Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 14, 2003 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (0q �./(46 MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 RECORDS LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Ron Roberts l' 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 / Bonnie Flickinger, 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 G. Dana Hobart / 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 Comments are welcomed by the Commission. /f you wish to provide comments to the Commission, /fl OO L.VIIIIpIGLG and OLIL.l I I,L O I GJLII I IVIIJ L.OI LI LL/ the VIOI IL VI 010 01I' IIIIISeiVrl. l l . 3(.00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, May 14, 2003 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside /n 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 — March 12, 2003 and April 9, 2003 5. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Discuss, review, and provide guidance on the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004; and, 2) Hold the public hearing to receive input and comments on the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 and continue the public hearing to the June 11, 2003. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 Page 2 6. 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 p/aced for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7. 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 p/aced for discussion at the end of the agenda. 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 COMM/SS/ON AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE §§ 21000 ET SEQ.)" Page 19 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt: 1) The 2003 Update to Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, 2) 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 Page 33 Overview This item is for the .Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ending March 31, 2003. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 Page 3 7C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Page 38 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending March 31, 2003. 7D. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview Page 55 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending January, February, and March 2003. 7E. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Page 57 Overview This item is for the Commission to 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 Page 61 Overview This item is for the Commission to 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 Page 4 7G. CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR SURVEY AND MATERIAL TESTING ON -CALL SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY AND COMMUTER RAIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Page 63 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 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. 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 Page 66 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 Page 5 71. CARE -A -VAN TRANSIT, INC.'S REQUEST TO APPLY EXCESS MATCHING FUNDS FROM FISCAL YEARS 2000 AND 2001 TO FISCAL YEAR 2002 Page 67 Overview This item is for the Commission to 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. Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 68 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 Page 70 Overview This item is for the Commission to 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 Agenda May 14, 2003 Page 6 7L. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Page 73 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 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 Page 191 Overview This item is for the Commission to 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 Page 198 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 70. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 217 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 Page 7 8. ORAL REPORT - STATUS OF THE HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CETAP CORRIDOR Page 235 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive the report providing status of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore CETAP Corridor and provide possible direction to staff. 9. TDA AND MEASURE "A" AUDIT RESULTS Page 236 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the TDA and Measure "A" Audit Results Report. 10. 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. 11. CLOSED SESSION ITEM - Adjourn to RCTC Conference Room "A" Overview 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 APN CPN Owner 1 342-120-039 & 040 & 041 13773-1&2 Cleo & Betty L. Owens Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 Page 8 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 12. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 11, 2003, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 4 Minutes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION" MINUTES Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Roy Wilson at 9:04 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 Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Joy Defenbaugh Juan DeLara Warnie Enochs Terry Henderson Robin Lowe Greg Ruppert Robert L. Schiffner Gregory V. Schook John F. Tavaglione Placido Valdivia Jim Venable Jack Wamsley Art Welch Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Marion Ashley* Percy L. Byrd Robert Crain Frank Hall G. Dana Hobart Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Anne Mayer Jeff Miller Gregory S. Pettis Ron Roberts *Commissioner Marion Ashley assigned his proxy vote to Commissioner John Tavaglione. The letter has been filed with the Clerk of the Commission. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 2 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C to continue the approval of the February 12, 2003 minutes until the next meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5A. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-020, "RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE FEE AND EASEMENT INTERESTS AND IMPROVEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE REALTY IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCA TED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, THAT /S NECESSARY FOR THE WIDENING, REALIGNMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT OF STATE ROUTE 74, BETWEEN DEXTER A VE., IN LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, TO 7TH STREET, IN PERRIS, CALIFORNIA (PROJECT SEGMENTS 1 & 2) " At this time Chairman Wilson called upon Legal Counsel to inform those present on the purpose of the public hearing. Steve DeBaun, Commission Legal Counsel, explained the nature and scope of public hearing including the findings that the Commission is being asked to make prior to the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity. He stated that the cost for the properties is not the subject matter for this hearing. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the State Route 74 Project and each of the findings. This presentation constitutes appropriate and adequate information for the Commission to affirm the required findings and approve the Resolution of Necessity subject to any comments from the public. Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Commission, noted additional information for this item. She stated that notices were mailed to the affected property owners and proofs of mailing of the notices of the hearing are on file. Letters requesting to speak were received from Edward, Diana, and Norma Ryder, lanthe Bentley -Johnson, Louis Lee and Irma J. Haywood Sr., and Ronald Block. At this time, Chairman Wilson opened the public hearing, noting that each speaker is granted 5 minutes to speak. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 3 1) Edward and Diana Ryder, representing Ryder Wood Products, 24790 Highway 74, Perris, expressed concern that the offer for their property is substantially below fair market value and county representatives have not addressed their questions or concerns. They requested the Commission to delay adoption of the Resolution of Necessity. 2) Ianthe Bentley -Johnson, 23616 Highway 74, Perris, expressed her concern that she has not been treated fairly due to events that occurred which changed the original full -take offer for her property to a partial -take offer. She requested that the full -take offer be re-established. She also expressed her concern that she had received documents indicating her right to a Board of Appeals. However, she has since been told that a Board of Appeals does not exist. 3) Louis Lee Haywood Sr., 24730 Highway 74, Perris, indicated that he signed a settlement agreement on October 2002 and requested the status of the escrow. Hideo Sugita stated that the property is in escrow. However, there is an issue with partial reconveyance of land associated with this transaction to be able to close escrow. There being no further requests to speak on this matter, Chairman Wilson declared the public hearing closed for this item. Commissioner Jack Wamsley commented on the need to ensure that appraisals are up to date. Commissioner Bob Buster requested staff to meet with the speakers after meeting to inform them when and how they will receive response to their concerns. Information should also be provided to property owners on how to proceed if they wish to carry the process beyond voluntary agreement. Commissioner Gregory Schook stated that while he acknowledges the need for the project to move forward, property owners should be treated fairly. He requested updates from staff on the status of unsettled properties. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 4 In response to Commissioner John Tavaglione's request for an explanation of the process for updating appraisals, Hideo Sugita responded that the practice is to send out offers within six months of the appraisal. Commissioner Tavaglione then stated that Riverside County is an unusual region with regard to real estate values and a more cognitive process is necessary to address the dynamic real estate market and be consistent with the trends in the economy. Hideo Sugita acknowledged the sensitivity of this issue due to the emotional impact on the residents. He noted that the Commission has a contract with Pacific Relocation Consultants to work with the property owners impacted by the issue of relocation. These valuations are put forward in accordance with State and Federal requirements and updated as necessary. Mark Easter, Commission Legal Counsel, explained that an offer is made pursuant to government code and required to commence negotiations. Staff has the ability, should a considerable amount to time lapse during the negotiation period, to informally review and make an adjustment in the amount of the offer and return to the Commission for approval, therefore establishing a new date of value. Commissioner Robert Schiffner reassured the public that it is the Commission's intent to treat the property owners fairly and justly and that any concerns can be brought forward to the Commission at its monthly meetings. He also noted that valuations are based on current value, not future value. Commissioner Robin Lowe concurred with Commissioner Schiffner's comments. She also assured the public that the eminent domain process ensures that property owners receive fair market value. She then requested staff to verbally contact Louis Haywood Sr. regarding the issues hindering the escrow closure. Chairman Wilson requested Legal Counsel provide clarification regarding the Board of Appeals issue raised in testimony. Steve DeBaun explained that the Commission, pursuant to State and Federal Law, adopted Relocation Guidelines including relocation benefits that include a process whereby a property owner can appeal the determinations of the Commission relative to relocation benefits. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 5 M/S/C (Wamsley/Schook) to: 1) Approve the following findings: a. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. b. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. c. The property to be acquired is necessary for the project. d. The portions of the real property to be acquired, as identified below, are "remnants" as defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.410, thereby giving the Commission separate statutory authority to acquire those portions by eminent domain. e. The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners; and, 2) Adopt Resolution No. 03-020, "Resolution of Necessity of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring That The Acquisition of Fee and Easement Interests and Improvements Pertaining to the Realty in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, More Particularly Described as APNS: 349-060-015, 349-342-011, 349-342-005, 349-342-004, 349-341-001, 345-220-065, 345-220-032, 345-220-034, 345-200-005, 345-160-048, 345-150-006, 345-150-007, 345-150-004, 345-150-012, 345-150-001, 345-070-010, 345-070-020, 345-070-011, 345-060-040, 345-060-041, 345-060-049, 345-060-046, 345-060-045, 345-100-001, 345-050-016, 345-090-007, 345-090-010, 345-090-011, 345-080-047, 342-210-036, 342-210-021, 342-210-033, 342-210-031, 342-210-039, 342-210-024, 342-120-013, 342-210-028, 342-120-041, 342-200-035, 342-200-034, 342-130-002, 342-150-010, 342-140-008, 342-100-047, 342-100-024, 342-100-023, 342-100-044, 342-052-002 & 342-092-027 & 342-052- 023, 342-052-006, 342-052-007, 342-052-008, 342-052- 010, 342-052-017, 342-051-009 thru 012, 342-051-017, 342-064-008, 342-064-007, 342-064-008 & 009, 342-061- 006, 342-062-003, 342-071-003, 342-072-003, 342-071- 005, 342-071-006, 342-072-010, 342-040-030, 342-072- 022 & 023, 326-250-026, 326-240-024, 326-240-031, Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 6 326-240-023,326-240-021, 342-071-007, 326-234-002, 342-072-011, 342-072-024 (Project Parcel Nos. 13573-1, 13625-1, 13631-1, 13632-1, 13637-1 ,13639-1, 13644-1, -2, 13648-1, 13662-1, 13665-1, 13667-1, 13668-1, 13670-1, 13676-1, 13677-1, 13682-1, 13690-1, -2, 13692-1, 13696-1, 13697-1, -2, 13700-1, 13704-1, 13705-1, 13706-1, 13709-1, 13713-1, 13716-1, -2, 13721-1, -2, 13726-1, 13751-1, -2, 13754-1, -2, 13756-1, -2, 13757-1, -2, -3, 13759-1, -2, 13761-1, 13770-1, -2, 13771-1, -2, -3, 13773-1, -2, 13776-1, -2, 13777-1, -2, -3, 13778-1, -2, 13795-1, 13797-1, 13809-1, -2, 13810-1, -2, 13811-1, -2, 13812-1, -2, -3, 13816-1, 13820-1, 13821-1, 13822-1, 13824-1, 13833-1, -2, 13834-1, 13839-1, 13845-1, 13846-1, 13849-1, 13855-1, 13863-1, 13866-1, -2, 13867-1, 13868-1, -2, 13876-1, -2, 13878-1, 13879-1, -2, 13889-1, 13896-1, 13897-1, 13898-1, 13901-1, 13906-1, -2, 18971-1, 19752-1, -2, and 19753-1, -2), by Eminent Domain Is Necessary for the Widening, Realignment, and Improvement of State Route 74, Between Dexter Avenue, in Lake Elsinore, California, to 7th Street, in Perris, California (Project Segments 1 & 2)." 56. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-021, "RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE FEE AND EASEMENT INTERESTS AND IMPROVEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE REAL TY IN CERTA/N REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF GREENWALD AVENUE AT THE MEADOWBROOK AVENUE INTERSECTION WITH STATE ROUTE 74" At this time Chairman Wilson called upon Legal Counsel to inform those present on the purpose of the public hearing. Steve DeBaun explained the nature and scope of public hearing including the findings that the Commission is being asked to make prior to the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity. He stated that the cost for the properties is not the subject matter for this hearing. Hideo Sugita reviewed the Meadowbrook Avenue Intersection Project and each of the findings. This presentation constitutes appropriate and adequate information for the Commission to affirm the required findings and approve the Resolution of Necessity subject to any comments from the public. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 7 Naty Kopenhaver noted additional information for this item. She stated that notices were mailed to the affected property owners and proofs of mailing of the notices of the hearing are on file. No letters of objection, protests, or requests to be heard have been received. At this time, Chairman Wilson opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak on this matter, Chairman Wilson declared the public hearing closed for this item. M/S/C (Ruppert/M. Wilson) to: 1) Approve the following findings: a. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. b. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. c. The property to be acquired is necessary for the project. d. The portions of the real property to be acquired, as identified below, are "remnants" as defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.410, thereby giving the Commission separate statutory authority to acquire those portions by eminent domain. e. The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners; and, 2) Adopt Resolution No. 03-021, "Resolution of Necessity of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring That The Acquisition of Fee and Easement Interests and Improvements Pertaining to the Realty in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, More Particularly Described as APNS: 349-124-004, 349-124-003, 349-124-021, 349-124-001, 349-124-005, 349-342-013, 349-342-011, (Project Parcel Nos. 90002-1, 90003-1, 90004-1, -2, 90005-1, 90001-1, 90006-1, 90008-1, -2), by Eminent Domain Is Necessary for the Realignment of Greenwald Avenue at the Meado wbrook Avenue Intersection with State Route 74." Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 8 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Commission, noted an addition to Agenda Item No. 8, "Results of the Management Audit of Transportation Specialists, Inc.". 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Robin Lowe requested Item 71, "Measure "A" Funded Specialized Transit Programs" be pulled from the Consent Calendar. M/S/C (M. Wilson/Schook) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending January 31, 2003. 7B. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2002. 7C. CITY OF CANYON LAKE LOAN Grant the City of Canyon Lake an advance of Measure "A" - Local Streets and Roads Funds. 7D. FEDERAL FUNDING OBLIGATION BALANCES 1) Approve moving unexpended CMAQ Funds to the State Route 60 HOV Project from the East Interstate 215 Junction to Redlands Boulevard; and, 2) Receive and file a report on the status of federal funding obligation balances. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 9 7E. CITY OF PERRIS CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY SUBSTITUTION REQUEST Approve the City of Perris request to substitute the State Route 74 and Redlands Signal Project with a "Round About" Project at the same location and transfer the unobligated CMAQ Funds from the signal project to the round about project. 7F. FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS ALLOCATION FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE PALO VERDE VALLEY APPORTIONMENT AREA Allocate the FY 2002-03 Local Transportation Funds for Local Streets and Roads purposes in the Palo Verde Valley Apportionment Area. 7G. AMENDMENTS TO FISCAL YEAR 2003 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF CORONA, LAKE ELSINORE, AND PALM DESERT Approve the amendments to the FY 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Corona, Lake Elsinore, and Palm Desert. 7H. AGREEMENT NO. 03-33-055 FOR ADDITIONAL ON -CALL MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF MEASURE "A" CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1) Award Agreement No. 03-33-055 (Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. RO-9832) with Ninyo & Moore to provide additional on -call material testing services in support of Measure "A" projects scheduled for construction for the remainder of this fiscal year, for an additional base amount of $86,000.00; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 10 7J. AGREEMENT NO. 03-33-038 FOR RIVERSIDE -LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PHASE II PARKING LOT EXPANSION 1) Award Agreement No. 03-33-038 for the construction of the Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station Phase II Parking Lot Expansion Project to Riverside Construction Co. for the amount of $1,199,850 plus a contingency amount of $150,150 to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed contract authorization of $ 1,350,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7K. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 7L. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 8. RESULTS OF THE MANAGEMENT AUDIT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIALISTS, INC. Steve 01ler, Executive Director, Transportation Specialists, Inc. (TSI), stated that TSI is working diligently to implement the recommendations of the audit. He expressed his disappointment and stated that TSI is discouraged by the staff recommendation to discontinue Measure "A" funding for FY 2004 to TSI. He stated his belief that this recommendation will seriously impact seniors and disabled that are unable to access public transit. Tanya Love, Program Manager, stated that TSI has been received Measure "A" funding, noting that what the funding was supposed to be paying for was different than what was received. The bulk of TSI's fee for services is received from Inland Regional Center. Over the past several months, staff from RCTC, RTA, and TSI could not resolve a number of issues. She noted that Agenda Item 71, which was pulled from the consent calendar, is the companion item that offers contingencies to this service for seniors and the disabled population of the County. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 11 Roy Glauthier, Auditor, Transportation Planning and Policy, reviewed the areas for which the audit was performed and the findings and recommendations. Commissioner Tavaglione noted that though Agenda Item 71, staff has been able to cover the passenger service through RTA and taxi cabs in a more efficient and cost effective manner. He has also received positive reports regarding the new service. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Lowe) to: 1) Receive and file the Management Audit of Transportation Specialists, Inc. (TSI); and, 2) Recommend that no Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funding be allocated to TSI in FY 2004. 9. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 BUDGET Ivan Chand, Chief Financial Officer, presented the proposed Policy Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget, outlining the following: • Mobility • Goods Movement • Congestion Relief and Safety Improvements • Air Quality • Economic Development • Intermodalism and Accessibility • Technological Innovation • Public and Agency Communications Commissioner Lowe expressed her concern that the gas tax collection will be reduced due to the increase of alternative fuels and believes there will be a need to adopt a plan and policy to address the substitution. Commissioner Ruppert recommended the inclusion of new legislation brought forward by the County Supervisors or Legislators to empower the County Transportation Departments greater authority in dealing with the Federal Agencies to expedite projects to conserve funds. Chairman Wilson recommended Commissioner Ruppert's idea as a topic for discussion at the Commission Retreat. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 12 Commissioner Joy Defenbaugh believes that the issue of the retraction of electric vehicles and its impact on investments should be reviewed. Chairman Wilson noted that if the plug-in hybrid vehicles are introduced, the desire will be to utilize the same facilities and equipment. M/S/C (Lowe/Buydos) to approve the proposed Commission's Policy Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget. 10. SB 821 EXTENSION STREAMLINING M/S/C (Lowe/Defenbaugh) to adopt the policy regarding project extensions for the Commission's SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. 11. INITIATION OF THE CEQA PROCESS ON THE MORENO VALLEY TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CETAP CORRIDOR Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development, reviewed the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor Project, noting that it is anticipated that at least two public hearings will be held to receive public input. Jeffrey Mayer, 8720 Pigeon Pass Road, Moreno Valley, expressed his concern regarding how the noise factor will impact the environment including the equestrian area and his interest in preserving the green corridor. In response to Commissioner Buster's concern, Cathy Bechtel responded that a NEPA process is not being done now due to the construction schedule being approximately 10 years out. The CEQA analysis is being done to preserve right- of-way and to allow the agencies to include this in their General Plan. Commissioner Lowe requested this project be brought before the CETAP Advisory Committee in May. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 13 M/S/C (Ruppert/Henderson) to: 1) Endorse the release of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the preservation of right-of-way for potential new north -south transportation facilities linking Riverside/Moreno Valley with the East Valley of San Bernardino County; and, 2) Reduce the identified budget for work, on this corridor from $2,010,450 to $1,187,000. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 71. MEASURE "A" FUNDED SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAMS Commissioner Lowe indicated that due to the discussion held on Agenda Item 8, "Results Of The Management Audit Of Transportation Specialists, Inc."; she had no further questions or concerns. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Lowe) to authorize RCTC staff to seek and/or develop additional Measure "A" Funded Specialized Transit Programs. 13. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Eric Haley noted the following: • The STIP Project Priority Ad Hoc Committee Meeting will be held on Monday, March 17 at 12:30 p.m. • The Commission Retreat will be held on Friday, March 21 at the Temecula Creek in at 8:30 a.m. B. Commissioner Tavaglione provided an update on recent discussions with Federal Agencies' staff, at the highest level, on the progress of work for the CETAP corridor and ensuring time commitments for this work are adhered to. Eric Haley noted that the two alternatives previously opposed by the Commission for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor, the Van Buren Alternative and the Canyon Lake Alternative, are being required for study by the Federal Agencies. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 12, 2003 Page 14 Commissioner Lowe requested that staff provide a cost estimation for the two alternatives opposed by the Commission in the study. 14. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS A. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) Names of Parties: "No on A -No LA", San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. RCTC, County of Riverside, and County Board of Supervisors, Eric Haley Case Number: RCV384012 B. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(b) Significant Exposure to Litigation to Subdivision(b) Number of Potential Cases: 1 There were no announcements on the Closed Session items. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:04 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, April 12, 2003, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, QJ 04. Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, April 9, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Ron Roberts at 9:10 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 Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy L. Byrd Juan DeLara Frank Hall Terry Henderson Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Robin Lowe Anne Mayer Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Gregory S. Pettis Ron Roberts Greg Ruppert Robert L. Schiffner Gregory V. Schook John F. Tavaglione Jim Venable Jack Wamsley Art Welch Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain G. Dana Hobart Placido Valdivia Jack vanHaaster Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 2 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C to approve of the February 12, 2003 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Kleindienst, Ruppert 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (M. Wilson/Byrd) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Abstain: Ashley, Agenda Item 6J 6A. INVESTMENT POLICY REVISION Approve the revisions to the Investment Policy. 6B. AGREEMENT NO. 03-19-065 FOR STATE ADMINISTRATION OF DISTRICT TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAXES Approve Agreement No. 03-19-065 with the State Board of Equalization, Amendment to Agreement for State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes. 6C. AUDITOR SELECTION 1) Approve entering into Agreement No. 03-19-066 with McGladrey and Pullen as the auditor of the Commission's Local Transportation Funds, State Transit Assistance's Financial Statements, and the Single Audit for the Commission in the amount of $82,800; 2) Approve entering into Agreement No. 03-19-067 with Caporicci and Larson as the auditor of the Measure "A" and TDA recipients for the amount of $178,325; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 3 6D. