. REGIONAL SERVICES & ADJACENT TRANSIT SYSTEMS RTA staff continues to participate in committees and task forces with a variety of public and private agencies. Staff works closely with the RCTC, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), SCAG, Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and with other transit agencies such as Metrolink, SunLine, Omnitrans and the North County Transit District. In FY2003/2004, staff will attempt to better coordinate with social service agencies in scheduling paratransit trips especially during RTA peak service times as well as private - public partnerships to better utilize vehicles. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RTA is very active in the community through membership in all Chamber of Commerce, participation in local parades and festivals, attendance at community meetings and senior centers and presentations to schools, community groups, and other public agencies. RTA launched a "Unique Rider" program in October 2002, which spotlights passengers who have an interesting or unique story relating to why they ride the bus. The public can nominate anyone by sending in his or her story via the RTA web site or on the "Unique Rider" entry form. Then, once a quarter RTA selects a winner who receives a free 31 -day pass and other RTA promotional prizes. The program has received positive response from both riders and non -riders. Last winter, RTA teamed up with the Mission Inn to provide express bus service for the hotel's annual "Festival of Lights" switch -on ceremony. Thousands attend the free event every year. In addition to the lighting ceremony, the celebration includes food, music, shopping, and carriage rides. For just $1 each way, RTA provided transportation to Riverside from Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Murrieta, Temecula, San Jacinto, and Corona. This service allowed many residents living in remote areas, many which do not drive, the opportunity to attend the event. Throughout the months of January and February 2003, RTA launched a public outreach campaign aimed at soliciting feedback on proposed service changes. Through this outreach RTA was able to fine-tune a series of route adjustments for the May 2003 service change. Those RTA SRTP 2004/2008 Page 7 passenger's requests that were feasible, received the most demand, and were within budgeted hours were implemented. The public hearings saw participation by seventy people who testified and 286 who submitted comments. Onboard surveys were also distributed, with over 4,000 returned and completed. In the spring of 2003, RTA launched a community involvement bus stop clean up program called, "StopWatch". The program recruits the public to become bus "StopWatchers" by alerting RTA to bus stops that need clean up or repair. Once a stop is reported, an RTA clean up crew will be dispatched to the site. The person who reports the problem stop is automatically be entered into a "StopWatch" sweepstakes. Each month RTA selects one winner who is awarded a free 31 -day pass. RTA's website, www.RiversideTransit.com, is highly interactive and has become a main source of information for the public. Not only are route and schedule information available, but also Board of Director meeting agendas, times of Transportation NOW meetings, Riders' Alerts, employment opportunities, RTA's Annual Report and other current information. Users of the website are encouraged to submit comments and complaints which are promptly addressed. RTA made a firm commitment to the provision of information to the public and to responsiveness to rider comments, complaints and suggestions with the creation of a Quality Control Analyst position. This position reports to the Director of Operations and is charged with responsiveness to the public. With the implementation of the employee "Ride Along" program, all employees are to ride the bus at least once a month and provide comments to the Chief Executive Officer about the quality of service. Recently implemented services are the direct result of public input. The RTA Transportation Center provides schedule information for fixed route services. The same staff also provides dispatching services for contracted paratransit services, both general public and ADA. Operating from 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Mon — Fri. and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., on Sat. & Sun., this center is also responsible for taking complaints and passing them on to the Quality Control Analyst. A new after hours toll free phone number was initiated in F.Y. 2003 for emergency assistance before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. It is (866) 543-4782. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS RTA adheres to RCTC Performance Standards and reports quarterly to both the RCTC and the FTA. While new services are exempt from performance standards for the first two years, RTA is required to meet several standards for the rest of its services. RTA SRTP 2004/2008 Page 8 These standards are listed as follows: Performance Indicator FY 2002 Est. FY 2003 Est. FY 2004 Cost per Revenue Hour $63.17 $60.31 $55.80 Farebox Recovery Ratio 18.2% 17.8% 18.6% Subsidy per Passenger $3.38 $3.46 $3.32 Subsidy per Passenger Mile $0.50 $0.58 $0.57 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $51.67 $49.56 $45.42 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $3.19 $3.10 $2.94 Passengers per Revenue Hour 15.3 14.3 13.7 Passengers per Revenue Mile .09 0.9 0.9 RTA also tracks, on a monthly basis, farebox recovery ratio and passengers per hour as basic performance criteria. Services are in five categories based on population densities: Local Services, Developing Urban Services, Commuter Services, Dial -a -Ride Services, and New Services and it is planned to re -visit the standards in F.Y. 2004. The RTA is continually seeks additional funding to replace and expand passenger amenities such as bus shelters. The RTA is seeking funding for the development of transit centers throughout our service area. Many services are still not productive after the initial two years of service and do not meet any standards. The Board may want to consider establishment of minimum -threshold performance criteria so that the RTA can continue to meet mandated performance regulations. NEW SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION & EVALUATION RTA SRTP 2004/2008 Page 9 RTA may now implement many service improvements with the completed delivery of the CNG buses. Several improvements had been previously approved for F.Y. 2003, however, did not go into effect due to the need to fill driver positions and to complete the public hearing process. Proposed Directly Operated service changes include: • To accommodate the hours for the increased span of service; schedule adherence; and modest frequency improvements, a 15.5% system -wide increase in hours on Directly Operated routes is planned. • Hours added for the same improvements to the Contract Operated routes will result in a 17.5% planned increase. Actual hours for Dial -A -Ride Service shows a 31% planned increase. Mileage for directly operated vehicles will show a slight decrease in F.Y. 2004 because not as many vehicles are planned for storage at the RTA Hemet Facility reducing deadhead miles. Additionally, the increased miles corresponding to the increased hours can be attributed to the newly contracted routes in '04. Contracted service improvements are to begin July 2003. These improvements, consistent with the adopted Strategic Plan, include Commuter services such as: • Temecula/Murrieta/Lake Elsinore/Corona Commuter Service • Temecula/Sun City/Moreno Valley/Riverside Commuter Service • Temecula/Murrieta/Oceanside Commuter Service • Riverside/Montclair Transit Center Commuter Service Other service changes include: ▪ Replacement of Route 37 in Hemet with the new Routes 74 and 79 Restructuring of Routes 3, 23 and 24 Increased hours on all ADA Intercity services ▪ Implementation of a new local circulator in Sun City Implementation of Route 18A in Moreno Valley RTA ties performance to service type, as shown in Section 3. Directly operated, contracted routes, and dial -a -rides all have performance criteria, which enable RTA to meet all mandated requirements such as overall farebox recovery ratio. New routes and modifications are monitored on a quarterly basis and marketing efforts are closely tied to performance measures. REGULATORY & COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS RTA complies with all ADA regulations and has had no ADA denials in F.Y. 2003. RTA's Title VI RTA SRTP 2004/2008 Page 10 was submitted in July 2001 and was approved in December 2001. RTA's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program was also approved in December 2001. All recommendations of both the FTA and RCTC Triennial reviews have been implemented. CAPITAL PROGRAM The Capital Program reflects debt payment on only one Certificate of Participation (COP) since the 1993 COP was paid five years earlier than planned in FY 2000/2001. RTA will also aggressively be capitalizing major maintenance projects such as engine and transmission rebuilds. Other capital expenses will be for maintenance equipment, office equipment, bus stop amenities, facility improvements, expansion support vehicles and 30 -foot buses for Commuter service. RTA has several flag buses operating throughout the service area. New projects such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) have shown preliminary acceptance in the feasibility study underway. Therefore, Automated Traveler Information System improvements are programmed for the targeted bus stops along the Magnolia Street corridor and also for feeder routes to the corridor to lay the foundation for Bus Rapid Transit. The preliminary conceptual route alignment travels from Moreno Valley on the east through Riverside, terminating in Corona on the west. In pursuit of a new, much needed Transit Center in Downtown Riverside, discussions and negotiations with City officials continue in quest of an identified location and land assembly package. As Federal Appropriation funds are being secured for the Transit Center, it becomes even more imperative that consensus be achieved on a final location. RTA is also working with the cities of Corona, Hemet and Temecula to reach preferred design layouts and assist with packaging other fund sources where feasible. RTA SRTP 2004/2008 Page 11 Ri verside Tr ansit Agency FY 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Pla n TABLE 1 - FLEET INVENTORY Year Built Manufacturer M odel Number of Seats Lift Equipment? Typ e of Fuel Own or L ea se Support Vehicle FR Vehicle DAR Vehicle Acti ve/ R eser ve/ Rehab Total Vehicle Miles Year to Replace SUPPORT VEHICLES 1988 Ford 1 -ton Utility 3 — Gasoline Own 1 Active 85,648 1992 1989 Ford 1 -ton Utility 3 -- Gasoline Own 1 Active 93,440 1993 1993 GMC 1 -ton Utility 3 -- Gasoline Own 1 Active _ 133,126 1997 1989 Ford Stake Bed Truck 3 -- Gasoline Own 1 Active 156.183 1993 1998 Chevrolet Stake Bed Truck 3 — Gasoline Own 2 Activ e 177,909 2002 2001 _ Chevrolet Stake Be d Truck 3 — Gasoline Own 2 Active 54,470 2005 2003 Chevrolet Stake Bed Truck 3 — Gasoline Own 2 Active 10,556 2007 1998 Chevrolet Pick-up Truck 3/4 ton 3 -- Gasoline Own 1 _ Active 87,434 2002 2002 Chevrolet Utility truck Bi-fuel 3 -- CNG/G as Own 2 Active 21,052 2006 Total Maintenance Support Vehicles »»»»» 13 1991 GMC Safari van 7 — Gas oline Own 3 Acti ve 541,115 1995 1991 Oldsmobile 88 Royal 6 -- Gasoline Own 1 Active 111,842 1995 1992 Ford Taurus Sedan 6 -- Gasoline _ Own 1 Active 136,830 1996 1992 Fo rd Aerostar 7 — Gasoline Own 1 Active 120,204 1996 1994 GMC Safari van 7 — Gasoline Own 3 Active 382,643 1998 1999 Ford Van 6 — Gasoline Own 4 Active 585,440 2003 1999 Fo rd Taurus Wagon 6 — Gasoline Own 5 Acti ve 454,432 2003 1999 Chrysler Jeep Cherokee 5 Gasoline Own 1 Active 54,176 2003 1999 Chevrolet Astro van 7 Gasoline Own 1 Active 80 ,199 2003 2001 Chevrolet Malibu 6 -- Ga soline Own 6 Active 254.931 2005 2002 Ford Taurus Sedan 5 Gaso line _ Own 6 Active 118,695 2006 2003 Ford Crown Victoria 5 -- Gasoline Own 2 Activ e 2,863 2007 Total Administrativ e Su ppo rt Vehicles »»»»» 34 _ TROLLEY BUSES 1994 Chance AH 28 25 Y es CNG Own 4 Active 418,752 2006 1994 Cha nce AH 28 25 Yes Diesel Own 1 Active 124.497 2006 1996 Chance AH 28 25 Yes CNG Own 1 Active 113,733 2008 Total Trolley Buses »»> »» 6 12 Revised 4/28/2003 Table 1 Fleet Inventory .xls Riverside Transit Agency FY 2003-2007 Sh ort Rang e Transit Plan TA BLE 1 - FLEET INVENTORY Year Built Manufacturer M odel Number of Seats Lift Equipment? Type of Fuel Own or Lease Supp ort Vehicle FR Vehicle DAR Vehicle Acti ve/ Res erve/ Rehab Total Vehi cle Miles Year to R eplace FUL SIZE BUSES 1992 TMC 1993 Flexble RTS T80206 Metro 40102 44 44 1994 1995 _ 1997 2001 Superbus Flexble New Flyer NABI 2002 NABI Magnabus Metro 40102 C4OLF 4OLFW-15 4OLFW-15 57 44 38 40 40 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Y es Yes To tal Full Siz e Buses »»»»» Diesel Diesel Diesel CN G Own Own Own Own CNG Own CNG Own CNG Own 10 17 3 Reserve Reserve Inactive 5,482,499 9.009.551 519.015 2004 2005 2006 17 3 47 47 144 Active Active 5,061,109 682 ,091 2007 2009 Active Active 3,446,296 903,887 2013 2014 VANS/MINI-BUSES 1995 Ford Goshen GCII van 14 Yes Gasoline Own 1995 1998 Ford Ford Goshen GCII van WTG Commuter van 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2002 Ford El Dorado El Dorado El Dorado El Dorado Ford El Dorado El Dorado El Dorado 2002 El Dorado WTG Commuter van EZ Rider Mini -bus Aerotech van Aerotech van Aero tech van Goshen Coach Aerotech van Aerotech van Aerotech van Aerotech van 10 16 18 25 15 15 19 16 14 14 12 12 2 Active 421,994 1999 Yes Gasoline Own Yes Gasoline Yes Gasoline Yes Diesel Yes Gasoline Yes Gasoline Yes Gasoline Yes Gasoline Yes Gasoline Own Own Own Own Own Own Own Own Yes Gasoline Own Yes Gasoline Own Yes Gasoline Own Total Vans & Mini -buses »»»»» 1 1 3 3 3 9 2 12 5 39 1 6 1 1 26 12 Active Active Active Active Active Reserve_ Active Reserve Active Active 7 Active 5 Active 61 265.709 170,885 125,010 519,015 1,803,105 226,874 697.619 141,755 4.743,852 1,566,114 329.832 790,113 1999 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2006 2006 13 Revised 4/28/2003 Table 1 Fleet Inventory .xls Riverside Transit Agency FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2A - FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passenger per Revenue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles Percentage of Trips on Time FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Planned 102 23 22.5% 50 10 - FY 2005 Planned 102 23 22.5% 27 - - FY 2006 Planned 1 98 33 33.7% 17 32 15 102 23 22.5% 27 - - 92 25 27.2% - - 47 $ 23,696,203 $ 25,115,476 $ 26,240,388 $27,290,004 $28,381,604 $ 4,978,895 $ 5,117,221 $ 5,619,203 $ 5,843,971 $ 6,077,730 $ 18,717,308 $ 19,998,255 $ 20,621,185 $21,446,033 $22,303,874 L 7,378,861 6,621,412 6,802,224 7,674,015 7,980,976 37,313,066 39,101,106 42,108,782 43,793,133 45,544,858 339,798 380,733 416,072 427,722 439,699 5,431,394 5,862,197 6,061,162 6,230,874 6,405,339 5,994,903 6,452,384 6,762,904 6,952,265 7,146,928 336,044 361,491 371,613 382,018 392,714 310,050 332,572 353,032 362,917 373,079 $69.74 $65.97 $63.07 $63.80 $64.55 21.0% 20.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% $2.83 $2.94 $2.79 $2.79 $2.79 $0.50 $0.51 $0.49 $0.49 $0.49 $55.08 $52.53 $49.56 $50.14 $50.73 $3.45 $3.41 $3.40 $3.44 $3.48 19.5 17.9 17.7 17.9 18.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 92.3% 92.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% Note: Information excludes new transit services which are exempt for two fiscal years. Revised 5/12/2003 14 Table 2 Transit Services.xls Riverside Transit Agency FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2B - ADA-PARATRANSIT SERVICE FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passenger per Revenue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles Percentage of Trips on Time FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned r FY 2006 Planned 49 7 14% $ 4,570,625 $ 163,797 $ 4,406,828 224,280 2,249,528 107,695 1,828,068 1,828,068 225,361 219,365 49 5 10% $ 4,488,096 $ 158,628 $ 4,329,468 219,949 2,206,085 110,094 1,987,891 1,987,891 215,174 200,112 49 5 10% $42.44 3.6% $19.65 $1.96 $40.92 $2.41 2.1 0.1 97.3% $40.77 3.5% $19.68 $1.96 $39.33 $2.18 2.0 0.1 93.0% $ 5,046,460 $ 202,690 $ 4,843,770 284,008 2,848,602 144,638 2,612,692 2,612,692 221,199 221,199 $34.89 4.0% $17.06 $1.70 $33.49 $1.85 2.0 0.1 100.0% $ 5,248,318 $ 210,797 $ 5,037,521 295,368 2,962,546 148,688 2,685,848 2,685,848 227,392 227,392 $ 5,458,251 $ 219,229 $ 5,239,022 307,183 3,081,048 152,851 2,761,051 2,761,051 233,759 233,759 $35.30 4.0% $17.06 $1.70 $33.88 $1.88 2.0 0.1 100.0% $35.71 4.0% $17.06 $1.70 $34.28 $1.90 2.0 0.1 100.0% Note: Information excludes new transit services which are exempt for two fiscal years. Revised 5/12/2003 15 Table 2 Transit Services.xls Riverside Transit Agency FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2C - SYSTEM -WIDE TRANSIT SERVICE FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet 141 147 151 151 151 Spare Vehicles 32 38 28 28 28 Spare Ratio 22.7% 25.9% 18.5% 18.5% 18.5% Energy Contingency Reserve - 17 50 27 27 New Expansion Vehicles Delivered - 32 10 0 0 New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 47 15 0; 0 0 FINANCIAL DATA - Total Operating Expenses $ 28,266,828 $ 29,603,572 $ 31,286,848 $ 32,538,322 $ 33,839,855 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $ 5,142,692 $ 5,275,848 $ 5,821,893 $ 6,054,768 $ 6,296,959 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $ 23,124,136 $ 24,327,724 $ 25,464,956 $ 26,483,554 $ 27,542,896 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Unlinked Passenger Trips 6,845,692 7,022,173 7,662,869 7,969,384 8,288,159 Passenger Miles 39,562,594 41,307,191 44,957,384 46,755,679 48,625,906 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 447,493 490,827 560,710 576,410 592,550 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 7,259,462 7,850,088 8,673,854 8,916,722 9,166,390 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 7,822,971 8,440,275 9,375,596 9,638,112 9,907,980 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 561,405 576,665 592,812 609,410 626,474 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 529,415 532,684 574,231 590,309 606,838 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $63.17 $60.31 $55.80 $56.45 $57.11 Farebox Recovery Ratio 18.2% 17.8% 18.6% 18.6% 18.6% Subsidy per Passenger $3.38 $3.46 $3.32 $3.32 $3.32, Subsidy per Passenger Mile $0.58 $0.59 $0.57 $0.57 $0.57 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $51.67 $49.56 $45.42 $45.95 $46.48 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $3.19 $3.10 $2.94 $2.97 $3.00 Passenger per Revenue Hour 15.3 14.3 13.7 13.8 14.0 Passenger per Revenue Miles 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Percentage of Trips on Time 94.3% 92.4% 96.9% 96.9% 96.9% Note: Information excludes new transit services which are exempt for two fiscal years. Revised 5/12/2003 16 Table 2 Transit Services.xls Ri verside Transit Agency FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2D - EXEM PT TRANSIT SERVICE FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHA RA CTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet 12 9 25 25 25 Spare Vehicles - 2 5 4 4 Spare Ratio 22% 20% 16% 16 % Energy Contingency Reserve - - - - New Expansion Vehicles Delivered - - - - - New Replacement Vehicles Delivered - - - - FINA NCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses $1,145,923 $ 768,543 $ 3,326,403 $ 3,459,459 $ 3,597,837 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $268,312 $ 186,532 $ 408,492 $ 424,832 $ 441,825 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $877,611 8582.011 $2,917,910 $3,034,627 $3,156 .012 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Unlinked Passenger Trips 257,070 130,343 383,125 398,450 414,388 Passenger Miles 2,143,964 1,087,063 2,743,554 2,806,129 2,923,056 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 29,505 22,135 52,069 53,527 55,026 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 361,516 290,546 1,301,364 1,337,802 1,375,260 To ta l Actual Vehicle M iles 416,013 348,453 1,357,202 1,395,203 1,434,269 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 43,281 33,566 34,506 35,472 36,465 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 41,983 33,230 34,161 35,117 36,101 PERFORMANCE CHARAC TERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $38.84 $34.72 $63. .88 $64.63 $65.38 Farebox Recovery Ratio 23.4% 24.