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Approve the budget adjustments for State Transit Assistance. 6E. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending February 28, 2003. 6F. 2003 STIP INTRA-COUNTY FORMULA ADJUSTMENT Approve the 2003 STIP Intra-County Formula Adjustment per the STIP Intra-County Memorandum of Understanding. 6G. REQUEST TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 SEGMENT II HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1) Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids for the State Route 74 Segment II Highway Improvement Project, from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street, in the County of Riverside, contingent upon receipt of the Authorization to Proceed with Construction from the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance; and, 2) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. 6H. AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-061 TO DMJM + HARRIS FOR THE MEASURE "A" STATE ROUTE 74 SEGMENT II PROJECT, FROM WASSON CANYON TO 7TH STREET 1) Concur with the selection committee's recommendation and consultant ranking to provide construction management support services for the Measure "A" State Route 74 Segment II Project, from Wasson Canyon to 7th Street, as follows: Top Ranked DMJM + Harris Second Caltrop Third Berg & Associates, Inc; 2) Authorize staff to contract out for a pre -award audit of DMJM + Harris and contingent upon the successful completion of a pre - award audit; 3) Award Agreement No. 03-31-061 to DMJM + Harris to provide construction management support services for the Measure "A" State Route 74 Segment II Project, from Wasson Canyon to 7th Street, for a base work amount of $2,375,000 and an extra work Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 4 amount of $125,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $2,500,000; and, 4) Authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 61 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING TO BUILD A RAIL AND BUS MULTIMODAL FACILITY IN PERRIS 1) Prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to provide preliminary engineering services for the development of the Perris Multimodal Facility; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), and City of Perris staffs to review, evaluate, and rank all RFP's received; and, 3) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultant and provide a recommendation to the Commission for contract award. 6J. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 03-33-062 WITH ENGINEERING RESOURCES FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR A NEW PARKING LOT AT THE RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-33-062 (Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 02-33-029) with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. to provide Preliminary Design and Environmental Services for a new parking lot on the south side of the Riverside - Downtown Metrolink Station for an additional base amount of $69,253 and a total not to exceed agreement value of $568,959; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6K. HIGHWAY AND COMMUTER RAIL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Program Update as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 5 6L. FISCAL YEAR 2004 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5310 PROGRAM 1) Adopt the Fiscal Year 2004 Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 Riverside County Project Rankings as recommended by the Local Review Committee; 2) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; and, 3) Certify by Resolution No. 03-022, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan", certifying that the projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan. 6M. FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS Approve the County -wide Candidate Project List for submission to Congressional Representatives for consideration in the Annual Federal Appropriations Process. 6N. STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Receive and file the State Legislative Update as an information item. 60. PROPOSAL TO THE MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION REVIEW COMMITTEE REQUESTING FUNDING FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICE ON STATE ROUTE 60 1) Authorize staff to submit an application to the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) requesting $275,400 in funding for Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) Service on State Route 60; 2) Commit to providing the required 25% matching funds; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission once funding is finalized. 6P. AGREEMENT NO. 03-45-060 WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY CALL BOX SYSTEM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-45-060 with the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol, for the operation of the call box system for Fiscal Year 2001-2002; and, Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 6 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6Q. FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM Release a Call for Projects for the Fiscal Year 2003-2004 SB 821 Program and notify the Cities, the County, and Local School Districts of the estimated funding available for the fiscal year. 6R. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 7. INTERSTATE 215 NORTH FROM THE STATE ROUTE 60/ STATE ROUTE 91 /INTERSTATE 215 INTERCHANGE TO INTERSTATE 10 — COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-068 WITH SANBAG ON FUNDING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WORK Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the 1-215 North Project from the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange to 1-10 and the cooperative agreement with SANBAG for project development responsibilities and cost sharing. Commissioner Bob Buster asked if this work will include current proposals from the Two -County Corridors Committee, thus, the 1-215 Project could be integrated with future projects. Hideo Sugita confirmed that the Commission is required to take into account all activities in the general area of the project. M/S/C (Moore/Miller) to: 1) Approve a loan from the 2002 Measure "A" Extension Program that begins on July 1, 2009 to support project development work (Environmental, Preliminary Design) on the Commission's Interstate 215 North Project; 2) Authorize repayment of borrowed funds in Fiscal Year 2009-2010 at 4% interest from 2002 funds to the current (1988) Measure "A" Program; 3) Approve entering into Agreement No. 03-31-068 with SANBAG to participate in and fund the development of an EIR/EIS for the Interstate 215 North Project; and, 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 7 8. LOCAL ASSISTANCE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT NO. 03 -31 -064 — STATE ROUTE 60/STATE ROUTE 91 /INTERSTATE 215 PROJECT Hideo Sugita reported on the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Project and the agreement necessary to secure the Commission's contributions of CMAQ and STP Funds towards the project. Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted that the California Transportation Commission approved $1 billion in expenditures for an 18 -month period. He said that $600 million is allocated to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and $400 million to the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) and, therefore, this project is no longer competing with the 1-210 Project. The SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Project is one of the Governor's highlighted projects for design sequencing. Staff will be making aggressive efforts to seek funding including intense lobbying and grant anticipation notes. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Lowe) to: 1) Approve the Local Assistance Contribution Agreement No. 03-31- 064 with Caltrans District 8 to allow Caltrans to claim $7 million of CMAQ Funds and $13.326 million of STP Funds programmed as local RCTC contribution to the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange and I-215/SR 60 Project; and, 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement. 9. PRESENTATIONS 9A. PRESENTATION — TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Commissioner John Tavaglione, prior to the presented, provided background information over the past four years regarding corridors into Orange County, the difficulties that have been experienced, and the progress that has been made to rebuild the relationship between Riverside and Orange Counties, highlighting efforts made on AB 1010 and the work by the Advisory Committee. He reminded the Commissioners that the presentation is only an option for a corridor to Orange County. Commissioner Jeff Miller indicated that he requested Bill Vardoulis to make a presentation to the Commission for informational purposes and to introduce the tunnel concept. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 8 Bill Vardoulis presented the concept for building a tunnel corridor between Riverside and Orange Counties. He outlined the objectives for a new corridor solution that needs to: 1) limit traffic growth through the Santa Ana Canyon, 2) be economically sound, 3) be environmentally acceptable, 4) completed by 2010, and 5) should not disrupt existing traffic. He also reviewed the projected traffic demands over the next 20 years and the various Riverside -Orange County (ROC) Link Alignments which indicate the Cajalco Alignment would provide the greatest traffic relief to SR 91. The ROC Link consists of three 40 -foot diameter tunnels. One tunnel would be targeted for trucks, high-speed light rail, and water. The remaining two tunnels would be designed to move autos as well as electricity, oil, fiber optic lines, and other commodities. The 1 1 -mile long tunnel would only require two ventilation shafts, one at each end, that would filter approximately 95% of the pollutants. The truck tunnel would run on a rail system to allow the trucks to be turned off while moving through the system to further reduce pollutants. The estimated cost is approximately $300 billion. Commissioner Tavaglione expressed his strong disappointment regarding a letter sent by the Cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Corona, and Norco proposing the identification of the Cajalco Corridor as the Hemet to Corona -Lake Elsinore Alignment and connect with the proposed ROC Link Tunnel into Orange County. Their action tried to undermine the process. Eric Haley stated that the letter was premature, counterproductive, destructive, and the authors were fully knowledgeable of its impact. Commissioner Marion Ashley commended Commissioner Tavaglione for his strong leadership in the RCIP process. He also complimented Bill Vardoulis for his efforts to develop the tunnel concept and inquired as to Orange County's endorsement of the concept. Bill Vardoulis responded that he believes Orange County is beginning to see that the congestion on SR 91 is a regional issue and businesses have expressed their strong concern about the lack of affordable housing and mobility. Commissioner Buster also expressed his appreciation to Bill Vardoulis for his presentation. He requested a presentation from the Metropolitan Water District regarding tunneling. He then asked for additional information regarding the funding of the tunnel considering other toll roads that have experienced funding difficulties and to address the tragedies seen with other tunnels caused by accidents. Bill Vardoulis responded that with regards to funding, the tunnel provides a unique opportunity to lease space to a variety of commodities such as water, oil, electricity, and Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 9 fiber optic lines. With regards to safety, he indicated the two primary reasons for accidents are cross traffic and the mix of autos and trucks, which the three -tunnel design eliminates. Commissioner Jack Wamsley expressed his concern that little effort has been made to address the issue of the job -housing balance. Commissioner Ameal Moore stated his support for the Cajalco Corridor South of Lake Matthews to be considered as one of the Hemet to Corona - Lake Elsinore Alternatives. Commissioner Will Kleindienst expressed that the process in which an issue or project is evaluated is out of sequence and matters such as this should be discussed, analyzed, and evaluated at the Committee level before being presented to the Commission. Commissioner Frank West responded to Commissioner Tavaglione's comments regarding the letter. He indicated that while he did attend the meeting that resulted in the letter, when involvement in the tunnel was suggested he stated that discussions with Orange County are ongoing and sensitive and the jurisdictions should not presume to make decisions and not exceed their boundaries. He added that he does believe that jurisdictions have the right and responsibility to meet as needed to discuss issues that impact their area. Commissioner Tavaglione recommended that the appropriate forum for presentations or discussions of a corridor into Orange County is the 91 Toll Road Advisory Committee. 9B. PRESENTATION — STATUS OF 2004 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE Mark Pisano, Executive Director, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), updated the Commission on the status of the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan and the associated conformity issues, highlighting the following: • The Region is currently facing a lack in conformity due to the State Budget Deficit that has caused the reprogramming of Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) Funds that would result in a loss of $8 billion in Federal funds. • Progress on implementing projects and programs and a new Air Quality Attainment Plan is necessary. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 10 • In 2010, the Region must demonstrate attainment. • Modifying regional growth patterns has the most significant impact on air quality. At Commissioner Kleindienst's request, Mark Pisano clarified the difference between conformity and non -attainment including categories which are facing non -attainment and the implications of non -attainment and lapse of conformity. He also explained the cause of more emissions from mobile sources than previously estimates. Commissioner Buster requested SCAG staff comments on the impact of growth patterns if the County recirculates its environmental report on the new General Plan. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), updated the Commission on the status of the Draft 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, providing background information, attainment dates, emission reduction progress, the control strategy, and emission reduction targets. Eric Haley asked how attainment can be achieved and Barry Wallerstein responded that the SCAQMD is in active discussions with the US Environmental Protection Agency regarding the need for control measures. Also, the SCAQMD Governing Board has requested staff to pursue state legislation to place a small fee on rail operations and/or cargo entering the ports to be used to meet emissions reduction targets and to mitigate the emissions impact of congestion. In response to Commissioner Percy Byrd's question regarding the schedule, Barry Wallerstein responded that the SCAQMD is ahead of schedule. However, the State Government is significantly behind and the Federal Government is moderately behind. Commissioner Kleindienst updated the Commission on Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee's decision to develop a comprehensive multi -year plan to work in conjunction with the SCAQMD to help meet and maintain the attainment goals. He then asked how the fees for ports and rail would be collected and distributed. Barry Wallerstein responded that the SCAQMD Governing Board would adopt a fee proportional to the emissions shortfall, develop plan through a public hearing process to identify priorities for spending, and hold a competitive process to award grants for projects. This would not limit the rail and ports operations but would provide funding to potentially control the Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 11 emissions associated with the operation. Mark Pisano added that SCAG is attempting to develop a revenue base from goods movement from airports and ports and are among the proposals in SCAG's Consensus Program on TEA 3. At Commissioner Gregory Schook's request, Barry Wallerstein explained the senate bill by Senator Soto, sponsored by AQMD, which would collect a 30 cent fee for every barrel processed in the refineries to fund the clean up of pollution sources in state and federal jurisdictions. At Commissioner Matt Weyuker's request, Barry Wallerstein indicated that fact sheet and summary on both the Soto Bill and the Firebaugh Bill will be sent to all of the Commissioners. 9C. PRESENTATION — CALTRANS Chia -Chi Wang, Caltrans District 8, reported the status of the projects on SR 91. The three projects are as follows: 1) Construct auxiliary lanes from the Magnolia Avenue Undercrossing to the Brockton Avenue Undercrossing, including the replacement of the Jackson Street Bridge; 2) Pavement rehabilitation from the Brockton Undercrossing to the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange and widening of the Arlington Avenue and Central Avenue Bridges; and, 3) SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Conventional Project to replace Spruce Street Bridge and construct soundwalls and retaining walls. Dennis Green, Construction Liaison, Caltrans District 8, reviewed the public awareness campaign regarding the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Freeway Improvement Project. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Commissioner Robin Lowe announced that Chairman Robert was elected 2' Vice Chair SCAG. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 12 B. Eric Haley reported: • Darren Kettle's new position with SANBAG as the Director of Freeway Construction. 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 APN CPN Owner 1 347-130-018 13526-1 Bill E. & Rae Jean Long 2 349-060-029 13575-1 Kimber L. Lawson 3 349-341-001 13637-1 Luz Sepulveda, et. al. 4 345-150-005 13666-1 Jose Ramirez, et. ux. 5 345-150-006 13667-1 Deirdre Gough, Trustee 6 345-150-029 13669-2 Joe and Rosa Ponce 7 345-060-041 13697-1 Arrebelle Allison 8 342-210-031 13757-1 Alfonso Siordia, et. ux. 9 342-210-034 13758-1 Richard M. O'Grattis 10 342-120-015 13766-1 Osby C. Blair, et. ux. 11 342-150-013 13800-1 James Varner, et. ux. 12 342-100-048 13806-1 Goodhope Missionary Baptist Church 13 342-051-001 13814-1 Webster L. Carter, et. ux. 14 342-052-009 13823-1 Kim Quaid 15 342-052-010 13824-1 Jeffrey Harris 16 342-064-021 13851-1 Miguel Medina Gomez, et. ux. 17 326-250-010 13888-1 George Delgado 18 326-240-031 13897-1 Ianthe M. Roberson Bentley 19 326-240-021 13901-1 Leopoldina Molina 20 326-240-052 13903-1 Michael B. Martin, et. ux. 21 342-064-011 13841-1 Joseph Banks, et. ux. 22 342-130-002 13778-1 Alexander Paul, et.ux. 23 342-061-002 13844-1 Angel Lorenzo Gasparini, et.ux. 24 349-342-004 13632-1 _ Dao Anh Hoa - 25 349-080-002 13621-1 Lynn Gritton, et. Al. 26 345-220-061 13641-1 Shapleigh Kimes, et. ux. 27 345-220-005 13654-1 Raymond Rasmussen, et. ux. 28 345-070-009 13681-1 Annie Hayes Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 13 29 345-070-012 13689-1 Ruth L. Maciel 30 345-080-046 13724-1 Luis Briseno, et. Al 31 342-210-035 13755-1 Lake Elsinore Bible Fellowship Ministries 32 342-120-016 13765-1 Andrew Boji 33 342-130-003 13779-1 Julia Saldana 34 342-140-010 13802-1 Frederick Marian Ellen 35 342-100-011 13804-1 Vincent Graves 36 342-051-008 13828-1 Webster L. Carter, et. ux. 37 38 342-052-013 13829-1 Vernon W. James, et. ux. 342-051-013 13835-1 Larry T. Payne 39 349-060-022 13577-1 Patricia K. Johnson 40 349-060-009 13579-1 James A. Gonzales 41 349-050-025 13580-2 James A. & Estela L. Gonzales 42 342-150-005 13791-1 Doris E. Jonas 43 342-072-001 13862-1 Anthony J. Moreci, et. ux. 44 326-240-024 13896-1 Ethel May Hatcher 45 326-240-074 13902-1 Wendell E. Venerable, Trustee 46 349-124-003 90003-1 Larry Roberts 47 349-342-012 90007-1 Seletha G. Huff 48 345-080-047 13726-1 John Silas, et. ux. 49 349-080-003 13622-1 1 Lynn Gritton, et. Al. 50 349-080-001 13624-1 Lynn Gritton, et. Al. 51 349-080-035 13613-1 Stanley Hanover, et. ux. 52 342-210-017 13760-1 Robert Esparza Sanches, et. ux. 53 342-210-013 13768-1 C. R. & Arlene Griffith, Tr. 54 342-210-028 13771-1 Norma D. Ryder, et. al. 55 342-120-012 13772-1 Raul A. & Alvaro Ramirez 56 342-052-018 13836-1 Patrick Lavey, et. ux. 57 342-052-019 13837-1 Donald R. Johnson Sr., et. al. 58 349-100-037 13609-1 Arturo Mendoza, et. al. B. 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 342-210-017 13760-1 Roberto Esparza Sanches There were no announcements on the Closed Session items. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 14 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:34 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 5 Public Hearing REVISED AGENDA ITEM 5 Changes are Highlighted RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2003-2004 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Discuss, review, and provide guidance on the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004; and, 2) Hold the public hearing to receive input and comments on the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 and continue the public hearing to the June 11, 2003. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff has gone through the budget process and attached is an executive summary outlining the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. 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. Staff is seeking review and input at the Committee meeting and will then forward the item to the Commission, at which time a public hearing regarding the budget is scheduled. Based on input received from Commissioners and other interested parties, staff will update the document and present the final budget for the Commission's review and adoption in June immediately following the close of a public hearing period. Attached is the executive summary for the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 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. At the May 2003 Committee Agenda Item 5 meeting, and the June Commission meeting, staff will present the entire budget with detailed narratives. Staff has also included the fund budgets which examine the budgeted revenue and expenditures from a fund perspective. A summary of the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 is as follows: Revenues Personnel salary and fringe benefits Professional Support Projects and Operations Capital Outlay Debt Service Total Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance $ 143,485,400 2,791,200 3,081,800 1,999,100 108,863,400 453,000 35,478,100 $ 152,766,400 $ 154,132,843 $144,851,843 Attachment: Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Proposed Budget Executive Summary Agenda Item 5 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. 3 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. Budget Overview Chart 1 — Revenues: Major Categories SAFE Fees Other Revenue 1% — 3% Reimbursements 20% LTF Sales Tax, 5% Investment Income 2% Measure A Sales Tax 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 $93,619,784. Total funding sources available for the FY 03/04 budget amount to $237,105,184. 4 Chart 2 - Commission Revenue Trend $160,000,000 $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FISCAL YEARS I! Investment Income ❑ Other Revenue ❑ Reimbursements 69 LTF Sales Tax © 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 and 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 reimbursements 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. 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. 5 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 $ 118,622.956 $ 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% Motorist Assistance - 1% Specialized Transit 3% Commuter Assistance 3% Capital Highway & Rail 33% Rail Operations 3% Regional Arterial 1 5% 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. 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 26.1% 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 6 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 Rall 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 FY 02103 Actual Actual Revised Budget $ 11,993,503 5,137,472 10,532,091 34,338,176 1,732,714 3,197,679 2,065,094 2,645,156 3,685,976 132,098 159,278 2,689,303 35,442,358 $ 113,750,898 $ 15,590,364 $ 65,969,412 4,417,824 4,837,500 9,732,105 7,957,900 36,616,386 34,746,000 2,170,429 3,009,000 4,315,040 3,728,000 2,559,408 2,094,700 5,817,079 3,490,000 4,365,169 6,271,500 73,372 104,600 145,158 198,700 3,359,160 4,458,152 35,545,895 35,551,000 $ 124,707,389 $ 172,416,464 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Protected Budget $ 47,805,300 $ 48,819,800 4,171,973 4,707,600 8,957,900 7,133,200 35,376,000 36,999,600 2,315,900 4,001,700 4,129,500 4,547,900 1,812,700 2,124,800 1,693,000 2,176,600 4,205,200 2,883,100 85,600 410,800 127,100 215,000 4,067,400 3,268,200 35,551,000 35,478,100 $ 150,298,573 $ 152,766,400 Note: Management Services include Executive Management, Administration and Finance. Commission Personnel Dollar Change $ (17,149,612) (129,900) (824,700) 2,253,600 992,700 819,900 30,100 (1,313,400) (3,388,400) 306,200 16,300 (1,189,952) (72,900) $ (19,650,064) Change 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 FTE 1.9 5.5 5.2 0.8 3.9 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.4 2.5 1.8 1.0 25.0 FY 01/02 FTE 1.9 5.8 5.2 0.9 3.6 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 2.5 1.6 1.0 25.0 FY 02/03 FTE 1.9 6.3 5.0 1.0 3.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3 2.4 1.5 1.0 25.0 -26.0% -2.7% -10.4% 6.5% 33.0% 22.0% 1.4% -37.6% -54.0% 292.7% 8.2% -26.7% -0.2% -11.4% FY 03/04 FTE 1.2 5.3 5.1 1.7 3.9 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.3 2.2 2.2 0.7 25.0 7 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 Administration FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Actual Actual Revised Budget $ 235,365 323,130 74,746 $ 633,240 $ 279,720 $ 317,000 344,962 347,500 60,270 51,900 $ 684,952 $ 716,400 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Projected Budget Change Change $ 231,600 308,100 65,400 $ 605,100 $ 176,300 $ (140,700) -44.4% 122,500 (225,000) -64.7% 60,500 8,600 16.6% $ 359,300 $_(357,10] -49.8% • 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. 8 Table 5 - Administration Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Capital Outlay Total Finance FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Actual Actual $ 352,791 121,684 688,333 63,503 $ 1,226,311 $ 428,569 223,931 881,219 237,919 $ 1,771,637 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Revised Budget Projected Budget $ 453,000 $ 392,600 763,851 322,300 1,045,400 1,234, 300 332,000 358,200 $ 2,594,251 $ 2,307,400 $ 461,100 209,500 1,083,400 B8,000 $ 1,822,000 Dollar Percent Change Change $ 8,100 1.8% (554,351) -72.6% 38,000 3.6% (264,000) -79.5% $ (772,251) -29.8% • Maximize revenue potential from invested funds while maintaining safety of the funds. • Continue efforts to improve budgeting for the Commission staff. • 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 TUMF program. Table 6 - Finance Program Costs 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 Personnel $ 369,338 $ 364,269 $ 444,000 $ 430,200 $ 452,400 $ 8,400 1.9% Professional 424,595 488,553 643,500 676,000 527,500 (116,000) -18.0% Support 35,819 49,748 60,000 48,700 107,000 47,000 78.3% Total $ 829,751 $ 902,570 $ 1,147,500 $ 1,154,900 $ 1,086,900 $ 60,600 -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 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). 9 Table 7 - Intergovernmental Programs and Legislative Affairs Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Total FY 00/01 Actual $ 81,331 44,628 6,138 $ 132,098 Planning and Programming FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change $ 61,539 $ 9,549 2,284 $ 73,372 $ 64,000 $ 32,000 8,600 39,100 $ 115,800 $ 51,800 80.9% 43,800 289,000 257,000 803.1% 2,700 6,000 (2,600) -30.2% 104,600 $ 85,600 $ 410,800 $ 306,200 292.7% • 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 Plan (MSHCP), the CETAP effort and the update of the Riverside County General Plan. • Maintain federal certification for the Congestion Management Program. • Work with CVAG, WRCOG and Caltrans 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 Rail Program FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Actual Actual $ 312,574 90,903 7,359 2,234,321 $ 2,645,156 $ 311,442 131,797 9,848 5,363,992 $5817,079 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 Revised Budget Projected $ 364,000 $ 287,300 107,000 124,300 23,000 7,900 2,996,000 1,273,500 $ 3,490,000 $ 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 J1.413,200) -47.2% $ 2,176,600 L1,313,400 -37.6% • 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. 10 Table 9 - Rail Program Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Rail Station Operations Operating Transfer Total FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Actual Actual $ 226,648 148,095 15,565 4,747,165 $ 5,137,472 Property Management $ 217,087 195,507 62,198 3,942,597 435 $ 4,417,824 FY 02/03 Revised Budget $ 227,000 215,000 75,000 4,320,500 414,000 $ 5,251,500 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Projected Budget $ 190,600 213,600 155,400 3,612, 373 1,562,000 $ 5,733,973 $ 216,400 277,000 37,300 4,176, 900 36,500 $ 4,744,100 Dollar Percent Change Change $ (10,600) 62,000 (37,700) (143,600) (377, 500) $ (507 400) • 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 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Actual Actual FY 02103 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Revised Budget Projected Budget Personnel $ 43,401 $ 48,365 $ 55,000 $ 46,200 Professional 37,705 34,226 58,000 44,400 Support 4,842 1,653 10,300 1,400 Projects/Operations 73,330 60,913 75,400 35,100 Total $ 159,278 $ 145,158 $ 198,700 $ 127,100 $ 215,000 $ 16,300 - 4.7% 28.8% - 50.3% - 3.3% - 91.2% - 9.7% Dollar Percent Change Change $ 58,600 $ 3,600 115,000 57,000 9,300 (1,000) 32,100 (43,300) 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 1 1 - Specialized Transit Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total FY 00/01 Actual $ 37,975 1,220 5,101 3,153,384 83,197,6 79 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget $ 28,114 397 1,050 4,285,480 $4,315040 $ 42,000 $ 30,600 15,500 14,000 12,500 1,300 3,658,000 4,083,600 $ 3,728.000 $4,129,500 6.5% 98.3% - 9.7% - 57.4% 8.2% FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Change Change $ 33,900 $ (8,100) -19.3% 3,500 (12,000) -77.4% 13,500 1,000 8.0% 4,497,000 839.000 22.9% $4547,900 $ 819,900 22.0% 11 Transit Encourage transit operators to purchase clean fuel buses. Ensure that all operators remain consistent with the Commission's adopted productivity improvement programs. Monitor transit operator's Quarterly Grant Reports. Table 12 - Transit Program Costs FY 00/01 Actual FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Dollar Percent 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 4,173.600 2.666,000 (3,489,000) -56.7% Total $ 3,685.976 $ 4,365,169 5 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. Table 13 - Commuter Assistance Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Capital Outlay Total FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Actual Actual Revised 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 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Projected Budget Change $ 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 $ 110,300 220,500 117,400 279,500 265,000 $ 992,700 Percent Change 73.5% 40.0% 26.7% 15.6% 331.3% 33.0% 12 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 Actual Actual Revised Budget $ 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 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Projected Budget Change Change $ 123,000 $ 99,500 60,000 50,000 34,300 29,000 1,877,400 1,634,200 $ 2,094.700 $1,812,700 $ 88,400 58,100 32,400 1,945,900 $ 2,124,800 $ (34,600) -28.1% (1,900) -3.2% (1,900) -5.5% 68,500 3.6% $ 30,100 1.44% 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. 13 Table 15 - Capital Projects Development & Delivery Program FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 179,980 $ 139,794 $ 191,200 $ 140,300 $ 380,800 $ 189,600 99.2% Professional 290,880 555,938 1,095,600 370,300 475,200 (620,400) -56.6% Support 10,574 21,302 34,500 34,100 62,400 27,900 80.9% Projects/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 -Debt 33,891,187 34,906,898 35,550,000 35,549,200 35,478,100 (71,900) -0.2% Total $90,754,957 $ 96,845,752 $ 144,223,312 $127,688,400 $128,430,700 $ (15,792,611), -11.0% 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 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 3,692,000 14 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 5 942,481 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% 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 1,237,900 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 10,532,091 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 Expenditures 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 5 158.245.879 5 164,666,516 S 135,050,452 5 154,132,643 5 144,851,643 5 9,801,391 7.3% 15 Table 18 - Budget Expenditure Summarized by Fund Type June 30, 2004 General Fund Special Revenue Capital Protects Debt Service Total Personnel Salary and Benefits $ 1,972,958 $ 818,042 $ - $ 2,791,000 Professional and Support Expenditures General Legal Services 325,107 478,593 - - 803,700 Financial Services 47,585 2,415 - - 50,000 Audit Services 409,303 22,698 - 432,000 Professional Services - Other 938,158 857.942 _ 1,796,100 Total Professional Services 1,720,153 1,361,647 - 3,081,800 Support Costs 1.648.533 731,967 - 2.380,500 Total Professional and Support Services 3,368,686 2,093,614 - - 5,462,300 Project and Operations Expenditures Program Management - 2,036,700 - 2,036,700 Projects - General 662,600 142,800 805,400 SAFE Operations 595,900 - 595,900 Towing 1,290,400 - - 1,290,400 Commuter Assistance 1,768,500 - - 1,768,500 Highway and Rail Engineering 4,109,400 - - 4,109,400 Highway and Rail Construction 37,207,300 37,207,300 Highway and Rail ROW 4,508,000 - 4,508,000 SCRRA Contributions 3,171,800 - - - 3,171,800 Special Studies 667,200 10,000 - - 677,200 Special Transportation/Transit - 4,497,000 - 4,497,000 STA Disbursements 2,666,000 - - 2,666,000 Regional Arterial 7.133,200 _ - 7,133,200 Total Project and Operational Expenditures 4,501,600 65,965,200 - 70,466,800 Other Expenditures Local Streets & Roads - 36,999,600 36,999,600 LTF Disbursements 915,600 915,600 Capital Outlay 64,716 588.284 - 653 000 Total Other Expenditures 980,316 37,587,884 - 38,568,200 Other Financing (Sources) Uses Operating Transfers out 36,500 35,726,400 10,900,600 - 46,663,500 Debt Service - - 35,478,100 35,478,100 Total Expenditures Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 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) 6503.953 76,298,886 20.936.730 50,393274 154,132,843 $ 6,653,645 $ 75,707.194 $ 1U,536,130 8 51,954,874 $ 144,851,843 16 Table 19 - State Highway & Rail Programs June 30,2004 Description Project General Program Management and Contract Administration (Bechtel Corp.) Program Support costs TOTAL PROJECT GENERAL Highway Engineering Route 60 HOV 60/1-215 to Redlands Boulevard Route 74 1-15 to 7th Street Highway Widening Route 74 Curve Realignment - Winchester to Warren Route 79 Right turn lanes - Giman Springs Road Route 79 Realignment PSR & Project report Route 91 Soundwalt/Auxiliary lanes projects Route 91 HOV Mary Street to 7th Street Route 111 City Projects (La Ouinta & 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 S2,036,700 47,800 2,084,500 100,000 136,000 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 60/21510 Redlands Boulevard 17,000,000 Route 60 HOV 60/21510 Redlands Blvd Construction Management 1,750,000 Route 74 1-15 10 71h Street Widening Project 12,000,000 Route 741-15 to 7th Street Widening Construction Management 1,500,000 Route 79 Right Turn Lanes at Giman Springs Road - Lamb Canyon 100,000 Route 88 County of Riverside Projects 200.000 Route 91 Phase!! Landscaping and Plant establishment 1,000 Route 111 El Paseo/Cabello 364,100 Route 111 Town Center/EI Paseo 489,100 Toute 111 San Luis Rey 491,100 Route 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 Rai 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 741-15 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 WC SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY Rail Right of Way San Jacinto Branch line Right of Way Support Services Perris Multimodal Facility Right of Way Support Services Riverside Downtown Station Parking Expansion - Southside SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY 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 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL RIGHT OF WAY 4,508,000 GRAND TOTAL HIGHWAY AND RAIL PROGRAMS 547,909,200 17 Table 20 FY 2002 -2004 Summary of Estim ated Financial Sources and Uses Financial Source s: Measure A Sales Tax „1 7 Sales Tax Stale Funding Federal Funding Other Reimbursements Ali Other Reve nue User Fees Debt Procee ds Oper atin g Tran sfer In Interest Earnings G eneral F und Special Revenue Fund Capital Pr ojects F und Debt Se rvice Fund Totals FY 01/02 FY 172/03 FY 03)04 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 01/02 FY 02)03 FY 03104 F1' 01102 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 01102 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 Amu' Pice ecte d B udget Actu al Pr otected Budg et Acluol Proj ected Budg et Act ual Pr oje ct ed B udd er Actual Projected Budget 5 2,497,864 5 3250,000 5 3,000,000 $ 93.299 ,022 $ 93,720,000 5 97,849 ,000 9 • $ - S 5 - 3 $ - 5 95,797286 5 96.970 ,000 $ 100849 ,000 6,876, 656 6,649.200 6,655,400 - 6,876,656 6 .649200 6.655 ,400 450 ,411 939,700 166,300 0,072,933 0,294,600 7,480200 - - - 9,523.344 10234 .300 7,646500 275,731 - 667,200 4,386,108 14,854,100 17,692 ,400 - 4 ,661,929 14,854 ,100 16,359,600 3,158.095 145,098 6,903 978,338 1,469,802 2,385,097 - 4,136,433 1 .614 ,900 2,392 .900 885,496 268,154 289,431 1.988 ,456 3.385,546 3,194,369 - - - 2 ,924,759 3,653,700 3,403,800 245,566 275,700 170,000 1 .288 ,656 1 .280,000 1,275,000 1,534,222 1,555,700 1,445,000 2,712 . 7,216,486 18 ,064,500 11185,400 52,807 - 61,442 ,245 48,085,300 35478,100 08,714,250 64,149,800 46,663 ,500 241.777 40.512 54-517 1,610997 717 .6611 537,083 2533.159 1,795800 500 .000 '.556,548 1,679 .000 1 561.000 5,942 481 4,233,000 2.653.200 Told Estimated Financial Sources $ 14, 034,107 $ 11,668,364 5 11 ,009,752 5 119,839,667 $ 142 ,786 ,236 S 141 598 .448 5 2 585 966 5 1.795 .800 5 500-000 $ 62,998,703 $ 47 ,764.300 5 37 030.700 5 200,058.553 5 203 ,914,700 5 190,148,000 Expenditures: Personn el Salary & Fringe 80nehs $ 1,751,820 5 1,629236 5 1,972 ,958 9 524,888 9 428 .464 5 818,042 5 • 5 - 5 - $ • $ 5 - S 2,276 .709 5 2,057.700 S 2.791.000 Pro fessional Services 1,388, 145 2,004,642 1,720,153 893,325 747,158 1.361,947 - 210 - 2281,880 2,751 ,800 0081 800 Support Coss 1, 052, 618 1,513,170 1,648,533 555227 716.030 731,967 - 1 ,5667845 2,226,200 2 ,350,500 Gene ml Pro jects 1,688,171 827,300 662,600 1,849,849 1,482,600 2,179500 - - 3.536,120 2,109,900 2,842 ,100 SAFE Operations - - - 1,434,423 237.200 595,900 - 1.434,423 237,200 595.900 Toeing - - 964,605 1,022,000 1,290,400 964 ,805 1,022,000 1,200,400 Co mm uter Assislance - - - 1,186,078 1 ,486,000 1,768,500 - - - 1,186,078 1,488,000 1,765 ,500 Enginee nng - 5,541,115 3,135,100 4,109,400 - 5,541 ,115 3,135.100 4,109 ,405 Cons11u c6on 7. 200 - 2,219,067 26,545,900 37,207,300 - - - - 2.219,067 28,553,100 37,207,300 Right of Way •- - 4 ,798,338 15,971,900 4,508,000 4.798,338 15,971,905 4,508,000 SCRRA Co ntributio n 2. 906,523 2.597,973 3,171,800 - - 2.998523 2,597,973 3,171,000 Special Stu dies 4,076,123 672, 000 667,200 503,768 230 .100 10,000 - 4,578,889 902,100 677 ,200 Special Tran sporiabon/Transit - 4,873,780 4,083,600 4,497,000 - - - 4.873.780 4,083,600 4 ,497.000 State Transit Assistan ce 4,254,996 4,123.600 2,666,000 4254,996 4,123,600 2,666,000 Local Streets h Ro ads 35,028,085 35.376,000 36 .999,600 - - 36.028.085 35,376 ,000 30,999,600 Regio nal Arterial - 9,732,105 8,957 ,900 7,133,200 - - - 9,732,105 8,057,000 7 ,133.200 LTF Dis urse snants 805,485 594,300 015, 600 - - 605,485 594 ,300 915,605 Capl gay 223,644 336,709 64,716 55.758 221 .492 588.284 - 279,402 558,200 653,000 Debt Ire - - - - 35545,895 35,551,000 35,470,100 35 545,895 35 ,551 .000 35478100 Cost of Issuance - - - - OperatingTra r>SferOul 2,860 1.562.000 36.500 35,1172 08 35.789.800 35 ,726.400 - 33,594,092 _ 26,796,000 10,900 .600 - 68,71425 0 64 .149 ,6410 46.683„106 Total Budget S 13,745,389 5 11. 544,529 9 10,860,060 S 110,532,802 5 140. 554.844 $ 142 .191.140 5 33594,092 $ 26,798 ,000 $ 10,900,600 5 35,546.105 5 35,551,000_ $ 35.478.100 $ 193.418.388 $ 214.448.373 5 199,429.900 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditu res 898,718 23, 635 149,692 0,306,884 2,231,392 (591,692) (31,008,126) (25 .002200) (10 ,400 ,800) 27,452,688 12,213,300 1,561,600 8,640,164 (10,533,073) (9,281,000) Fu nd Balan ce, July 4 5.591,400 6,480. 116 6503-953 64-7605 10 74,067, 494 76298,856 76 .947.057 45938,931 20-938,731 10,727286 38,179,974 50.393 .274 158.026,353 164,666.516 154,132.643 Endin g Fun d Balance S 6,480.118 5 6,503,953 5 6,653,645 $ 74,087494 5 70.296-888 5 75, 707,194 S 45,938:.931 5 20.938.731 . 5 10.538.131 5 38179,074 $ 50.393,274 $ 51.054,874 5 164,666.516 5 154.132,843 5 144,651,843 AGENDA ITEM 7A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel SUBJECT: 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.)" PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt: 1) The 2003 Update to Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, 2) 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.)": BACKGROUND INFORMATION During the 2002 legislative session, several bills were signed into law by the Governor which affect CEQA. Several of these bills made such significant changes that they warrant substantive discussion in this memorandum and changes to your Local Guidelines. A. Senate Bill 1393 ("SB 1393") In approving SB 1393, the California Legislature adopted a number of revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines which became effective January 1, 2003. These changes are reflected in a number of provisions in your Local Guidelines. The more significant changes made by SB 1 393 are as follows: Agenda Item 7A 19 1. Mandatory Appea/s Process Under CEQA, a lead agency may delegate the responsibility for approving and certifying an environmental document to a nonelected decision -making body. SB 1393 revises existing CEQA statutes to state that whenever a nonelected decision -making body, such as a planning department, adopts or certifies any environmental document, that decision may be appealed to the agency's elected decision - making body. In order to comply with this new provision, public agencies must develop a policy to review appeals from the environmental decisions of nonelected decision -making bodies. This policy should be applied consistently and made available to the public in writing. This change is described in Section 2.03 of your Local Guidelines. 2. Petitioner's Request for the Administrative Record Must be Served Within 10 Days SB 1393 provides that in any action challenging a public agency's actions under CEQA, the petitioner must personally serve the public agency with a request for the preparation of the administrative record within ten (10) business days of filing the challenge. 3. Real Parties in Interest Must be Named Within 20 Days Effective January 1, 2003, the complaint or petition challenging a project approval under CEQA must name any recipient of the approval as a real party in interest to the lawsuit. The petitioner must also personally serve the complaint or petition on that real party in interest within twenty (20) business days of the date that the petitioner served the complaint or petition on the public agency. 4. Public Agencies Must Provide a List of Responsible Agencies Within 10 Days Within ten (10) business days of being served with a petition or complaint alleging a violation of CEQA, the public agency must provide the petitioner with a list of responsible and public agencies with jurisdiction over any natural resource affected by the project at issue. Within fifteen (15) days of receiving that list, the petitioner must provide these responsible and public agencies with notice of the action. To facilitate compliance with this new requirement, public Agenda Item 7A 20 agencies should require their environmental consultants to prepare a list of responsible agencies before the project is approved or immediately thereafter. If possible, that list should be included within the text of any environmental document prepared for a project. B. Senate Bill 649 ("SB 649") Effective January 1, 2003, Section 21090 of the Public Resources Code has been amended to require that an EIR produced for a redevelopment plan specify whether it is a master EIR, program EIR, or a project EIR. If the EIR is identified as a project EIR, all activities undertaken pursuant to or in furtherance of the redevelopment plan are deemed part of the project. However, as future activities occur, further environmental review must be conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines 15162. C. Assembly Bill 1 108 ("AB 1108") AB 1108 amended Public Resources Code section 21083.9 to specify that any scoping meeting held pursuant to NEPA satisfies CEQA requirements as long as the lead agency met CEQA's notice requirements. By adding Public Resources Code section 21098 to CEQA, this bill also imposes a new requirement that a lead agency must give notice to the United States Department of Defense (or a branch of the military service) when: (1) the lead agency receives a request from the military branch, (2) the military branch has provided its contact information, and (3) the request states the specific boundaries of the potentially affected low-level flight path, military impact zone, or special use airspace. However, AB 1108 explicitly states that a project's potential impacts on military activities does not itself constitute an adverse effect on the environment. D. Senate Bill 1925 ("SB 1925") In approving SB 1925, the California Legislature repealed several sections of the Public Resources Code and created a new Article 6 to recast and consolidate previously existing exemptions for affordable housing with consistent terminology. SB 1925 also redefines or adds definitions for several terms. These new definitions are reflected in Section 10 of your Local Guidelines. Other significant changes made by SB 1925 are as follows: Agenda Item 7A 21 1. Exempts Certain Low or Moderate Income Housing Projects Essentially, SB 1925 authorizes low and moderate income housing projects to qualify for an exemption from CEQA if they are located on infill sites in urbanized areas and meet certain specific criteria. This exemption is described in detail in Section 3.12 of your Local Guidelines. 2. Prohibits Reducing the Number of Housing Units as a Mitigation Measure Under SB 1925, if a project includes a housing development, the lead agency is specifically prohibited from reducing the project's proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if the lead agency determines that there is an alternative feasible mitigation measure that would provide a similar level of mitigation without requiring a reduction in housing units. Likewise, the lead agency may not consider a project alternative that calls for a reduction of housing units if it determines that there is another alternative that provides comparable mitigation without reducing the number of housing units. This change is reflected in Section 7.15 of your Local Guidelines. 3. Prohibits Project Segmenting SB 1925 reinforces existing case law by prohibiting the division of a project into smaller projects to qualify for one or more exemptions. Public agencies should carefully review projects before granting exemptions so as to avoid improper segmenting. The provisions relating to exemptions are found in Section 3 of your Local Guidelines. 2002 CEQA CASE LAW Summarized below are a few of the 2002 cases involving the application of CEQA that may be of interest to you. Several of the cases summarized below, including Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1373, City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, Not About Water Committee v. Solano County Board of Supervisors (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 982, Fat v. County of Sacramento (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1270 and Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786, have resulted in changes to your Local Guidelines. Agenda Item 7A 22 The remainder of the cases summarized below have not resulted in direct changes to the Local Guidelines. However, they do provide some clarification on the application of CEQA and, as such, are worth noting. Petitioners in Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1373 challenged the Castaic Lake Water Agency's certification of an EIR for the purchase of water entitlements to 41,000 acre-feet of State Water Project water under the "Monterey Agreement." Castaic Lake Water Agency's EIR tiered off the program EIR certified for the Monterey Agreement and referenced an EIR prepared by the Belridge Water Storage District for transfers under the Monterey Agreement. While the Friends' challenge was pending, the appellate court found that the Monterey Agreement EIR was inadequate and ordered it decertified. The Court determined that Castaic's EIR expressly relied on the Monterey Agreement EIR. Because the Monterey Agreement EIR had been invalidated, Castaic's EIR was also defective. In City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, the Court held that the County of San Bernardino violated CEQA by preparing a negative declaration to analyze the impacts of revising various General Plan policies applicable to development within city "spheres of influence." The County of San Bernardino approved amendments that modified its General Plan relating to land use regulation of unincorporated territory located within a city's "sphere of influence." The amendments would have increased the County's ability to approve projects not conforming to city standards. In connection with the approval of these amendments, the County adopted a negative declaration. The Cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Redlands filed petitions for writ of mandate alleging that the County failed to comply with CEQA in adopting the amendments. The Cities claimed that the amendments would allow for development that may have an adverse impact on the environment. The Cities also argued that the County's finding of no significant impacts was based on an inaccurate description of the project. The Court found that the negative declaration violated CEQA because the County did not provide an accurate project description. Although the Initial Study characterized the project as mere clarification to the existing General Plan policies, the Court found that the changes themselves revealed far broader consequences. The Court found that the amendments involved made substantive changes to the County's policies and procedures in making land use and development decisions involving unincorporated territory within a city's sphere of influence. The Court also found that the Initial Study provided only token responses rather than examining the reasonably foreseeable effects under each environmental topic. Also, the Initial Study did not cite any evidence to support its findings of no impact or less than significant impact. On these bases, the Court invalidated the County's negative declaration. Agenda Item 7A 23 In Not About Water Committee v. Solano County Board of Supervisors (2002) 95 Cal.App. 4th 982, landowners in rural Solano County challenged the formation of an assessment district and the subsequent levy of an assessment on real property on several grounds, including CEQA. The Court held that the formation of an assessment district is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA because the formation of the district merely creates a financing mechanism, and there was no link to any alleged environmental impact. The Court reasoned that, while the previous formation of a water district may have qualified as a project, the time period for challenging the water district's formation had expired. The subsequent formation of the assessment district had no impact on the environment because its function was merely financial. In Fat v. County of Sacramento (2002) 97 Cal.App.4lh 1270, the Court of Appeal held that an agency may choose any point in time as its "baseline" against which to measure the impacts of a project. Section 15125 sets forth the general rule that the environmental conditions existing at the time environmental analysis is commenced "normally" constitute the baseline for purposes of determining whether an impact is significant. Applicants had applied for a conditional use permit ("CUP") to authorize airport operations in two zones. A negative declaration stated that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and no EIR was required. The County used 1997 as the baseline because that was the year the applicants applied for the project. Plaintiffs Kenneth and Win Fat challenged the negative declaration claiming that the County should have used a baseline of 1970 instead because that was the year environmental evaluation should have begun with CEQA's enactment. A great deal of illegal expansion of the airport had transpired during the 1970s. However, the sole issue on appeal was whether there was substantial evidence to support the County's decision to select 1997 as the baseline for this case. The Court found such substantial evidence in this case. The Court also reaffirmed that the State CEQA Guideline's use of the term "normally" opens the door for agencies to establish a baseline that is more relevant to a determination of whether the project's impacts will be significant, as long as the agency can support its choice for the baseline with substantial evidence. In Burrtec Waste Industries v. City of Colton (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1133, the Court held that a corporation with a competing economic interest can have standing under CEQA to bring a suit for non-compliance. Two competing companies, Taormina Industries and Burrtec Waste Industries, were both engaged in waste management in the City of Colton. In 1999, the City approved a CUP for Taormina to operate a materials recycling facility. In October 2000, the City granted Taormina an amended CUP to allow it to process solid waste. Burrtec challenged the amended CUP, alleging that the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the amended CUP was not properly posted and, as a result, Burrtec did not have an opportunity to comment on the application. Among other things, Taormina argued that Burrtec had no standing to bring the Agenda Item 7A 24 lawsuit because it was an economic competitor of Taormina. The Court, however, held that Burrtec did have standing. Although case law stands for the proposition that a for-profit corporation cannot invoke the citizen suit provisions of CEQA to protect its commercial and competitive interests, standing is properly conferred where there is "sufficient evidence" that the corporation is bringing the suit to protect environmental interests. The Court found such "sufficient evidence" in this case and held that Burrtec had standing to bring the suit. In Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786, the City of Santa Monica passed a resolution creating a 26 -acre, residents -only, permit required parking district and filed a notice of exemption stating that the City's creation of the parking district was exempt from CEQA under a Class 1 categorical exemption for, among other things, the operation or permitting, or minor alteration, of existing public structures or facilities, that involves negligible or no expansion of use. The Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce challenged the resolution, alleging that the City should have prepared an EIR before adopting the resolution that created the parking district. The Court held that the City's resolution was exempt from CEQA under a Class 1 categorical exemption because it involved "existing facilities" and "operation" of such existing facilities under the Class 1 exemption. The Court found that, because no new parking spaces or structures were being added to the parking zone, there was "negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing." Lastly, the Court held that the Class 1 exemption applied because the parking district was a legislative permitting scheme involving the operation of existing public facilities. In La Costa Beach Homeowners' Assn. v. California Coastal Comm. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 804, the Court found that the Coastal Act allows the California Coastal Commission to accept off -site mitigation. Petitioner, the homeowners' group representing neighbors who live across the street from proposed beachfront development of three residences, claimed that the Coastal Act required all view impacts to be mitigated onsite and thereby restricted the proposed development to 80% of the lateral space of the lot. The Coastal Commission disagreed and issued amendments to the permits for the proposed development which allowed the view impacts to be mitigated by dedication of a nearby beachfront lot for public beach access. The Court upheld the Coastal Commission's position. This case is notable because it is the first case that expressly holds that the Coastal Act allows offsite mitigation of coastal impacts. The La Costa Beach Court also determined that the Coastal Commission properly acted under a certified regulatory exemption from CEQA. Petitioner argued that the exemption was invalid because the Commission had failed to consult public agencies before taking action on the proposed amendments to the permits. The Court rejected this claim, finding that the Coastal Commission's regulations excused consultation with other public agencies because the permit amendments would further a public purpose by procuring public access to the beach in the Malibu area. Agenda Item 7A 25 The petitioner developer in Arviv Enterprises v. South Valley Area Planning Commission (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1333 owned 21 legal lots in the City of Los Angeles located both upslope and downslope of Mulholland Drive. Acting on a series of applications, the City approved a series of permits to build five houses near Mulholland Drive without any CEQA review, a categorical exemption to build two additional houses across the street, a mitigated negative declaration to build 14 additional houses on an adjacent street and a variance for one of the five houses built over height. The City's Director of Planning concurred with the Mulholland Design Review Board's findings that the two -house project was categorically exempt from environmental requirements and gave conditional approval of the two -house project. The local residents appealed this decision to the South Valley Area Planning Commission. At the hearing, numerous residents from the vicinity of the projects described the negative impacts the existing construction had on their property. The Commission found that an EIR should be prepared and that it should cover the entire proposed development - all 21 houses - even though five of them had already been constructed. The developer petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandamus challenging the Commission's decision. The Court held that the overall record contained substantial evidence that a fair argument could be made that the 21 -house project would have significant environmental effects. When viewing the record as a whole, the collective weight of the evidence supported the Commission's decision to require preparation of an EIR. The Court noted that the entire case was the direct result of inadequate or misleading project descriptions since the developer never intended a two or three house project but always envisioned a 21 -house development. Notably, the Court accepted lay people's opinions as substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts on topics such as soil erosion issues, dust pollution and traffic. While the case of Oche/tree v. Gourley (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1013 is not a CEQA case, its holding is important for all administrative record proceedings, including CEQA litigation. Plaintiff and appellant Melissa Ocheltree was arrested for driving while intoxicated and her driver's license was suspended. Ocheltree requested a hearing before a DMV administrative law judge ("ALJ") to challenge the suspension of her driver's license. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ALJ found that Ocheltree was driving while intoxicated and ordered the suspension of her driver's license. Ocheltree filed a petition for writ of mandate to challenge the ALJ decision arguing that the ALJ decision was not supported by the evidence. The Court held that the ALJ acted improperly because the ALJ made her decision without reviewing the administrative record, which had not been prepared at the time the decision was made. The Court held that the ALJ could not resolve the issues without first reviewing the administrative record. Agenda Item 7A 26 In CalBeach Advocates v. City of Solana Beach (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 429, two homeowners owned homes on Solana Beach's coast. In a 74 -foot stretch of coastal bluff below the homes, there was a notch in the coastline. Over the ensuing months, the notch at the base of the bluff deepened to about 12 feet and the fracture created a very high likelihood that the bluff would collapse during the following winter storm season. As such, the homeowners requested a permit under the CEQA emergency exemption to build a seawall to protect and reinforce the bluff. The City Council passed a resolution approving the application under CEQA's emergency exemption and granted the special use permit. CalBeach, a nonprofit corporation, filed a petition for writ of mandate to set aside the approval and notice of exemption for the project, arguing that the circumstances did not constitute an "emergency" under CEQA. The Court, however, held that constructing a seawall to avoid collapse of a coastal bluff in the coming months constitutes an "emergency" under Public Resources Code section 21080 and, therefore, the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review. The Court looked to the professional opinion of engineers presented by the homeowners as substantial evidence that the protection of the bluff required immediate action. Furthermore, the Court held that an occurrence need not be "unexpected" to constitute an "emergency" under CEQA. In Communities fora Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, the appellate court upheld the trial court's invalidation of the following CEQA Guidelines: (a) Section 15064(h) - regulatory standards to determine significant environmental effect; (b) Sections 15064(i)(4), 15130(a)(4) and 15152(f)(2)'s incorporation of section 15064(i)(4) - how "de minim's" effects in a cumulatively impacted environment affect EIR preparation and discussion; (c) Section 15130(b)(1)(B)(2) - the definition of "probable future projects" for EIR discussion of cumulative impacts; (d) Section 15152(f)(3)(C) - whether significant environmental effects have been adequately addressed in a prior EIR, and their relationship to a statement of overriding considerations; and (e) Section 15378(b)(5) - organizational activities which are political or which are not physical changes are not "projects" for EIR purposes. None of these Guidelines should be relied upon for future CEQA projects. Analogous provisions of your Local CEQA Guidelines were deleted in 2002. Agenda Item 7A 27 However, the Court overruled the trial court's invalidation of the following CEQA Guideline: (f) Section 15064(i)(3) - lead agency may determine no incremental cumulative effect if project meets cumulative mitigation plan's specific requirements; And, in a cross -appeal, the Court upheld the trial court's validation of the following CEQA Guideline: (g) Section 15332 - categorical exemption for certain urban in -fill development projects. Agencies may continue to rely upon these Guidelines, although agencies evaluating infill development projects should examine the new statutory criteria promulgated under SB 1925. (See above, 2002 CEQA Legislation.) In Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 268, the Court held that the City of Los Angeles improperly segmented a project involving construction of a container terminal. The City and the Port of Los Angeles committed themselves to construction of a three-phase project based on a 1997 program EIR and 2000 SEIS/SEIR which did not address all three phases. The Court noted that the 1997 program EIR generally addressed improvements contemplated within the geographical area of the project, however, the project did not arise until after the 1997 program EIR had been completed. Therefore, it could not have qualified as one of the series of actions contemplated when the 1997 program EIR was prepared. The Court held that the City should have prepared a "tiered" EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21094 for the following reasons. First, the project was a "later project" which arose after a prior EIR had been prepared and certified for a program. Second, the project was consistent with the 1997 program EIR and applicable local land use plans and zoning. Third, the project represented a change in the program or its circumstances and constituted new information that arose after the previous EIRs were certified. The Court of Appeal in Cumming v. City of San Bernardino (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1229 found the petition alleging improper compliance with CEQA was barred by the 180 -day statute of limitations set forth in Public Resources Code section 21167(a). On October 18, 1999, the Redevelopment Agency and the City of San Bernardino adopted resolutions approving the sale of land located in the boundaries of the Northwest Redevelopment Project to Bio-Mass, Inc. for the purpose of housing a new corporate headquarters and a drop-off facility for recycling. In the resolutions, the City and Agency asserted that no further environmental review was necessary under CEQA because the project was undertaken pursuant to a Agenda Item 7A 28 redevelopment plan for which an EIR had been certified. On October 4, 1999 and October 11, 1999, a notice of a public hearing regarding the development had been published, and supporting documents were made available for public review. On May 4, 2000, plaintiffs filed suit. Plaintiffs claimed that notice had not been adequate and that they had not learned of the proposed development until after the statute of limitations had begun to run. The Court held that the notice given was adequate and that the hardship exception to the 180 -day statute of limitations provision developed in the case of Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v. 37°' Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 937-939, did not apply. The redevelopment plan of the historic Emporium building was upheld in San Franciscans Upholding The Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. Petitioners alleged that the EIR was inadequate because it did not specifically address the economic feasibility of proposed project alternatives. The Court rejected this argument, reaffirming the ruling in Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704 that economic analysis does not have to be included in the body of an EIR as long as the public agency's findings are based upon an adequate administrative record. In addition, petitioners argued that a finding of "infeasibility" requires evidence that the negative financial impact of the alternative would be as severe as to render it "impractical to proceed." In rejecting this phrasing of the infeasibility standard, the Court noted that "CEQA's only purpose is to guarantee that the public and the agencies of the government will be informed of environmental impacts, that they will consider those impacts before acting, and that insofar as practically possible, feasible alternatives and mitigation measures will be adopted to lessen or avoid adverse environmental impacts." The Court of Appeal found in Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Harcros Pigments, Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1083, that evidence of the cost of mitigation measures imposed under an EIR in compliance with CEQA (here regarding the archaeological resources on the property) was properly before the jury in determining fair market value in an eminent domain proceeding. The Agency had argued that the mitigation measures could not be challenged in this proceeding because no one had timely sought judicial review of the mitigation measures under CEQA's procedures. The defendant argued that the Agency's treatment of the resources exceeded what was required by CEQA and that the cost of these measures was being improperly transferred to the property owner because the Agency was claiming a reduction in the property's fair market value. The Court thought that this issue could have evaded judicial review in a challenge to the EIR. The Court believed that the Agency could adopt any measure it chose, and then seek "de facto reimbursement from a condemnee." Because all issues of property Agenda Item 7A 29 value should be considered in eminent domain proceedings (San Diego County Water Authority v. M/rei ter (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1808, 1812), the Court hold that CEQA's statute of limitations did not bar the property owner from presenting evidence regarding the cost of the mitigation measures selected. The recently published Vedanta Society of So. Calif. v. California Quartet, Ltd. (2002) 103 Cal. App.4th 1200 held that litigation clarifying of the meaning of a 2- 2 vote by the County Board of Supervisors on a final EIR has too attenuated a connection with "the enforcement of an important public right" to justify awarding of attorneys' fees and costs under Section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In Vedanta v. California Quartet Ltd. of So. Calif. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 517, the court decided that a new EIR would have to be prepared as a result of the tie vote, but the court drew a distinction between litigation that justifies the awarding of attorneys' fees and costs and litigation that simply obtains a ruling that CEQA was violated in some manner. Even a victory can fail to meet the standard justifying an award of fees when the win comes in a "rare procedural context." Attachment: Resolution No. 03-023 Agenda Item 7A 30 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.) WHEREAS, the California Legislature has amended the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs, tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq.) and the California courts have interpreted specific provisions of CEQA; WHEREAS, Section 21082 of CEQA requires all public agencies to adopt objectives, criteria and procedures for the evaluation of public and private projects undertaken or approved by such public agencies, and the preparation, if required, of environmental impact reports and negative declarations in connection with that evaluation; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") wishes to adopt local guidelines for implementing CEQA that are consistent with the current provisions and interpretations of CEQA. 31 NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The Board of Commissioners adopts "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (2003 Revision)," a copy of which is on file at the offices of the Commission at 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor, Riverside, California 92501, and is available for inspection by the public. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of May, 2003. Ron Roberts, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Commission Riverside County Transportation Commission 32 AGENDA ITEM 7B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ending March 31, 2003. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the first nine months of the fiscal year, staff has monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements show the revenues and expenditures incurred in the first nine months of the fiscal year. On a linear basis, we have completed 75% of the fiscal year. At the end of the quarter, Administration expenditures are 3% under budget. The primary reason for the Commission incurring less expenditures is lower Salaries and Benefits costs. This was due to two positions being vacant and the resulting savings. One of those positions has been refilled. Legal costs have been greater than expected due to the "No on A, No L.A." lawsuit. Debt Service is paid in December and June and staff expects that the entire budget will be used by the end of the fiscal year. Intergovernmental Expenditures are incurred early in the year and, as such, staff expects the expenditures to remain within the budget. Expenditures in the Program/Projects are below budget, except for Rail Right of Way and staff will make the necessary adjustments to bring that within the budget. This project was for the purchase of the property at the La Sierra Station. The rest of the Program/Projects are below budget, however, these expenditures are related to progress on projects and staff expects that these funds will be used as projects are completed. The Revenues have exceeded expectations and at the end of the March 2003, Measure "A" Revenues were 9% higher than the same time last year. Staff expects to complete the fiscal year with Measure "A" Revenues increasing 4-6% from prior fiscal year. Federal, State, Local and Other Government revenues are considerably less than projected and that is due to the nature of these revenues. These revenues are received on a reimbursement basis and staff expects to receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced. Agenda Item 7B 33 Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and notify the Commission of any unusual events. Listed below is the budget variance explanation for the Highway and Rail Programs. Highway Engineering/Right-of-Way • State Route 60 - Incorporation of additional agency design criteria. Awaiting funding obligation from the State. • State Route 74 - Completion of Segment II work was delayed due to resolution of environmental and permitting issues. Right of way acquisition and utility relocation remains to be completed. • State Route 79 - Awaiting final comments from County of Riverside and Caltrans in order to proceed with construction of right turn lanes on Gilman Springs Road. • State Route 91 - HOV project from Mary Street to 7th Street — completion of value engineering analysis and acceptance of alternatives from the City of Riverside. • State Route 111 - Design activities for the Palm Desert projects were delayed due to drainage redesign requirements and completion of permit processing. Highway Construction • State Route 60 - Scope increase and additional right of way requirements have delayed construction start now forecasted for August 1, 2003. Awaiting funding obligation from the State. • State Route 74 - Finalizing of environmental issues and permitting delayed the start of construction work on Segment I. Start of Segment II is now forecasted for October 2003. • State Route 79 - Right turn lanes on Gilman Springs Road awaiting completion of design. • State Route 111 - Design changes and permitting processing delayed start of construction for the Palm Desert projects now forecast for July 1, 2003. Rail Engineering/Right-of-Way • North Main Corona Station Parking Structure - Delay in pre -award audit qualification of design consultant. • La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Phase II - Property acquisition was recently finalized to allow construction to move forward. Agenda Item 7B 34 Rail Construction • La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Phase II - Construction is forecasted for April 2003. • Pedley Station Platform Expansion has started construction. Installation of CCTV is delayed until components of the platform expansion are installed scheduled for June 2003. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements Period Ending March 31, 2003 Agenda Item 7B 35 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY ACTUAL BY FUND 3RD QUARTER FOR PERIOD ENDING 313112003 DESCRIPTION PALO STATE WESTERN GENERAL FSP/ WESTERN VERDE COACHELLA TRANSIT CVAG COUNTY DEBT COMBINED FUND SAFE COUNTY VALLEY VALLEY ASSISTAN CE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION SERVICE TOTAL Revenues Sales lax 5 7,950,331 5 - 5 50,404,097 5 625,384 $ 17,725,291 n - 3 5 - > - 5 76,705,102 Federal, state & local governmenl 1,357,431 1,208,913 9,469,051 - - 12,035,394 Other revenues 333,686 2,356 1,971,506 - 227,898 1,525,927 • - 4,061,374 Interest 55,617 38,548 902,325 449 20,562 30,272 - 1,352,309 1,140,934 3,541,016 Total revenues 9,697,065 1,249,817 62,746,978 625,832 17,973,752 1,556,199 - 1,352,309 1,140,934 96,342,886 Expen ditu res Administralion Salaries & benefits 720,649 43,511 - - - - - 764,160 General legal services 80,834 5,160 - - - - - 85,993 Professio nal services 1,265,168 54,062 - - - - 1,319,230 Office lease & utilities 265,990 16,978 - - - - 282,968 General od ninistrative expenses 492,306 31,425 - - - - - - 523,732 Total administration 2,824,947 151,136 - - - - - - 2,976,084 Programs/projects Salaries & benefits 518,173 73,499 200,568 - 3,391 - - - 795,630 General legal services 86,483 4,831 289,296 - 2,912 - - - 383,523 Professional services 191,405 24,898 176,465 - • 93 - - 392,861 General projects - - 1,128,475 - 15,151 - - - - 1,143,626 Highway engineering - 1,948,452 - 46,807 - - - - 1,995,258 Highway construction - - 4,826,679 629,355 - - - 5,456,034 Highway ROW - - 9,349,774 3,540 - - - 9,353,314 Rail engineering 410,542 - - - - - 410,542 Rail construction 11,633,304 - - - - - - 11,633,304 Rail ROW 6,757,215 - - - - - 6,757,215 Local street & roads 21,847,338 678 .123 6,734,197 - - 29,259,658 Regional arterial - - 7,475,836 - - - 7,475,836 Special studies 1 277,953 • 175,370 - - - - - 1,453,323 FSP towing - 675,277 - - - - - 675,277 Commuter assislance - 1,051,676 - - - 1,051,676 Property management 36,576 - - - - 36,576 Motorist assistance - 401,446 - - - - 401,446 Rail operations & maintenance 3,296,469 - •- - - 3,296,469 STA distributions - - 4,094,384 - - 4,094,384 Specialized transit • 764,948 2,241,000 - - - 3,005,948 Planning & pro gramming services 19,050 19,050 Total programs/projects 5,426,110 1,179,950 60,560,101 678,123 17,152,189 4,094,477 - - 89,090,949 Intergovem distribution Capital outlay 594,316 277,402 17,707 7,817 594,316 302,926 Debt service Principal -• - - - 64,416 64,418 Interest - 75,092 - - - 5,187,082 5,262,174 Total debt service 75,092 - 5,251,500 5,326,592 Total expenditures 9,122,776 1,348,793 60,643,010 678,123 17,152,189 4,094,477 - 5,251,500 98,290,867 Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in - 240,600 12,044,982 O perating transfer out 618,139 240,600 19,651,706 Bond proceeds - Payment to escrow agent Cost of issuance To tal financing sources/uses 618,139 7,606,724 27 - - - 36,110,653 48,396,261 5,922,840 27 21,962,950 - 48,396,261 Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and o ther financing uses (43,650) 98,975 15,502,756) (52,291) Fund balance July 1, 2002 6,480,013 2,953,519 60,383,032 99,449 Fund balance March 31, 2003 $ 6,436,163 S 2,854,544 S 54,880,276 5 47,159 S flutorY0reren iNcipuerla rlintrnar ch 36 5,922,813 27 21,962,950 (36,110,653) (5,101,250) (2,538,277) (271 (20,610,641) 32,000,086 (1,947,981) 6,070,965 4,560,529 27 45,938,904 38,179,974 164,666,412 969,715 $ 2,022,252 $ $ 25,328,263 $ 70,160,060 $ 162,718,432 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 3RD QUARTER FOR PERIOD ENDING 3/31/2003 DESCRIPTION REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues Sales tax $ 101,048,500 $ 76,705,102 $ 24,343,398 76% Federal, state & local government 31,232,000 12,035,394 19,196,606 39% Other revenues 6,554,900 4,061,374 2,493,526 62% Interest 3,965,000 3,541,016 423,984 89% Total revenues 142,800,400 96,342,886 46,457,514 67% Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits 1,214,000 764,160 449,840 63% General legal services 100,000 85,993 14,007 86% Professional services 1,654,851 1,319,230 335,621 80% Office lease & utilities 328,000 282,968 45,032 86% General administrative expenses 829,300 523,732 305,568 63% Total administration 4,126,151 2,976,084 1,150,068 72% Programs/projects Salaries & benefits 1,314,200 795,630 518,570 61% General legal services 633,000 383,523 249,477 61% Professional services 1,485,600 392,861 1,092,739 26% General projects 2,317,100 1,143,626 1,173,474 49% Highway engineering 4,343,515 1,995,258 2,348,257 46% Highway construction 15,921,000 5,456,034 10,464,966 34% Highway ROW 14,760,000 9,353,314 5,406,686 63% Rail engineering 2,729,798 410,542 2,319,256 15% Rat construction 17,727,200 11,633,304 6,093,896 66% Rail ROW 6,453,000 6,757,215 (304,215) 105% Local street & roads 34,746,000 29,259,658 5,486,342 84% Regional arterial 7,957,900 7,475,836 482,064 94% Special studies 2,843,000 1,453,323 1,389,677 51% FSP towing 1,113,000 675,277 437,723 61% Commuter assistance 2,074,000 1,051,676 1,022,324 51% Property management 85,700 36,576 49,124 43% Motorist assistance 728,700 401,446 327,254 55% Rail operations & maintenance 4,395,500 3,296,469 1,099,031 75% STA distributions 6,155,000 4,094,384 2,060,616 67% Specialized transit 3,677,000 3,005,948 671,052 82% Planning & programming 44,100 19,050 25,050 43% Total programs/projects 131,504,313 89,090,949 42,413,364 68% Intergovern distribution Capital outlay 703,000 594,316 108,684 85% 412,000 302,926 109,074 74% Debt service Principal 24,888,000 64,418 24,823,582 0% Interest 10,663,000 5,262,174 5,400,826 49% Total debt service 35,551,000 5,326,592 30,224,408 15% Total expenditures 172,296,464 98,290,867 74,005,597 57% Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in 55,454,600 48,396,261 7,058,339 87% Operating transfer out 55,454,600 48,396,261 7,058,339 87% Bond proceeds - 0% Payment to escrow agent - - 0% Cost of issuance - - 0% Total financing sources/uses - - - 0% Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses (29,496,064) (1,947,981) (31,444,045) 7% Fund balance July 1, 2002 108,238,377 164,666,412 56,428,035 152% Fund balance March 31, 2002 $ 78,742,313 $ 162,718,432 $ 83,976,118 207% 7lusara/preprinl/mdquarlarlies/march 2003 37 AGENDA ITEM 7C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending March 31, 2003. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy and the County of Riverside Pooled Investment Report for March 2003. Attachments: 1) Quarterly Investment Report Period Ending March 31, 2003 2) County of Riverside Pooled Investment Report, March 2003 Agenda Item 7C 38 Investment Po nfolio Report Period Ending : March 31, 2003 OPERATING FUNDS RATING PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED MOODYS/S&P/FITCH VALUE DATE DATE MARKET PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS) City National Bank $ 104,934 A3/BBB+ Cash with County Treasurer 55,163,347 AAA-MR1/AAAf-S1/AAAV1+ Local Agency Investment Fund 15,232,636 AAA/AAA AgencylTreasury Securities: Money Market Mutua l Funds - CNI Charter FDS 3,606,368 AAA/AAA $ 3,606,368 12/19/02 03/31/03 2.84% $ 3,606,366 $ 3,606,368 $ 0 FHLBCB 215,000 AAA/AAA 215,000 12/23/02 12/23/05 3.00 % 215,000 217,083 2,063 Money Markel Mutual Funds - CNI Charter FDS 135,218 AAA/AAA 135,218 12/01/02 12/31/02 1 .19% 135,218 135,218 0 Fed Home Ln Banks Global Notes 3,916,643 AAA/AAA 3,845,000 09/06/01 09/15/03 4 .16% 3,916,643 3,914,691 -1,953 Fed Home Ln Banks Discount Notes 1,961,200 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 06/14/99 07/15/03 6 .29% 1.961.200 2.026.250 65,050 Sub -Total 80,335,345.05 $ 9,801,586 .00 $ 9,834,428.77 $ 9,899,810.22 $ 65,181,45 FUNDS HELD IN TRUST SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE (sash with County: CD Local Transportation Fund 24,822,740 AAA-MR1/AAA f-S1/AAAV1+ Sub -Total 24,822,740 INVESTMENT WITH CITIES Principal Maturity Date % City of Lake Elsinore 888,880 11/01/04 6. 0% Su b -Total 668,880 COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE Milestone Funds 9,720,833 AAA/AAA First American Treasury 45,948,600 AAA/AAA U.S. Treasury Notes 15,926,000 AAA/AAA First American Treasury - Held in Trust 1.997,708 AAA/AAA Sub -Total 73,591,141 TOTAL $ 179,418,107 Banks $ 104,934 Cash with County 79,986,087 LAIF 15,232,636 Mutual Funds: First American Treasury - Trust 1,997,708 CNI Charter FDS 3,741,588 Milestone 9.720,833 Sub -Total Mutual Funds 15,480,128 Federal Agency Notes 6,092,843 U.S. Treasury Notes 81,872,800 Investment Agree ments 888.880 TOTAL S 179,418,106 r ` 1i A Investment Portfolio Information For RIVE RSIDE COU NTY TRANSPO RTATION COMM. Portfolio # 74760100 CO NTENTS 1. Account Summary 2. Detail of Securities Held 3. Fair Market Values & Analytics 4. Security Transactions & Interest 5. Cash Transactions 6. Current Mo nth Gains & Losses 7. Cash/MoneyFund Balances For The Month Ending March 31, 2003 plECEUVEn APR O 1.2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM6SS1ON IVAN M. CHAND, CHIEF FINANCI AL OFFICER RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM. 4080 LEMON STREET, 3R D FLOOR RIVERSIDE CA 92502 PPM * One K eystone Plaza * N orth Front & Market Streets, Suite 300 * Harrisburg, PA 17101-2044 * (717)'232-2723 For more in formation, please contact you r client manager:NANCY JONES (415)982-5544 JQNESN@publiciin.coin Account Summary: (Excluding Cash/MoneyFu nd) 74760100 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM. MONTH ENDED: March 31, 2003 SECURITY TYPE FED AGY BOND/NOTE MARKET % OF YTM AT YTM AT DURATION PAR V ALUE AMORTIZED COST MA RKET VALUE PORTFOLIO COST M AR KET TO WORST 5,845,000.00 5,858 ,589 .93 5,940,940.63 100 .00 4.87 1.13 0 .40 TOTAL SECURITIES 5,845,000.00 5,858,589.93 5,940,940.63 100.00 4 .87% 1 .13% 0.40 TOTAL INVESTMENTS 5,845,000.00 5,858,589.93 5,940,940.63 100 .00 ACCRUED INTEREST 33,035.84 33,035.84 TOTAL PORTFOLIO 5,845,000.00 5,891,625.77 5,973,976 .47 r TOTA L SECURITIES N Detail of Securities Heed: (Excluding Cash/MoneyFu nd) 74760100 PFM RIVERSIDE COU NTY TRANSPORTATION COMM. MONTH ENDED: March 31, 200: SECURITY TY PE DESCR IPTION S&P M ATURITY PURCHASE O RIGIN AL YTM ACCRU ED AMORTI ZED M ARKET CUSIP RATING P AR COUPO N DATE DATE COST AT COST INTEREST COST VALUE FED AGY BOND/NOTE • FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 3134 A2KZ0 AAA 2,000,000 5 .750 07/15/03 06/14/99 1,961,200,00 6.29 24,277,78 1,996,952,54 2,026,250.0i FH LB G LOBAL NOTES 3133M5QB9 AAA 3,845,000 5 .125 09/15/03 09/06/01 3,916,643.15 4.16 8,758.06 3,861,637,39 3,914,690.6: 5,845,000 5,877,843.15 4.87 33,035,84 5,858,589.93 5,940,940 .6: 85,845,000 $5,877,843.15 4.87% $33,035 .84 $5,858,589.93 $5,940,940.6: Fair Market Values & Analytics: 74760100 RIV ERSID E COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM. MONTH ENDED: March 31, 2003 SECURITY TYPE PAR DESCRIPTI ON MATURI TY FIRST CALL MA RKET MARKET UNREAL G/(L) UN REAL G/(L) DURATION YTM CUSIP CO UPON D ATE DATE P RICE VALUE ON BOO K ON COST TO WORST AT MKT FED AGY BOND/NOTE 2,000,000 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERE NCE NOTES 3134 A2 KZ0 5.750 07/15/03 3,845,000 FH LB GLOBAL NOTES 3133M5QB9 5.125 09/15/03 SUBTOTALS ACCRUED INTEREST ON IN VESTMEN TS TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF INVESTMENTS W 101.313 101.813 2,026,250 .00 3,914,690.63 29,297.46 53,053.24 65,050.00 (1,952,52) 0.29 1.17 0 .46 1 .12 $5,940,940 .63 $82,350.70 $63,097.48 0.40 1.13°% 33,035.84 $5,973,976.47 • 4.6 • Security Transactions & Interest: PFM 74760100 RIVERSI DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C OMM . MO NTH E NDED: March 31, 200 S&P MATURITY PRINCIPAL ACCRUE D TRADE SETTLE TRAN TYPE SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP RATING PAR COUPON DATE AMOUNT INTE REST TOTAL 03/15/03 03/15/03 INTEREST F HLB GLOB AL NOTES 3133M5QB9 AA A 3,845,000 .00 5.125. 