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% Subsidy per Pa ssenger $3 41 $4 47 $7.62 $7.62 $7 .62 Subsidy pe r Pa ssenger Mlle $0. 41 $0.54 $1 06 $1.08 $1.08 Subsidy per Rev enue Hour $29 74 $26.29 $56.04 $56.69 $57.35 Subsidy per Reven ue Mile $2.43 $2.00 $2.24 $2.27 $2.29 Passenger per Revenue Hour 8.7 5.9 7.4 7.4 7.5 Passenger per Revenue Miles 0,7 0. 4 0.3 0. 3 0.3 Percentage of Trips on Time 97. 0% 99 0% 99.0% 99 0% 99.0% 17 Date St arted R oute Service Area 23 -May -2003 18A Moreno Valley 5 -Jul -02 33 Hemet 3 -Sep -00 40 Lake Elsinore/Menifee 16 -Oct -00 41 Mead Valley/Perris 18 -Feb -02 42 San Jaci nto 2 -Sep -01 50 Fairmount Park, Riverside 4 -Mar -02 99 Moreno Valley/Riverside 30 -Apr -01 LS Metrolink Shuttle La Sierra, Riverside 1 -Jul -03 61 Sun City Circulator 1 -Jul -03 74 San J acinto/P erris Comm uter 1 -Jul -03 79 Hemet/Murrieta Commuter 1 -Jul -03 202 M urrieta/Oceanside Commuter 1 -Jul -03 204 Riverside/Montclair Commuter 1 -Jul -03 206 Murrieta/Elsin ore/Corona Commuter 1 -Jul -03 208 Temecula/Murriet a/Meniffee/Sun City/ Perris/Moreno Valley Commuter Notes: Rout e 33 was exempt until FY 2002. Ro utes 40, 41 and La Si err a Metrolink Shuttle were e xempt until FY 2003. Routes 50 and La Sierra Metrolink Shuttle will be disc ontin ued in FY 2004 . Revised 4/28/2003 Table 2 Transit S ervices .xls Ri verside Transit Agency FY 2004 Sh ort Range Transit Plan TABLE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INFORMATI ON Data Elements Line 1 Line 3 Line 7 Lin e 8 Line 10 Line 12 Line 13 Unlinked Passenger Trips 1.653,553 103,050 90,057 74,285 272,838 295,008 256,834 Passenger Miles 8,896,114 859,440 751,072 619,539 1,467,868 1,587,145 1,381,769 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 53,746 12,269 7,591 7,769 14,503 14,927 14,466 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 636.241 191,048 138,112 174,720 194,158 192,135 185,479 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 716,227 211.068 175,069 210,512 210,714 211.910 198,973 Total Operating Expenses $3.933.431 $437,087 $249,135 $268.581 $1,061,410 $1.092,441, $221,188 $1,058,702 $203,483 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $1,334,975 $76,890 $60,363 $53,674 $232.379 Net Operating Expenses $2,598,456 $360,197 $188,772 $214,907 I $829,031 $871,253 $855,219 Perfo rmance Indicato rs Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $73.19 $35 .62 $32.82 $34.57 $73 .18 $73.19 $73.19 Farebox Recovery Ratio 33.94% 17 .59% 24 .23 % 19.98% 21 .89% 20.25 % 19.22 % Subsidy Per Passenger $1. 57 $3.50 $2.10 $2 .89 $3.04 $2.95 $3.33 Subsidy Per Passenger M ile $0. 29 $0 .42 $0 .25 $0 .35 $0 .56 $0.55 $0 .62 Subsidy Per Hour $48. 35 _ $29 .36 $24.87 $27 .66 _ $57 .16 $58 .37 $59.12 Subsidy Per Mile $4. 08 $1.89 $1.37 $1 .23 $4 .27 $4.53 $4.61 Passengers Per R evenue Hour 30. 77 8.40 11 .86 9 .56 18 .81 19 .76 17 .75 Passengers Per Revenue Mile 2.60 0. 54 0 .65 _ 0.43 1 .41 1 .54 1 .38 N otes: 1) Information excludes new services which are exempt for two fiscal years: Routes 42, 99, 61, 74, 79, 202, 204, 206, and 208. 18 Revised 4/28/2003 Table 3 Individual Route Information.xls Riverside Transit Agency FY 2004 Short Ra nge Transit Plan TA BLE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INFORMATION Data Elements Line 14 r Line15 Line 16 Line 17 Line 18 Line 19 Line 20 ;Unlinked Passenger Trips 198.052 504,234 910,246 86.905 , 149,343 346,358 , 278,176 Passenger Miles 1,065,519 2,712,777 4.897,126 467,551 803,464 1,863,406 1,496,587 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 10,273 19,260 39,114 9,308 9,931 14,906 , 15,880 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 100,464 235,966 369.564 118,134 113,027 193,903 193,492 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 108,581 251,950 428,860 150,145 150,920 222,440 218 ,338 Total Operating Expenses $751,835 $1,409,554 $2,862,580 $681,211 $726,806 $1,090,904 $1,162.187 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $136,199 $387,318 _ $665,782 $67,310.1 $128,812 $292,306 $184,831 Net Operating Expenses $615,636 $1,022,236 $2,196,798 $613,901 $597,994 $798,598 $977,356 Performan ce Indicato rs Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $73.18 $73.18 $73.18 $73.19 $73 .18 $73 .19 $73 .18 Farebox Recovery Ratio 18. 12% 27.48% 23.26% 9.88% 17 .72% 26.79% 15.90 % Subsidy Per Passenger $3. 11 $2.03 $2.41 $7 .06 $4 .00 $2 .31 , $3 .51 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0. 58 $0.38 $0 .45 $1.31 $0 .74 $0.43 $0 .65 Subsidy Per Hour $59. 93 $53.07 $56 .16 $65.95 $60 .21 $53.58 $61 .55 Subsidy Per M ile $6.13 $4.33 $5.94 $5.20 $5 .29 $4 .12 $5.05 Passengers Per Revenue Hour 19. 28 26.18 23.27 9.34 15 .04 23 .24 17 .52 Passengers Per Revenue M ile 1. 97 2. 14 2 .46 0.74 1.32 1.79 1 .44 19 Revised 4/28/2003 Table 3 Individual Route Informati on.xls Riverside Transit Agency FY 2004 Short Range Transit Pla n TABLE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INF ORM ATI ON Data Elements Li ne 21 Line 22 Line 23 Line 24 Line 25 Line 27 Line 29 Line 30 Unlinked Passenger Trips 152.572 329.233 49,908 48,970 294,828 369,596 190,594 88,529 Passenger M iles 820,838 1,771,273 416,235 408,411 1,586,172 1,988,426 1,025,393 738,333 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 10,363 19,437 9.084 8,904 9,866 24,523 9.797 8,437 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue M iles 155.563 345,613 158,293_ 172,224 115,960 542,880 135,673 107,640 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 169,759 402.834 173,154 182,822 124,774 577,138 146,156 126.105 Total Operating Expenses $758,422 $1,422,508 $314,064 $307,843 $722.049 $1,794,729, $716,999 $291,682 To tal Passenger Fare Revenue $113,754 $235.967 $31.371 $33,858 $208,542 $293,884 $136,283 $56.011 Net Operating Expenses $644,668 $1.186.541 $282,693 $273,985 $513,507 $1,500,845 $580,716 $235,671. Perfo rmance Indicato rs Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour _ $73.18 $73 .19 $34 .57 $34.57 $73.18 $73.18 _ $73 .19 $34 .57 Farebox Reco ve ry R atio 15. 00% 16 .59% 9.99% 11.00% 28.88% 16 .37% 19 .01% 19.20% Subsidy Per Passenger $4.23 $3.60 $5 .66 $5 .59 $1 .74 $4 .06 , $3.05 $2.66 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.79 $0.67 $0.68 , $0.67 $0.32 $0.75 $0.57 $0 .32 Subsidy Per Hour $62. 21 $61.05 , $31.12 $30.77 $52 .05 $61 .20 $59 .28 $27 .93 Subsidy Per Mile $4.14 $3.43 $1.79 _ $1 .59 $4.43 $2.76 $4.28 , $2 .19 Passengers Per Revenue Hour 14.72 16. 94 5.49 5 .50 29 .88 15.07 19.45 10 .49 Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.98 0.95 , 0 .32 0.28 2.54 0.68 1 .40 0.82 20 Revised 4/28/2003 Table 3 Individual Route Information .xls Riverside Transit Age ncy FY 2004 Short R ange Transit Plan TABLE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INFORMATION Data Elements Line 31 Line 32 Line 33 Line 35 Li ne 36 Li ne 38-4 4 10,720 89,408 Unlinked Passenge r Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses Perfo rmance Indicators 74,143 78,833 28,166 618.354 657,469 234,906 7.383 151,039 156.814 $255,242 6,172 84,604 87,309 213,391 10,816 163.426 165.865 $373,928 $51,145 $55,720 $19,661 $204,097 $157,671 $354,267 O eratin Cost Per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy Per Passenger Subsidy Per Passe nger Mile Subsidy Per Hour Subsidy Per Mile Passengers Per Revenue Hour Passengers Per Revenue M ile $34.57 20. 04%. $2.75 $0.33 $27.64 $1. 35 10.04 0. 49 $34.57 26.11% $2 .00 $0.24 $25.54 $1.86 12.77 0.93 $34.57 5 .26 % $12 .58 $1.51 $32 .75 $2.17 2.60 0 .17 22,536 187,952 3,597 106,579 113.712 $124,367 $13.006 $111,361 $34 .57 10.46% $4 .94 $0.59 $30.96 $1 .04 6.26 0 .21 _ 31,496 262,678 7,357 122,054 129,977 $254,343 $19,065 $235,278 $34.57 7.50% $7 .47 $0.90 $31 .98 $1.93 4.28 5,785 115,648 126.356 $209,832 $7.926 $201,906 $36 .27 Line 40 Li ne 41 3 .78 %. $18.83 $2.26 $34.90 $1 .75 1 .85 0 .26 l 0.09 29,250 243.942 6,898 123,396 141,847 $238,469 7,572 63,146 3,476 66,482 79,544 $122,334 $21,875 $6,186 $216,594 $34.57 9 .17% $7 .41 $0 .89 $31.40 $1.76 4.24 0.24 $116,148 $35 .19 5.06% $15 .34 $1.84 $33 .41 $1.75 2.18 0 .11 Revised 4/28/2003 21 Table 3 Individual Route Informati on.xls Riv erside Tra nsit Agency FY 2004 Short Range Transit Plan TA BLE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INFORMATION Data Elements Line 49 Line 149 Trolley Jeffers on Shuttle 1 ADA After -H ours ADA Intercity 1 ADA Inter city 2 ADA Intercity 3 _ Unlinked Passen er Trips 276,129 68 193 5,235 3.417 8,988 26,241 18,877 16,716 Passenger Miles 1,485,576 568,729 43,663 28,502' 90,146 263,201 189,332 167,661 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 10,863 6,643 1,685 1 .040 5,720 15,782 12,168 11,778 Total A ctual Vehicle Revenue Miles 160,134 167,029 13.582 16,900 64,298 429,666 298,311 392,256 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 169.198 186,061 19,034 18,736 64,298 429,666 298,311 392,256 Total OperatinaExpenses $795,015 $448,075 $55,279 $35,955 $201,297 $555,396 $428.213 $414,488) $16,236, $18,065 $411,977 $396,424 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $202,245 $62,928 $2,055 $2,212 $7.504 $24,326 Net Operating Expenses _ $592,770 $385,146, $53,224 $33,743 $193,792 $531,070 Perfo rmance Indicato rs Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $73.18 $67 .45 $32.81 $34.57 $35 .19 $35.19 , $35 .19 $35.19 Farebox Recovery Ratio 25.44% 14.04% 3 .72% 6.15% 3.73% 4.38% 3.79% 4 .36 % Subsidy Per Passenger $2. 15 $5 .65 $10 .17 $9.87 f $21.56 $20.24 $21.82 $23.72 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0. 40 $0.68 , $1 .22 $1 .18 _ $2 .15 $2 .02 $2.18 $2 .36 Subsidy Per Hour $54.57 $57.98 $31 .59 , $32 .45 $33 .88 $33.65 $33 .86 $33.66 Subsidy Per Mile $3.70 $2. 31 $3 .92 $2 .00 $3 .01 $1.24 $1 .38 $1 .01 Passengers Per Revenue Hour 25.42 10. 27 3 .11 , 3 .29 1.57 1.66 1 .55 1.42 Passengers Per Revenue Mile 1. 72 _ 0.41 , , 0.39 0.20 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.04 22 Revised 4/28/2003 Tabl e 3 Individual Route Information.xls Ri verside Transit Agency FY 2004 Short Range Tr ansit Plan TABLE 3 - INDIVIDU AL R OUTE INFOR MATION Data Elements ADA I ntercity 4 Calimesa DAR Hemet/ Homeland D AR Jurupa D AR Lake Elsin or e DAR M or en o Valley DAR Murrieta/ Temecula DAR Norco DAR Unlinked Passenger Trips 18,727 4,594 63 .084 17,742 16,079 23,559 13,816 14,905 Passenger Miles 187,833 46,077 632,734 177,950 161.269 236,297 138,575 149,497 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 12,571 3,744 23,621 9.828 7,735 10,231 7.280 6,942 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue M ile s 375,751 14.946 284.206 163,407 115,029 118,127 109,196 68,115 I Total Actual Vehicle Miles 375,751 14,946 284,206 163,407 115,029 118,127 109,196 68.115 Total Operin atg Expenses $434,601 $129,437 $816,619, $345,864, $267,412 $353.703 $251,682 $251,798 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $9.171 $1,545 $34,444 $10,765 $10,243 $19,313 $9,855 $10.130 Net Operating Expenses $425,430 $127,892 $782,175, $335,100 $257,169 $334,391 $241,827 $241,668 Performance Indicato rs O perating Cost Per Revenue Hour $34.57 $34.57 $34.57 $35.19 $34.57 $34.57 $34.57 $36.27 Farebox Recovery Ratio 2. 11% 1.19% 4.22% 3 .11% 3 .83% 5.46% 3 .92% 4 .02% Subsidy Per Passenger $22. 72. $27 .84. $12.40 $18.89 $15.99 $14 .19 $17.50 $16.21 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $2.26 $2.78 $1.24 $1.88 $1 .59 $1.42 $1 .75 $1 .62 Subsidy Per Hour $33. 84 $34.16 $33.11 $34.10 $33.25 $32.68 $33.22 $34 .81 Subsidy Per M ile $1.13 $8. 56 $2.75 $2.05 $2.24 $2 .83 $2 .21 $3.55 Passengers Per Revenue Hour 1. 49 1.23 2 .67 1 .81 2 .08 2.30 1 .90 2 .15 Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.05 0.31 , 0.22 0.11 0 .14 0 .20 0 .13 , 0.22 23 Revised 4/28/2003 Table 3 Individual R oute Information.xls Riverside Tra nsit Agency FY 2004 Sh ort Range Transit Plan TA BLE 3 - INDIVIDU AL R OUTE INFORMATION Data Elements P erris D AR Sun City DAR Fixed R oute Total Paratransit T otal System -Wide T otal Unlinked Passenger Trips 20,781 19,901 7.378,861 284,008 7.662.869 Passenger Miles 208,428 199.603 42,108,782 2,848,602 44.957.384 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 8,736 8.502 416,072 144,638 560,710 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue M iles 97,434 81,950 6,061,162 2,612,692 8,673,854 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 97,434 81,950 6,762,904 2,612.692 9,375,596 Total Operating Expenses $302,019 $293,929 $26,240.388 _ $5.046,460 $31,286,848' _ Total Passenger Fare Revenue $11,672 $19.420 $5,619,203 $202,690 $5,821,893 Net Operating Expenses $290,346, $274,509 $20,621,185 $4,843,770_ $25,464,956 _ Perfo rmance Indicators O perating Cost Per Revenue Hour $34.57 $34.57 $63 .07 $34 .89 $55.80 Farebox Recovery Ratio 3.86% 6 .61% 21.41 % 4 .02 % 18 .61% Subsidy Per Passenger $13.97 $13.79 _ $2 .79 $17 .06 $3 .32 Subsidy Per Passenger M ile $1.39 $1.38 $0.49 $1.70 $0 .57 Subsidy Per Hour $33.24 $32.29 $49.56 $33 .49 $45 .42 Subsidy Per Mile $2. 98 $3.35 $3 .40 $1 .85 $2.94 Passengers Per Revenue Hour 2. 38 2.34 17 .73 1.96 13 .67 Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.21 0. 24 1.22 0.11 0 .88 24 Revised 4/28/2003 Table 3 Individual Route Inf ormati on .xls Riverside Transit Agency FY 04 Summary of Funds Requested Short R ange Transit Plan Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 04 Project Description Operating Assistance - Fixed routes and DAR Debt Service for 57 buses, purchased FY2001 STA match is for CA -90-Y134 Capitalized Preven tive Maintenance Faclltty Improvements Bus stop amenities (benches. signs, shatters) Office equipment Aerial mapping software (13) DAR vans: Expansion - (5) DAR vans Re el (8)- Veh 5919, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945 949 Capital Project Number 004-01 Total Amount of Funds STA LTF $ 34,613.251 $ - $ 24,716.303 $ $ 2,654,516 $ 320.000 $ 466,903_ 004-02 $ 2 ,500.000 $ 500.000 004-03 004-04 004-05 457 ,600 $ 500,000 $ 116 .000 004-06 $ 10.000 004-07 $ 700,000 Automatic passe nger co unting system - lease d equ ipment 004-06 Protect studies ADP Software Shop Equipment Presentation oralecls Replacement support vehic les Surveillance se curity ca meras $ 50,000 004-09_ $ 201,000 004-10 004-11 004-12 004-13 004.14 $ 635,000 $ 30.000 $ 30.000 $ 300. 500 $ 100,000 5 40.000 $ 100.000 $ 51,520 $ $ 23,200 $ 2,000 $ 119,000 10.000 $ 40,200 $ 127,000 $ 6,000 6.000 60. 100 $ 20,000 Meas A 5307 3 ,419,963 1,867,613 2 ,000 .000 $ 366,080 $ 400,000 92 ,800 8 .000 581,000 $ 40,000 $ 160,800 $ 508,000 24 .000 $ 24,000 240.400 $ 80 000 5311 $ 171,600 FTA CMAQ 5309 Other Fare Box $ 6,230,385 Am ount Funding_source Interest Income and $ 75,000 she lteradvertlsinq CNG Fuel inq station upgra de (add co st) Title VP survey expenses Automated Traveler Information system (ATIS) i bus sto ps 004-15 004-16 004-17 $ 357,000 $ 12,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 212,000 $ 200,000 $ 2,400 $ 9 .600 $ 800,000 $ 145.000 MSRC- 100,000 WRCOG -15,000 CEC - 30,000 Capita l Subtotal O pe rating Subtotal To tal: Capital and Operating $ 9,653,616 $ 872. 000 $ 1,434,323 34. 613. 251 $ - $ 24.716,303 $ 44,266,867 , $ 872,000 J $ 26,150,626 Note: 1) Section 5307 o perating funds inc lude Hemet UZA - $2,172,330 a nd Temecula UZA - $1,247,633 25 $ 7. 202,293 $ $ $ 3,419,963 $ 10,622,256 $ 171.600 $ $ 171,600 $ $ 6,230,365 $ 145,000 $ 75 .000 $ 6,230 .,385 $ 220,000 Revised 5/12/2003 Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested.xls Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-01 PROJECT NAME: Debt Service Payment - 57 CNG buses PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual debt service payment for bond financing: purchase 57 CNG buses delivery began ' 01 25 replacement and 32 expansion. Purchase of the 57 CNG buses was financed through bonds issued by the California Transit Finance Authority PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The purchase of the 57 CNG buses is part of RTA's on -going fleet transition from diesel to alternative fuel that will lead to a 100% CNG bus fleet. RTA has made a serious commitment to using alternative fuel vehicles to enhance air quality benefits and assist in the achievement of air quality goals in the Riverside County. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $ 1,867,613 Sec 5311 State $ 320,000 LTF $ 466,903 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 2,654,516 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED All similar funds in previous years have been expended. 26 Sec 5307 Sec 5311 State LTF Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total funds Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Capitalized preventive maintenance 004-02 Capitalized Preventive Maintenance PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : Funds to be used for expenses in keeping the vehicles in good and safe running condition. It includes weekly brake and tire inspections, regular, preventative maintenance check - ups to reduce occassions of unscheduled maintenance. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): $ 2,000,000 $ 500,000 2,500,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED All similar funds in previous years have been expended. 27 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-03 PROJECT NAME: Facility Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements in the Riverside facility includes updating of work stations, parking lot improvements, miscellaneous improvements in the Durahart Building and Main Administrative building. It also includes removal of diesel tanks in Hemet and Riverside facilities. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : RTA is in the process of replacing all of its diesel buses to have a 100% CNG bus fleet. The underground diesel tanks in Hemet and Riverside will no longer be needed. The parking lot at the Riverside facility should be expanded to accommodate the growing number of employees in the Riverside office. Currently, a portion of the bus garage is being used for employee parking. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 Sec 5311 State LTF Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total funds $ 366,080 $ 40,000 $ 51,520 $ 457,600 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED All similar funds in previous years have been expended. 28 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-04 PROJECT NAME: Bus Stop Amenities PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install and/or replace bus stop signs, benches and shelters and kiosk. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : Funds will be use to build additional bus stops and/or replace shelters and to purchase shelter parts, paints, signs, poles, benches, trash receptacles and ancillary hardware. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 Sec 5311 State LTF Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 400,000 $ 100,000 500,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED All similar funds in previous years have been expended. 29 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-05 PROJECT NAME: Office Equipment PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes purchase of computers, laser printers and copiers. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : Standard replacement of computers and copier. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $ 92,800 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 23,200 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 116,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED All similar funds in previous years have been expended. 30 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: 004-06 Aerial Mapping Software PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Purchase of aerial mapping software for service planning update. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : The aerial mapping software will help the Planning Dept. create and prepare area maps for planning presentations, service routing and updates. The software would enable planning staff to view development areas without making a trip to the site, saving time and miles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUES TED): Sec 5307 $ 8,000 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 2,000 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 10,000 • PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED New project, all similar funds in previous years have been expended. 31 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-07 PROJECT NAME: Purchase of DAR vans PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project includes purchase of (13) DAR vans (8) of which to replace Vehicle #919, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 949. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : The (8) DAR vans to be procured will replace old model vans that have exceeded the FTA vehicle replacement requirements of four years or 100,000 miles. Five (5) of the new vans will be used for DAR service expansion. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $ 581,000 Sec 5311 State LTF Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 119,000 700,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED All similar funds in previous years have been expended. 32 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME: 004-08 Automated Passenger Counting System PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Lease of automated passenger counting system PROJECT JUS TIFICA TION : Installation of a state-of-the-art counting system to ten, 40 -foot buses to conduct samples for boarding counts and reliable ridership reporting. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $ 40,000 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 10,000 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 50,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED New project, all similar funds in previous years have been expended. 33 Table 4A - Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-09 PROJECT NAME: Project Studies PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project includes project studies for compensation and benefits studies and fare study analysis. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : Funds will be used for costs of project feasiblity studies regarding employee wages and medical benefits as well as for fare study analysis to ensure meeting an effective farebox ratio. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES 'REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $ 160,800 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 40,200 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 201,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE - OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED All similar funds in previous years have been expended. 34 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-10 PROJECT NAME: ADP Software PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project includes purchase of ORACLE grant mgmt.module, network management software, Trapeze PASS software, ORACLE and GFI servers. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : RTA will purchase and implement the ORACLE grant management software not only to comply with the audit recommendation but also to be able to facilitate tracking of grant projects and related grants. Also, the agency will purchase the Trapeze software for scheduling DAR services to replace the current MIDAS software which has been recently acquired by Trapeze. Funds will also be used to purchase GFI and ORACLE servers for superior reliability and accessibility of data. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $ 508,000 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 127,000 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 635,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED All similar funds in previous years have been expended. 35 Table 4A - Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-11 PROJECT NAME: Shop Equipment PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project inlcudes purchase of a 4 -post portable electric lift and a fall protection tool. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : Currently, the Riverside maintenance facility has only one portable electric lift. Maintenance Dept. needs another electric lift to be able to do bus chasis washing and other repair jobs faster, efficiently and safely. The Hemet facility needs a fall protection I-beam system for the mechanics while working on top of the buses PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $ 24,000 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 6,000 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 30,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE - OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED All similar funds in previous years have been expended. 36 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-12 PROJECT NAME: Trade Show Presentation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes purchase of booth accessories, consulting services and display designs. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : To be able to effectively represent and inform the public about the RTA, transit benefits, activities and all related services that RTA provides to the public. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $ 24,000 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 6,000 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 30,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED New project, all similar funds in previous years have been expended. 37 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-13 PROJECT NAME: Purchase of Support Vehicles PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes replacement of utility truck model 1988 Veh #002, 9 support vehicles and 4 supervisor vans. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : Replacement of support vehicles that have useful lives exceeding the FTA vehicle replacement requirements of four years or 100,000 miles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $ 240,400 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 60,100 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 300,500 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED All similar funds in previous years have been expended. 38 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-14 PROJECT NAME: Surveillance Security Cameras PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of surveillance cameras in the Riverside and Hemet facility. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : The funds will be used to purchase digital video recorders and install cameras in the coinroom., dispatch and reception areas at the Riverside facility and replace the old system. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $ 80,000 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 20,000 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 100,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED New project, all similar funds in previous years have been expended. 39 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-15 PROJECT NAME: Upgrade of CNG Fueling Station at the Riverside facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Additional cost to upgrade the CNG fuleing station at the Agency's Main facility This is in addition to a previously programmed project in 2003. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : To upgrade the existing CNG station to accommodate the 75 CNG buses recently purchased as part of the transition from diesel to alternative fuel vehicles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $ 385,000 FY03 flexed CMAQ funds Sec 5311 State $ 212,000 LTF Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 $ 100,000 Others $ 45,000 Farebox Total Funds $ 742,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED All similar funds in previous years have been expended. 40 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-16 PROJECT NAME: Title VI Survey Costs PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes costs associated with FTA's Title VI compliance requirement every three years. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : To defray expenses for data collection, service profile maps, overlays, charts and other information related to Title VI compliance. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED); Sec 5307 $ 9,600 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 2,400 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds 12,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED New project, all similar funds in previous years have been expended. 41 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 004-17 PROJECT NAME: Automated Traveler Information system (ATIS) at bus stops PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The upgrading of bus stops with real time information as to when the next bus is arriving and improved signage and lighting will build ridership. The corridor with the greatest ridership and feeder bus stops with routes to this corridor will be targeted for these improvements PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : Improved information to the rider lessens the "perceived" out of vehicle wait time and in turn, can generate greater ridership. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 Sec 5311 State LTF Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total Funds $ 800,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED New project, no prior year unexpended balance. 42 Riverside Transit Agency FY 2005 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5 - Summary of F unds R equested for FY 05 Project Description Capital Project Number Total Amount of Funds STA LTF Meas A 5307 5311 FTA CMAQ F T A Discretionary f Fare Box Other Opera ting Assistance - Fixed routes and DA R $ 35.997,781 $ - $ 25,704,956 $ - $ 3,556,762 $ 178.463 $ - $ - $ 6,479,601 $ 78,000 Debt Service for 57 buses 005-01 $ 2.129,442 $ 425,888 $ 1.703.554 Capitalized Preventive Maintenance 005-02 $ 2.600.000 $ 520,000 $ 2.080.000 Purchase bus sto p a menitie s 005-03 $ 500,000 $ 100,000 $ 400.000 Purchase office equipment 005-04 $ 200.000 $ 40,000 $ 160,000 Facility improvements 005-05 $ 300,000 $ 60.000 $ 240.000 Automated Traveler Information System (ATIS) @ bus sto ps 005-06 $ 1,054.080 $ 210,816 $ 843,264 Capital Subto tal $ 6,783,522 $ 210,816 $ 1.145,888 $ - $ 5 .426,818 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Operating Subtotal $ 35,997,781 $ - $ 25.704.956 $ - $ 3,556 ,762 $ 178,463 $ - $ - $ 6,479,601 $ 78,000 Total: Capital an d Ope rating $ 42.781,303 $ 210,816 $ 26,850,844 _ $ - $ 8 ,983,579 $ 178.463 $ - $ - $ 6 A79.601 $ 78.000 43 Revised 5/9/2003 Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested.xls Ri verside Transit Agency FY 2006 Summary of Funds R equested Short Ra nge Transit Plan Table 5 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 06 Project Description Capital Project Number Total Amount of Funds STA LTF Meas A 5307 5311 FTA C MAQ FTA Discretionary Fare Box Other Operating Assistance - Fixed routes and DAR $ 37,437.692 $ $ 26.733.154 $ - $ A699.032 $ 185.602 $ - $ - $ 6.738,785 $ 81.120 Debt Service for 57 buses _ 005-01 $ 2,126,088 $ 425.218 $ 1,700,870 Ca pitaliz ed Preve ntive Maintenance 005-02 $ 2.704.000 $ 540,800 $ 2 .163.200 Purchase bus stop amenities 005-03 $ 500,000 $ 100 .000 $ 400,000 Purchase office equipment 005-04 $ 200.000 $ 40.000 $ 160 ,000 Facility improvements 005-05 $ 200.000 $ 40,000 $ 160,000 Automated Traveler Info rmation System (ATIS) L bus stops 005-06 $ 993,880 $ 198,776 $ 795,104 Capital Subtotal $ 6,723,968 $ 198,776 $ 1.146.018 $ - $ 5,379.174 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Ope ra ting Subtotal $ 37,437,692 $ - $ 26.733.154 $ - $ 3 .699,032 $ 185.602 $ - $ - $ 6,738,785 $ 81,120 Total: Capital and Operating S 44,161,661 $ 198,776 $ 27,879,171 $ - $ 9,078,206 $ 185,602 $ - $ - $ 6,738,785 $ 81,120 44 Revised 5/12/2003 Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested.xls Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 005-01 PROJECT NAME: Debt Service Payment - 57 CNG buses PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual debt service payment for bond financing to purchase 57 CNG buses, 25 replacement and 32 expansion. Purchase of the 57 CNG buses was financed through bonds issued by the California Transit Finance Authority PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : The purchase of the 57 CNG buses is part of RTA's on -going fleet transition from diesel to alternative fuel that will lead to a 100% CNG bus fleet. RTA has made a serious commitment to using alternative fuel vehicles to enhance air quality benefits and assist in the achievement of air quality goals in the Riverside County. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): FY2005 FY2006 Sec 5307 $ 1,703,554 $ 1,700,870 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 425,888 $ 425,218 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total funds $ 2,129,442 $ 2,126,088 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDEL BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED 45 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 005-02 PROJECT NAME: Capitalized Preventive Maintenance PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Capitalized preventive maintenance PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : Funds to be used for expenses in maintaining the vehicles in good running safe condition. It includes weekly brake and tire inspections, regular bus check-ups to reduce occassions of unscheduled maintenance. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): FY2005 FY2006 Sec 5307 $ 2,080,000 $ 2,163,200 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 520,000 $ 540,800 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total funds $ 2,600,000 $ 2,704,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED 46 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 005-03 PROJECT NAME: Bus Stop Amenities PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install and/or replace bus stop signs, benches and shelters and kiosk. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : Funds will be use to built additional bus stops and/or replace shelters and to purchase shelter parts, paints, signs, poles, trash cans and ancillary hardware. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): FY2005 FY2006 Sec 5307 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total funds $ 500,000 $ 500,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED 47 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 005-04 PROJECT NAME: Office Equipment PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes purchase of document imaging system timer, LCD projector. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : Standard replacement of old outdated computers, monitors, timer and LCD projector to be used in the board meeting, and other office equipment. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): FY2005 FY2006 Sec 5307 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total funds $ 200,000 $ 200,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED 48 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: 005-05 PROJECT NAME: Facility Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Building and parking lot improvements in the Riverside and Hemet facilcities. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : Standard repairs and improvements in the administrative building PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): FY2005 FY2006 Sec 5307 $ 240,000 $ 160,000 Sec 5311 State LTF $ 60,000 $ 40,000 Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total funds $ 300,000 $ 200,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED 49 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: 005-06 Automated Traveler Information system (ATIS) at bus stops PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The upgrading of bus stops with real time information as to when the next bus is arriving and improved signage and lighting will build ridership. The corridor with the greatest ridership and feeder bus stops with routes to this corridor will be targeted for these improvements PROJECT JUSTIFICATION : Improved information to the rider lessens the "perceived" out of vehicle wait time and in turn, can generate greater ridership. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): FY2005 FY2006 Sec 5307 $ 843,264 $ 795,104 Sec 5311 State $ 210,816 $ 198,776 LTF Measure A FTA (discretionary) AB 2766 Others Farebox Total funds $ 1,054,080 $ 993,880 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED 50 TABLE 6 — PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT Prior Audit Recommendation (Conducted FY 01) Assign responsibility for external reporting and document control, and come into compliance for reporting demand response service statistics. Create a file of working papers and source documents with desktop procedures. Obtain revenue vehicle service hour and mile information separate from total vehicle hour and mile information for demand response services. Determine organizational strategy given current agency challenges, including the provision of adequate planning resources. Contact services should be more closely linked to operations. Planning, Marketing and Inter - Governmental Affairs should be grouped together under one director. Purchasing, Information Technology, Finance, budget, Accounting, and Payroll should be grouped together. Risk Management and the system safety officer should be grouped together. Vehicle maintenance should be separate from operations. Action(s) Taken And Results (1) External reporting is closely coordinated between the Chief Financial Officer and the Director of Planning. Farebox revenue and operating expenses are now reported by mode, including demand response services. The grants department has created a file of source documents for all grant files. The new contract services manager is working closely with the contractor to implement this data tracking. Organizational changes were made, in compliance with all recommendations. The Planning Department is now fully staffed. The contract operations manager now reports directly to the Director of Operations. Recently, marketing has been moved out of this grouping since agency priorities mandate intensified efforts on the Bus Rapid Transit project and employer outreach and special promotions. These departments are now grouped together. Risk management is part of the Finance Department and the system safety officer reports to the Director of Operations. Vehicle maintenance is now separate from operations. (1) If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant. 51 Riverside Transit Agency FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 7 - PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUES Financial Elements Operating Expenses (less depreciation) Capital Expenses Total Operating & Capital Expenses Approved FY 03 $ 31,527,681 $ 10,977,925 $ 42,505,606 Current Plan Year FY 04 $ 34,613,251 $ 9,653,616 $ 44,266,867 Projected FY 05 $ 35,997,781 $ 6,783,522 $ 42,781,303 FY 06 $ 37,437,692 $ 6,723,968 $ 44,161, 661 Less Money on Hand at RCTC* (Funds identified in RCTC's Audited Records). Note: Information was provided during SRTP kick off.) FY 04 LTF STA Measure A Total Money on Hand Balance of Operating and Capital Expenses Needed $ 44,266,867 Less Money on Hand at your Agency LTF Measure A Farebox Revenues 6,230,385 Other Grant Subsidies (please specify) Balance Needed for Operating and Capital** Notes: 1) Other grant subsidies include the following: Interest Income Sec 5307 to be applied for Sec 5311 AB2766 CA Energy Commission WRCOG 75,000 10,622,256 171,600 100,000 30,000 15,000 11,013,856 2) Section 5307 funds include operating funds for: Hemet UZA - $2,172,330 Temecula UZA - $1,247,633 11,013,856 $ 27,022,626 Revised 5/12/2003 52 Table 6 Budget Sheet. xls APPENDIX FY2L'"'m No LIZED ACTUALS & FY 2004 BUDGET SUMMARY " Passengers Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Fare Revenue Operating Expenses FY2003 FY 2004 FY2003 FY 2004 FY2003 FY 2004 FY2003 FY 2004 FY2003 FY 2004 D/O Routes 1 1,558,588 1,653,553 50,658 53,746 589,465 636,241 51,253,679 $ 1,334,975 $ 3,987,576 $ 3,933,431 10 195,246 272,838 10,379 14,503 133,760 194,158 $ 160,563 $ 232,379 $ 784,130 $ 1,061;410 12 309,589 295,008 15,664 14,927 206,026 192,135 $ 233,394 $ 221,188 $ 1,244,636 $ 1,092,441 13 277,414 256,834 15,625 14,466 193,503 185,479 $ 221,524 $ 203,483 $ 1,246,218 $ 1.058,702 14 155,180 198,052 8,049 19,473 10,273 19,260 99,270 100,464 $ 104,212 $ 136,199 $ 620,630 $ 751,835 15 509,804 504,234 251.820 235,966 $ 392 73 $ 387,318 $ 1,545,038 $ 1,409,554 16 654.048 910,246 28,105 39,114 357,8271 369,564 $ 452,064 $ 665,782 $ 2,146,306 $ 2,862,580 17 86,807 86,905 9,297 9,308 152,482 118,134 $ 67,456 $ 67,310 $ 736,798 $ 681,211 18 103,177 149,343 6,861 9,931 98,485 113,027 $ 73,744 $ 128.812 $ 448,904 $ 726,806 18A 152,603 - 10.148 - 135,554 $ - $ 74,842 $ - $ 742,687 19 373,751 346,358 16,085 14,906 292.830 193,903 $ 317,971 $ 292,306 $ 1,279,474 $ 1,090,904 20 191,096 278,176 10,909 15,880 187,869 193,492 $ 121,953 184,831 $ 826,914 $ 1,162,187 21 80,754 152,572 5,485 10,363 _ 83,180 155,563 $ 55,487 $ 113,754 $ 399,126 $ 758,422 22 325,047 329,233 19,190 19,437 356,393 345,613 $ 233,058 $ 235,967 $ 1,512,698 $ 1,422,508 25 359,487 294,828 12,030 9,866 139,669 115,960 $ 258,733 $ 208,542 $ 967,480 $ 722,049 27 344,330 369,596 22,847 24,523 484,997 542.880 $ 272,388 $ 293,884 $ 1.,737,702 $ 1,794,729 29 148,771 190,594 7,647 9,797 135,817 135,673 $ 103,840 $ 136,283 $ 589,820 $ 716,999 49 282,825 276,129 11,127 10,863 152,741 160,134 $ 207,835 $ 202,245 $ 5,120,099 $ 881,192 $ 795,015 Sub -total 5,955,894 6,717,102 269,432 311,313 3,916,137 1 4,123,938 $4,530,639 $20,954,648 $22,783,469 % Increase 12.78% 15.54% 5.31% 13.01% 8.73% Contracted Routes 3 98.681 103,050 11,749 7,436 12,269 7,591 158,029 191,048 $ 70,798 $ 76,890 $ 435,652 $ 437,087 7 88,224 90,057 124,309 138,112 $ 59,135 $ 60,363 $ 262,026 $ 249,135 8 72,665 74,285 7,599 7,769 162,377 174,720 $ 52,503 $ 53,674 ', r • $ 268,581 23 49,135 49,908 8,944 9,084 153,951 158,293 $ 30,884 $ 31,371 $ 314,064 24 48,441 48,970 8,808 8,904 117,437 172,224 $ 33,492 $ 33,858 ', • $ 307,843 30 86,799 86,529 8,272 8,437 121,564 107,640 $ 54,916 $ 56,011 ' •1: $ 291,682 31 75,297 74,143 7,498 7,383 160,659 151,039 $ 51,941 $ 51,145 ', . $ 255,242 32 76,035 78,833 5,953 6,172 79,112 84,604 $ 53,742 $ 55,720 0 $ 213,391 33 19,692 28,166 7,562 10,816 82,165 163,426 $ 13,746 $ 19,661 $ 269,340 $ 373.928 35 20,032 22,536 3,198 3,597 100,805 106,579 $ 11,561 $ 13,006 $ 113,662 5 124,367 36 31,168 31,496 7,280 7,357 122,841 122,054 $ 18,866 $ 19,065 $ 259,290 $ 254,343 37 41,449 - 8,513 - 224,307 - $ 27,410 $ - $ 303,180 $ - 38 11,665 10,720 6,295 5,785 88,015 115,648 $ 8,624 $ 7,926 $ 231,444 $ 209,832 $ 39 138 - 66 1,971 $ 177 $ $ 3,239 40 28.640 29,250 6,754. 6,898 124,328 123,396 $ 21,419 $ 21.875 $ 240,812 $ 238,469 41 7,408 7,572 3,401 3,476 67,400 66,482 $ 6,052 $ 6,186 $ 119,644 $ 122,334 42 9,964 10,153 3,716 3,764 3,787 36,801 39,832 $ 5,813 $ 5,924 $ 132,382 $ 130,911 50 54,975 - - 31,319 - $ 109,318 5 - $ 138,204 $ 18,294 $ - 99 5,032 5,392 1,286 1,378 23,111 24,804 $ 2,414 $ 2,587 $ 48,494 100 50,869 - 2,894 - 61,447 - $ 32,380 $ - $ 194,712 $ - 149 67,543 68,193 6,580 6,643 156,851 167,029 $ 62,328 $ 62,928 $ 315,366 $ 448,075 Trolley 5,240 5,235 1,686 1,685 15.783 13,582 $ 2,057 $ 2,055 $ 64,052 $ 55,279 LS Metrolink Shuttle Jefferson Shuttle 24,187 - 3,148 - 5,616 - $ 41,339 $ - $ 115,968 $ - 3,395 3,417 1.033 1,040 16,408 16,900 $ 2,197 $ 2,212 $ 36,760 $ 35,955 61 20,132 - 2,751 - 47,424 $ - $ 20,132 $ - $ 199,128 74 31,181 - 6,404 - 172,120 $ - $ 31,181 $ - $ 485,302 79 31,434 - 6,456 - 179,400 $ - $ 31,434 $ - $ 524,201 202 204 37,094 - 4,420 - 135,954 $ - $ 148,378 $ - $ 194,306 32,256 - 6,318 - 185,224 $ - $ 32,256 $ - $ 442,760 206 24,192 3,822 - 128,856 $ - $ 24,192 $ - $ 194,206 208 24,192 - 5,174 - 204,256 $ - $ 24,192 $ - $ 273,657 793/794 14,494 - 1,412 - 47,940 $ - $ 13,375 $ - $ 90,750 Sub -total 976,674 1,044,883 133,436 156,828 2,236,606 3,238,587 $ 773,114 $ 907,596 $ 4,929,371 $ 6,783,322 % Increase 6.98%°_ 17.53% 44.80% 17.39% 37,61°/ Dial -a -ride routes ,ADA After Hours 5,572 8,988 3,546 5,720 62,425 64,298 $ 5,863 $ 7,504 $ 166,202 $ 201,29 Calimesa 1,845 4,594 1,504 3,744 14,511 14,946 $ 1,485 $ 1,545 $ 99,310 $ 129,4r Lake Elsinore 12,945 16,079 6,228 7,735 111,679 115,029 $ 8,247 $ 10;2243 -5 253,768 $ 267,4 $ 816,6,t Hemet 53,205 63,084 19,922 23,621 275,928 284,206 $ 29,050 $ 34,444 $ 802,424 Jurupa 14,763 17,742 8,178 9,828 158,648 163,407 $ 8,957 $ 10,765 $ 320,662 $ 345 Moreno Valley 18,843 23,559 8,183 10,231 114.687 118,127 $ 15,447 $ 19,313 $ 335,288 $ 35.' Murrieta 11,833 13,816 6,235 7,280 106.016 109,196 $ 8,441 $ 9,855 $ 254,756 $ 25 Norco 9,997 14,905 4,656 6,942 66,131 68,115 $ 6,795 $ 10,130 $ 217,806 $ 25 $ 3 _ Perris 15,127 20,781 6,359 8,736 94,596 97,434 $ 8,497 $ 11,672 5 278,012 Sun City 17,580 19,901 7,511 8,502 79,563 81,950 $ 17,155 $ 19,420 $ 298,420 $ Intercity 1 20,633 26,241 12,409 15,782 293,776 429,666 $ 19,127 $ 24,326 $ 462,910 $ Intercity 2 13,059 18,877 8,418 12,168 170,553 298,311 $ 11.232 $ 16,236 $ 330,382 $ Intercity3 10,832 16,716 7,632 11,778 206,653 392,256 $ 11,706 5 18,065 $ 304,486 $ Intercity 4 13,352 18,727 8.963 12,571 223,252 375,751 $ 6,539 $ 9,171 $ 363,670 $ French Valley Express 362 - 350 - 9,474 - $ 87 $ - $ - $ Sub -total 284,008 110,094 144.638 1,987,891 2,612,692 $ 158,62$ 1 5 202,690 $ 4,488,096 1$ % Increase 29.12% 31.38% 31.43% 27.78% - GRAND TOTAL 8,045,994 5.12,962 612,780 8,140,634 9,975,217 5,462,381 6,230,385 30,372,115 % Increase 12.49% 19.46% 22.54% 14.06% Special Events 8,931 9,181 359 369 2,093 2,156 $ 1,200 $ 1,234 $ 12,903 Revised SunLine Transit Agency Preliminary SRTP FY 2004 To RCTC 5/12/03 SunLine Transit Agency FY 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 1 - FLEET INVENTORY Year Built Manufacturer M odel Seats Lift- Equip? Type of Fuel Own or Lease FR Vehicle DAR Vehicle Active/ Reserve/ Rehab* T otal Vehicle Mil es** T otal Veh. Sys. Failures , Year to Replace 1994 1994 1994 1994 1995 1995 1993 ' 1995 2002 1996 1998 1998 2000 Orion Orion El Dorado El Dorado Thomas Thomas SuperBus Ind. Nova El Dorado Dodge Ford Ford Ford Orion V Orion V Escort Escort Thomas Bus Thomas Bus SuperBus Hythane Aerotech 220 Ram Van B3500 Braun Braun Braun 43 43 24 24 40 40 51 33 12 11 12 12 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes CNG CNG CNG CNG CNG CNG LNG Hythane CNG CNG CNG CNG CNG Own Own Own Own Own Own Own Own Own Own Own Own Own 29 5 2 3 5 2 3 2 11 4 2 4 7 A R A R A R A A A R R A A 12,287,416 2,118,520 383,340 525,340 797,970 319,188 744,588 10,932 - 543,132 228,542 457,084 879,424 139 18 17 10 13 7 9 9 1 12 5 5 3 2006 2006 2005 2005 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2004 2005 2005 2005 TOT AL 51 28 * A - Active, R - Reserve, MR - Major Rehab. ** Use NTD Data from prior year SunLine Transit Agency FY 2004 - 2006 Short Range Transit Plan TA BLE 2A - FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estim ated % of Ch ange FY 2004 Pl anned % of Change FY 2005 Plan ned % of Change FY 2006 Planned % of Cha nge FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet 43 43 0.0% 43 0 .0 % 43 0.0% 43 0 0% Spare Vehicles 10 10 0.0% 10 0 .0% 10 0.0 % 10 0.0% Spare Ratio 19% 19% 0.0 % 19% 0.0% 19% 0 .0% 19% 0 .0 % Energy Contingency Reserve 0 0 0.0 % 0 0 .0% 0 0.0 % 0 0.0% New Expansion Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0.0 % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0 % New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0%© 0 0.0% 0 0.0% FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expense s $ 13,088,542 $ 13,881,349 6.1% $ 14,390,166 3.7% $ 14,965,773 4 .0% $ 15,564,404 4 .0% Total Passenger Fare Revenue $ 2,410,913 $ 2,740,661 13.7% $ 2,877,694 5.0% $ 2,992,802 4 .0% $ 3,112,514 4 .0% Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $ 10,677,629 $ 11,140,688 4.3% $ 11,512,472 3.3% $ 11,972,971 4.0% $ 12,451,890 4.0 % OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS S :: - :.; •::;: .;:::.:.; Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,718,178 3,448,101 -7 .3% 3,620,506 5 0% 3,765 .327 4.0% 3 ,915,940 4.0% Passenger Miles 24,995,824 23,218,342 -7 .1% 23,218,373 0.0% 23,450,557 1.0% 23,685,063 1.0% Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 146,863 145,586 -0.9% 145,585 0.0% 147,041 1.0 % 148,511 1.0% Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 2,261,201 2,254,208 -0,3% 2,254,211 0.0% 2,276,753 1.0% 2,299,521 1.0% To tal Actual Vehicle M iles 2,345,381 2,317,382 -1 .2% 2,317,383 0 .0% 2,340,557 1.0% 2,363,962 1.0% Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 160,859 159,922 -0.6% 161,521 1.0% 163,136 1.0% 164,768 1.0 % Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 154,425 151,366 -2 .0% 152,880 1.0% 154,409 1 .0% 155,953 1.0% PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour T $89.121 $95.35 7.0% $98.84 3.7% $101.78 3.0% $104.80 3.0% . Farebox Recovery Ratio 18.42% 19. 74% 7.2% 20 .00 % 1 .3 % 20.00% 0.0 % 20.00% 0.0% Subsidy per Passenger $2.87 $3.23 12.5% $3.18 -1.6% $3.18 0.0% $3.18 0.0%, Subsidy per Passenger Mile $0.43 $0. 48 12. 3% $0.50 3.3% $0.51 3 .0% $0.53 3 .0% Subsidy per Revenue Hour $72. 70 $76.52 5.3% $79 .08 3.3% $81 .43 3.0% $83 .84 3.0% Subsidy per Revenue Mile $4. 72 $4.94 4.7% $5.11 3.3% $5.26 3.0% $5 .41 3.0 % Passenger per Revenue Hour 25.32 23.68 -6.5% 24.87 5 .0% 25.61 3.0% 26 .37 3.0% Passenger per Revenue Miles 1.64 1. 53 -7.0% 1.61 5.0% 1.65 3.0 % 1.70 3 .0 % Percentage of Trips on Time 96.00% 94. 65% -1.4% 94.65% 0 .0%_ 94.65% 0 .0% 94 .65 % 0.0% SunLine Transit Agency FY 2004 - 2006 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2B - ADA-PARATR ANSIT SERVICE FY 2002 A udited FY 2003 Estimated % of Ch ange FY 2004 Pl an ned % of Change FY 2005 Plan ned % of Change FY 2006 Planned ° of Change FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Pe ak -Hour Fleet 20 20 0.0 % 20 0.0°10 20 0 0°% 20 0.0°1 ° Spare Vehicle s 3 3 0.0% 3 0.0% 3 0.0% 3 0.0 % Spare Ratio 20% 20 % 0.0% 20% 0 .0% 20% 0.0 % 20% 0.0 % Energy Contingency Rese rve 0 0 0.0% 0 0 .0 % 0 0.0% 0 0.0 % New Expansion Vehicles Delivered 0 0 0.0 % 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% 0 0 .0 % New Re place ment Vehicle s Delivered 4 6 50.0% 6 0 .0% 6 0.0% 6! 0 .0% FINANCIAL DATA Total Operating Expenses w $2,412,394 $ 2,770,640 14.9% $ 2,868,735 3 .5% $ 2,954,797 3.0% $ 3,043,441 3.0 % Total Passe nger Fare Reve nue $ 199,878 $ 224,322 12.2% $ 235,539 5.0 % $ 237,894 1.0% $ 240,273 1 .0% Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $2,212,516 $ 2,546,317 15 .1% $ 2,633,196 3.4 % $ 2,716,903 3.2 % $ 2,803,168 3 .2 % OPERATING CHA RACTERISTICS Unlinke d Passenger Trips 111,742 105,321 -5.7 % 110,587 5.0% 111,693 1.0% 112,809 1.0 % Pa sse nge r Miles 2,154,466 2,192,410 1 .8% 2,192,410 0.0% 2,214,334 1.0% 2,236,477 1.0% Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 45,289 46,632 3.0% 46,632 0.0% 47,098 1.0 % 47,569 1,0% To tal Actual Vehic le Revenue Miles 799,456 806,033 0 .8 % 806,033 0.0 % 814,093 1.0% 822,234 1.0% To ta l Actual Vehicle Mile s 895,508 912,290 1 .9% 912,290 0.0% 921,413 1.0 % 930,627 1.0% Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 91,021 90,615 -0 .4% 91,521 1.0% 92,436 1 .0 % 93,361 1.0% Tota l On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 86,470 84,000 -2 .9% 84,840 1.0% 85,688 1.0% 86,545 1.0% PERFORMANCE CHARA CTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour .Ir $53.27' $59. 41 11 5% $61.52 3.5% $62.74 2.0% $63 98 2.0% Farebox Recovery Ratio 8.29% 8.10% -2.3% 8 .21% 1.4% 8.05% -1.9 % 7 .89 % -1.9 % Subsidy per Passenger $19.80 $24.18 22.1% $23.81 -1 .5% $24.32 2.2 % $24.85 2.2% Subsidy per Passe nger Mile $1.03 $1. 16 13.1% $1 .20 3 .4% $1.23 2.2% $1 .25 2.2 % Subsidy per Revenue Hour $48.85 $54.60 11.8% $56.47 3.4 % $57.69 2.2% $58 .93 2.2% Subsidy per Re venue Mile $2. 77 $3.16 14.1% $3.27 3.4% $3.34 2.2% $3 .41 2.2 % Passenger per Re ve nue Hour 2.47 2.26 -8.5% 2.37 5.0 % 2 .37 0.0 % 2.37 0 .0% Passenge r pe r Revenue Miles 0. 14 0. 13 -6.5% 0. 14 , 5.0% 0 .14 0 .0% 0.14 0 .0% Percentage of Trips on Time 95.00% 92.70% -2.4% 92. 70% 0.0%_ 92 .70% 0 .0% 92.70% 0 .0% SunLine Transit Agency FY 2004 - 2006 Short Range Transit Plan TA BLE 2C - SYSTEM WIDE TRANSIT SERVICE FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estim ated % of Ch ange FY 2004 Planned % of Change FY 2005 Planned % of Change FY 2006 Planned % of Change FLEET CHARACTERISTICS - Peak -Hour' Fleet 63 63 °� 0 .0 63 0 .0% 63 0.0%0 63 0.0% Spare Vehicle s 13 13 0.0 % 13 0.0 % 13 0.0 % 13 0.0% Spare Ratio 39% 39 % 0.0 % 39 % 0 .0% 39% 0.0 % 39% 0 .0% Energy Contingency Re serve 0 0 0 .0% 0 0.0 % 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% New Expansion Vehicles Delive red 0 0 0.0 % 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% 0 0,0 % New Replacement Vehicles Delivered 4 6 50 .0% 6 0 .0 % 6' 0.0% 6 0.0% FINA NCIAL DATA W Total O perating Expense s $ 15,500,936 $ 16,651,989v 7.4%c�$ 17,258,901 3.6% $ 17,920,570! 3.8 % $18,607,845 3.8 % Total Passenger Fare Reve nue $ 2,610,791 $ 2,964,984 13 .6% $ 3,113,233 5.0 % $ 3,230,6961 3 .8% $ 3,352,787 3.8 % Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $ 12,890,145 $ 13,687,005 6 .2% $ 14,145,668 3 .4% $ 14,689,8741 3.8 % $ 15,255,058 3.8 % OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS : :: .:: :.:::.. :: : . .... .... . Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,829,920 3,553,422 -7.2% 3,731,093 5 .0% 3,877,019 3.9% 4,028,749 3.9% Passenger Miles 27,150,290 25,410,752 -6 .4 % 25,410,783 0 .0% 25,664,891 1.0 % 25,921,540 1.0 % Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 192,152 192,218 0.0% 192,217 0.0 % 194,139 1.0% 196,081 1.0% Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 3,060,657 3,060,241 0.0 % 3,060,244 0 .0% 3,090,846 1.0% 3,121,755 1 .0% Total Actual Vehicle M iles 3,240,889 3,229,672 -0.3% 3,229,673 0 .0% 3,261,970 1.0%1 3,294,589 1.0% Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled '` 251,880 250,537 -0.5% 253,042 1.0% 255,573 1.0% 258,129 1 .0% Total On -Time Reve nue Vehicle Trips 240,895 235,366 -2.3% 237,720 1.0% 240,097 1 .0% 242,498 1.0% PERFO RMANCE CHARACTERISTICSy'";; y Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $80.67 $86. 63 7,4% $89,79 3.6% $92.31` 2.8 % $94 .90 2.8% Fa rebo x Recove ry Ratio 16.84% 17. 81% 5.7% 18.04 % 1 .3 % 18.03% -0.1% 18.02% -0 .1% Subsidy per Passenger $3.37 $3. 85 14.4% $3.79 -1 .6% $3.79 -0.1% $3.79 -0 .1% Subsidy per Passenger Mile $0.47 $0.54 13.5% $0 .56 3.4% $0.57 2.8% $0.59 2 .8% Subsidy per Revenue Hour $67.08, $71.21 6. 1 % $73.59 3.4% $75.67 2 .8% $77,80 2.8 % Subsidy per Revenue Mile $4.21 $4.47 6.2% $4.62 3 .4% $4.75 2 .8% $4.89 2.8% Passenger per Revenue Hour 19.93 18.49 -7.3% 19.41 5.0% 19 .97 2.9% 20 .55 2.9% Passenger per Revenue Mile s 1. 25 1.16 -7. 2% 1.22 5.0% 1.25 2.9% 1.29 2.9% Pe rcentage of Trips on Time - _ 95.64% 93.94% -1.8% 93.94% 0.0% _ 93 .94% _ 0.0 % 93.94% 0.0% SunLine Transit Agency FY 2004-2006 Sh ort Range Transit Plan TABLE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INFORM ATION Data Elements Line 111 Line 14 Line 23 Line 24 Line 30 Line 31 Line 50 Line 51 Unlin ked Passen.erTrips 1,338,483 452,057 12,734 118,477 633,599 37,992 95,334 12,293 Passenger Miles 6 .683 330 3,452,230 111.415 _ 810,445 1,814 .098 610,481 1 .899.825 271,879 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 45,508 - 18,206 661 5,603 16 .256 3,064 11,814 3,029 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue M iles 648,867 335,168 10,817 78,684 176,126 59,270 _ 184,449 26,396 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 667,413 337,938 15.942 83,105 192,723 59,399 185,475 28 .083 Total O s erating Expenses $ 4 380 .347 $ 1,876.054 $ 115 742 $ 614,929 $ 339 283 $ 1,045 066 $ 195.780 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $ 979,020 $ 330,652 ' 9 .315$ 86,659 , $ 195.780 Net Operating Expenses $ 3.401 .327 $ 1,545 402 r • 428 $ 528,270 1,059,268 $ 311 .494 $ 975 .334$ (0) Performan ce Indica tors Operating Cost Per Re ve nue Hour $ 96.25 $ 103 .05 $ 175 .10 $ 109.75 $ 93 .67 $ 110.73 $ 88.46 $ 64.64 Farebox Recovery Ratio 22.4% 17.6% 8.0% 14 .1 % 30.4 % 8.2% 6 7% 100.0% Subsidy Per Passenger $ 2.54 $ 3 .42 $ 8 .36 $ 4.46 $ 1.67 $ 8 .20$ _ 10 .23 $ (0.00) Subsid Per Passenger Mile $ 0.51 $ 0 .45 U;:I .;$ $ 0.96 $ 0 .65 $ 0.58 ' 0 .51$ 0.51 $ 0.00 Subsid Per Hour $ 74. 74 94 .28 $ 65 .16 $ 101.66 $ 82.56 $ 0.00 Subsid Per M iie $ 5.10 $ 4.57 $ 6 .68 $ 6.36 $ 5.50 $ 5 .24 $ 5.26 $ (0 .00) Passen gers Per Revenue Hour 29. 41 24.83 19.27 21 .15 38.98 12.40 8 .07 4.06 Pa ssen+ars Per Revenue M ile 2.06 1.35 1 .18 1 .51 3.60 0.64 0 .52 0.47 Data Elements Line 70 Line 80 Line 90 Line 91 Su nLink Total Fixed Route * Total Paratransit* Total - System Wide* Un linked Passenger Trips 136,937 377 491 256,332 137,424 11,353 3 .620.506 110,587 3,731 ,093 Passenger M iles 1,055,132 1,641,593 1,676,016 1 .492 .563 1,699 .366 23 .218,373 2,192,410 25,410,783 To tal Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 5. 859 12. 618 _ - 11,641 5,749 5,577 145,585 46.632 192.217 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 102,440 159,378 162,720 144,909 164 .987 2,254.211 806,033 3.060.244 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 102 714 159,671 163,002 145 .245 176,673 2,317,383 912,290 3,229,673 Total Ope rating Expenses $ 614,702 $ 1,164,001 $ 1,102,230 $ 650,409 $ 768,915 $ 14,390,166 $ 2.868,735 $ 17,258,901 _ Total Passe nger Fare Revenue $ 100,161 $ 276,112 $ 187,491 $ 100 .518 $ 51,027 $ _ 2.877.694 $ 235.539 $ 3,113.233 Net Operating Expenses $ 514,541 $ 887,889 $ 914.738 $ 549,891 $ 717,889 $ 11,512,472 $ 2,633,196 $ 14,145,668 Performanc e Indic ators - - - - Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $ 104.92 $ 92.25 $ 94.69 $ 113.13 $ 137.87 $ 98 .84 $ 61 .52 $ 89.79 Farebox Recovery Ratio 16.3% 23.7% 17. 0% 15.5% 6.6% 20.00% 8.21 % 18.04% Subsidy Per Passenger $ 3.76 $ 2.35 $ 3.57 $ 4.00 $ 63 .23 $ 3 .18 $ 23 .81 $ 3 .79 Subsidy Per Passenge r Mite $ 0.49 $ 0.54 $ _ 0.55 $ 0 37 $ 0.42 $ 0.50 $ 1.20 $ - 0.56 Su bsidy Per Hour $ 87.82 $ 70.37 $ 78. 58 $ 95.65 $ 128.72 $ 79.08 $ 56.47 $ 73.59 Su bsidy Per M ile $ 5.01 $ 5.56 $ _ 5.61 $ 3.79 $ 4.06 $ 4.97 $ 2.89 $ 4.38 Passengers Per Reven ue Hour 23.37 29.92 22. 02 23.90 2 .04 24.87 2.37 19.41 Passenge rs Per Revenue Mile 1.34 2.37 1.58 0.95 0.07 1.61 0.14 1.22 *Information EXCLUDES New Service(s) which are EXEMPT for two years Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested f or FY 04 SunLine Transit Agency FY 04 Summary of Funds R equested Short Range Transit Plan (For planning purp oses only - not approved) Please show in actual dollar amounts: $100,000; $1,583,000, etc. Project Description Capital Project Number (1) Total Amount of Funds STA LTF Measur e A 5307 5311 FTA - C MAQ FTA 5309 Discretionary Fare Box Other (2) Annual scheduled " CO PS" payment re the purchase of 34 CNG buses in 1994 Replace 3 support vehicles Improvements to facilities for additional personel and improved maintenance proce dures and to develop new prope rty Purchase new and replace older computer and office equipment and improve software Installment payment for acquisition of Vamer Rd property Acqu ire 11 acres owned by City of Palm Desert adjoining SunLine property Bus re placement fund for CNG a nd/or Hydrogen bus purcha se or modification Capital Subtotal Operating Subtotal Total: Capital and Operating RIV32412 RIV32257 RIV32254 RIV 32255 R IV010502 NEW RIV61127 $501,000 $80,000 $1,150,010 $50,000 $101,668 $1,542,478 $200,000 _ $100,200 $14,000 $151,719 $8,500 $17,668 $259,312 $40,000 $591,399 $0 $62,283 $62,283 $400,800 $66,000 $936,008 $41,500 $84,000 $53,568 $160,000 $ 1,741,876 $0 $0_ $1,228,598 $1,228,598 _ $0 $0 (1) Number should tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justification (2) Please Identify source of " Other funds. Revised 5/12/2003 Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested .xls Continued Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 04 SunLine Transit Agency FY 04 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan (For planning purpos es only - not appr ov ed) Please sh ow in actual dollar amounts: $100,000; $1,583,000, etc. Project Description Capital Project Number (1) Tot al Amount of Funds STA LTF Measure A 5307 5311 FTA-CMF FTA 5309 Discretionary Fare Box Other (2) SunLlne/RTA ITS Project Operating Revenues Capital Subtotal O pe rating Subtotal Total: Ca pita l an d Operating RIV001102 R1V21241 $1,226 ,000 $17,258,901 $0 $9,823.433 $9,823,433 $221,000 $2,417,717 _$2,638,717, $1,554,518 $1,554,518 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $439,000 $439,000, $3,113,233 $3,113,233 $566,000 $150,000 $716,000 (1) Number should tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justification (2) Other ITS funds indude FHWA (346. 000) and CalTrans (220,000); Operating Revenues includes internally generated work for others - prindpally maintenance. Revised 5/12/2003 Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested .xls Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) RIV61127 PROJECT NAME Bus Replacement PROJECT DESCRIPTION Establish a fund for CNG and/or Hydrogen bus purchase or modification. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Replacement of bus fleet beyond economic useful life PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) California STA and Federal Sec 5307 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED Prior Year Project Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) RIV32255 PROJECT NAME Computer and Office equipment PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase new and replace older technology computer and office equipment and computer software. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Provide working tools for new employees and replacement of equipment beyond economic life. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) California STA and Federal Sec 5307 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED Prior Year Project Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) RIV32412 PROJECT NAME COPS Payment PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annual scheduled "COPS" payment re the purchase of 34 CNG buses in 1994. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Continue approved program PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) California STA and Federal Sec. 5307 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED Prior Year Project Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 - Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) RIV32257 PROJECT NAME Facility Improvement PROJECT DESCRIPTION Improvements to facilities for additional personnel and improved maintenance procedures, and to develop new property. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Required additions and improvements to facilitate space requirements, maintenance procedures and development of expanded facilities on new property. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) California STA, Measure A and Federal Sec 5307 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED Prior Year Project Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) NEW PROJECT NAME Acquire Haskell Road Property PROJECT DESCRIPTION Acquire 11 acres immediately north of SunLine property owned by the City of Palm Desert for development of hydrogen infrastructure. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Property required to continue then development of hydrogen -fueling technology. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) California STA and Federal Secs 5307 and 5309. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED Project not yet ordered. Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) RIV001102 PROJECT NAME SunLine/RTA ITS Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION Joint effort, as required by the funding, for the integration of modern Intelligent Transportation Systems into the fleets of both Agencies. All the fundings listed here, exclusive of the Measure A match portion, were provided in prior years, and are relisted here for a complete understanding of project funding. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Modernization of fleets to current transit agency standards. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) California Measure A, Federal FHWA and Sec. 5309, and CalTrans. PRIOR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED Projects approved but not yet ordered. Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) RIV32257 PROJECT NAME Support Vehicles PROJECT DESCRIPTION Replace 3 support vehicles PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Continue program of replacement of vehicles beyond useful life. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) California STA and Federal Sec 5307 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE -- OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED Prior Year Project Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 04 Funds Requested) RIV010502 PROJECT NAME Acquire Varner Road Property PROJECT DESCRIPTION Installment payment (over 5 years) for the acquisition of Varner Road property bordering on SunLine property. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Expansion of present facilities for parking, storage and Additional personnel. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) California STA and Federal Sec 5397 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED Prior Year Project SunLine Transit Agency FY 05 and FY 06 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5 - Summary of Funds Requested f or FY 05 and FY 06 (For planning purposes only - n ot approved) Please show in actual dollar amounts: $100,000; $1,583,000, etc. Project Description Capital -Total Project (1) Amount of Funds STA Meas ure A 5307 5311 FTA - C MAQ - - FTA 5309 Discretionary Fare Box Other (2) -.Number Annual scheduled "CO PS" payrnent re the purchase of 34 CNG buses in 1994 Replace 3 support vehicles Improvements to facilities for a dditional person el and Improved maintenance procedures and to develo p new property Purchase new and replace olde r computer and office equipment and improve softwa re Insta llment payment for acquisition of Vamer Rd prope rty Purchase of 6 replacement paratransit vehicles Bus replacement fund for CNG an d/or Hydrogen bus purchase or modification Capital Subtotal Operating Su btotal To tal: Capital an d Operating RIV32412 RIV 32257 RIV32254 RIV32255 RIV010502 R1V32420 R IV61127 $471,000 $155,500 $1,200,000 $100,000 $203,336 $738,000 $3,859,024 ^LTF $94,200 $27,500 $240,000 $17,000 $35,336 $123,000 $645,762 $1,182,798 $0 $126,043 $126,043 $376,800 $128,000 $960,000 $83,000 $168,000 $615,000 $3,087,219 $ 5,418,019 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $0 (1) Number should tie to Table 4A - Capital Protect Justification (2) Please Identify so urce of "Other" funds. Revised 5/12/2003 Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requ ested .xls Continued Table 5 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 05 and FY 06 SunLine Transit Agency FY 05 and FY06 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan (For pla nning purposes only - not approved) Please show in actual dollar am ounts: $100,000; $1,583,000, etc . 'Capital Project Description ' Project Number (1) Total Amount of Funds STA LTF Measure A 5307 5311 FTA-CMF FTA 5309 Discr etionary Fare Box 'Other (2) Operating Reve nues Capital Subtotal Operating Subtotal To tal: Capital and Operating RIV21241 $36,528,417 $0 $22,806,504 $22,806,504 $5,318,661 $5,318,661 $1,174,769 $1,174,769 $400,000 $400,000 $0 $0 $6,583,483( II $6,583,483' $250,000 $250,000 (1) Number should tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justification (2) Operating Revenues includes Internally generated work for others - principally maintenance. Revised 5/12/2003 Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested .xls Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 5 — Summary of FY 05 and FY 06 Funds Requested) RIV32420 PROJECT NAME Para Transit Vehicles PROJECT DESCRIPTION Replace 6 paratransit vehicles. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) Continue program of replacement of vehicles beyond useful life. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) California STA and Federal Sec5307. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED Prior Year Project TABLE 6 — PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT Prior Audit Recommendation (Conducted FY 01) Action(s) Taken ,And Results (1) Prior Triennial Audits (FY 1998-2000) Recommendations: S=State F= Federal Most recommendations were addressed and closed -out in the SRTPs for FYs 02&03. The remainder, with ongoing actions are discussed below S — Prepare trend analyses of customer concerns. Conduct ridership analysis. During FY 02 & 03, we continued close analysis of the customer response database and conducted additional outreach sessions. In addition, recently an Analysis was completed by a professional consultant, a direct result of which was the implementation of a 7 -day pass to help riders financially. A more in-depth ridership analysis is planned a soon as budgetary constraints will allow. (1) If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant. SunLine Transit Agency FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 7 - PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUES Approved Current Flan - Year _ Projected Financial Elements FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 'Operating Expenses (less depreciation) $16,710,000' $17,258,901 $17,920,570 $18,607,845 Capital Expenses $1,583.498 $4,851,156 $3,156,892 $3,569,968 Total Operating & Capital Expenses $18,293,498 $22,110,057 $21,077,462 $22,177,813 Less Money on Hand at RCTC* (Funds identified in RCTC's Audited Records). Note: Information was provided during SRTP kick off.) FY 04 LTF 8,978 STA Measure A 97,000 + Total Money on Hand _ i - ; , 105,978 Balance of Operating and Capital Expenses Needed ; 22.004,079 Less Money on Hand at your Agency STA B , -1 - LTF r.,,,j; _..1,;t.,,lil. - Measure A f ; '. 'Yril - Farebox Revenues = -.;5_, ' •it..1, 3,113,233 Other Grant Subsidies: Federal ; F 5,353,423 Other Grant Subsidies -Cal Trans T ` 220,000 Other Grant Subsidies-FHwA `.i .`, : <f, Ti 346,000 Balance Needed for Operating and Capital** '.:. '. ,:J 1--#1"' , 12,971,423 Money Held by RCTC (prior years programed projects): 99S-SLO4 $ 00S-SLO8 $ 02S-SLO6 $ 03S -SLOG 209,978 Bus Replacement in FY 2005 38,000 Bus Replacement in FY 2005 200,000 Bus Replacement in FY 2005 $ 40,000 Bus Replacement in FY 2005 487,978 Money on hand at SunLine Transit Agency (prior years programed projects): $ 129,771 Support Vehicle replacment in FY 2004 $ 334,074 Bus Replacement in FY 2005 $ 45,485 Computer & Equipment Replacement in FY 2004 $ 150,378 Facility improvements in FY 2004 $ 659,708 = .�+ "v stein wliCo y yrunsp` orfazion CO7n71TiSSiOi* Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan Update FY 2004 .2006 Riverside County Metrolink Stations Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan Update, FY0406 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of FY04 Proposed Changes Table 1 — Fleet Inventory 1 Table 2A — Fixed Route Transit Service 2 Table 2B — ADA Paratransit Service 3 Table 2C — System -Wide Transit Service 4 Table 2D — Exempt Transit Service 5 Table 3 — Individual Route Information 6 Table 4 — Summary of Funds Requested for FY 04 7 Table 4A — Capital Project Justification 8 Table 5 — Summary of Funds Requested for FY 05 and FY 06 12 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification 13 Table 6 — Progress to Implement Triennial Performance Audit .............16 Table 7 — Projected Expenses and Revenues .17 K'L�� If•� `'Rtxerstde County T,+ansportatton Commission Summary of FY04 Proposed Changes Three Metrolink lines will traverse Riverside County, the Riverside Line, the Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line, and the 91 Line. RCTC owns and operates five Metrolink stations that serve these Lines. The FY03/04 Commuter Rail SRTP proposes the following: • Riverside Line: No changes in regular weekday service or weekend service via extensions to the San Bernardino Line; • IEOC Line: One round trip off-peak service between Riverside and Irvine will be added in the Fall, increasing the total number of weekday trains from 12 to 14; • 91 Line: No changes in regular weekday service; • 18 Charter Beach Trains; • Expansion of parking spaces at the La Sierra and Riverside -Downtown Stations; • Ordering additional rolling stock for system expansion; and • No fare increases. RCTC Commuter Rail FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 1 - FLEET INVENTORY (Applies to Bus Operators Only) Year Built Manufacturer Model Seats Lift- Equip? Type of Fuel 1 Own or Leas e FR Vehicle DAR Vehicle Active/ Reserve/ Rehab* Total Vehicle Miles* * Year to Replace T otal Veh. Sys. Failures A - Active, R - Reserve, MR - Major Rehab. * *Use NTD Data from prior year FY 04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 1 RCTC Commuter Rail FY 04- FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2A - FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE (Riverside and IEOC Line Only) . Excludes Exempt (New) service FY 2002 *Estimat ed FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS -_,s Pe ak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered Ill FINANCIAL DATA r, A___LIN*.rt."10MiPAMAIIIMMO Total Operating Expenses i., 16,778.5 18,790.4 18,869 .0 19,812.5 20,803 .1 ' Total Revenues 9,541 .8 10,362.8 11,100.5 11,655 .5 12,238.3 Total Passenger Fare Revenue 9,005 .5 9,800.3 10,481 .0 11,005.1 11,555 .3, Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $7,236.7 $8,436.6 $7,768.5 $8,156.9 $8.564 .8 O PERATING CHA RA CTERISTICS Unlinked Passenger Trips 1,887,048 1,989,000 1,974,272 2,072,986 2,176,635 Passenger Miles 67,320,409 82,954,831 70,553,258 74,080,921 77,784,967 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Train Revenue Miles 377,634 389,830 408,672 416,845 425,182 Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 2,689 2,743 2,798 2,854 2,911 PERFORMANCE CHARA CTERISTICS --.1P11'XF+ - ^t''r_. Operating Cost per Revenu e Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 56.87% 55. 12% 58.83% 58 .83%1 58 .83% Subsidy per Passenger $3.83 ' $4.24 $3.93 $3 .93 $3 .93 Subsidy per Passenger Mile $0. 11 $0. 10 $0.11 $0 .11 $0 .11 Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile $19. 16 $21. 64 $19.01 $19,57 $20.14 Passenger per Revenue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles 5.0 5.1 4. 8 5.0 5 .1 Percentage of Trips on Time 92% 92% 96% 96% 96% Total Revenues include farebox, and dispatching fees fro m railroads. *FY 02 Audit will be completed by May 2003 FY 04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 2 Agency Name FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan Excludes Exempt (New) servic e TABLE 2B - AD A-PARATRANSIT SERVICE - Not Applic able FY 2002 Audited FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHAR ACTERISTICS Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered j 1 FINA NCIAL DATA ; _..r_ Total Operating Expe nses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Ne t Operating Expenses (Subsidie s) $0 >0 $01 $0 $0 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS; Unlinked Passe nger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles To tal Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips r,; r PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile Passenger per Revenue Hour Pa ssenger per Revenue Miles Percentage of Trips on Time 14 #DIV/01 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Revised 5/12/2003 Table 2 Transit Services.xls RCTC Commuter Rail FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2C - SYSTEM -WIDE TRANSIT SERVICE (Riverside and IEOC Line Only) Excludes Exempt (New) service c. ' ,_ FY 2002 *Estimated FY 2003 Estimated FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS 0 , 1.111111111.11111.1 Peak -Hour Fleet Spare Vehicles Spare Ratio Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered FINANCIAL DATA -.;#1111R MOM 1111,M11P1111111111LAININAl Total O perating Expenses 16,778 .5 18,799.4 18,869.0 19,812.5 20,803.1 Total Revenues 9,541 .8 10,362 .8 11,100.5 11,655.5 12,238.3 Total Passenger Fare Revenue 9,005.5 9,800 .3 10,481.0 11,005.1 11,555.3 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $7,236.7 $8,436.6 $7,768.5 $8,156 .9 $8,564.8 OPERATING CHA RACTERISTICS I allot P-;_' I ni vu:; i Unlinked Passenger Trips 1,887,048 1,989,000 1,974 ,272 2,072,986 2,176,635 Passenger Miles 67,320,409 82,954,831 70,553,258 74,080,921 77,784,967 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Train Revenue Miles 377,634 389,830 408,672 416,845 425,182 Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 2,689 2,743 2.798 2.85 4 2.911 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTIC S ____ Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 56. 87% 55. 12% 58.83% 58.83% 58 .83 % Subsidy per Passenger $3.83 $4.24 $3.93 $3.93 $3 .93 Subsidy per Passenger Mile $0. 11 $0.10 $0.11 $0.11 $0 .11 Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile $19. 16 $21.64 $19.01 $19.57 $20 .14 Passenger per Revenue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles 5. 0 5.1 4.8 5.0 5.1 Percentage of Trips on Time 92% 92% 96% 96% 96 % Total Revenues include farebox, and dispatching fees from railroads. *FY 02 Audit will be completed by May 2003 FY 04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 4 RCTC Commuter Rail FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 2D - EXEMPT TRANSIT SERVICE .i FY 2002 *Estimated FY 2003 Estimat ed FY 2004 Planned FY 2005 Planned — FY 2006 Planned FLEET CHARACTERISTICS g il - `'' . -. Peak -Hour Flee t 4 Spare Vehicles 4 Spare Ratio T Energy Contingency Reserve New Expansion Vehicles Delivered New Replacement Vehicles Delivered FINANCIAL DATA 4ilA Y 'E? :`€1- . ii _ - .--;7-".., .. ..I., --_, Total Operating Expenses $839.5 1,893.3 1,999 .5 2,099.5 2,204.4 Total Revenues $175 .7 956 .5 1,484 .1 1,558 .3 1,636 .2 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $146 .1 925.3 1,450 .4 1,522.9 1,599 .1 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) ' $663.8 $936.8 $515 .4 $541 .2 $568.2 OPERATING CHARA CTERISTICS j,1 4.441,z-4jarac !m,¢1.µ . i , ':� Unlinked Passenger Trips 65,374 204,000 414,720 435,456 457,22 9 Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours t 2,239,060 7,140,000 14,315,130 15,030,887 15,782,431 Total Actual Train Revenue Miles ' 61,169 125,460 127,168 129,711 132,306 Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled ,}! t Total On -Time Revenue V ehicle Trips ff 985 1,005 1,025 1,045 1,066 PERFO RM ANCE CHARA CTERISTICS -r' rur% a 1:i lit y .� •:_ Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 20.93% 50. 