09/15/03 0.00 98,528 13 98,528 .12 0.00 98,528 .13 98,528.12 TOTAL SECURITY TRAN SACTIONS 898,528.13 Cash Tra nsactions Report: MONTH ENDED: CASH DATE TRANS ACTION CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTI ON T OT AL AMOUNT No transactions d nrina the month. N ET CA SH A DDITIONS/(WITHDR AWS) Realized Gains and Losses: MONTH ENDED: TRADE SETTL DATE DA TE TRAN TYPE SALE METHOD SEC URITY DESC RIPTION • No t ansnctin ns during the month. TOTAL GAINS AND LOSSES CUSIP PRINCIP AL REA LIZED REALIZED PAR VALUE COUPON PROCEEDS G/(L) COST G/(L) BOOK Cash/MoneyFund Report: 74760100 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM. MONTH ENDED: March 31, 2003 CASH/MONEYFUND BALANCE: $256,977.89 Earn int=s Calcu lation Templates Current Month -End Book Value + Current Month -En d Accru ed In terest Less Purchases Less Purchased Interest Add Disposals (Sales, Maturities, Paydowns, Sinks, etc.) Add Coupon Interest Received Less Previous Mon th -End Book Valu e Less Previous M on th -End Accrued In terest TotiMccrual Basis Earnings For The Mon th Add Coupon I nterest Received + Less Purchased I nterest Related to Coupons Add/Subtract Gains or Losses on Cost For The Mth +/- Total Cost Basis Earnings For The Month Economic Calendar 04/03/03 ISM Non -Manufacturing Survey 04/04/03 Employmen t Report 04/11/03 Producer Price Index, Retail Sales 04/15/03 Indu strial Production , Capacity Utilization 04/16/03 Consumer Price Index, H ousing Starts 04/24/03 Durable Goods Orders 04/25/03 QI Gross Domestic Product 04/28/03 Personal Income & Spen ding 05/01/03 ISM Manu factu ring Survey Next FOMC: 05/06/03, 06/25/03, 08/12/03 Market Commentary In terest rates an d economic activity are currently being driven by the U.S. led war in Iraq, Both U.S. economic activity an d con su mer confidence has fallen d ue to uncertainty surrounding the Iraqi war. Initial hope that the war would end very quickly helped to push bond yields higher as investors sou ght more risky investments su ch as equities. However, news of slower progress by coalition troops caused investors to pull back somewhat in the last week of March. As a resu lt, after reaching nearly 1.80% du ring the mon th, yields on two-year U.S. Treasury securities closed at 1,50 %, ro ughly uncha nged from the start of the month, J'rici 2 Sou r, es Market prices are derived from closing bid prices as of the last business day of the month as supplied by F. T. TnteractiV P Data R1nnrn he ra nr TR 1P ratP Prirac +ha+ full l,o h, ao. ,4n# Nature of Investment Other 1 Operating Funds 45 Trust Funds 1 5^6 Bond ProJaot 11% Debit Reserve x County Poo IY� a5% PoKfono Irrvastrr•tartt Typa Federal Apenoy Notes 3% Mutual Funds 0% ).___. Investment •Apreemonts ' 35 h Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ending March 31, 2003 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on April 9, 2003. The Commission has adequate cash flows for six months of operations. Signed by Chief Financial Officer 48 County of Riverside Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund Compliance Analysis and Investment Report March 2003 Paul McDonnell - Treasurer/Tax Collector Don Kent - Assistant Treasurer Jon Christensen - Chief Deputy Treasurer Of steeds. markets. last What France, Bush start. Below At bps.) this themselves. Treasurer's Commentary "Geopolitics, War, Crude Oil, and Recession" the four horsemen of the "Economic Apocalypse" we spoke about last month, War and Oil seem to have stumbled and fallen off their Several weeks into the war with Iraq, all seems to be going as planned. This should take care of the war jitters, which riled the The apparent conclusion of the war has also had a positive effect on the price of oil, driving it down almost six dollars a barrel in month. Both of these positives could set the stage for a war rally if not a full-blown victory recovery. of the other two horsemen, Geopolitics and Recession? On the geopolitical scene time may heal the rift with other major powers, Germany and Russia. And what of recession? The current Bush administration, worried about not repeating the economic mistakes I after his war with Iraq, can concentrate on issues like dividend tax relief and tax cuts, which are expected to give the economy a jump- But for now, we will wait and see. are reported economic indicators of importance: the of 2 At Durable Goods Orders — for Mar 26th -1.2% actual vs.- 1.5% survey Factory Orders — for Mar 6th 2.1% actual vs. 1.9% survey Gross Domestic Product (GDP) —for Mar 28th 4th Quarter -actual 1.4% actual vs. 1.4% survey Unemployment Rate — for Mar 7th 5.8% actual vs. 5.8% survey Consumer Confidence- Index — for Mar 25th 62.5% actual vs. 62.0% survey FOMC Rate decision — for Mar 18th unchanged at 1.25% Next decision Due 05/6.. 1.25% actual vs. 1.25% survey month's end, the Fed Funds rate was left unchanged at 1.25% from 1 25%, with a balanced bias. The 2 -year T -Note was yielding 1.49% (down while the 30 -year T -Bond was yielding 4.81 % (up 15 bps.). For March, the Pool yield had a decrease of 9 bps. in average monthly yield. stage, we will continue to hold the line and maintain a short-term outlook until attractive opportunities to lock in longer -term rates present Paul McDonnell Treasurer -Tax Collector MARCH Month -End Book Value Month -End Market Value' Paper Gain or (Loss) Percent of Paper Gain or Loss Yield Based Upon Book Value** Weighted Average Maturity (Years) Effective Duration • Market value does not include accrued interest. Beginning in April, the reported yield will be based upon the monthly average to more accurately reflect the portfolio's performance relative to the Benchmark. All figures have been re -stated to reflect this change in yield. PORTFOLIO STATISTICS FEBRUARY JANUARY $ 2,619,050,380 $ 2,620,562,243 $ 1,511,863 0.06% 1.56% 0.49 0.18 $ 2,528,005,038 $ 2,511,563,683 $ 2,514,092,372 $ 2,514,092,372 $ 2,528,689 $ 2,528,689 0.10% 1.74% 0.45 0.21 0.10% 1.74% 0.47 0.18 DECEMBER NOVEMBER OCTOBER $2,290,497,288 $1,800,393,928 $ 1,890,297,511 $2,294,052,129 $ 1,804,127,696 $ 1,895,923,144 $ 3,554,841 $ 3,733,768 $ 5,625,632 0.15% 0.21% 0.30% 1.88% 2.02% 2.06% 0.52 0.62 0.44 0.40 0.28 0.21 THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: AAA/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAAN1+ BY FITCH IBCA County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 4th Floor - Capital Markets Riverside, CA 92502-2205 www.countytreasurer.org (909) - 3967 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund - Portfolio Characteristics March 2003 Maturity Market Value 30 Days or Less 1,266,116,638.65 30 - 90 Days 648,520,370.61 90 Days - 1 Year 196,459,236.63 1 - 2 Years 246,985,516.75 2 - 3 Years 261,570,480.50 Over 3 Years - 910.000.00 Total: $2,620,562,243.14 Quality Market Value Federal Agency 1,471,357,581.58 AAA 250,000,000.00 A-1 and/orP-1 890,473,722.21 • N/R 8.730.939.35 •• Total: 2,620,562,243.14 Sector Market Value Federal Agency 1,471,357,581.58 Cash Equiv. & MMF's 691,000,000.00 Commercial Paper 399,473,722.21 Negotiable CD's 50,000,000.00 Certificates of Deposit 5,000,000.00 Local Agency Obligations 3 730 939.35 Total: 2,620,562,243.14 • includes Repen •, Collateralized Time Deposits& Local Agency 'Obligations Maturity e0 00% 50 00% 4000% 3000% 2000% 1000% 000% 24.75% 7.50% --_., b .. .�,, ,., 003% 30 Days or Less 30 - 90 Days 90 Days - 1 Year 1 - 2 Years 2 - 3 Years Over 3 Years Quality Federal Agency 56.15% AAA 9 54%i'• Negotiable CD's 1.98% A-1 and/or P-1 ir 33 98% N/R 0 33% Sector Cash Equiv 8 Mrs - 32.20 Commercial Paper 8.84% Certificates of Deposit 0.20% Local Agency -- Obligations 0 14% Federal - Agency 56 64% U.S. Treasury Yield Curve - March 2003 5.50% 5.00% 4.50% 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 5Y 7Y 10Y 15Y 20Y 30Y -t- 03/31/03 3M 6M IY 2Y 3Y 02/28/03 Yield Change 0 40% 030°/ - 0 20% -- 0 10% 0 00% -020% -0 30% - _ - -0 40% - 3M 6M lY 2Y 3Y 5Y 7Y 10Y 15Y 20Y 30Y Yield Curve Data 02/28/03 03/31/03 Change 3 Month 1.20% 1.11% -0.08% 6 Month 1.19% 1.12% -0.07% 1 Year 1.27% . 1.I6% -0.10% 2 Year 1.51% 1.49% -0.03% 3 Year 1.87% 1.87% 0.00% 5 Year 2.66% 2.71% 0.05% 7 Year 3.21% 3.31% 0.09% 10 Year 3.69% 3.80% 0.11% 15Year 4.36% 4.48% 0.12% 20 Year 4.70% 4.82% 0A3% 30 Year 4.67% 4.82% 0.15% 50 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund - Portfolio Holdings Report March 31, 2003 CUSIP Pa issuer Coupon Maturi Government Agency 31331LVJ4 15,050,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 31331LVJ4 10,000,000,00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 313588E87 30,000,000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 313588EK7 50,000,000 00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 3133MMWB5 25,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK1 YR NON CAL 313396E76 19,640,000 00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 313396EV3 22,000,00000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 313588E24 50,000,000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 313588E24 50,000,000 00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 31331LVL9 10,000,000 00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 31331LVL9 15,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 313588FP5 37,107,000 00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 3133MNGL9 15,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK -CVUSD 3133MNGL9 10,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 313588601 50,000,000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 3133960E7 50,000,000 00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 313396GE7 50,000,000 00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 3135880E6 50,000,000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 31358BGF6 50,000,000 00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 3135880E6 50,000,000 00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 31358801-6 33,000,000 00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 313588HH1 35,000,000 00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 313396HJ5 45,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 313396HN6 22,011,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 313396HN6 50,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 3133MPAX4 23,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3133MPAX4 30,000,00a 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3133MPH74 50,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3133MTA57 20,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 1YR NC 6M 3133MRZC9 10,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 1.5YrNc6Mo 3133MRZ96 30,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK18MNC6M 3133MSXC9 27,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc6Mo 3133MTMX3 30,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YRNC6M 3128XOUB3 30,000,00000 FHLB- MORTG. CERT 2YrNc3Mo '28X0VF3 40,000,00000 FHLB - MORTG CERT 2YrNc3Mo :8XOXU8 25,000,000 00 FHLB - MORTG CERT 2YrNc3Mo ,33MVP8 20,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG CERT 2YrNc3Mo 3136F23R7 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2YrNc3Mo 3133MVWB5 4,725,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc6Mo1X 3136F26O6 20,000,000 00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2YrNc6Mo 3136F24H8 20,250,000 00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2.25YrNc3M 3133MWCT6 10,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.25 YrNc3Mo 3133MWPG0 5,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2,25YrNc3Mo 3133MWJ51 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.. 25YrNc3Mo 3133MWPGO 20,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2 25YrNc3Mo 3133MWPO8 10,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2 25YrNc3Mo 3136F2T81 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC, 25YNc1Yr 3133108E5 25,700,00000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2 5YrNc3M 3136F23A4 20,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2 5Yr3Mo 3133MWHP9 20,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc3Mo 3136F3BU9 10,000,000.00 FNMA 2 5YrNc8Mo Slep 3136F2RC4 14,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc1Yr - CVUSD 3136F2RC4 6,000,000 00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3Yr. Nc1Yr 3133MX3U1 23,300,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.75YrNc3Mo 3128X0VC0 19,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo - CVUSD 312BX0VC0 6,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3VrNc3Mo 3133MWC33 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc6MSTEP 3133MWXX4 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc6MSlep 3133MX6L8 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo Sub-T0lal 1,472,733,000.00 Cash Equivalent & Money Market Funds 82852885 141,000,000 00 AIM STIT GOVT & AGCY AAA/Aaa 300,000,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY 250,000,000.00 MERRILL LYNCH Sub-Tolal 691,000,000 00 Collateralized Time Deposits 5,000,000.00 CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK Su b-Tola l 5,000,000.00 'egotiable Certificates of Deposi 50,000,000.00 WELLS FARGO BANK Al*/P1/F1+ 50,000,000 00 1 670 04/01/03 1 670 04/01/03 1.230 04/08/03 1.210 04/16/03 2.900 04/22/03 2.320 04/24/03 2 318 04/25/03 1.220 04/30/03 1.210 04/30/03 1 550 05/01/03 1 550 05/01/03 1.220 05/14/03 2.600 05/21/03 2600 05/21/03 1.225 05/28/03 1 215 05/29/03 1 225 05/29/03 1 160 05/30/03 1 180 05/30/03 1180 05/30/03 1155 06/11/03 1 220 06/25/03 1 185 06/26/03 1.220 06/30/03 1,220 06/30/03 2 480 07/07/03 2480 07/07/03 2240 07/15/03 2.000 11/21/03 2 260 04/07/04 2 280 04/09/04 2 500 11/05/04 2 350 11/22/04 2.300 01/14/05 2.320 01/24/05 2 375 02/07/05 2150 02/14/05 2.250 02/22/05 2125 02/28/05 2 000 02/28/05 2310 05/27/05 2 375 06/10/05 2 250 06/17/05 2 350 06/17/05 2 250 06/17/05 2 250 06/24/05 2 375 08/10/05 2.550 08/12/05 2625 08/19/05 2 520 09/19/05 2 000 09/19/05 3250 11/07/05 3 250 11/07/05 2 425 12/27/05 3,000 01/23/06 3.000 01/23/06 2.000 02/28/06 2000 03/24/06 2000 03/27/06 Acquisition Current Current Markets Cost Price Value w/o Accr Ins. GainfLoss Yld Mats EFL Dur.' Ave. Life a 15,000,000.00 10,000,000 00 29,964,125 00 49,907,589.44 25,000,000 00 19,184,352.00 21,498,620,00 49,871,222,22 49,892,444,44 10,000,000.00 15,000,000 00 37,007,656.32 15,000,000 00 10,000,000.00 49,846,875 00 49,844,750.00 49,843,47222 49.887,222 22 49,890,194-44 49,893,472 22 32,905,771 25 34,858,852 78 44,868,687 50 21,922,234 53 49,798,361 11 23,000,000 00 30,000,000 00 50,000,000 00 20,000,000.00 10,000,000,00 30,000,000 00 27,000,000 00 30,000,000 00 30,000,000 00 40,000,000 00 25,000,000 00 20,000,000 00 10,000,000 00 4,725,000.00 20,000,000.00 20,246,835.94 10,000,000 00 5,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 20,000,000 00 10,000,000 00 10,000,000.00 25,700,000.00 19,990,00000 20,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 14,000,000.00 6,000,000,00 23,300,000.00 19,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 10,000,000 00 10,000,000 00 10,000,000.00 1 230 04/29/03 1 320 04/01/03 1 320 04/01/03 100.000 15,000,000.00 - 1670 0.00 0.00 100.000 10,000,000.00 1670 000 0.00 99.880 29,964,125.00 1 231 002 0.02 99.815 49,907,569.44 (0.00) 1212 0.04 0.04 100.000 25,000,000.00 2.900 0.06 0.06 97.680 19,184,352.00 0.00 2375 006 0.07 97 721 21,498,62U 00 - 2391 0.06 0.07 99742 49,871,222,22 1 223 0.08 0.08 99.785 49,892,44444 - 1 210 0.08 0.08 100.000 10,000,00000 1 550 0.08 0.08 100 000 15,000,000 00 - 1.550 0.08 0.08 99 732 37,007,656 32 (0 00) 1 223 0.12 0.12 100.000 15,000,000 00 - 2 600 0.14 0.14 100 000 10,000,000.00 2 600 0.14 0.14 99.694 49,846,875.00 1215 0.16 0.16 99 690 49,844,750 00 - 1 219 0.16 0.16 99.687 49,843,47222 1229 0.16 0.16 99.774 49,887,222.22 - 1163 0.16 0.16 99780 49,890,19444 - 1183 0.16 0.16 99.787 49,893,472.22 1201 0.16 0.16 99.714 32,905,771.25 0..00 1185 0.19 0.20 99.597 34,858,85278 1225 0.23 0.24 99 704 44,866,687.50 1 189 0.24 0.24 99703 21,945,517.28 23,28275 1.225 0.25 0.25 99703 49,851,25000 52,888.89 1 225 0.25 0.25 100.351 23,080,730 00 80,730.00 2 480 0.27 0.27 100 351 30,105,300.00 105,300 00 2.480 0.27 0.27 100.311 50,155,500.00 155,50000 2.240 0.29 0.29 100 000 20,000,000 00 - 2.001 0.63 0.64 100 000 10,000,000.00 - 2260 1.00 1.02 100.000 30,000,000 00 • 2.280 1.01 1.03 100.126 27,034,020.00 34,020.00 2,500 0.09 1.60 100 168 30,050,400.00 50,40000 2,350 0.14 1.65 100 000 30,000,000 00 - 2.300 1.75 1.79 100 073 40,029,200 00 29,200 00 2.320 0.09 1.82 100.122 25,030,500 00 30,500 00 2375 0.10 1.86 100.119 20,023,80000 23,80000 2150 0.12 1.88 100-155 10,015,500 00 15,500 00 2.250 0.14 1.90 100.383 4,743,096.75 18,09675 2116 0.41 1.92 100,295 20 059,000.00 59,000 00 1 992 0.41 1.92 100.179 20,286,247.50 39,411 56 2 318 0.16 2.16 100.233 10,023,300.00 23,300 00 2 373 0.19 2.20 100 231 5,011,550 00 11,550 00 2248 0.21 2.22 100 252 10,025,200.00 25,200 00 2.348 0.21 2.22 100..231 20,046,200.00 46,20000 2248 0.21 2.22 100..252 10,025,200.00 25,200 00 2,250 0.23 2.24 100 852 10,085,200.00 85,200 00 2,375 0.85 2.36 100.158 25,740,606 00 40,606 00 2,550 0.11 2.37 100196 20,039,200.00 49,200.00 2,.646 0.13 2.39 100 295 20,059,000.00 59,000.00 2520 0.22 2.47 100 321 10,032,100,00 32,100,00 2.247 0.47 2.47 101 231 14,172,34000 172,340.00 3.250 0.59 2.61 101 231 6,073,860 00 73,860.00 3 250 0.59 2.61 100.269 23,362,67700 62,677.00 2424 0.24 2.75 100.000 19,000,000.00 - 3.000 2.70 2.82 100,000 6,000,000 00 - 3 000 2.70 2.82 100 337 10,033,700 00 33,700 00 2 983 0.41 2.92 100. 373 10,037,300.00 37,300 00 2836 0.48 2.98 100.168 10,018,800.00 16.800 00 2 614 014 2 99 1,469,845,718.63 1,471,357,581 58 1,511 862 94 1 823 026 0 83 141 ,000,000. 00 300,000,000.00 250,000,000.00 691,000,000 00 100 000 100 000 100 000 141,000,000.00 300,000,000.00 250,000,000 00 1.230 0 08 0.08 1.320 0.00 0.00 1.320 0.00 0 00 691,000,000.00 1.302 0.02 002 2.000 04/14/03 5,000,000.00 100 000 5,090,000 00 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 2028 0.04 004 1.260 04/03/03 50,000,000 00 100,000 50,000,000 00 2.028 0 04 0.04 1 260 0.00 0 01 50,000,000 00 50,000,000 00 51 Page 1 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund - Portfolio Holdings Report March 31, 2003 Acquisition Current Current Market' CUSIP Par Issuer , �— Couoon Maturi Cost Price Value wJo Accr Int. Gain/Loss Yld Mat Eff. Cur Ave. L Commercial Paper 90262DR15 50,000,000.00 UBS FINANCE AI+/P1/F1 1 380 04/01/03 49,998,083.33 99998 49,998,083.33 - 1 380 000 0.00 37576MR17 50,000,000.00 GILLETTE COAL+/P1/F1+ 1.340 04/01/03 49,998,138.89 99.998 49,998,138.89 1.340 0.00 0.00 1667T1R29 50,000,000.00 CHEVRON TEXACO CORP Al+/Pi 1.250 04/02/03 49,927,083.33 99.854 49,927,083.33 1.252 0 00 0.01 3022X3R03 50,000,000.00 EXXON MOBIL Al +/P1 1 230 04/24/03 49,948,750.00 99.898 49,948,750.00 - 1 231 0.08 007 8923E3RR8 50,000,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT 1 180 04/25/03 49,926,250.00 99 853 49,928,250.00 0.00 1.182 0.07 0.07 36959SS79 50,000,000.00 GE CAPITAL CORP 1,250 05/07/03 49,928,819.44 99 858 49,928,819.44 1.252 0.10 0.10 00137FSW3 50,000,000.00 AIG FUNDING Al +/P1 1.145 05/30/03 49,872,777.78 99.746 49,872,77778 1.148 0.17 0.18 7954W15W4 50,000,000-00 SALOMON SMITH BARNEYAI+PI/F1+ 1.150 05/30/03 49,873,819.44 99.748 49,873,81944 1153 0.17 0,16 Sub -Total 400,000,00000 Average weighted days for commercial paper 2625 399,473,722.21 Local Agency Obligations° 1,320,93935 EDA BAN 1,500,000 00 MARCH JPRA GAN 910,000 00 U.S DISTRICT COURT- RIVCO CTF Sub -Total 3,730,939 35 2 080 08/30/03 2 080 06/01/05 2 080 06/15/20 1,320,939 35 100 000 1,500,000.00 100.000 910,000.00 100.000 3,730,939.35 399,473,722 21 1,320,939.35 1,500,000 00 910,000.00 1 242 0 07 0.07 2.080 0.25 0.25 2.080 2.12 2.17 2 080 14.50 17.22 3,730,030 35 2 080 4 48 5,16 Grand -Totals 2,622,463,939.35 2.619.050.380.19 2,620,562,243.14 1,511,962.94 1.563 0.18 0.49 'The market value and yield of short-term money market securities are based on purchase price, 2 Effective Duration is a sophisticated calculation that measures price sensitivity, while taking into consideration the possibility of securities being called before maturity. Average Life is the number of years until principal is returned at maturity, weighted by market value. ° Local Agency Obligations have variable rate coupons, spread to the Pool 52 Page 2 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND TREASURER'S POLICY The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund is governed by both State Law and County Policy. The County Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy is more restrictive than the California Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by the County's Investment Oversight Committee and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. As of this month end, the County Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund was in compliance with this more restrictive policy. Although we have been diligent in the prepartion of this report, we have relied upon numerous pricing and analytical sources including Bloomberg Market Database and Capital Management Sciences, Inc. Bond Logistix LLC BO NDLOGIST1X INSIGHT INNOVATION INTEGRATION 213.612.2200 SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS California Government Code 1 County Investment Policy Actual Cal G_:$q Investment Category Maximum Authorized % Quality Maximum ,Authorized % Quality Riverside Maturity Limit S&P/Moody's Maturity Limit S&F/Moodv's/FMCh Portfolio % Code 53601(6) LOCAL AGY BONDS 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 15% / $150mm A/A2/A 0.000% 53601(b) U. S. TREASURY 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 5 YEARS 100% N/A 0.00% 53601(d) CALIFORNIA LOCAL .AGENCY DEBT 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 2.5% Investment Grade 0,14°! 53601(e) FEDERAL AGENCIES 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 5 YEARS 100% N/A 56.15% 53601(f) BILLS OF EXCHANGE 270 DAYS 40%1 180 DAYS 30% Al/P1/F1 0.00°A 53601(9) COMM, PAPER 270 DAYS 40% Al/P1 270 DAYS 40% Al/P1/F1 15,24% 53601(h) CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS 5 YEARS 30% 1 YEAR 25% max Al/P1/F1 1,91% 53601(1) REPOS 1 YEAR NO LIMIT 45 DAYS 40%/25% term max Al/P1/F1 16.83% 53601(i) REVERSE REPOS 92 DAYS 20% 60 DAYS 10% max N/A 0.00% 53601(j) MED. TERM NOTES 5 YEARS 30% A 2 YEARS 20% max AA/Aa2/AA 0.00% :53601(k) MUTUAL FUNDS 90DAYS 2 20% AAA/Aaa3 IMMEDIATE 20% AAA by 2 of 3 Rating Agencies 9.54% 53601(m) SECURED DEPOSITS (BANK DEPOSITS) 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 1 YEAR 2% max 0.19% 53601(n) (MORTGAGE PASS- 'THROUGH SECURITY 5 YEARS 20% AA -SECURITY A - ISSUER N/A N/A 0 00% 16429 (1,2,3) LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS N/A NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 0% max 0.00% ' than 30% this may be invested with any one commercial bank 100.00% No more of category 2 Mutual Funds ma unity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days.. ' Or must have an Investment Advisor with not less than 5 years expenence and with assets under management of 5500.100,000. _s 53 t'reasurer's Pooled Investment Fund March 2003 PROJECTION OF FUTURE CASK FLOW The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. The Treasurer states that based upon projected cash receipts and maturing investments there are sufficient funds to meet future cash flow disbursement requirements over the next 12 months. MONTH MONTHLY MONTHLY REQUIRED ACTUAL INV. AVAIL. TO RECEIPTS D1Stlrl1NTS DIFFERENCE MAT. INVEST BALANCE MATURITIES INVEST>1 YR. 4/2003 62.1 4/2003 878.4 554.2 324.2 0.0 386.3 1266.1 5/2003 401.4 714.9 -313.5 0.0 72.8 535.8 6/2003 395.7 671.8 -276.1 203.3 0.0 185.7 7/2003 426.3 442.1 -15.8 15.8 0.0 103.0 8/2003 408.4 511.3 -102.9 102.9 0.0 0.0 9/2003 353.8 499.0 -145.2 145.2 0.0 0.0 10/2003 472.7 579.9 -107.2 107.2 0.0 0.0 11/2003 450.0 560.9 -110.9 110.9 0.0 20.0 12/2003 994.4 601.0 393.4 0.0 393.4 0.0 1/2004 453.3 794.5 -341.2 0.0 52.2 0.0 2/2004 525.4 936.7 -411.3 359.1 0.0 0.0 3/2004 482.9 666.3 -183.4 183.4 0.0 0.0 Totals: 6,242.7 7532.6 -1289.9 1227.80 2110.6 1391.2 46.88% 80.59% 53.12% 24 Month Gross Yield Trends The yield history represents gross yields; administrative costs have not been deducted. Actual earnings on fund balances will be credited by the Auditor - Controller based upon County Treasurer calculations. Portfolio yield generally lags current trends in short-term interest rates. Yields fluctuate with changing markets and past performance Is not an indication of future results, 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 -I Gross Yield Trends i Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar - 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 PORTFOLIO YIELD -f-185.7 ALL TAXABLE AVERAGE 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 -0.30 -0.40 -0.50 Apr - 01 24 Month Yield Spread (Pool Yield vs. All Taxable Average) Average Spread = 0.15% May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar - 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 *The Money Fund ReportTM/ All Taxable Average is compiled and reported by iMoneyNet, Inc. (formerly IBC Financial Data, Inc.) iMoneyNet, Inc. is a leading prow of independent analyses and information to the financial services industry, with a particular area of focus in money market mutual funds. The All -Taxable Index trac the yield of over 500 taxable money market funds across several categories, i.e. Treasury, Government, and Prime, and reports the average yield of those funds on monthly basis. For more information on the iMoneyNet, Inc. Index seevww ibcdata.co ndex.html 54 AGENDA ITEM 7D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending January, February, and March 2003. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all contracts that have been executed through the months of January, February, and March 2003, under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The remaining unused capacity is $335,455. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report for Period Ending March 31, 2003 Agenda Item 7D 55 SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF MARCH 31, 2003 CONSULTANT ORIGINAL REMAINING DESCRIPTION CONTRACT EXPENDED CONTRACT OF SERVICES AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 200 Volt Edge Repairs, replacements and Maintenance at D owntown Station Inland Mailing Service! PSI Inc. George R. Fetty & Associates Gladstein & Associates, LLC. Roy E. Glauthier Commuter Assistanc e Ride Guide: Duplicates of Videos F ootage pursua nt to May 2002 Agre ement Consultant betwee n UP & RCTC for projects impacting UP ROW and Alameda Corridor East gr ad e sep ar ati on projects. $ 500,000 .00 16,145 .00 16,142.00 3 .00 15,000 .00 0.00 15,000 .00 25,000 .00 1,335.54 23,664 .46 15,000.00 FY02/03 Clean Fuels implementi on 25,000 .00 consulting services. TS' Managem ent Audit 12,600 .00 12,712.50 2,287 .50 24,712 .12 287 .88 12,600 .00 0.00 Value Management Strategies, In c. SR -60 Moreno Vall ey HOV Project Economics & Politics, Inc. Elro d Fence Co mpany 21,570.00 0.00 21,570.00 Report economic devel opm ent in Riv Co 33,500.00 0.00 33,500 .00 and the co nstruction priorities 40' X 6' Wro ugh Iron fence across Metrolink 730.00 0 .00 730 .00 between University and 14th Street AMOUNT USED AMOUNT REMAINING THROUGH June 30, 2003 Donna Polmounter Michele Cisneros Prepared by Reviewed by Note: Shaded area represents new contracts for January, February & March. f:\users\preprint\dp\sinsig03 164,545.00 67,502 .16 97,042 .84 $ 335,455.00 $ 67,502.16 $ 267,952.84 AGENDA ITEM 7E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending March 31, 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 March 31, 2003. Attachment: Monthly Report — March 2003 Agenda Item 7E 57 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAYJRAIL PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE C OMMISSI ON CONTRACTURAL %COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINSTAUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 03/31/03 TO DATE COM MITMNTS TO DATE ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design/ROW HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. $7,700,000 $7,550,641 98.1% $1,715,759 $7,328,075 97 .1 % (2042) (3000) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 $7,700,000 $7,550,$41 98.1% ,71:5,759 .$7;328,075 97.1% ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966, $69,847,655 $29,514,368 42.3% $1,715,759 $21,774,859 73.8% (R02142) (R02141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUBTOTAL; ROUTE 74 $69;847,655 $29,514;,368 42.3% $1,715,759: $21,7:74,8:$9 73,8% ROUTE 79 PRO JECTS Engineering/Environ.ROW (3003) $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96 .5 % $120 $986,625 35.3 % Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 7. 9 $2,894,.497 $2 ,793;935. 96.5.% $120 $986,6:25 353% 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 % Project Complete $31,013,510 91 .9% SUBTOTAL ROUTE 86 $54'143,000 $53;260;000. $O $49,0 .13510 9 .2:1 % ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction $11,902,100 $10,374,324 87 .2 % $527 $9,528,195 91.8% (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R03008) $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% $17,318 $474,677 44.7 % Sndwall Landscaping (R09933,9946,2059.3601) $1,603,450 $1,603,450 100. 0% $17,051 $869,264 54.2 % SUBTOTAL ROUTE:91 $17,733,980. $'15y993 799 90,2% A4,89.6 $72;961,665 $1." ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) $16,946,856 $16,946,856 100.0% $673,929 $15,619,414 92.2% 3410,9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629 (3400-3405) SUBTOTAL ROUTE;1,11 $16 946,85 r $16;8.4%06 ',: '{00:00 ; . . $6:13,929; $15,61.9;4 .14 92:2% Page 1 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 03/31/03 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) $6,726.504 $5,878,173 87:4% $5.704,897 97.1 % $UBTOTAL1-215 $6" 26,5 ' $5;078,173 s7. ° $0 $5,7.04,897 97:4% INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946) $440,000 $400,000 90 .9% $0 $312,519 78 .1% SUBTOTAL NTERCHANCE :;: $440 000 5400,000 90;8% $0 2,519 78x1% PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV. (Agreement (02-31-081)) $2,138,641 $2,027,483 94 .8% $115,671 $1,084,793 53.5% SUBTOTAL BECHTEL ::: $2 138 641 2, 7 3 94:8% $115,971 $1,084,793 :4-,15% PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES North/South Corridor study (R09936) $25,000 $25,000 100 .0% $0 $0 0.0% SUBTOTAL ROGRAM PLAN & SVCS $ 5, 0 ;$25;000 , 100;0% to $0: 4 0% PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 $2,323,177 $2,323,177 100.0 % $255,553 $1,798,801 77.4% 2127,2138,2139 SUBTOTA!_; PARK -N -RIDE - $2;323 177 $2,:;321177 160.0% $26 .5,553 $1,798;801 77;4° COM MUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering/Construction $21,685,414 $20,943,070 96.6% $783,229 $20,235,439 96 .6% (RO 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028) 2031,2027,2120 802029,2128, 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% $139,910 $9,487,614 68 .3% StfitT TAL COMIIVIUT5R RAIL 44 ,843;309 9:7,9% $92.3,139 $29;23053': 0 0% 1 I. TOTALS II. $216,475,053': $171;556,831:: 79.3% .. :::$5,434;026 $149,366,21'1 -. .55;3°; Page 2 of 3 RCTC ME ASURE " A" HIGHW AY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % L OAN BALANCE PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" L OAN OUTSTANDIN G TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION COMMITMENT 03/31/03 ADVANCES B ALANCE COMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $627,892 $0 39.2 % SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE:LOAN $1,600;000 2r0 21:,60:0,0Q0 $627;892 20 392 % CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $2,779,909 $0 53.3 % Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA..:.'. '. 5,212 ,G23 20 € $5,2'12,623 2 779,9119: 20 53:3% CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements $1,936,419 $1,936,419 $1,127,811 $0 58.2 % CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements $1,324,500 $1,324,500 $771,416 $0 58.2% CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road improvements $5,094,027 $5,094,027 $2,966,868 $0 58.2 % CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts $2,139,067 $2,139,067 $1,245,838 $0 58.2 % CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improveme nts $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $668,880 $0 44 .6 % TOTALS $18,805,636 $0: $18,8Q6,636 $9,5`!9;734 $0 5f 0% NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Status as o!: 3/31/03 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 7F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA T/ON COMMISSION DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Reprogramming of State Transportation Improvement (STIP) Funding Program PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The City of Blythe submitted an allocation request for the Hobsonway Arterial Improvement Project to Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on September 9, 2002. Although the project is programmed in FY 2003-04, the CTC can allocate projects in advance if the project is ready for an allocation vote. However, at the time this project was to be placed on the CTC agenda the state budget crisis was proclaimed. At its December 2002 meeting, the CTC decided to place all allocation votes on hold until further information was provided regarding the impact to the STIP. In March 2003, Ca[trans presented a cash flow projection covering an 18 -month period, January 2003 through June 2004, which identified $1.8 billion available for allocation. In addition, the CTC developed an allocation plan to determine which projects to allocate and also established categories of projects in priority order. The Hobsonway Project was not included in the allocation plan because the CTC wanted to focus solely on projects that were programmed in FY 2002-03. Once FY 2003-04 begins in July, FY 2003-04 projects will be included in the allocation plan with FY 2002-03 projects that did not receive allocations. Given the limited funds available, significant delays in allocations are expected, especially for non - capacity projects. Agenda Item 7F 61 Given that Hobsonway is a non -capacity project and would be placed low on the allocation plan, the City of Blythe decided that they could no longer wait to construct the Hobsonway Improvement Project and coordinated with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments to fund the project with local funds. This action requires us to rescind the allocation request allowing the funds to lapse. The City of Blythe will have the opportunity to propose a substitute project in a future STIP or with future TEA 21 Reauthorization funding. STIP Guidelines stipulate that lapsed funds (programmed projects that are not requested for allocation) are returned to the county share in the next STIP cycle. Rather than letting the funds lapse, there is an opportunity to reprogram the funds. In reviewing all reservation projects, the only project that has the likelihood of receiving an allocation in FY 2003-04 is Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) activities. Currently, $166,000 is programmed in FY 2003-04 to cover staff costs associated with PPM activities. The PPM project category is the third highest priority category on the allocation plan and it is likely that these funds can be allocated sometime within the next year. However, there is no guarantee that the CTC would allocate the entire amount in FY 2003-04. Staff proposes the use of the $1.875 million as follows: Additional staff costs for project monitoring $ 96,015 Orange County -Riverside County Major Investment Study $1,000,000 CETAP (The RCTC approved a $778,985 increase to the CETAP budget on January 8, 2003. The County of Riverside agreed to advance the funding to allow work to proceed, with the understanding that RCTC would seek funding to provide reimbursement for these costs.) $ 778,985 TOTAL $1,875,000 Agenda Item 7F 62 AGENDA ITEM 7G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Consultant Selection for Survey and Material Services in Support of Future Measure "A" Commuter Rail Construction Projects Testing On -Call Highway and BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In August 1997, the Commission directed staff to advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services, to provide Survey and Material Testing On -Call Services, in support of Measure "A" Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Projects which were scheduled to go to construction at the start of 1998. Agenda Item 7G 63 Staff followed through with the Commission's direction, placing advertisements for RFP's for survey and Material Testing services. selection committees were formed, the submitted RFPs were evaluated, shortlists of the highest ranked qualified firms were selected, the shortlisted firms were interviewed and ranked by the respective selection committee, staff negotiated contracts with the respective highest ranked firms, and recommendations for contract award were forwarded to the Commission. In October 1997 the Commission awarded the following On -Call Construction Support Services Contracts: On -Call Material Testing Contract No. RO-9832 Ninyo & Moore On -Call Surveying Services Contract No. RO-9833 County of Riverside Over the past five (5) years, the Commission has amended Ninyo & Moore's and the County of Riverside's Contract to provide Material Testing and Surveying Services, respectively, for over a dozen Measure "A" Construction Projects. After the passage of the new Measure "A" Ballot Initiative, last November, staff started to look into the continued need for On -Call Survey and Material Testing Construction Support Services for future Measure "A" Highway and Commuter Rail Projects. Staff determined that there will be a continuing need and recommended that the Commission authorize a new selection process to provide these services. At its February 2003 meeting, the Commission concurred with staffs recommendation. On February 17, 2003, staff advertised Request for Proposals for Survey and Material Testing Construction Support Services. On March 20, 2003, staff received proposals from ten (10) Survey Firms and twelve (12) Material Testing Firms. Two selection panels were assembled, one for survey and one for material testing, with each selection panel comprised of representatives from RCTC, Bechtel, and Caltrans. Each respective selection panel reviewed the submitted proposals associated with their respective panel, arrived at a mutually agreed upon ranking, and on April 4, 2003, formalized shortlists and transmitted invitations for oral interviews to six (6) Survey Firms and four (4) Material Testing Firms. On April 16, 2003, the six (6) shortlisted Survey Firms were given an opportunity to present their team, qualifications, and work methodology before the respective selection panel. After all six (6) Survey Firms had completed their interviews, the respective selection panel members independently and then mutually evaluated each team which resulted in the following ranking: Top Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked David Evans and Associates, Inc County of Riverside Survey Department Associated Engineers, Inc. Agenda Item 7G 64 On April 17, 2003, the four (4) shortlisted Material Testing Firms were given an opportunity to present their team, qualifications, and work methodology before the respective selection panel. After all four (4) Material Testing Firms had completed their interviews, the respective selection panel members independently and then mutually evaluated each team which resulted in the following ranking: Top Ranked Ninyo & Moore Second Ranked Kleinfelder Third Ranked Converse Consultants The current On -Call Surveying and Material Testing Contracts with the County of Riverside and Ninyo & Moore are budgeted for, and will continue through the completion of the current construction projects. The current construction contracts are anticipated to be completed by the end of summer, of this year. If the Commission concurs with the selection panels ranking, as outlined above, staff will work with David Evans and Associates and Ninyo & Moore to develop a scope of services and costs for the respective Surveying and Material Testing Services for all new Measure "A" Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Projects. The following are the two main projects anticipated to be ready, in full or part, for construction within the next fiscal year: • Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Southside Parking Lot Project • San Jacinto Branchline Metrolink Rail and Station Improvement Projects After staff has finished negotiations with the top ranked firm for the respective services, staff will return to the Commission with contract recommendations. Agenda Item 7G 65 AGENDA ITEM 7H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003 Amendment to City of Corona's Short Range Transit Plan to Reallocate Funds for the Purchase of Base Radio Communication Equipment PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Corona (Corona) is requesting an amendment to their FY 2003 Short Range Transit Plan and reallocation of $12,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF). Corona has an immediate need to replace its base radio communication equipment. Their existing equipment has been repaired numerous times; during the last repair, Corona was told that the company could no longer guarantee the radio's on -going operation. The base system supports Corona's two-way radio communication system which supports 14 transit vehicles. Earlier in the year, Corona was approved for $102,000 in LTF Local Match Funds to purchase four Dial -A -Ride replacement buses. Based on the quotes received for the four buses, there will be a minimum savings of $55,000. As a result, Corona is requesting that $12,000 of these funds be reallocated to cover the cost of the radio equipment. The balance of the LTF Funds will be carried forward for use in FY 2004. Agenda Item 7H 66 AGENDA ITEM 71 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager ' THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT; Care -A -Van Transit, Inc.'s Request to Apply Excess Matching Funds From Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 to Fiscal Year 2002 PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Care -A -Van Transit, Inc. (Care -A -Van) has provided on -going transportation services to the elderly, disabled and/or truly needy population in the Hemet/San Jacinto area since 1994. Transportation is provided to medical appointments, social service agencies, education and literacy classes, job training, employment as well as life enhancing activities such as shopping, visiting family, etc. In FY 2002, Care -A -Van received a Measure "A" Specialized Transit Operating Grant in the amount $139,134. Under the terms of the operating grant, Care -A -Van is required to provide a local match of $139,134 by June 30, 2002. However, due to cutbacks in local funding from Community Development Block Grants, it was determined through the audit process that Care -A -Van did not meet its match requirements. A total of $126,905 in local match funding was provided ($42,203 in cash and $84,702 of in -kind services). To cover the $12,229 short fall, Care -A - Van is requesting that excess matching funds from FYs 2000 and 2001 be applied towards the FY 2002 match requirement. Agenda Item 71 67 AGENDA ITEM 7J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 14, 2003 TO; Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure "A" Specialized Transit Program: Anza Valley Community Services, Inc. PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Earlier in the year, the Commission received notification that Anza Valley Community Services, Inc. (Anza) would cease to provide specialized transit services effective October 31, 2002. To ensure that operating funds and vehicles purchased with Measure "A" Funds were properly accounted for, staff from Ernst and Young conducted a close-out audit. The results of the audit, together with communication from Anza staff, revealed that $6,542 of Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds were on hand as of October 31, 2002. It is projected that after all bills are paid a balance of approximately $4,000 will be available to either be returned to the Commission's Measure "A" Specialized Transit Fund or disbursed to other non-profit agencies. Anza has requested that the remaining funds be disbursed as follows: a. $2,000 to Agape, a non-profit provider in the Anza area that provides assistance to the needy; and, b. $2,000 to be split evenly (approximately $667 each) among the Nazarene Church, the Baptist Church and Community Assistance, a non-profit organization that provides food to the needy. If approved, funds provided to the Nazarene and Baptist church will go towards the cost of insuring vehicles that Anza donated to them. Agenda Item J 68 In addition, a decision needs to be made on the assignment of a 12 -passenger. 2001 Ford Van purchased in part with Measure "A" Funds ($30,736) together with $17,314 of funds raised through Anza's fund-raising activities. Anza will relinquish title of this vehicle to RCTC or our designee so that the vehicle can be placed into specialized transit service. Staff recommends that title of the vehicle be assigned to the Riverside Transit Agency for use in its specialized transit program. Agenda Item J 69 AGENDA ITEM 7K RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA T/ON COMMISSION DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee 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 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve an amendment to 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 $75,000 to the E. Palm Canyon/Araby Traffic Signal Upgrade Project and reduce funding by $75,000 to the South and East Palm Canyon Traffic Signal Project to allow adequate funds to complete the work. The overall Measure "A" Budget will remain unchanged. Attachment: Letter from the City of Palm Springs with Revised Schedule Agenda Item 7K 70 March 3, 2003 City' of Palm Springs Department of Public Works Engineering Division 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 TEL: (760) 323-8253 • FAX (760) 322-8360 • TDD (760) 864-9527 Mr. Jerry Rivera Measure A Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 e E Q MAR05 no3 RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Re' FY 2003-07 Local Measure A Program (Adjustment to FY 02/03 of 5-Yr. 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 4. S.& E. Palm Canyon Traffic Signal Upgrade 5. E. Palm Canyon/Araby Traffic Signal Upgrade TOTALS: Listed Amt. New Amt. $125,000 $ 50,000 $ 75.000 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000 Net Change ($75,000 reduction) $ 75.000 increase $ 0 net change The E. Palm Canyon/Araby Traffic Signal Upgrade is under -budgeted and will require additional MeasureAfunds to complete the work. On the olherhand, the South and East Palm Canyon Traffic Signal has less work required and the proposed transfer of funds will still allow adequate funds to complete the work. The overall Measure A Budget would remain unchanged. The City respectfully requests that the Commission consider an amendment to the current Palm Springs FY 02- 03 Measure A Plan, redistributing the indicated funds, with a net change of $ 0 to Measure A Funds. If you have any questions, please call Bob Mohler at (760) 323-8250 or Marcus Fuller at 323-8253 (X8744). Sincerely, David J. Barakian Director of Public Works/City Engineer Attachments: 1. FY 02-03 Measure A Plan- Summary Page (original' amounts) 2. FY 02-03 Measure A Plan- Summary Page (revised per this request) cc: Bob Mohler, Grants and Government Affairs Manager . Marcus Fuller, Senior Engineer Carrie Rovney, Administrative Secretary Tom Kanarr, Director of.Finance/Treasurer Nancy Klukan, Accounting•Manager . • li BobM\DATA\DOCUMENTIRCTC Meas A Adjust ArabySignal J Rivera 3.3:03 Itr wpd Post Office Box 2743 ' Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 71 RIVERSIDE COUNTY T RANSPORTATION COMMISSIO N MEAS URE " A" LOCAL FUNDS PROG RAM Agency: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Spri ngs Page 1 of 1 Robert L. Mohler (Gra nts and Gover nment Affairs Manager) J une 14, 2002 ( **Re v. 3/03/03) FY 2003-07 5- Yr, Measure A Local Streets & Roads (FY 2002-03) ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ME ASURE "A " FUNDS 1. Ann ual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Various Locations (Co ntract Crews) 200,000 90.000 2. Annual Street Crack Filling (Contract) Various Locations (Contract Crews) 50,000 0 3. Traffic Signal Flow Improvements Various Locations 150,000 50,000 4. E. Palm Canyon & S. Palm Canyon Traffic Sig nal Modification **50,000 **50,000 5. E. Palm Canyon & Araby Dr. Traffic Signal Modification **150,000 _ **150,000 6. Racquet Club & Aven ida Caballeros Traffic Signal Installati on 150,000 150,000 7. Sunrise Wav & 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 a Hospital Lighted Walk 25,000 25 000 10. Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Project In stall Concrete Sidewalks behind curbs 70,000 40,000 11. Mesquite Avenue Widening (Desert Way -D emuth Park) S. l/ Street (Added budget- see $239K 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 Can yon Dr. Traffic Signal Interconnect Federal STP Grant ($599K Gra nt/$156K Match) 755,000 186,000 14, Indian Canyon Drive 2 -Way Conversion Revise Exist. 1 -Way Roadway to 2 -Way 100,000 290,000 2002/03 TOTALS (New Projects) $2,606,000 $1,551,000 A dd: 2001/02 Projects "Continued" to 2002/03* (See Pages 1-3 for 2001/02) $22,669,000 *$2,796,500 " "Continued" 2001/02 & New 2002/03 Projects Combined 2002/03 TO TALS $25,275,000 54,347,500 ** NOTE: Revised per letter from City of Palm Sprin gs to Jerry Rivera,- AGENDA ITEM 7L RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Metrolink Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: By virtue of the Joint Powers Agreement, the five member agencies which comprise the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) must formally commit to fund their proportionate shares of commuter rail operating and capital costs. Each member agency must approve the budget before adoption of a final budget by the Metrolink Board, no later than June 30, 2003. Service and funding levels are limited by the policy and budget constraints of the member agencies and are negotiated each year. Riverside County Service Levels Proposed for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Three Metrolink lines will traverse Riverside County, the Riverside Line, the Inland Empire -Orange County (IE0C) Line, and the 91 Line. The Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Draft Metrolink Budget proposes the following: • Riverside Line: No changes in regular weekday service or weekend service via extensions to the San Bernardino Line; Agenda Item 7L 73 • IE0C Line: One round trip off-peak service between Riverside and Irvine \mill ho added in the Fall, .. +h,. total . ..._L..,- - f . _i_d_.. •• - •• •� •• ••• �+ �+�.�+ in Al. uu, increasing the wiai i lul I AUGI of vveelsudy trains from 12 to 14; and, • 91 Line: No changes in regular weekday service. Avg Ridership for Riverside & 91 Lines 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 e0 O Riverside Line On -Time Performance 100% 90% 80% o �J` V-• S 0 - O�„��ac Leo mac ti •o Riverside Line --a—System The on -time performance of the Riverside Line has consistently improved since March 2002, however, ridership has decreased by 5% due to the introduction of the new 91 Line service in May 2002. The new Line and Amtrak's "Rail 2 Rail" Program have resulted in significant changes in travel patterns along the corridor. Since the opening of the 91 Line, ridership has more than doubled to over 1,624 average daily boardings. Half of all 91 Line trips originate in the Inland Empire with most of these trips a f, bound for Los Angeles Union Station `°°'" 0.11�•!".'� ,+' " 9/ (LAUS) or beyond. But there is , °'/41::,/,4% ,;//1; " . :` Los .� oA, Homo significant ridership turn -over at the "'f ':',r "' � Ar ; r Fullerton Station as former Orange f .-: `°'�'✓`f.' , County Line riders board 91 Line trains —4,..-54' • ` for LAUS. Metrolink recently _,� ~ . f;; ` I conducted an intercept survey at the =t�~.� ''' �'-'`i' n: rE L.- Fullerton Station which validated — ..- I / earlier estimates of almost one third of .""'"^' .J- s;:„ry N ....,.�W..A riders on the 91 Line being new to Metrolink. This corresponds to 475 trips taken on the 91 Line by riders who only started riding since the 91 Line opened. Of the remaining riders who switched from another Metrolink Line, 64% were previously using the Orange County Line, and 25% are former Riverside Line riders. There are also a significant number of riders for whom the 91 Line eliminated the need for transfers: IEOC to Orange County Line (4%), San Bernardino to Orange County Line (2%) and Riverside to Orange County (1 %). Agenda Item 7L 74 Sources of 91 Line Ridership New Riders 32% Orange County Line 43% Riverside Line 17% IEOC Line 4% Sbdno to Orange County Line 3% Riverside to Orange County Line 1% RCTC's Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Operating Subsidy to Increase 1% RCTC's proposed funding obligation to SCRRA includes $3,056,300 subsidy for operations and maintenance -of -way which represents a $26,500 increase over the FY 2002-03 Budget. This is due primarily to the additional off-peak roundtrip proposed for the IEOC Line. RCTC's new capital and capital renovation obligation for FY 2003-04 is projected at $892,200, an increase of $8,636. Projects include the rehabilitation and renovation of the River Corridor which is located on the East Bank of the Los Angeles River. System -wide In FY 2003-04 the SCRRA will celebrate its 11th year providing Metrolink Commuter Rail Service in Southern California. From three lines in October 1992, the agency will operate service over seven lines, with 143 weekday and 32 weekend trains as of its 1 1 th anniversary in October. Average weekday ridership is projected to total 34,959, an increase of 2% over the current year Budget. Total ridership, including all weekend services, is expected to increase 2% from the current year Budget. The resulting fare box revenue is projected at $43.3 million or 3% over the current year Budget. Fare revenues represent 46% of total operating revenues. Member agency contributions of $48.7 million for operations represent approximately 47% of total operating revenues (resulting in a revenue recovery in the budget of 53%). Agenda Item 7L 75 The FY 2003-04 combined Metrolink Budget is $243.8 million. The operating hl1li;et Is $103 million comprised of million for vii $83.6 IIIIIIIVII train operations and maintenance -of -way at $19.4 million. The capital budget is $140.8 million made up of rehabilitation and renovation at $40 million and a new capital projects budget of $100.8 million. The major driving factors in projecting operating expenses are service levels, and the associated equipment maintenance and support requirements. Several factors contribute to moderate the increase in member agency subsidy requirements for FY 2003-04, including: • Contracted train operating expenses projected to increase by $1.4 million, 8%; • Maintenance of equipment expenses decrease by $1 million, 5% due to the implementation of a new contract; • Combined increases in the costs of Operating and Property Insurance premiums by $1.7 million, 56%; • Fuel expenses are projected to increase by 9%, $0.5 million; and, • Average weekday ridership, fare box revenues, and maintenance -of - way revenues are projected to increase. The proposed Metrolink Budget also provides for a system -wide Strategic Plan. No increases or adjustments to fare structure are assumed for FY 2003-04. However, the FY 2003-04 Metrolink Budget further provides for reevaluation of the entire Fare policy and the results, upon approval, would be incorporated into the FY 2004-05 budget preparation. RCTC Share of Proposed Metrolink Budget RCTC's share of the $103 million operating budget is $6,587,000 (see Metrolink Budget page 42). The resulting net subsidy requirement (after fare box and other operating revenues) is $3,056,300 to be paid by Western County Commuter Rail Local Transportation Funds. RCTC's capital subsidy requirement of $892,200 is to be paid by FTA Section 5307 Commuter Rail Funds. The combined total FY 2003 RCTC subsidy request is $3,948,500. Attachment: Metrolink Preliminary Budget Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Agenda Item 7L 76 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ,T)ECEOVE APR 011 2003 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PRELIMINARY BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 April 11, 2003 11141 11 METROLINK Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange. County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission 77 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Chief Executive Officer submits to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Board of Directors by May 1st of each year a Preliminary Budget for the following fiscal year. The submitted Budget includes separate components for administrative, operations and capital costs. Decisions dealing with operating and capital allocations as well as approval of each member agency's share of the Authority's annual budget must be approved by each member agency. The Board must adopt a final Budget no later than June 30 of each year. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-04 SCRRA Budget permits the agency to continue to meet the challenges of increased ridership, demand for more train services, as well as the need for capital improvements to accommodate rising levels of freight and passenger traffic on member agency -owned routes. In FY 2003-04 the SCRRA will celebrate its 11th year providing Metrolink commuter rail service in Southern California_ From three lines in October 1992, the agency will propose to operate service over seven lines, with 143 weekday and 32 weekend trains as of its 11th anniversary in October 2003. The FY 2003-04 Budget demonstrates Metrolink's ongoing efficiency, effectiveness, and commitment to the transportation needs of Southern Californians. In FY 2003-04, the SCRRA, like governmental agencies at all levels, faces challenges in the current economic environment. Great care and review was given to the proposed budget to ensure the promotion and protection of our current service, and to add, wherever feasible, service expansions and enhancements that maximize the efficient use of equipment. An additional primary function of the agency is to maintain the integrity of the Member Agency owned rights -of -way for the use of commuter rail and freight operations. The FY 2003-04 Budget seeks to ensure the continued delivery of exceptional quality passenger rail services in Southern California. The $244 million budget consists of an Operating Budget of $103 million, an increase of 4.6%from the FY 2003-04 budget. It includes Train Operations at $84 million and a Maintenance -of -Way (MOW) budget at $19 million. The Capital Budget of $141 million is made up of a Rehabilitation/Renovation Budget of $40 million and a New Capital Budget of $100 million of approved projects. The Operating Budget details both operating revenue (such as fare and maintenance -of - way revenues) as well as operating expenses. Average weekday and total ridership, including weekend services is expected to increase 2% from the FY 2002-03 Budget. Farebox revenue is expected to reach $43.3 million, a 3% increase over the FY 2002-03 Budget. Dispatching and other operating revenues are expected to increase 1% from the FY 2002-03 Budget to $2.8 million. Maintenance -of -way revenues are estimated to 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM i 78 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget increase 3% above the FY 2002-03 Budget to million. This budget demonstrates$8.5 anew the ongoing trend of growth and cost -efficiency of Metrolink operations. Highlights of the FY 2003-04 Budget include: • Operating expenses per train mile are expected to be $48.12 which is a 2% increase from the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget. • Operating expense per passenger mile holds steady from the previous fiscal year at $0.30 • Subsidy per passenger mile rises $0.01 to $0.14. • Operating subsidy per rider rises slightly to $5.25. • Revenue recovery is projected to equal 53%, an exceptional amount relative to other transit properties. • Farebox recovery is expected to equal 46%. • Total Revenue Train Miles will be 3% higher in FY 2003-04 then levels adopted in the FY 2002-03 Budget. The principal determinant of agency operating expenses are levels of service, the associated equipment maintenance and support requirements, underlying labor inflation in the agency's largest service contracts, and the levels of effort of the agency's maintenance of way program. The FY 2002-03 SCRRA Budget anticipates an operating schedule of 143 weekday trains on seven lines and 32 weekend trains on two lines. Service improvements and expansions are assumed to be added on three of the agency's operating line segments in the Fiscal Year. New round trip off-peak service on the Inland Empire Orange County Line is being introduced through the reduction of one lightly utilized peak period Oceanside to Irvine trip. This change is being introduced by the authority to maximize the use of existing equipment and make peak period travel on the line more attractive to commuters. A service extension on the Ventura County Line from Moorpark to Montalvo is also assumed in the budget. These services are expected to begin in the Fall of 2003. Additional new service is being introduced on the San Bernardino Line to reduce overcrowding during the peak period. Consisting of two new round trips, one AM peak and one PM peak, between Los Angeles Union Station and Covina, service is expected to begin in early calendar 2004 upon the completion of currently ongoing capacity improvements. In May, 2002, the agency introduced commuter service on its seventh line, the 91 Line, froth Riverside in the Inland Empire, through Fullerton in Orange County to Los Angeles Union Station. The response to this service has exceed all initial budget expectations. Through the first six months of FY 2002-03, ridership has exceeded initial expectations in excess of 80%. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 79 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget The FY 2003-04 Budget further provides for the continuation of the SCRRA, AMTRAK and CALTRANS' award winning "Rail 2 Rail" program. The agencies agreed to work together to allow passengers with valid Metrolink monthly passes or Amtrak fare media, where complementary service exists, to choose the service provider that best suits their travel needs. Implemented in September 2002, this service has increased Metrolink revenues, increased Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner corridor ridership, and served to relieve overcrowding on a number of peak period Orange County Line trains. Member agency subsidies for the Operating Budget are projected to total $48.4 million. This represents a 6% increase over the FY 2002-03 Budget. The FY 2003-04 budget includes a number cost adjustments to ensure the ongoing provision of current and expanded services. Factors contributing to the increase in member agency subsidy requirements, include: • An increase in contracted train operating expenses of 8% • An increase in Fuel expenses of 9% • Costs paid to freight railroads to operate on non-member rights -of -way are estimated to increase 11%, partly as a result of new services. • The costs of Operating Liability and Property Insurance premiums are projected to increase 56% • Farebox revenues are projected to increase modestly by 3% • Increased costs of medical insurance premiums and associated fringe benefit costs. • Maintenance -of -way expenditures are projected to decrease by 3% • The SCRRA staff merit increases included in the budget have been reduced by 1% (3% from 4%) • All staff related discretionary costs such as travel and training have been reduced to only essential levels. • The implementation of a new operating contract for the maintenance of agency equipment is expected to realize a saving of 5%. • All non -direct operational costs are expected to increase collectively by 1%. The Capital Budget (Rehabilitation/Renovation and New Capital) for FY 2003-04 continues several important New Capital projects to more efficiently operate passenger (Metrolink and Amtrak) and freight services on member agency owned routes. New Capital projects are only those with approved funding. These projects include: • The anticipated completion of construction of additional double track and sidings on the San Bernardino Line • The initiation of the procurement of new rolling stock • The start of construction of double tracking a portion of the Orange County Line. • The initial design of a new Eastern Area Maintenance Facility. • The completion of a number of new sidings on the Antelope Valley Line • Systemwide tie and rail replacement. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 80 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget • The upgrade of platform lighting at Los Angeles Union Station. • The installation of replacement concrete ties in the I-10 corridor. • The installation of next generation Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs) allowing significantly increased functionality. Additional projects for which SCRRA and its member agencies are still seeking funding are not included in the budget at this time. As funding is secured, these projects will be added to the budget after review and approval by the Board. The FY 2003.04 Budget proposes 4 new positions, Facilities Maintenance Technicians in the agency's Equipment. Department, all of which are the result of the transfer from contractor staff to SCRRA staff. There is a reduction in operating costs by this previously approved Board action Agency and departmental goals continue to focus on building an organizational infrastructure to support the increased long-term operations and administrative functions. Agency goals also address the following needs: • Continued growth in revenue and the development of a revised Fare Policy • Continued improvements in service quality and safety • A continued strategic planning effort to set a course to meet long-term ridership and service projections • Continuation of the annual Board retreat to address the long term policy needs of the agency • Continued pursuit of federal and state funding • Stronger alliances with station city stakeholders • Viability of connecting services/ complementary connecting services The proposed FY 2003-04 Budget is based upon conservative financial assumptions which ensure the SCRRA's fiscal ability to deliver upon the service and capital improvements promised to the public. In its 11th year of providing exceptional services to Southern California, SCRRA remains committed to delivering the highest quality commuter rail service. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM iv 81 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 2003-04 BUDGET 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCRRA Services The SCRRA is a joint powers authority created to plan, design, build and operate the Metrolink commuter rail service in the Southern California region. Metrolink provides service on 7 routes to 53 stations over 416 route miles. The system map is provided in Exhibit 1.1. Metrolink operates 143 trains each weekday and average weekday ridership is project to total almost 35,000 one-way trips in Fiscal Year 2003-04. Saturday service is provided on the San Bernardino and Antelope Valley Lines, and Sunday service is provided on the San Bernardino Line. In Fiscal Year 2003-04, total rolling stock available will be 38 locomotives and 143 commuter rail cars including 38 Cab Cars and 105 passenger cars. In addition to operating commuter rail service, SCRRA dispatches and maintains in excess of 60% of the territory over which it operates. On a daily basis, SCRRA currently dispatches 137 Metrolink trains, up to 34 Amtrak intercity trains between Moorpark and San Diego, 22 NCTC operated Coaster trains, and between 80 and 90 freight trains. SCRRA is also responsible for the maintenance of right-of-way owned by SCRRA member agencies that extends over 330.6 track -miles. SCRRA's Capital Program includes ongoing rehabilitation/renovation of this right-of-way, facilities, equipment, and rolling stock, as well as expansion of the system through the acquisition and construction of new, system expanding assets. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 82 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE ., 1 fie . `45cs VENTURA e c0- q `r e�F COUNTY a�e.ase tiG{ �.-e eA .1 lei. . l+� r"oa4 �4 �! 4 � \`C, VENTURA COUNTY - qa le•METROLINK 0 Fu ture Station 0 Connecting. Station Effective October 28, 2002 LOS' ANGELES COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO C OUNTY S AN BE RNARDINO LINE a 0'1 4sck se o4++. .i l1/411`4!�*the �, `'. • `SA,4 �� ce to 110 M=1 ! 0F© ' Commerce {}A 4° CStitontebelIo CFA ! 91 LINE fi � 'ti`64°c� !; .3nm A ‘41/4_14? • !ll . 4- 4a��a °°` a~e RIVERSIDE LINE Va n B ure n ORANGE !�e� INLAND EMPIRE- . "Se ORAN GE C OUNTY LINE Z'�A ° COUNTY \ 4ac RIVERSIDE COUNTY O RANGE C OUNTY LINE dy e '44 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 1.2 Organizational Summary The SCRRA Board, as of May 1, 2003, consists of the following eleven voting members: Agency Votes Members Alternates San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) 2 Bill Alexander (Chair) Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga Paul Eaton Mayor, City of Montclair Judith Valles* Mayor, City of San Bernardino Kelly Chastain* Council Member, City of Colton Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 2 Art Brown (Vice Chair) Council Member , City of Buena Park Thomas W. Wilson Supervisor, County of Orange Charles V. Smith* Supervisor, County of Orange Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) 4 Hal Bernson Council Member, City of Los Angeles Michael Antonovich Supervisor, County of Los Angeles Don Knabe Supervisor, County of Los Angeles Larry Zarian Francine Oschin Council Member Hal Benison's office Robert T. Bartlett Frank Roberts Mayor, City of Lancaster Beatrice Proo Mayor Pro Tem, City of Pico Rivera Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 2 Ron Roberts Mayor, City of Temecula Frank West Council Member, City of Moreno Valley John Chlebnik* Mayor, City of Calimesa Ameal Moore* Commissioner, City of Riverside Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) 1 Bill Davis Mayor, City of Simi Valley Brian Humphrey VCTC Commission Member * Alternates represent either member Ex -officio members of the SCRRA Agency Members. Alternates Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Richard Dixon Mayor, City of Lake Forest Vacant San Diego Association of Governments Julianne Nygaard Council Member, City of Carlsbad Vacant The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Maria Contreras -Sweet, Secretary, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Doug Failing Director — District 7, Caltrans Exhibit 1.2 provides the organizational structure of the SCRRA. The seven departments of SCRRA are: 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 3 84 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget • Executive: David Solow, Chief Executive Officer • Support Services and Technology: Steve Wylie, Assistant Executive Officer • Operations: John Kerins, Director • Engineering & Construction: Michael McGinley, Director • Equipment: William Lydon Jr., Director • Communications and Development: Stephen Lantz, Director « Finance: Mark Dubeau, Director The adopted FY 2002-03 Budget of the SCRRA included 207 authorized positions. During the year, 2 additional positions were incorporated into the organization to bring the total to 209. In FY 2003-04, 213 positions are proposed, an increase of 4. All four of the positions are the result of the SCRRA assuming, as staff, facilities maintenance services previously provided under an outside contractor. A complete roster of agency positions is listed in Table 5.1. 1.3 Evolution of SCRRA In June 1990, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1402, Chapter 4 of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code. This bill required the transportation commissions of the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino to jointly develop a plan for regional transit services within the multi -county region. In August 1991, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a regional Joint Powers Agency (JPA), was formed. Voting members with their respective number of votes are: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), four votes; Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), two votes; Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), two votes; San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), two votes; and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), one vote. 1 Ex -officio members of the SCRRA included the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the San Diego Association of Governments and the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The purpose of the newly formed SCRRA was to plan, design, construct, and administer the operation of regional passenger rail lines serving the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The SCRRA named the regional commuter rail system "Metrolink." The first three lines - San Bernardino, Santa Clarita (now Antelope Valley), and Ventura County- began operation in October 1992. The Riverside Line was added in June 1993, and the Orange County Line (which extends 19 miles into northern San Diego County) was added in April 1994. The sixth line, Inland Empire -Orange County, the nation's first suburb to suburb commuter rail line, was added in October 1995. In May of 2002, the 91 Line was added to provide an alternative to Inland Empire and Western Orange County commuters traveling through Fullerton. I These five county transportation commissions are defined as SCRRA's Member Agencies. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 4 85 Southern California ..egional Rail Authority SCRRA Internal Audit Contractor - • Employment Compensa tion & Benefits. Employee Development & Training Affirmative Actioh Human Resource Information Systems SCRRA Board of Directors Chief Executive Officer Manager, Human Resources • SCRRA Counsel Board Secretary Assistant Executive Officer - Support Services & Technology • Railroad Services • Contracts & Procurement • Claims Administration • Administrative Services • Records Manag em ent • Special Projects • Information Systems Director, Engineering & Construction Track Contract M gmt S & C Contract M gmt Right of Way Mgmt Public Projects Construction Sta tion Facility Oversight ■ Design• O perating Rules & Training • Director, Operations Operations & Contract Mgmt Operations Planning Passenger Services Safety/Safety Education & Security Transportation Coordinators Line Supervisors/Ambassadors Dispatching Operations • Director, Equipment Equipment Contract Mgmt Facilities Maintenance Fleet Maintenance Equipment Purchases Equipment Engineering Director, Finance • Accounting • Grant Acc ounting ■ R evenue Accounting • Payroll ■ Treasury • Auditing ■ Budgets & Program Control • Fare Collection Sy stem Administration Director, Communications & Development ■ Govemment Affairs ■ Agency Relations • Legislation • Grant Development & Programming • Strategic Planning ▪ Market Analysis & Research • External Communications ■ Publications ■ Media Relations Community Relations • Public Information Media Relations Commuter Marketing Off Peak/Recr eation • Re venue Marketing • Seamless Travel SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget In its eleventh year of operations, the SCRRA continues building the Metrolink commuter rail system in order to ensure quality, efficient services are provided to commuters of Southern California. In July 2003, Metrolink expects to can -y its sixty -millionth passenger, holding its place as one of the fastest growing commuter rail systems in the nation. 1.4 Mission Statement Metrolink is a premier regional rail system, including commuter and other passenger services, linking communities to employment and activity centers. Metrolink provides reliable transportation and mobility for the region, leading toward more livable communities. Metrolink is committed to and characterized by: • Technically superior and safe operations • Customer focus and accessibility • Dependable, high -quality service • Cost-effective and high -value service • Strategically located network of lines and stations • Integration with other transit modes • Environmental sensitivity • Community involvement and partnerships with both the public and private sectors 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 6 87 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget SECTION 2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BUDGET SUMMARY 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 88 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 2.0 BUDGET SUMMARY 2.1 Budget Policy. Budget Authorization Under the Joint Powers Agreement that founded the SCRRA, the Chief Executive Officer is to submit to the SCRRA Board of Directors by May 1st of each year a Preliminary Budget for the following fiscal year. The submitted Budget includes separate components for administrative, operations, and capital costs. Decisions dealing with operating and capital allocations, as well as approval of each member agency's share of the Authority's annual Budget must be approved by each member agency. The Board must adopt a final Budget no later than June 30 of each year. If a Budget is not approved by June 30th, the Board will approve a continuing Operating Budget resolution on a monthly basis equal to one -twelfth of preceding year's Budget. The Capital Budget approves individual projects that may proceed within the approved funding level. The Budget contains a financial plan that includes: • Organizational chart. • Goals and objectives for the new fiscal year. • The assumptions underlying revenue and expense projections. • Planned service for the following fiscal year. a Separately presented Operating and Capital budgets • Revenue sources by line item • Expenses by summary line item • Department budgets • Authorized positions. The Operating Budget details both operating revenues (such as fare revenue, maintenance -of -way (MOW) revenue, member agency contributions, etc.) and operating expenses (such as Train Operations, Equipment Maintenance, Fuel, Security, Transfers to Other Operators, Maintenance - of -Way, Salaries and Fringe Benefits, Insurance, etc.) The Capital Budget includes all new projects proposed for the corning fiscal year as well as previously approved projects for which work has yet to be completed and is expected to continue into the Fiscal Year under consideration. The Board approves individual Rehabilitation and Renovation and New Capital projects, including total project cost and scope. Approved project funds are reserved for the duration of the project unless amended by the Board. In approving the proposed budget and any Board initiated amendments, the Board authorizes SCRRA to expend funds under the direction of the Chief Executive Officer consistent with: 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 8 89 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget • Total amount appropriated for Train Operations and Maintenance -of -Way. • Total amount appropriated for Capital by each Rehabilitation/Renovation and New Capital project. • Individual member agency funding commitments. • Total number of authorized positions. Further, by approving the Budget, the Board authorizes the Chief Executive Officer to take necessary action to adjust the salary structure and associated ranges based on market trends. Budgetary Control General Budgetary control refers to SCRRA's procedures for monitoring actual expenses against planned expenditures as adopted in the annual Budget. By adopting an annual Budget, the Board of Directors delegates to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to manage the annual Budget within the following parameters: Transfers A Budget Transfer represents changes in projected expenses between line items within or across departments in the Budget. The Budget Office shall review the impact of any requested Budget Transfer and make recommendations to the Chief Executive Officer and/or Board, as required. Amendments Certain Budget Transfers may require Board approval and result in Budget Amendments. Budget Amendments will be submitted to the Board as required and include: • Any Budget Transfer that negatively impacts member agency funding commitments. • Any Budget Transfer that negatively impacts the total Operating Budget or individual Capital projects. • Any Budget Transfer that increases the total authorized level of personnel. The Board, by approving any Budget Amendment, amends the Budget for the fiscal year. Any budget amendment that requires an increase in a member agency's funding commitments additionally requires the approval of that member agency. Budgetary Reporting The Approved, or subsequently amended, Budget is the baseline for all comparisons to actual revenue and expenditures during a fiscal year. On a quarterly basis, budget status reports are presented to the Board of Directors. Additionally, the preparation of the following year's budget request provides staff with a mid -year opportunity for a detailed evaluation of progress compared to the budget plan of the current year. Internal performance reporting, and the preparation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) also provide tools for managing and reporting agency activities to the budget plan. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 9 90 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 2.2 Accountin_g Methodology The Operating Budget has been developed based on a projection of earned revenue and incurred expenses for that fiscal year_ The Capital Budget is developed based on available revenues for New Capital and Rehabilitation/Renovation projects during the corning fiscal year. 2.3 Budget Components The Operating Budget is comprised of the following two major components: • Operations — This portion of the Operating Budget includes expenses required to operate the Metrolink system including train operations, maintenance of equipment, fuel, security, utilities, transfer payments to other transit operators, revenue collection, payments to freight railroads for dispatching, station maintenance, passenger services, general and administrative expenses, professional services, and insurance. • Maintenance -of -Way — This portion of the Operating Budget includes ordinary maintenance of the rights -of -way owned by SCRRA member agencies. It involves routine inspection and repair of track, signals, and structures. The Capital Budget is comprised of the following two major components: • Rehabilitation/Renovation projects — These are projects that extend the life of existing capital assets such as replacement of worn ties and rail, replacement of outdated signal system components, rehabilitation of tunnels and bridges, and the programmed replacement and rehabilitation of the following rolling stock components: Car Door Operators; Wheel Trucks; Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC); Traction Motors; and Head End Power Engine. The budget includes both ongoing and new projects for FY 2003-04. • New Capital projects -- These are capital projects that expand the system such as sidings, double track, installation of new signal system components, and new rolling stock. The budget includes new and ongoing projects. Projects where final funding agreements have not been received are not included in the budget. At such time that funds to complete a project scope have been identified, and against which the SCRRA has the right to obligate expenditures, projects are amended into the fiscal year budget. 2.4 Significant Changes In Budgeting Approach Beginning in Fiscal Year 2002-03, the SCRRA standardized the practice of budgeting across the four principal operating contract agreements. Train Operations and Maintenance of Equipment in Operations, and Track and Structures Maintenance and Signal and Communications Maintenance in the Maintenance of Way (MOW) budget. Anticipated service levels and requirements are submitted to each contractor as part the budget's development. Contractors are then required, by terms the contract, to provide their proposed staffing and material requirements 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 10 91 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget and associated budget amounts. Fiscal Year 2003-04 is the second year in which the MOW contractors are to provide detailed information by each of the territories for which the SCRRA and its members are responsible. While this approach has moderated the growth in total costs, the resulting distributions to individual lines varies from prior year averages as both staff and vendors become more proficient in this joint development process. (Please see Section 3.8 — Maintenance of Way Budget for further details) Historically, SCRRA has expensed all material purchases upon receipt. As of June 30, 2001, material receipts are recorded in inventory and expensed as issued to projects. For the purpose of budgeting, the materials expensed when moving from inventory to a project are included in the budget plan. Material costs in the inventory account are not budgeted, but are presented on the financial statements as an asset. During the Fiscal Year 2002-03, the SCRRA began the implementation of an upgrade to the agency's rolling stock materials management system. In addition to the expansion of the current system to state of the art technology, the Authority expects to extend the system to include the agency's Track and Structures and Signal and Communications assets. In addition to providing an inventory tracking and control function, the system is expected to greatly enhance the Authority's Fixed Asset Reporting and Management capabilities as required under the Government Accounting Standard Board pronouncement 34 (GASB34). 