52% 74.22% 74 .22% 74.22% Subsidy per Passenger $10.15 $4.59 $1.24 $1.24 $1 .24 Subsidy per Passenger Mile 50.30 $0. 13 $0. 04' $0.04 $0.04 Subsidy per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Revenue Mile $10.85 $7. 47 $4. 05 $4.17 $4 .30 Passenger per Revenue Hour Passenger per Revenue Miles 1. 1 1.6 3,3 3.4 3.5 Percentage of Trips on Time 91% 1 92% 96% 96% 96% Total Revenues include farebox, and dispatching fees from railroads. *FY 02 Audit will be completed by Ma y 2003 Date 2 -May -02 Route 91 Line Area Riverside-Fu'ierton- Los Angeles FY 04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 5 RCTC Commuter Rail FY 04 - FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INFORMATION FY 2004 Data Elements Riverside Line IEOC Total Fixed Route* Total Paratransit* N/A Total - System Wide * (In Riv County) Unlinked Passenger Trips _ 1,129,472 844,800 1,974,272 I 1,974,272 Pa ssenger Miles 42,993,440 27,559,818 70,553,258 70,553,258 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Train Revenue Miles 198,171 210,501 408,672 408,672 Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Operating Expenses $11,062.0 $7,807 .0 $18,869 .0 $18,869 .0 Total Revenues $6.256.9 $4,843.6 _ $11,100.5 _ $11,100.5 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $5,986.3 $4,494.7 $10,481 .0 $10,481.0 Net Operating Expenses $4,805.1 $2,963.4 $7,768.5 $7,768.5 Performance Indicators Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour , Farebox Recovery Ratio 56. 56% 62 .04% 58 .83 % 58.83% Subsidy Per Passenger $4. 25 $3 .51 ' $3.93 $3 .93 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.11 $0 .11 $0.11 $0.11 Subsidy Per Hour Subsidy Per Mile _ $24.25 $14.08 $19.01 _ $19.01 Passengers Per Revenue Hour Passengers Per Revenue Mile 5. 7 4.0 4 .8 4.8 *Information EXCLUDES New Se rvice(s) which are EXEMPT for two years, as a result 91 Line service not included - began May 2002. FY 04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 6 RCTC Commuter Rail FY 04 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested f or FY 04 Please show in actual dollar amounts: $100,000; $1,583,000, etc . Project Description C apital Project Number (1) Total Amount of Funds STA LTF Measure A _ 5307* 5311 =TA - le.:MAQ FTA Discretionary Fare Box ' Other (2) SCRRA Rehab/Renovation FY04 - RCTC Share 04-1 $892,200 $600,000 $292.2 .00 previously programmed (RTIP # RIV010514) Eastern Area Maintenance Facility - Phase 1-2 $1.843.000 $1,843,000 _ Riverside -Downtown Parking Expansion - Phase 2 (South) 04-3 _ $1,200,000 $1,200.000 1 SCRRA Rolling Stock expansion 18 cars - RCTC 04-4 _ $4.329,000 $4,000,000 $329,000 previ ously programmed (RTIP # RIV010214) SCRRA Operating Subsidy - FY04 ' $3,056,300 $3,056,300 $3,492,800 RCTC Rail Operations FY04 $1.943,700 $1,943,700 _ _ _ RCTC Rolling Stock Reserve - Sinking Fund $250.000 $250,000 4 Capital Subto tal Operating Subtotal Total: Capital' an d Ope rating $8,514,200 $5,000,000 $13,514,200 $0 i $250,000 $5,000,000 $5,250,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $7,064,200 $0 $7,064,200 $0' $0 $0 $3,492,800 $3,492,800 $0 (1) Number should tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justification (2) Please identify source of " Other" funds. * No local match is indicated because RCTC share is part of a large r SCRRA project. FY04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 7 Table 4A - Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER 04-1 PROJECT NAME SCRRA Rehab/Renovation FY04 — RCTC Share (of Total Costs) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The RCTC share of Rehab/Renovation Projects for FY04 include: • Crossing Rehabilitation — River Corridor • Signal Improvements — River Corridor • Signal & Communications system — Systemwide • Grade Crossing Monitor System • Switch Machine & Rod Repl/Repair — River Corridor • Special Track Work — Frog Replacement — River Corridor • Replace Rail Crossing Frogs • Upgrade to Interlocker @ Ninth Street — River Corridor • Install "No Trespassing" Signs on Right -of -Way • Rail Grinding - Systemwide • Union Station Platform Improvements including Lighting Upgrades • Rolling Stock Rehabilitation Program • Bridge Program — River Corridor • Passenger Signage Changes • Trespasser Barriers • Vehicles • Grade Crossing Safety Program PROJECT JUSTIFICATION SCRRA rehabilitation/renovation projects are those projects that replace worn out assets with like or improved assets and thus extend the useful life of these capital assets. These recommendations are based upon tolerating only the most minimal & manageable risk of failure. The total proposed FY04 SCRRA Rehab/Renovation budget is $39.9 million with RCTC's share totaling $892,200. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Increase current programmed FTA 5307 amount by $292,200 for total FY04 program amount of $892,200. (Reference RTIP# RIV010514) PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE - OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED SCRRA Rehabilitation/Renovation is an ongoing annual capital maintenance investment program. Prior year projects with an unexpended balance include FY03 & FY02. These projects have been delayed due to either freight railroad related delays, environmental concerns, or federal compliance issues. FY04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 8 PROJECT NUMBER 04-2 PROJECT NAME Eastern Area Maintenance Facility — Phase 1 — RCTC Share of Total Costs PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project consists of the design, engineering, and construction of an additional facility to provide maintenance and storage of SCRRA rolling stock. The facility will be located in San Bernardino County and will provide storage for up to 4 train sets. The project is estimated to be completed by FY06. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Current capacity constraints call for trains to move to SCRRA's Central Maintenance Facility near downtown Los Angeles, often requiring long moves to put equipment in position to resume commuter operations. With the completion of the Inland Empire Maintenance Facility (IEMF), additional, but not sufficient, capacity has been added. This facility will further add to the ability of the agency to more efficiently maintain equipment so as to provide minimal disruption to daily commuter operations. The facility will serve the San Bernardino Line, Inland Empire -Orange County Line, 91 Line, and Riverside Line trains. The total proposed project budget for Phase 1 is $15.4 million with RCTC's share totaling $1,843,000. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $1,843,000 in FTA Section 5307 funding is requested to fund RCTC's fair share of the project. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE - OR PROJECTS APPROVE D BUT NOT YET ORDERED The IEMF is a prior year project of a similar nature. This facility, located in the Inland Empire, is a smaller maintenance facility. It is anticipated to be completed during FY04. FY04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 9 PROJECT NUMBER 04-3 PROJECT NAME Riverside -Downtown Phase 2 Parking Lot Expansion (South Side) PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project consists of the design, engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of an additional 300 parking spaces at the RCTC owned Riverside - Downtown Metrolink Station. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The Riverside -Downtown Station serves as the hub for all passenger rail services and currently has an average daily a.m. peak period boarding of 985 riders. The station parking lot has 870 parking spaces; all located on the north (west) side of the tracks. The Station is served by the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 Lines, as well as Amtrak, Riverside Transit Agency, and SunLink service to the Coachella Valley. Ridership forecasts indicate the need for 1,500 parking spaces by 2010. The total proposed project budget is $4,000,000. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Increase current FY03 SRTP approved amount by $1,200,000 in Measure A funds a for total project amount of $4,000,000. (Reference — FY03 SRTP which allocated $2,800,000.) PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE - OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED N/A FY04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 10 PROJECT NUMBER 04-4 PROJECT NAME SCRRA Rolling Stock Expansion 18 cars — RCTC Share of Total Costs PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project consists of the acquisition of 18 cars for the expansion of Metrolink service. The order is anticipated to occur this summer with a delivery date of FY06. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The additional rolling stock of 18 cars will assist in meeting the demand through 2005. The total proposed project budget is $39 million with RCTC's share totaling $4,329,000. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $4,329,000 in FTA Section 5307 funding is requested to fund RCTC's fair share of the project. $4,000,000 has already been programmed by virtue of the FY03 SRTP. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE - OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED The rolling stock order for 18 cars is part of the current year project of 13 cars ($3.2 million) (RIV 010214). This project will be combined with the 13 cars for a larger order. FY04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 11 Table 5 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 05 and FY 06 RCTC Commuter Rail FY 05 and FY 06 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan (For planning purposes only - not approved) Please show in actual dollar amounts: $100,000; $1,583,000, etc . Project Description Capital Project Number (1) Total Amount of Funds STA LTF Measure A 5307' 5311 FTA - CMAQ FTA Discretionary Fare Box Other (2) r —� SCRRA Rehab/Renovation FY05 - RCTC Share 05-1 $850,000 $300,000 $550,000 previously programm ed RTIP #RIV010514 SCRRA Rehab/Re nova tion FY06 - RCTC Share 06-1 $1,050,000 $350,000 $700,000 pre vi ously programmed RTIP #RIV010514 Eastern Area Maintenance Facility - Phase 2 06-2 $2.261,000 $2,261,000 SCRRA Operating Subsidy - FY05 $3,100 .000 83,100,000 SCRRA Operating Subsidy - FY06 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 RCTC Rail Operations FY05 $1,700,000 _ 81,700.000 RCTC Rail Operations FY06 $1.725,000 51,725.000 Capital Subtotal Opera ting Subto tal Total: Capital and Operating $4,161,000 $9,725,000 $13,886,000 $0 $9,725,000 $9,725,000 $0 $4,161,000 $4,161,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 (1) Number should tie to Table 5A - Capital Project Justification (2) Please identify source of "Other" funds. * No local match provided because part of a larger project. FY04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 12 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER 05-1 PROJECT NAME SCRRA Rehab/Renovation FY05 — RCTC Share (of Total Costs) PROJECT DESCRIPTION SCRRA rehabilitation/renovation projects are those projects that replace worn out assets with like or improved assets and thus extend the useful life of these capital assets. These recommendations are based upon tolerating only the most minimal & manageable risk of failure PROJECT JUSTIFICATION These projects are important for the continued safety and efficient performance of equipment and track that RCTC has funded in the past. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Increase current programmed FTA 5307 amount by $300,200 for total FY05 program amount of $850,000. (Reference RTIP# RIV010514) PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED N/A FY04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 13 PROJECT NUMBER 06-1 PROJECT NAME SCRRA Rehab/Renovation FY06 — RCTC Share (of Total Costs) PROJECT DESCRIPTION SCRRA rehabilitation/renovation projects are those projects that replace worn out assets with like or improved assets and thus extend the useful life of these capital assets. These recommendations are based upon tolerating only the most minimal & manageable risk of failure PROJECT JUSTIFICATION These projects are important for the continued safety and efficient performance of equipment and track that RCTC has funded in the past. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Increase current programmed FTA 5307 amount by $350,000 for total FY06 program amount of $1,050,000. (Reference RTIP# RIV010514) PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE - OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED N/A FY04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 14 PROJECT NUMBER 06-2 PROJECT NAME Eastern Area Maintenance Facility — Phase 2 — RCTC Share of Total Costs PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project consists of the construction to expand the existing facility to provide maintenance and storage of SCRRA rolling stock. Phase 2 will provide storage for an additional six train sets at the facility, increasing the total number of train sets to 10. The project is estimated to be completed by FY10. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Current capacity constraints call for trains to move to SCRRA's Central Maintenance Facility near downtown Los Angeles, often requiring long moves to put equipment in position to resume commuter operations. With the completion of the Inland Empire Maintenance Facility (IEMF), additional, but not sufficient, capacity has been added. This facility will further add to the ability of the agency to more efficiently maintain equipment so as to provide minimal disruption to daily commuter operations. The facility will serve the San Bernardino Line, Inland Empire -Orange County Line, 91 Line, and Riverside Line trains. The total proposed project budget for Phase 2 is $18.9 million with RCTC's share totaling $2,261,000. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $2,261,000 in FTA Section 5307 funding is requested to fund RCTC's fair share of the project. PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OFA SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE - OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED FY04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 15 TABLE 6 — PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT Prior Audit Recommendation (Conducted FY 01) Action(s) Taken And Results (1) Comply with TDA definition for employee full-time equivalent when preparing State Controller Report. Completed FY2001 Implement a performance monitoring system for key indicators for the system and by function. Completed FY2002 Improve internal reporting systems to allow for budget variance analysis by function on a monthly basis. Completed FY 2001 (1) If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant. FY04-06 Commuter Rail SRTP 16 RCTC Commuter Rail FY 04- FY 06 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 7 - PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUES Approved FY 03 Current Plan Year Financial Elements FY 04 FY 05 Projected FY 06 Operating Expenses (less depreciation), CapitaI Expenses $8,492,800 $8,514.200 $4,800.000 $850,000 $4,925,000 $3.311.000 Total Operating & Capital Expenses $17,007,000 $5,650,000 $8,236,000 Less Money on Hand at RCTC* (Funds identified in RCTC's Audited Records). Note: Information was provided during SRTP kick off.) Measure A Total Money on Hand Balance of Operating and Capital Expenses Needed IMMO FY 04 Less Money on Hand at your Agency LTF as of June 30, 2002 (1) Measure A as of June 30, 2002 (2) Farebox Revenues Other Grant Subsidies (please specify) Balance Needed for Operating and Capital** $17,007,000 $1,200.000 $3,492,800 $12,314,200 This section should tie to Table 4 and Table 5 - shows total amount of funding being requested for FY 04 and projects amounts needed for FY 05 and FY 06 *If revenue is available but will not be used this fiscal year, provide an explanation I.e. $XXX needed for service expansion in FY 05; $XXX needed for replacement buses in FY 06, etc. (1) Reserved for match to capital projects in FY04 & 05 (2) $1.2 M of Measure A funds are anticipated to be used for FY04; balance is reserved for San Jacinto Branch Line Capital Project. **Indicate how much money is placed on reserves and indicate why i.e. $XXX for fuel costs; $XXX for demonstration service; etc. Revised Funding Amount Needed This represents the amount of money that your Agency is requesting to operate for FY 04. (Amount not to exceed funding apportioned to your transit area). FY04-FY06 Commuter Rail SRTP 17 2SlCd%. (1 o3 ?plc, The Motorist's Best Friend P.O. Box 564, Woodland Hills, Calif. 91365 818-223-8080 STATEMENT OF CARL OLSON FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, JUNE 11, 2003 My name is Carl Olson. I am appearing today as a member of the Automobile Club of Southern California in the hope of getting our club to take an active role in promoting the interests of motorists. You yourself may be a member. Our club is a mutual benefit corporation that is owned by its 5.4 million members in Southern California, and the voting members elect the board of directors. I'm not here to talk about elections of directors, but rather to work to improve the public service to the motorists. Our club's articles of incorporation mandate the lobbying for the benefit of motorists at all levels of government. Unfortunately, it appears that the club has not taken an active role in local or county traffic and highway policies, including many of the concerns of R.C.T.C. I understand that our club's management has compiled a study about transportation called "The Quiet Crisis". Perhaps the directors have not driven the freeways in the past ten years. There is nothing quiet about the transit failures for motorists. The study should instead be called "The Deafening Crisis". However this study is not available to the 5.4 million members. No member can get a copy at any of the 70 district offices or the main headquarters in Costa Mesa. No survey of the members was used to compile the study. No hearings for members were held prior to its publication. At best it reflects the bias of about 20 directors and staff instead of the 5.4 million members. The following management positions are alarming: 1. The club board supports raising the car tax. 2. The club board favors the double taxation of gasoline (sales tax on top of excise tax). 3. The club board does not object to the excessive price of gasoline. It has had the president of an oil company and a director of an oil company on the board. 4. The club board gives "guarded support" to the idea of putting tolls on HOV diamond lanes. 5. The club board does not sponsor constitutional protections for funding for road construction and maintenance. What I'm asking here today is for you to get ahold of the Auto Club management and ask them to get busy working with you. They have 6000 employees, a $100 million headquarters, and a $2 billion fund surplus to work with. Let them know they are losing a golden opportunity to make real gains for the motoring public. Thank you. Drive -By Shooting The gadflies will be swarming again this proxy season, haranguing public companies about sweat- shops and abortion rights. One place you'd least expect to find them waging a proxy fight is at the AAA, those trusted folks who jump-start your dead battery and hand out TripTiks. But the not -for-profit Automobile Club of Southern Califomia is no ordinary AAA. The nation's largest regional AAA, with 6.2 million members and $2.7 billion in revenues, this Auto Club also owns the AAA clubs in Hawaii, New Mexico and Texas. As stand-alone businesses, its captive travel agency and insurance subsidiary would rank among the biggest in the country. The auto and homeowners insurance business is so successful that it has ac- cumulated a capital surplus of $1.8 billion, a honey pot that has attracted the wrath of dissidents who want the money put to better use or distributed among members. `What they're doing this year is treating us the way Saddam Hussein treats the United Nations and U.N. inspectors," seethes Thomas Bourke, a Los Angeles attorney running for one of four con- tested seats on the Auto Club's I2 -member board. With allegations of Enron -like accounting mischief, Bourke and his fellow dissidents have gleefully exposed the Auto Club's opaque financials and accused the existing directors and manage- ment of playing dirty politics and spending $6 million of member dues to preserve their seats in the last disputed election. The club is less threatened by Bourke and the gadflies than it is annoyed by their antics, which in- clude publicizing various sexual harassment and overtime lawsuits that have been filed against the AAA. A judge has already tossed out the bulk of the allegations made in yet another lawsuit filed by two dissidents from the prior election. "I'm the biggest croak that ever lived," sighs the Auto Club's chief executive officer, Thomas McKer- nan Jr., sarcastically referring to the mud that's been slung. "I'm up there with [Enron's] Ken Lay." —Seth Lubove 1 A.' AlisarmiL 1 66 P O R E E S■ April 14, 2003 SACRAMENTO Gas settlernent to bring Californians discounts El Paso Corp. will agree to pay $1.69 billion to settle lawsuits accusing the company of manipulating California's natu- ral gas market, state officials said Thursday. The deal settles numerous civil lawsuits, as well as state and. federal investigations and administrative proceedings that investigated claims that the Houston -based natural gas company withheld supplies from California and drove up prices in 2000. If approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the courts handling the lawsuits, El Paso will give Cali- fornia consumers $1 billion in discounts on natural gas and power purchases over the next 20 years. The settlement is still about $2 billion less than the amount California claims it's owed by El Paso, ' Assadaled Press , FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 2003 / DAILY,NEWS We member -owners of the Automobile Club of Southern California should be very much concerned about El Paso Energy and Its damages to California. Myron Allumbaugh is a director of our Club and also a director of El Paso Energy. We would like to know If he worked to stop any of these multi -billion dollar scams on the public. El Paso has also owned the oil company Ultra mar Diamond Shamrock. Our Club was damaged financially. We have about 70 district offices In addition to the massive Costa Mesa complex. Our subsidiary clubs in Texas, New Mexico, and Hawaii have numerous offices. Our subsidiary Pleasant Holidays has substantial real estate. Our bills for gas were unjustly inflated by untold thousands of dollars. We think Mr. Allumbaugh should press for early refunds. What's really spooky is that Mr. Allumbaugh is the current vice chair of the Club board. Usually the vice chair becomes the chair when the chair departs. We think that Mr. Allumbaugh should step aside, and that a more qualified director be elected as chair. You should tell the directors what you think. has pains felt as $2 cost near By Evan Pondel Staff Writer Gasoline prices in Southern California could soon reach record highs, pushing beyond S2 a gallon as a result of tight sup- plies exacerbated by fears of war, analysts said Friday. The Automobile Club of Southern California said the price of regular gasoline in Los Angeles was at least 9.4 cents higher Friday afternoon — hov- ering around $1.80 — com- pared with last week's price. Jeffrey Spring, a spokesman for the Auto Club, said the pros- pect of war and the petroleum workers strike in Venezuela are contributing to the price hike. `People are going to start looking for alternative modes of transportation pretty soon." The price of regular gasoline hit a record high of $2.04 on May 25, 2001. Bob van der Valk, a whole- saler with Cosby Oil in Santa Fe Springs, is almost certain the record high will be matched within weeks. "I won't even bat an eyelash." With the price of- crude oil creeping toward $37 per barrel and refiners traditionally; .pass- ing those costs along to consum- ers, van der Valk predicted that gasoline prices 'will. . rise well above $2 a gallon in coming weeks. At the New York Mercantile Exchange on Friday, 'the front month March contract for crude oil was up 44 cents at $36.80 a barrel,' the highest it's been in 29 months. CRUDE REALITY The price of regular gasoline rose 9.4 cents this week and could reach $2 -a -gallon in the next several weeks. S2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1 00 SOURCE: Daily News research Our Auto Club Has Broken Down. We Member -Owners Need to Fix It! SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2003 / DAILY NEWS Gas prices are going through the roof. You and 1 are being socked at double the gas prices from a year ago! The Auto Club's advice is, "People are going to start looking for alternative modes of transportation pretty soon." What's with this? Our club is supposed to be fighting FOR us motorists. We motorists are not causing gas prices to gouge the public. We all know that the worldwide oil cartel has jacked up prices by restricting the supplies. And billions of dollars of excessive windfall profits are going to numerous dubious regimes in the Persian Gulf, Asia, and Africa. Including IRAQ! The current Club board has refused to sponsor any legislation to stop this excessive price gouging. It has not issued any news releases to investigate the cartel manipulation of gas prices. It has not called on us member -owners to rise up and support legislation. As a group whose articles of incorporation demands that it fight for the motorist, the Auto Club's board has truly broken down. It's time to fix it. It's time for a new board. Bumpy Roads Ahead? n early January. the California lei islature reconvened and Governor Gray Davis unveiled his proposed budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal year. California is reportedly con- fronted with a budget deficit of historic proportions —by some estimates, $35 billion over the next 18 months. The governor's plan to close the deficit includes more than $20 billion in spending reduc- tions and more than $8 billion in tax in- creases. Most state — and. likely, numerous local —projects and ser- vices will be affected by the shortfall, and transportation needs and motorists are likely to be hit very hard. Governor Davis has proposed signif- icant reductions in funds for needed road and transit projects during the next sev- eral years. Much of the additional money promised two years ago to help resolve some of our underfunded transportation and congestion problems will disappear into the state's general fund. Late in 2002, the governor ordered more than $10 billion in midyear state spending. reductions for the 2002-2003 budget year. including a proposal to suspend Proposition 42, which was approved by by almost 70 percent of voters in March 2002 to dedicate the gasoline sales tax (about $1 billion annually) to transportation uses. Governor Davis is proposing to stop those funds from being used on trans- portation projects in 2003 -2034 —and, some fear, in future years as well. All this is occurring at a time when congestion costs the average Southern Califomia driver $1,000-$2,500 a year in wasted time and fuel and an additional $500 a year on vehicle repairs related to bad road conditions, and the state's 10 -year unfunded transportation needs are estimated to be $100 billion. At press time, the legislature had not yet acted on the budget proposal, but if Proposition 42 is sus- pended, it would mean that more than $1 bil- lion earmarked for transportation would be used to fund other programs. In addition, because of other proposed loans and transfers, congestion -relief projects would lose hundreds of millions of dollars and suffer years of delays. Another of the govemor's proposals is an elimination of backfill revenue promised to local governments when vehicle license fees were reduced, beginning in 1999.ii,s a result, some leg- islators have pro2osed tripling the VLF to offset the loss to local governments. This action would provide the money —an estimated $1.3 billion in the current budget year and $2.9 billion in 2003 -2004 —for the state to continue providing local governments with the funds otherwise lost in the governor's proposal. Other proposals would increase a variety of other fees related to owning, operating, and selling vehicles. The Auto Club will continue to rep- resent motorists' interests as the debate continues. We recognize that everyone must share the burden of resolving the huge budget deficit but believe that this burden should not unfairly or dispropor- tionately affect California motorists or our transportation network. -® ' V 5714 A"IS MARCH/APRIL 2003 pail) Net" b WpEildyoti pay to dri ve er a G , carpanllans3 ...;. yES r 's NO. r: o- p nsga:'' 57 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003 / DAILY NE WS Fr The current board and president of the Aut om obile Club of Southern Calif or nia are giving "guarded support" to this idea of chargi ng motorists to use the car-p ool lanes. The taxpayers and m ot orists have already paid f or them once. We don't deserve to be penalized again .. .and agai n.. .and again . What is it abo ut an 87% NO VOTE that the curre nt board and president d on't understand? It's time f or a real change of heart. toll lanes? Report backs converting car-pool routes for paying drivers By.Lisa Mascaro Staff Writer W ould you pay 30 cents a mile to driv e in a freeway' car-pool lan e at high speeds duflng Los'Angeles' ru sh-hour gridlock? A report release d Tu esday by the Reason Foun dation recommended expanding car-pool canes throughout the county and chargin g a toll to use them —"congestion insu rance" — as a way to fund improve- ments aad improve traffic flow. • - ".Certainly in Los An geles we've made a big investment in HOV lanes, but we can't, really measure much of any improvement in car-poo ling or in congestion reduction. Everything's gotten worse in the hest 10 years," said Robert W. Poole Jr., director of transportation at the Reason Founder tion, which develo ped High -Occupancy Toll lanes, a decade ago. Let's try to use this in vestment we'v e already made better — get more transit valu e out of it and more congestion improveme nt — for every single driver in Los A ngeles?' You've got a whole network that you know is there wh en you really need it — that's an option we simply don't have today." See TOLL / Page 12 Would you pay to drive in a carpo ol -lane? See below 12 — NEWS / WEDNESDAY, J=EBRUARY 26, 2003 / DAILY NEWS Critics bIst plan for TOLL / From Page 1 The toll would go and up down depending on congestion and could be collected electron ically. Critics tend to blast the High Occupancy Toll, or HOT, lanes as an in equitable approa ch to solv- ing the region's traffic problems by creating "Lexus Lanes" for those who can afford the faster route. A 25 -mile trip from the San Fernando Valley to downto wn, for example, would average $7.50 one way — more during rush hours, which stretch much of the day, and less during off-peak times. Some commuters say they'd pay — maybe — when traffic's really bad. "If you're taking the 405 Free- way every day, I'd probably take it rather than be stuck for two hours," said Mark Co mo, a health service worker who occasion ally takes the San Diego Freeway to commu te from Lake View Ter- race to his job in Van N uys. " Ten do llars a day, that's going to be a lot. That's like a car payment. " But co-worker Phil D ao said he'd rather start out earlier on his 33-milecommutefrotn Thousand Oaks to Van Nu ys. "It's utterly too ridiculous," Dao said. "It doesn't seem fair. The rich people get to be pam- pered... . It's like first class versus coach. " The study by the Los Angeles - based think tank suggests con- verting HOV car-pool lanes to HOT lan es in eight of the nation's most -congested metropolitan areas. It is being put forward as Con gress prepares to debate a proposed transportation spend- ing bill. In Los Angeles, the study rec- ommends tolls o f20 cents per mile in off periods and 40 cents during rush ho ur. The tolls would be paid by electronic da shboard- mounted debit cards to eliminate the n eed for toll booths and waiting lines. To ensure that the toll roads do n't get jammed with too many motorists, the price would be constantly monitored and adjusted with traffic flow — spiking when demand is too high, droppin g when demand -is low. Car-poolers would have to pay the toll, but buses or high - occupancy v ans would not. Poole .notes the HOT lanes aren't expeQted to be for everyday LET US KNOW How's your commute? Tell us about the mutes you take and the time you spend to get around. Send your comments, along with your name and how to contact you, to: dnmetro@dailynews.com. use, but for occasions when drivers find it's worthwhile to pay — the working mom who needs to get to day care despite the tie-up on the freeway. "A $4 toll is a lot different then a $12 late fee," he said. He counters the Lexus Lane argument, sayin g popular toll-, roads in San Diego and Orange Coun ty are used by drivers in the lowest 25 percen t of income' levels. " What we're prov iding here is an alternative for every single driver for these times when they absolutely need it," he said. " It's very valuable to hav e congestion insurance." An d while some car-poolers - would shift back to regu lar lanes rather than pay the toll, researchers said, a like number of L 'XIaS La11eS° cars carrying only the driverlikely would take the toll road. The study says tolls would 41 generate $2.8 million a day in Los Angeles County — $922 million annually — which could help pay for $10. 7 billion needed to com- plete a system of HOV lan es on freeways such as the 101. "We're not going to get (fund- ing) otherwise," said Poole. "The money is not going to be there from Caltrans and the feds." But others question whether HOT lanes would gen erate the revenue needed to build and operate the system in Los A ngeles, where 6 millions vehicles a day cruise the. freeways. "U nder this administration, we will continue to focus an keeping freeways exactly that — free," said Caltrans spokesman Dennis Trujillo. He countered the study's criti- cism ofcar-pooi lanes, saying they have been a success in California. HOT lanes, he added, would require substantial cha nges to the freeways to work. "HOT lanes may be a viable alternative, but only under ideal conditions." The Automobile Club of ,euthern California has gi ven guarded support to HOT lanes, wanting further research and demonstration: It also wants to e nsure that existi ng mixed -flow lanes not give way to toll roads . However, the Metropolitan Transportati on Authority, which o versees funds for car-pool lanes across the county, complains that taxpayers would be charged for driving on freeways they've already paid taxes to build. - "The biggest issue is equity — poor and rich alike are paying for car-pool lanes, now are they going to be charged again," said' MTA spokesm an Marc Littman.. "This whole concept that`k e rich get there quicker and the poor get stuck in traffic, it's jai;L npt fair," he said . - "What does that do to tlie•guy m with a family of four who's ak- ingS28,000 ayear—I'm sureg'd like to get to work faster, t om"' Whose club is it? What's with the Automobile Club of Southern California, which is gi v- ing "g uarded s upport" to chargi ng tolls on the freeway diamo nd lanes? ("Freeway toll lanes?" Feb . 26) . Those la nes h ave already been bought and paid for with taxpayer money . The club is supposed to be working for the motorist, not against us . Maybe there's a need for a change on the cl ub's board . — C arl Olson Woodland Hills VIEWPOINT l SUNDAY, MARCH 2, 2003 / DAILY NEWS The Motorist's Best Friend P.O. Box 564, Woodland Hills, Calif. 91365 818-223-8080 NEWS RELEASE For immediate release, March 10, 2003 Contact: Carl Olson 818-223-8080 WITH RECORD HIGH GAS PRICES, DOUBLE TAXATION OF GASOLINE, FUNDS LACKING FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION, AND TRIPLING OF CAR TAX, AUTO CLUB HAS NO LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM, NO MEMBER -ACTIVATION PROGRAM, AND NO P.R. PROGRAM TO END THESE MOTORIST ABUSES Despite numerous setbacks for California motorists with high gas prices, double taxation of gasoline, halted freeway construction, and threatened tripling of the car tax, the Automobile Club of Southern California has failed to mount any effective program to fight these abuses, it was charged by motorist advocate Carl Olson of Woodland Hills. "As one of the 5 million member -owners of the Auto Club, I am appalled that the current board has disregarded the Club's own articles of incorporation to lobby for the motorist," Olson stated. "It has no effective legislative program, no effective member -activation program, and no effective public relations program." Although sharp gasoline price hikes are draining millions of dollars from the motoring public, the Club's current President Thomas V. McKernan Jr. is not complaining about oil company gouging or petroleum cartel conspiracies. Club management spokesman Jeffrey Spring recently suggested, "People are going to start looking for alternative modes of transportation pretty soon." Club board member Donn Miller is the President of Pearson Sibert Oil Company of Texas, and board member Byron Allumbaugh is a director of the energy giant El Paso Corp. which used to own Ultramar Diamond Shamrock. In Sacramento the Club has failed to sponsor any legislation to end any abuse of oil pricing, taxes, or road construction. Proposition 42, which the Club's board backed last year as a hopeful guarantee for devoting sales taxes on gasoline for transportation, has turned into a failure under Governor Gray Davis' power to suspend it. When tolls were recently proposed for diamond/HOV lanes, the Club gave "guarded support". No survey of the 5 million member - owners in the 13 Southern California counties was made to determine the position on this issue or any other motorist issue. Funds from car taxes (vehicle license fees), sales taxes, and excise taxes on gasoline are not constitutionally protected for motorist -related purposes. The Club's lobbyists in Sacramento have not sponsored any bill to stop any increase in the car tax. The Club's board refuses to back petition or legislative campaigns to establish constitutional guarantees. On the contrary, the board has announced support for higher taxes by lowering the 2/3 vote requirement for sales tax increases by counties. --30-- CARL OLSON P.O. Box 6102 Woodland Hills, California 91365 818-223-8080 February 28, 2003 Mr. Edward Carson Chair, Board of Directors Automobile Club of Southern California P.O. Box 25001 Santa Ana, California 92799 Dear Mr. Carson: The motorists of California are now besieged more than ever. Gasoline prices going through the roof. Threats of tripling the car tax. Failure to use sales tax on gasoline for roads. Massive taxation on gasoline and diesel due to double taxation that is based on $2+ prices. Threats to put tolls on diamond (HOV) lanes. Traffic jams worse than ever. The worst thing of all is that the Automobile Club of Southern California has done nothing effective to stop any of these abuses of motorists and in some cases has positively endorsed the abuse. As a member -owner of the Club, I urge the board immediately: 1. To sponsor legislation, convene public meetings, and issue news releases to investigate the excessive price of gasoline. 2. To sponsor legislation to ban tolls on diamond (HOV) lanes. 3. To sponsor legislation to prohibit any increase in the car tax (vehicle license fee). 4. To announce publicly the Club's support for a referendum for any increase in the car tax (vehicle license fee) in both the petition and voting phase. 