2.5 Budget Assumptions Operating Budget The primary operating budget objective of the SCRRA is to provide the financial road map that leads to the achievement of the agency's priorities and objectives consistent with its provision of high quality commuter rail service under the Metrolink banner. Within that objective, and to the degree possible, the agency attempts to expand those services in areas that allow for the greatest possible and efficient delivery of passenger friendly transit services. The second principal operating budget objective is to maintain the integrity of the Member Agency owed rights -of -way (ROW) for commuter rail and freight operations. The agency provides primary responsibility for the maintenance of almost 331 track miles in the five county area. The FY 2003-04 budget assumes new services will be provided on the San Bernardino, Inland Empire Orange County, and the Ventura County Lines. Two new round trips, LAUS to Covina, are proposed on the San Bernardino Line to alleviate crowding on peak period trains. A new off peak round trip on the IEOC line is proposed utilizing equipment available out of Oceanside. One Oceanside to Irvine peak period train segment is being replaced by the service referenced above. This service change will leave a peak period Irvine to San Bernardino train in place. Finally, two extensions to Montalvo, one each in AM and PM peak periods, from Moorpark are anticipated on the Ventura County Line. For FY 2003-04, total systemwide service levels assume 143 weekday trains operating on seven lines, and 32 weekend trains operating on two lines. Total revenue Train Miles are expected to 4/712003, 9:57 AM 11 92 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget equal 2.146 million miles, an increase of 3% over FY 2002-03: Also included in the FY 2003-04 Budget is the continuation of the highly successful "Rail to Rail" program begun in September 2002. This award winning program in which the SCRRA, Amtrak and CALTRANS have agreed to work together to allow passengers, on those lines where complementary service exists, holding valid Metrolink monthly passes or Amtrak tickets, to choose the service provider most convenient to their travel needs. Actual passenger counts for the fiscal year surpassed the budget's annual projection within the first 7 months of operations. This service has resulted in increased Metrolink Fare Revenues, increased corridor ridership for Amtrak Pacific Surfliner services, and relieved overcrowding on several peak period Orange County Line trains. SCRRA's philosophy for maintenance -of -equipment (MOE) and maintenance -of -way (MOW) is to perform ordinary maintenance sufficient to prevent any loss of service quality and to budget for Rehabilitation/Renovation programs at sufficient intervals to prevent the needed repairs or replacements from overwhelming the Operating Budget. Capital Budget The SCRRA is responsible for the safety and performance of the railroad system and right-of- way and all that travel upon it. Projects are selected based on the principle of minimizing and managing the risk of failure among system components. New Capital projects included in the budget depend upon the availability of local, state and federal funding. Rehabilitation/Renovation projects included in the budget depend primarily upon the availability of funds from the five member agencies. Selected projects have been prioritized to meet projected funding available and chosen from a larger field SCRRA staff believe can be safely and responsibly deferred to future years. Revenues Operating revenues include farebox, dispatching and maintenance -of -way revenues, interest, other minor miscellaneous revenues, expected to grow in FY 2003-04 to $54.6 million, an increase of $1.6 million, or 3% over FY 2002-03. No increases or adjustments to the fare structure are assumed in FY 2003-04. Metrolink fares were increased for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2002, the third of three Board approved adjustments to the base fare structure of the agency. The policy of the agency has been to adjust the fare structure on a biannual basis in relatively small increments so as to avoid the imposition of large scale changes on our passengers, and allow the underlying fare revenue growth to more closely mirror the general level of price inflation in the Southern California area. In FY 2003-04, the agency is planning a reevaluation of the entire Fare Policy and the results, upon approval, are expected to be incorporated into the FY 2004-05 Budget preparation. Average weekday ridership is projected to total 34,959 an increase of 2% over the FY 2002-03 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 12 93 SCRRA FY 2003 -04 Budget Budget. Total ridership, including all weekend services, is expected to increase 2% from the FY 2002-03 Budget. In FY 2003-04 budget assumes 256 operating days versus 255 in FY 2002-03. The basis of fare revenue calculations is the assumed level of ridership and projected revenue per rider. These variables are estimated on the basis of current and prior years, and are projected by line. The resulting Farebox Revenue is projected increase moderately to $43.3 million or 3% over the FY 2002-03 Budget. The projection of fare revenues includes the annual 25% reduction in the December monthly pass price. The one -zone discounts for the Lancaster Station funded by the LACMTA and for the Oceanside Station funded by OCTA are also assumed to continue for FY 2003-04. Freight railroads and Amtrak Intercity services operating over territory owned by SCRRA member agencies provide dispatching and maintenance -of -way revenues, based upon existing agreements. Dispatching Revenues are estimated to be unchanged from the current budget at $2.6 million. An additional $160,000 is estimated to be secured through the utilization of sponsorship partnerships for SCRRA special trains, primarily the Holiday Toy Express and contributions from Amtrak to support certain Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) functionality. Maintenance of Way revenues are estimated to increase to $8.5 million or 3% above the FY 2002-03 Budget. The increase is attributable primarily to the indexing of costs under various operating agreements for cost recovery purposes. Capital revenues consist of Federal, State and local agency funds as well as contributions from third parties, namely freight railroads, in the form of direct grants and participation in specific projects. Funding for the Capital Budget is provided by the following: Federal Funds - $ 75.1 million State Funds - 24.0 million Member Agency Funds - 36.7 million Third Party Participation - 1.9 million Other Local Funds - 2.9 million Total $ 140.7 million Expenses The major driving factors in projecting operating expenses, as referenced above, are service levels and the maintenance of equipment and rights -of -way requirements of the agency. Underlying cost -of -living increases ranging from 1% to 3%, included in multi -year service contracts, are also factored into the overall cost structure of the SCRRA. In the FY 2003-04 proposed budget, higher costs result from significant increases in the cost elements required to - conduct ongoing operations. Increases in the costs of Direct Operations, Operating and Liability premiums and expenses, Fuel, Dispatching payments to other railroads, and contracted MOW expenses are expected to exceed 11%. Given the conservative estimates of increases in available revenues and Member Agency subsidies, great review has been given to all areas of the budget to ensure the SCRRA's ability to meet these ongoing operating requirements. Several areas were held to equivalent levels of FY 2002-03 spending, and a number of other functions have been 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 13 94 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget reduced from previous levels. Management believes that a number of one time cost increases will be accommodated within the framework of the currently proposed budget and can be addressed as the agency progresses forward within an environment of greater resources. Additionally, costs are increasing within the operating budget as a result of staff specific costs including an increase in the costs of providing Medical, Dental, and other fringe benefits, and an assumed merit increase pool of 3%, compared to 4% in FY 2002-03. Salaries have also increased, though at an overall savings to the agency, through the addition of 4 facilities maintenance technicians previously provided under third party contract. 2.6 Summary of the FY 2003-04 Budget The FY 2003-04 combined Metrolink Budget is $244 million. The Operating Budget is $103 million and includes train operations at $83.6 million and maintenance -of -way at $19.4 million. The Rehabilitation/Renovation Budget is $40 million and includes $16.0 million in previously approved but uncompleted projects (carry -forward projects) and $23.9 million in new projects for FY 2003-04. The New Capital Budget includes $100.8 million in outstanding project authority. The SCRRA also continues to seek local, state or federal funds for additional New Capital projects. However, projects for which funds are not available for commitment are not included in the FY 2003-04 Budget. As funds become available, these projects will be amended into the budget. 2.7 Summary Total FY 2003-04 Budget Sources and Uses by Member Agency Table 2.1 provides a summary of the FY 2003-04 Budget revenues and expenditures by member agency. Revenues are separated into Local Funds for Operating and Capital; Other Operating Revenues that include Farebox Revenue, Miscellaneous Operating Revenues (principally Dispatching), and Maintenance -of -Way Revenues; and Other Capital Revenues which include Interest on Lease Proceeds, Other Agency Local, State, Federal, Amtrak Intercity and freight railroad funds. The expenditures are shown for the four categories of the Budget: Operating Expenditures; Maintenance -of -Way; New Capital; and Rehabilitation/Renovation. 2.8 Summary of FY 2003-04 Revenues Table 2.2 shows the projected revenues for the FY 2003-04 SCRRA Budget and compares these with actual revenues for FY 2000-01 though the FY 2003-04 Budget. • Actual farebox revenues have increased each year. FY 2003-04 reflects a 3% increase over the Adopted FY 2002-03 Budget, and a 4% increase over the current estimated actual. • Dispatching/Other Revenues include fees for dispatching freight, Amtrak intercity, and NCTD Coaster trains and is estimated to equal $2.7 million, an increase of 0.8% over the FY 2002-03 Budget. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 14 95 TABLE 2 .1 FY 2003-04 B UDGET S OU RCES AND USES BY MEMBER AGENCY ($000s) 12003= Local Funds For Operating $48,689 .4 47.2% $28,888 .0 $8,192.9 $2,971.9 $5,016.1 $3,620.5 - Operations 37,798 .0 36.6 %' 22,826 .9 5,671.2 2,769.7 3,539.6 2,990.6 - Maintenance -of -Way 10,891.4 10 .5% 6,061.1 2,521.7 202.2 1,476.5 629 .8 - Other Operating Revenues $54,568.8 52.8% $30,031.2 $11,023.4 $3,522.1 $7,795.6 $2,196 .4 - Farebox Reven ue 43,300 .1 41 .9% 23,383.1 8,267.3 3,484.3 6,801.5 1,364.0 - Miscellaneous Operating Revenues 2,780 .6 2 .7% 1,440.4 845 .9 37.9 97.5 358.9 - MOW Rev enues 8,488.1 8.2% 5,207.8 1,910.2 0.0 896.6 473.6 - -- •tip Total ti.114: osi •Ces Fo_ Oper ►g, I� --g,'1,51193458;1.j ;Ot}ll�td 558,919. " E'- , i' i�:. ��; .7 � o1 i� - :".,, . .na.r'i � •a:FL �4� ���� 'are �i,y l" P a'E.'�ti' �1�� cr ','{ k r� pp $�03,>S V 2 C. , f /� V Tsr ., . - E+� 1 p,[, .p� '� .��$ 9 .7:", Y.80 :P . 's' -v'ri :M1•'€. v1' t 4y�` S `yPz '� � F � �� v �tl��/�4�5` �� � fi e} 0.4:4- � `' "7;[7' 74 1 �'�' �� lAF +� ��,y. �.y- a� �.} a M]'LL�f4 - - VMY+, �`� iF tom'; 4 i 74 � . .0 q�y77i� Operating Expenditu res (Excludes MOW) 83,878 .7 81.2% 47,650.3 14,784.4 6,291 .8 10,438.6 4,713.5 - Maintenance -of -Way 19,379.5 18 .8 % 11,268.9 4,431 .9 202.2 2,373.1 1,103.4 - fi? T [ h " } G P g ' Vii... is i_ . ri.Z+�X 0 .afx` ' 0`' 3, e -a -.A. �v "4+ =71S ' r` �t"ti �' 's"TLCTG Y o 'yr wA.. ' `+�q ,_f �+r-N" r r;:F�. _ _u . , aS „'� 'tln r .,r-.. .. s[ m• t 'de Local Fu nds Fo r Capital New Capital $36,741.8 19,477.3 26.1% 13.8 % $29,635.9 15,311,3 $5,823.1 4,095 .6 $6.8 6.8 $1,270 57.8 $5.8 5,8 - Rehabilitation/Renovation 17,264. 6 12.3% 14,324.6 1,727.5 0.0 1,212.5 0.0 - Other Capital R evenues $103,993.7 73.9% $0.0 $6,910 .1 $885.4 $4,849.8 $3,729 .7 $87,618 .7 Tnterest on Lease Proceeds 1,798.0 1.3% - - - - _.1,798 .0 Other Local Funds 1,112. 6 - - - - 1,112 .6 State Funds 24,037.8 17,1% - - - - - 24,037 .8 Federal fu nds 75,106.8 53 4% - 6,910.1 885 .4 4,849.8 3,729.7 58,731 .8 ' A mtrak Fun ds 939.0 0.7% - - - - - 939.0 UPRR Fu nds 999. 4 0.7% - - - - - 999.4 otal x. irCes E?fit Capital::.. r : ' ., , $1 0,7.35 5' : r 0 [1f1.0%n 4 .?' S 42,711 3 .:`�t a `$892 _ 561201 ;' $3,73 "+ `'� J'''' $7,618 3't it ut` srT 34- . AF ':::.:.. - _ .- �'.. ,- f-'• .-� _ 4 a 5' r.. x iroTOT-'' r.. _ . _da ,:., � 4 700, } , S -, New Capital 100,836.0 71. 6% 15,311.3 4,095.6 6.8 57.8 5.8 $81,358.7 Rehabilita tion/Reno vation _ 39,899.5 28.4% 14,324.6 8,637.7 885.4 6,062.3 3,729.7 6,259 .9 Summary Charts-FY04.xls-Summary 4/4/2003. 0.41 PM TABLE 2.2 COMPARISON OF REVE NUES ($000s) Operating Revenues Farebox Dispatchin g/Other Mainten ance -of -Way Local Funds for Operating Subtotal Opeaa1 ng Revcnske& CCCBht:q�-`I'Otal-Re�ehues;a : Capital R even ues State Federal Interest on Lease Proceeds Union Pacific Railroad/BNSF Amtrak Local Funds for Ca. ital ec 3nr ° e?.en es•. Ke eenl7rof a#al Steven a`T erc e'. e1�:7j :i $35,297.9 2,177.9 7,431.0 39,896.8 Ali#r8 $35,770 .4 2,440 .7 7,474.1 34,345.5 :00/d, $37,816.6 2,438.0 7,523.4 43.896.1 1,6741 $37,589.7 2,537.7 7,911 .8 41,709.5 $41,901.0 2,810.0 8,262.3 45,712 .3 8,588€5: $28,763.2 $16,958.3 $68,651 .5 $18,469.7 $50,096.8 47,269.5 6,484 .2 43,753 .2 25,656.6 43,254.6 1,350.0 924.5 1,000.0 579 .2 1,000.0 981.2 1,007.1 1,319.0 0.0 1 1,088.1 1,349.0 0.0 941 .0 203 .2 1,189.0 25,822.8 12,366.3 29,088.3 14,549.1 23,081.0 236 ¢2'1 1 424 ham tkP 149;2066 21'8;395:6 $43,300.1 $2,780.6 8,488.1 48,689.4 l03a $24,037 .8 75,106.8 1,798 .0 999 .4 939.0 37,854.5 $243,993.7 3.34% (I.04%) 2.73% 6.51% (52.02%) 73 .64% 79.80% (8 .15%) (21 .03%) 64.01% Summary. Charts-FY 04.xls, 4/4/2003, 8:40 PM SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget • At the request of member agencies, Interest Income is traditionally not budgeted. These funds are contingent on cash flow and are used to reduce local operating subsidies as part of the end of the fiscal year member reconciliation. Member agency contributions for ordinary maintenance are partially offset by revenues received from the freight railroads and Amtrak Intercity. These revenue's rates were negotiated based on the historical expenditures on maintenance -of -way by the freight railroads prior to the purchase of these rights -of -way by the Member Agencies. However, due to the requirement of maintaining a higher standard of quality for passenger rail service, these revenues do not offset 100% of the costs. MOW revenues total $8.5 million or 3% above the FY 2002-03 Budget. Local funds from the five member agencies for the Operating Budget vary from year to year. Local funds in FY 2001-02 were $41.3 million, increased to $45.7 million in the FY 2002-03 Budget, and are projected to be $48.5 million in the proposed FY 2003-04 Budget. This figure represents a 6% increase over the FY 2002-03 Budget. Revenues for New Capital and Rehabilitation/Renovation include state and federal grants, interest on lease proceeds, and railroad and local funds. Projects are included in the Budget based upon the availability of these funds. The Capital Budget represents 58% of the total FY 2003-04 Budget authority. Dependent upon the availability of state and federal funds (principally for capital), local revenues as a percent of total revenues are estimated to be 35% of the FY 2003-04 Budget. 2.9 Summary of Operating and Capital Budgets by Expense Type Table 2.3 provides a summary of projected expenditures for FY 2003-04 by summary expense type. As shown in the table, expenditures have been segregated into eight primary expense types. These are listed and described below: • Labor - All SCRRA employee salaries, wages and fringe benefits. • Purchased Transportation - Payments to the contract operators of commuter train operations and maintenance -of -equipment. This category also includes Transfer Payments to other operators, and the use of Emergency Bus Services. • Services - Expenses for Operating Facilities Maintenance; Other Operating Train Services; Security (Los Angeles County Sheriff and private guard services); Public Safety Program; Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) Maintenance; Revenue Collection; Passenger Relations; Marketing; Media & External Communications; Professional Services; and Non -Labor Services. • Utilities/Leases - Expenses for telephone and other utilities and leases and rentals for office equipment; automobiles; facilities; rolling stock; maintenance -of -way equipment; and other 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 17 98 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TABLE 2.3 TOTAL AGENCY EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) Labor Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses Indirect Agency Transfer to Operating Labor Services Utilities/Leases Capital Other Expenses Indirect Agency Transfer to Capital Labor Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Capital Other Expenses 4/4/2003 926 PM $7,286.9 $9,860.9 35,307.7 37,759.9 15,791.4 16,481.5 2,881.1 2,636.5 13,294.5 14,360.2 3,836.4 4,390.0 5,555.0 6,885.2 5,795.8 6,311.4 $1,373.7 828.7 0.0 56,001.6 170.6 1,083.1 $1,422.0 235.0 0.0 116,678.2 71.8 1,302.5 $11,590.5 37,646.0 17,044.7 2,566.6 14,383.2 6,470.0 7,219.3 6,338.0 $1,710.2 156.0 0.0 137,874.9 4.2 990.2 nt •-r^ 5 j a ! t 4;1- 1 1 p• "' 5 € 1 {s j J _q -'.11''''7:' , • g ;5 iii 11:3 t ` - y � ,� r� f $8,660.6 35,307.7 16,620.1 2,881.1 13,294.5 3,836.4 56,001.6 5,725.6 6,878.9 $11,282.9 37,759.9 16,716.5 2,636.5 14,360.2 4,390.0 116,678.2 6,957.0 7,613.8 $13,300.8 37,646.0 17,200.7 2,566.6 14,383.2 6,470.0 137,874.9 7,223.5 7,328.1 5% 15% 7% 1% 6% 3% 57% 3% 3% t1.. Y k, .'V A.�� 3 •'+l i'* P; ' 5 jti4 1wx�. ,r 99 Dept Budgets by Exp Type-Fy04idsSummary SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget leases and rentals. • Maintenance -of -Way - Expenses for maintenance of track, signal & communications; structures, extra -ordinary maintenance; maintenance -of -way equipment maintenance; and other maintenance -of -way expenses. • Insurance & Liability — Expenses for insurance premiums, claims and claims administration. • Capital - Expenses for Rehabilitation/Renovation and New Capital projects. • Other Expenses — Expenses for materials and supplies; taxes; miscellaneous expenses including dues and subscriptions; travel, meetings, and conferences; training and seminars; advertising; legal and meeting notices; postage and messenger; etc. The majority of SCRRA expenditures are included in the Capital expense type, 57%, followed by Purchased Transportation, 15%. Reflecting further that the SCRRA contracts out the a majority of the services included in the budget, Agency Labor, makes up 5% of the total budget and 11% of the Operating Budget. Within the Operating Budget, Purchased Transportation makes up 36%, Services make up 17%, and Maintenance -of -Way is 14% of the total. 2.10 Summary of Operating and Capital Budgets by Department Table 2.4 provides a summary of projected expenditures for FY 2003-04 by Department. 2.11 Summary of FY 2003-04 Authorized Positions Table 2.5 provides a summary of the FY 2003-04 proposed positions by department and compares this total with the authorized levels of FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03. During FY 2002- 03, the agency increased its authorized position count by 2 to accommodate the procurement and implementation of the new and comprehensive asset management system previously referenced. In FY 2003-04, 4 new positions are proposed to bring total staffing to 213 Board authorized positions. These new positions include the following: Equipment Facilities Maintenance - Maintenance Technician (4) These positions have previously provided services to the SCRRA under a third party contract. The inclusion of these positions as SCRRA staff results in a savings to the operating budget as compared to previous periods. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 19100 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TABLE 2A COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT ($000s) r to .60. `ueludilig _. { + ..,' s P e Executive Support Services & Technology* Operations Engineering & Construction Equipment Communications & Development Finance $1,720.1 13,145.1 29,471.9 17,832.7 19,991.6 3,695.5 3,891.91 $2,109.1 13,092.7 32,246.0 18,026.1 24,528.6 4,353.8 4,329.3 $2,153.1 15,995.1 33,567.0 18,163.3 24,289.1 4,514.6 4,576.0 2% 22% 4% 1% (1%) 4% 6% a ' xi ,,a y se. I�' ' j;. r Y &67yY.c+cca Jr �....�..� l D ar T ! r y $v` , �v "2.. wee it t t A: Executive $197.1 $195.0 $159.8 (18%) Support Services & Technology 842.2 880.9 941.5 7% Operations 68.7 0.0 0.0 - Engineering & Construction 38,791.7 85,016.7 68,585.7 (19%) Equipment** 18,550.0 19,874.4 62,483.6 214% Communications & Development 32.6 54.5 37.8 (31%) Finance 975.4 13,688.0 8,527.2 (38%) tfti"°"."'r;'= � Nu F{ '.'.i r _l jr O ' f"r�..'� 1 " 3 ti# l,�p �"s" j C ','_` Y•=s, r Executive $1,917.2 $2,304.1 $2,312.9 0% Support Services & Technology 13,987.3 13,973.6 16,936.6 21% Operations 29,540.6 32,246.0 33,567.0 4% Engineering & Construction 56,624.5 103,042.8 86,749.0 (16%) Equipment 38,541.5 44,403.0 86,772.7 95% Communications & Development 3,728.1 4,408.2 4,552.4 3% Finance 4,867.3 18,017.3 13,103.2 (27%) • ? i 4F<ror a ekmi ' 'c MI * Support Service and Technology includes the expenditure of Insurance Premiums and Claims. "` The Equipment Department increases as a result of the planned receipt of additional rolling stock funding. 4/5/2003 3:07 PM 101 Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY04.ds-Dept SCR RA FY 2003-04 BU DGET TABLE 2 .5 SOUTHE RN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL R AIL AUTH ORI TY FY 2003-04 BUD GET CO MPARISON OF POSITIONS BY DEPA RTMENT �ry..ty" ? 4* f , , •_ y.i ,, - Ddj i r, `� �� r' !. " M� � , .. .i• �6r> i.• .w } . �' n4'pC �7 ' r,., }y.. ,..: +UkJ -!,. � l;' �l ' irrr a ns i , t"} .� .�' t . {" i 'tli 'a° '°welt" a',i ca"aid d ei'�s Ik^ a d"t F„ 5*3ae rY ti h -� . olf' 'n' 17. ,TUta. "`" rf ilr M r -r _t'!�t }Y [App osed :±, 5. . Executiv e 7 8 8 8 Support Services and Technology 27 28 2 30 30 Operation s 31 57 57 57 En gineering an d Construction 37 37 37 37 Equipment 7 7 7 11 Communication s and Dev elopment 18 _ 20 20 20 _ Fin ance 24 25 25 25 Subtotal 151 182 2 184 188 Ambassadors - Full Time 3 _ 3 3 3 Ambassadors - Part Time 22 22 22 22 1) In Fiscal Year 2002-03 in crease included the plan ned addition of 25 Dispatching personnel . 2)In Fiscal Year 2002-03, the SCRRA added the positions of Materials Manager, and IT administrator as part of the impleme ntation of an upgraded Materials Management System FY04tabl e2.5.xls;4 R12003; SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget SECTION 3 SOUTHERN. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY OPERATING BUDGET 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 22103 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 3.0 OPERATING BUDGET 3.1 Performance Data Figures 3.1 through 3.4 provide a summary of the FY 2003-04 performance data as projected in the Budget and compared with historical data since 1992. The budget illustrates the continuing growth and efficiency of Metrolink operations. As shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2, both operating expenses and train -miles have increased, but prior to FY 2002-03, operating expenses have increased at a significantly lower rate. Fare revenues have increased with ridership, and maintenance -of -way and dispatching revenues continue to remain strong. Several factors contribute to moderate the increase in member agency subsidy requirements for FY 2003-04 as compared with the Budget for FY 2002-03: Factors tending to increase member agency subsidies: • Direct Train Operating expenses are projected to increase 11% • Total Revenue Miles operated is expected to climb 3% • Costs of diesel fuel for operations 9%. • Combined increases in the costs of Operating and Property Insurance premiums of 56% • Relatively flat growth in farebox revenues 3% • Costs of servicing the Agency's improved TVM network 13% Factors tending to moderate member agency subsidies: • Maintenance -of -Way expenditures are projected to decrease by 3% • Significant savings as a result of a new Maintenance of Equipment (MOE) contract 5% • Moderated growth in virtually all discretionary expenditures of the agency. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 provide various operating statistics. Revenue recovery is calculated as the ratio of total operating revenues over total expenses less rolling stock lease and maintenance -of - way extra -ordinary maintenance.2 Since FY 1996-97 the revenue recovery index has been over 50% and is projected at 53% for FY 2003-04. In past years, final actual revenue recovery ratios have generally been higher than the budget projection due to contingencies included in the annual budgets as well as interest received on fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects. Farebox revenues are estimated to cover 46% of total operating expenses for FY 2003-04. Operating expense per train -mile is calculated net of extra -ordinary maintenance and is projected to be $48.68 in FY 2003-04 an increase from $48.48 in the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget. 2 Extra -ordinary maintenance covers damages due to vandalism, crossing gate accidents, derailments, fires, storm damage and other expenses as required. In years without unusual rainfall or train accidents, $500,000 has been a reasonable estimate, and this is the level proposed for FY 2002-03. In other years, such as has been experienced in FY 1997-98 with the El Nino storms, the total can easily exceed $3,500,000. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 23104 FIGURE 3.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ANNUAL OPERATING DATA - FY 92-93 TO FY 03.04 OPERATING EXPENSE ($Millions) $110 - $90 - $70 - $50 - $30 - $10 FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY03-04 918.86 945.31 557.88 564.4 568.4 $73.7 977.9 575.1 980.0 989.7 598.6 9103.3 REVENUES ($Millions) $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $- FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 92-93 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY03-04 93.5 915.4 923.3 930,7 957.7 938.0 1 539.1 941.8 r 544.9 948.0 952.9 954.6 OPERATING SUBSIDY ($Millions) $50 -i $40 $30 - $20 - $10 FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00.01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY03-04 915.7 928.4 534.1 933.6 930.7 935.7 937.6 533.3 534.3 941.7 945.7 $48.7 Actuals to FY 01-02, Budget for FY 02-03 and FY 03-04 4/4/2003 26 CHARTSO4.XLS C3.1 105 FIGURE 3.2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ANNUAL OPERATING DATA - FY 92-93 TO FY 03-04 TRAIN MILES (Thousands) 2,500 2,000 - 1,500 - 1,000 500 - FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 92-93 FY03-04 211.8 708.0 978.5 1,155.8. X295.8 1,405.9 1611.1 1,757.2 1,792.3 1,872.5 2,088.1 2,145.7 FARES ($Millions) $50 $40 - $30 $20 $10 - $ FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY03-04 $2.6 $11.7 $17.2 $21.8 $24.5 $27.1 $29.1 $31.9 $35.3 $37.6 R $41.9 $43.3 AVERAGE WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP 40,000 30,000 - 20,000 - 10,000 - - FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 i FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY03-04 5,399.2 I 12,856 17,261 21,207 21,704 25.700 26,851 27,049 31.519 29,966 34,283 34,959. - Actuals to FY 01-02, Budget for FY 02-03 and FY 03-04 4/4/2003 27 CHARTSO4.XLS C3.2 106 FIGURE 3.3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ANNUAL OPERATING DATA - FY 92-93 Tn Fv n3_04 REVENUE RECOVERY 70% 60% - 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY03-04 16.8% 373% l 41.7% 48.0% 55.7% 54.1% 51.6% 56.2% 57.6% 53.8% 53.9% 53.1% 60% FAREBOX RECOVERY 50% - 40% 30% - 20% 10% FY 99-00 I FY 00-01 FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 14.4% 26.0% FY 96-97 33.4% 38.0% 1 42.1% FY 97-98 FY 98-99 43.5% 41.4% 47.7% 49.8% FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY03-04 46.2% 46.6% 45.9% $100 $75 • $50 - $25 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY. 95-96 OPERATING EXPENSE /TRAIN MILE • 4 FY 92-93 $89.05 $64.00 558.63 $55.27 FY 96-97 $52.41 FY 97-98 $50.01 FY 98-99 548.40 FY 99-00 $42.45 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 $44.37 $47.93 FY 02-03 FY03-04 $47.24 $48.12 Actuals to FY 01-02, Budget for FY 02-03 and FY 03-04 Revenue Recovery = Operating Revenues/Operating Expenses Net of Rolling Stock Lease Payments & Extra -Ordinary Maintenance Farebox Recovery = Farebox Revenue/Operating Expenses Net of MOW Revenues, Rolling Stock Lease & Extra -Ordinary Maintenance 4/4/2003 28 CHARTSO4.XLS C3.3 107 FIGURE 3.4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ANNUAL OPERATING DATA - FY 92-93 TO FY 03-04 OPERATING EXPENSE/PASSENGER-MILE $1.0 $0.8 :::j \----____#___ $0.2 FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY Ol-02 FY 02-03 FY03-04 $0.71 $0.41 $0.37 $0.33 5034 $032 50.32 $0.29 $0.26 $0.29 $029 $0.30 OPERATING SUBSIDY/RIDER $20 $15 - $10 - $5 - + • $ FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY. 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY03-04 $16.70 58.63 57.75 56.18 55.55 55.66 55.59 $4.75 $4.16 $4.90 $5.03 $5.25 OPERATING SUBSIDY/PASSENGER-MILE $1.0 $0.8 $0.6 $0.4 - $0.2 r • $- FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY.02-03 FY03-04 50.59 $0.26 50.22 $0.17 $0.15 $0.16 50.15 $0.13 $0.11 $0.13 $0.13 $0.14 Actuals to FY 01-02, Budget for FY 02-03 and FY 03-04 4/4/2003 29 CHARTSO4.XLS C3.4 108 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Operating expense per passenger -mile has fluctuated between $0.30 and $0.34 since FY 1995-96 and is projected to be $0.30 in FY 2003-04. Operating subsidy per rider has decreased as the system matured, and the projection for FY 2003-04 is $5.22 As Metrolink trips are relatively lengthy, a better indication of the efficiency of the system is operating subsidy per passenger - mile. This index is projected to equal $0.14, which is very competitive with other transit properties in the region. 3.