5. To admit that Proposition 42 (which the Club backed in March 2002) is a failure because the promised increased funding for transportation from the sales tax on gasoline/diesel is being taken away by Governor Gray Davis under the terms of Proposition 42; and to sponsor a constitutional amendment initiative to guarantee that all excise and sales tax on gasoline/diesel will go for motorist -related purposes such as road construction and maintenance. 6. To sponsor legislation to abolish either the excise or sales tax on gasoline/diesel as an unfair double tax on motorists. The 6 million members in Southern California, Texas, New Mexico, and Hawaii await your quickest action and public announcement. Sincerely, Oferk• Carl Olson The Motorist's Best Friend P.O. Box 564, Woodland Hills, California 91365 818-223-8080 News Release For Immediate Release April 7, 2003 Contact: Carl Olson 818-223-8080 NEWS MEDIA TO BE MUZZLED ALONG WITH 5 MILLION AT SOUTHERN CALIF. AUTO CLUB MEETING APRIL 14 IN PALM SPRINGS; CLUB OFFICERS AVOIDING ANSWERS TO SEARCHING QUESTIONS MEMBERS -OWNERS The Automobile Club of Southern California will conduct a member -owner meeting on April 14 in Palms Springs, but the Club's officers have prohibited the 5 million member -owners and associates and the news media from recording any of the proceedings. Scheduled for April 14 at 2 PM at the Palm Springs Riviera Resort and Racquet Club, the meeting features an election for directors with member -owner candidates Richard Ackerman, Thomas Bourke, John Chevedden, and Herlinda Barajas McIlvain versus the insider slate of Jack Brown, Susan- Corrales Diaz, Antonia Hernandez, and Ray Martin. Questions abound about the Club management's actions and secrecy in a nonprofit club that is supposed to be run by the member -owners. Answers will be demanded for these: 1. How much do the top officers make, including the current president Thomas McKeman, Jr.? 2. What's the exact pay scale for directors? And why are they paid out of some other legal entities instead from Club funds? Is there something to hide? 3. Why is the board making charitable donations of $1 million per year to groups such as churches, activist ethnic groups, and schools that directors attended? And why can't the member -owners get the list of current donations? 4. Why did the board raise dues last year, even though the Club has a surplus over $250 million? 5. Why did the Club's Interinsurance Exchange company raise the insurance premiums this year, even though the Exchange has a surplus of $1,800,000,000? 6. Why can't the member -owners see the audited financial statements for 2002 BEFORE they vote on directors at the meeting? Is it really that bad? Hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. 7. Why does the Club have two competing credit cards —an AAA one and a Pleasant Holidays one? Why not just keep the better one for the member -owners? 8. What did the Club's Chair Edward Carson mean when he told the judge that it "didn't make a particle of difference" to him when asked about the $300 million differences between what the member -owners were told in Westwrrys magazine versus the Club's actual audited figures? 9. Just how many million dollars in attorney fees has the Club board spent to defend its behavior in electioneering, financial reporting, and hiding information from member -owners? Is it $5 million? $10 million? Why is the Interinsurance Exchange paying millions of this? —MORE— 10. Is it true that thc Club's attorneys told the judge that Club elections need not be "fair"? 11. Even though thc Club has owned the giant Pleasant Holidays tour company for over three years, why can't any of Pleasant Holidays ads or literature in Club offices say so? Why are the member -owners being kept in the dark when they are looking to get the best travel deals? 12. Pleasant Holidays is a for-profit company. The Auto Club is a non-profit mutual benefit corporation. Why should the Club try to make the most profit off its member -owners who are steered into Pleasant Holidays tours? 13. What's with the Auto Club sponsoring a stock car race in Fontana when nearly none of the Club's members are racing fans or race stock cars? 14. What does Club Vice Chair Byron Allumbaugh have to say about being a director of energy giant El Paso, which cost Californians BILLIONS of dollars for overpriced gas? Has he asked to get refunds for thousand of dollars of inflated gas bills for the Club's 70+ offices? 15. Can you believe that the President of Pearson-Sibert Oil Company of Texas is on the Auto Club board? Yes, Donn Miller. Is he happy that gasoline is $2.15+ per gallon? 16. Why does the Club legislative program (a) support increasing the car tax, (b) approve of double taxation of gasoline, (c) "guardedly support" putting tolls on HOV lanes, (d) fail to complain about excessive price of gasoline, and (e) favor removing Prop. 13 tax protection? 17. Why does the Club call its study of transportation "The Quiet Crisis"? What's so "quiet" about disastrous driving conditions? Why can't member -owners get a copy of it? Why weren't all member -owners surveyed for their opinions on how to improve the life of the motorist? 18. Why can't member -owners take out ads in the Club's member -owner magazine Westways to talk to other member -owners about vital concerns about the Club and its governance? 19. Why has the Club management adopted an anti-whistleblower policy? 20. Why has the Club board forced policyholders of its Exchange insurance company to assign the $1.8 billion surplus to the Club rather than for the benefit of the policyholders? 21. Why doesn't the Club have a secret ballot for the election of directors? Why can the Club insiders use the information on member -owners, including past voting, to push their candidates? 22. Why is it that member -owner meetings, such as this one, have no rules? 23. Why aren't the phone numbers of the offices of the President and the Directors printed in Westways so that the member -owners can contact them with concerns? Why don't Club phone operators have these phone numbers in their phone books? 24. Why is the $100 million Club complex in Costa Mesa not open for member -owner business or for tours for member -owners? Isn't the Club proud to show off this lavish facility? 25. What did current President Thomas McKernan Jr. mean when he told Forbes magazine of April 14, 2003, "I'm the biggest crook that ever lived. I'm up there with [Enron's] Ken Lay." VALLEY PERSPECTIVE INTERVIEW Carl Olson A Crusader With a Legislative Agenda Sets His Sights on the Auto Club Board By BOB RECTOR 0 n this Super Howl Sunday, it's perhaps altogether fitting that we talk about football. In this case. political football. . That's What the Automobile Club of Southern California has become since four members with conservative ties launched an attempt to win seats on its board of direc- tors. The group —Carl Olson of Woodland Hills, Robin Westmlller of Thousand Oaks, Mark Seidenberg of Laguna Hills and Peter Ford of Beverly Hills —want to use the venerable club's influential position in Sacramento to lobby for a series of auto-releated tax cuts. Specifically, they want to abolish California's vehicle ilcenaing fee, eliminate what they call the double taxation of gasoline and investigate the high price of fuel. According to the group, a car buyer pays sales tax when the vehicle is purchased, then has to pay more tax every year for the use of it, The double taxation on gasoline and diesel fuel results from sales tax being imposed on top of state and federal excise taxes. And, they say, the recent surge in fuel prices deserves closer investigation. "These proposals could result in a yearly savings of between $200 and $2,000 per year, depending on a member's number of vehicles and annual mileage," according to the group. They point to the state surplus to make up for the shortfall that would result from the loss of tax revenues. . Olson said the group is protesting "the current board's unwillingness to honor the club's own articles of incorporation to promote the interests of motorists through legisla- tion." put the auto club fears that if the slate wins, the new board members will use the club's clout in a way that would tarnish the organization's nonpartisan history. The four have a 'eery narrow, slanted political point of view," according to Thomas McKernan, the club's chief executive. I'he four opposition candidates, in concert with a specific political faction, will steer the club into partisan public affairs activities that have no place in our organization, which exists to serve all our members regardless of political affiliation;' McKeehan said in a letter to club employees. in fact, the cuts proposed by Olson and his colleagues closely mirror the legislative agenda of state Sen. Tom McClintock (R -Thousand Oaks), a tax -bashing conservative who has already succeeded in reducing the vehicle licensing fee. Both McClintock and Olson acknowledge knowing each other but deny any involve- ment with each other's efforts. However, McClintock is honorary advisor to the Califor- nia Republican Liberty Caucus, a group that helped collect signatures for the slate. And Weetnuller's husband, William, is immediate past chairman of the caucus. The Times recently talked with Olson, an accountant and accounting instructor, about his efforts to win election to the Auto Club board. Question: Why is your group trying to win seats an the A uto Club board? Answer- The main reason is to make the Auto Club represent the pro -motorist point of view in public policy, Q: They don't.do that now? A: The three big issues that we have picked, which seem to be no-brainers, are the car tax, the double taxation on gasoline and a for -real investigation on the incred- ibly high price of gasoline these days. The current board has not done anything, legis- latively, to rut the car tax or abolish it, to get rid of the double taxation on gasoline or to conduct any kind of an investigation of the high price of fuel. And so we want to do that. Q: Have you presented these issues to the Auto Club board? Have board members ever debated or taken a position on them or have they just ignored you? A: They have Ignored it. Last year, we presented. as individual members, pro- posed resolutions for the annual meeting on these three subjects. The board chair- man refused to put them on the agenda. a ad s� 4:Didhesaywhy? A: No. Q: You claim the current 12 board mem- bers have never been elected by the club membership. How does that work? A: The current bylaws allow the board to nominate anybody they want, four per - Sons every year, and If nobody else quail. fies by petition, there's never an election, They're just declared to be in office. Q: So you solicited signatures to qualify for nom inafion? A: They required approximately 1,600 member signatures, which, for four of us, amounted to 400 each. And we did it. Q: Your ogenda closely reflects that of state Sen. Tom McClintock. Do you have any connection to hint? A: I've known Sen. McClintock for maybe 20 years. I've donated small amounts to his campaigns. I believe that he's one of the few people who actually reads budgets and tax bills. Also, he's a winner. He keeps winning all his elections very handily. And on these particular is - Cos Angeles dimes SUNDAY JANUARY 28, 2001 sues, it's been something of an Inspiration to be able to say, "Hey, you know, there's someone there that's thinking the right way." We do have,a little bit of feedback from hire. Q: But there's a chicken and egg ques tion here. Rave you end your fellow board candidates adopted McClintock's positions, or did you come to this philosophy inde- pendently' A: I would say Independently because our involvement started maybe two to three years ago when this car tax thing first carne up. That was when the people of the state of Washington voted overwhelm- ing to get rid of lt. And In Virginia, the gov- ernor got elected on the issue. That In- spired me to call up the Auto Club because I'd never heard the club speak out on these issues. I called the lobbyist in Sacramento and asked them, "What do you think about the car tar and the high price of gasoline''" and they had absolutely no legislative agenda whatsoever on it. That kind of crys- tallized it Q: Does McClintock support your ef- forts? k It's more like inspirational and moral support Q: McClintock has been successful in get- ting the vehicle licensing fee reduced by the state Legislature and has several auto fax - cutting proposals that you support on his legislative agenda. Aren't you just dupli- satire] his actions? Why does he need your efforts? A: We need a permanent organization to look out after the interests of the motor- ists. Sere McClintock Is one minority rnem- ber of 40 in the Legislature. and obviously, with term limits, we have to build up major support all over Southern California. It can't just be a one-man band. Q: Are you or your slate associated with BORIS TARO / Loukn eiri'rime any kind of political action group? Flow do you know each other? A: It's mostly personal friendships and associations that come from being a civic activist. In organizing this four -member slate, I was looking for people who bad some very good credibility about them In terms of their background and their inter- ests and so forth. And second, that they had the time and integrity to serve as board members. Q: The club's chief executive, Thomas McKernan, said that if the club was ever seen as favoring one pollticaf ideology over another, or one party over another, it would lose credibility with legislators and its members, How do you respond to that? A: I don't sec how you can lose credibil- ity by fulfilling your articles of incorpora- tion. Thal is totally an absurd argument. Actually, it sort of speaks to the failing of the current management, Q: Are you and your colleagues Republi- cans? A: No. I know for sure one of them isn't. Q: Would it be fair to say that you all share the same political philosophy? A: Generally speaking. Especially on this issue, we all agree we need to fight to lower taxes and high gas prices, We don't present ourselves as any one party. You'd he surprised at the people who signed our petition. Q: The club has said it successfully pushed the governor to earmark state gas tax revenue far state infrastructure im- provements and that it would back an elimination of the tax, along with a vehicle license fee, if transportation projects now supported by time funds were guaranteed a secure funding source. How do you differ from what they're saying? A: The club has done nothing whatso- ever to push for tax cuts, There's plenty of money in Sacramento for everything. if they were sincere in what they have said, they would have sponsored legislation thn.b actually called for tax cuts. Q: Da you and your fellow candido1ec have the expertise to run the auto club; with all its myriad components, such a.r travel and insurance? A: I think all four of us who are running: have a tremendous amount of background, in one or another area of the auto club's acs tivltles. The club, taken together with Its tnaurance company, Is about a $2 -billion revenue organization. And It needs some, financial oversight. One of our little slo- gans is that we want to make your Auto Club membership worth more than your: dues by getting all these taxes removed. Q: Has the club done anything to defeat, your slate? A: The board of directors have been able: to spend, I'm guessing, a couple of hundred; thousand dollars, so far, to defeat us. The: way they are doing it Ls that they're able to solicit proxy votes against us with only the: names of their board -authorized nominees: They have put all of these forms in every single one of the 10 district offices and, .� mailed them out with membership renewals: They have gone to the auto shows, and they're handing them out there to campaign' against us. In addition, they've had meetings, with the employees where they've, in a. sense, told employees, "You are now to cam-' paign against all four." The campaign's been going on for about six weeks. We have not heani word one from any of the four other candidates. In all the statements that come, from the board, those four candidates appar•: ently have absolutely no opinions on any-: thing, yet apparently support the idea of, high taxes and high gas payments. Bob Rector is opinion page editor of The Times' San Fernando Valley and Ventura County editions. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET June 11, 2003 NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE # J jJ 'Atl L)2? (( S 7.e.) 273 i s-3,5' 44 7 /fl ----- ...---_."."1------ ,------ ---<- /q.e 7::), 5' ,P f • --- -5-'/3&' , e AV/PS/ Z6),e-s-7/- iiii/?/P0 x,e W(7-lcv Ai AvG Nomcz, 73g- -94 °le) Out P i &0f) sC3 - /7/ti ?Jmro go?- 993-/zp , 'L.. ,�, ,,,,c./ .4-,,C.44) „.......43x..i.,4_ C s rs 1- & 7766 - 3Q s/-'4ri,�Ane �'2‘ -6-77/ / / Gore. Pt � -afr a( , , J IL1 _ i-9 vii -e s ev-f-- C2 6 f)3 6411 '),,,.Le -C- /14,I(e,L / Con_c.9,A_i►/ ---i 30 -5 -c frn ne r galp11S ' `Miiv,7.55 909 6F6 -/Y3-0 s G C-/ �A--.,..-...- �X . - zip .� --r 9, 7 -7'4i ____,,e , -'/ � .� .�� - - r/s..�2 -k /mac o PIC4AM45c 1(00.3 2$'21 20o // '' JJ ,4er lIZ— L. ! L I-CP - RAA iv/�/G- ��9-769 ”3-b;. yy �� .,e,i,, •.,(G C. V6 (,,,r-- ',.- eil-tf!l2i7il/T rc70 gi5---4 30 -- to A-tra-4_ (1,..Jo4,4,5 c� to 9 '7 et 'k0 t "Ni: uL..9; (111.f,/._ ?'c. ate' G g (K O 3q Q. �Av� ,4 E �Ti.,,Ev/Q/u. C,7> 'G'a- o- d3V� RicA4A/LD, MilC;z.rrlr l<( (A ,*rc C D Alai -I 1-4 - 76.o/33-5-3502_, 7 c/37I-(6za 1 0 ,o Ct a9 a -,)J /1liarrr ii,1(, 1 Di 5th /40—CPe,A✓6s e f�,4._� ex -di e -P.50 ,J LAa/ J -f--,a RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL June 11, 2003 Present Absent )21' )71 ❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ County of Riverside, District County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: ) I� lL' ADDRESS: t t LCt rL. REPRESENTING: tjr( 1'f�� DATE:11 ' (k c b. I YL / TEL. NO: 109 -f1 `1/O BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 15 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: ' PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM N AND SUBJECT(S): NAM ATE: ADDRESS: /79,2/ ,jp�� - TEL. NO:f �e „A.2.7 2. REPRESENTING: �,eeps4;ed...,10 BUSINESS yo ADDRESS: ".[L, T L. NO: ,c)` (/') RCTC 7/99 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBIC COMMENTS: - SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM NO AND SUBJECT(S): ,( } (t4J/!C L2'9 7 r, NAME: 110 0 i L ,� \j11"),4/2 --s DATE:�//i%G /7 0Ze-/Z2,3 ADDRESS: /'J i 0/7167-) l_f/(-/d�f 7`TEL.NO: ' 7ck, REPRESENTING $L BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): 6r -15,n% NAME: 6 us r''" -6 ,3'`� �"" DATE: 3J )'-5 1- 1 1 "X-LN a S ADDRESS: ti -7 / i P CA/cob TEL. NO: `- / I L3 REPRESENTING: 34,IC BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO( AND SUBJECT(S): SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: NAME: 4 i eA'SS C DATE: 0--./7-e 3 ADDRESS X:37-3-0 � --./c5� „� ,-„ 44 L. NO: S9 7?t7 7/ -7 REPRESENTING:a 'v sac dIE_ ✓e�9 c9 BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO( AND SI).BJECT(S): REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): /14 -,-co C L V4S NAME: (A A- - ()i-S v ..) ADDRESS: p Ls.). of- oaL,4„--Lia 14 REPRESENTING: SCI -F BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 g� 34, DATE: fo - f - o 3 TEL. NO: 'a( B- II; e TEL. NO: PUBLIC COMMENTS:" PUB OMMENTS: AND AGENDA ITEM NO '1 SUBJECT(S): ! `7-l� 10 ►11 3 lqw 6-t r•� 1 Detach and submit to Clerk of the �...... SUBJECT OF NAME: e (\f ADDRESS: Z1 S )C Z 19( ALS , TEL. NO: -)P-411?-0) \AA,Sksf-ov—k- Civ-N 1_� DATE: 6fAJ ) r(7Ic REPRESENTING: p BUSINESS ,� ADDRESS: �a S^ �} Ql-1= ur` /Z TEL. NO: /ISO— 1.2. -do RCTC 7/99 Geri 04 '2_,3),_3 NAME: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board to PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: nik AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): / A[ 7- i'. R 8,g AlCH Lin/& 1=7 ii,94 7 j DATE: 6 —4(---0 3 ADDRESS: 1,ofRo S, Ec7- TEL. NO: Co S L3' Li? REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: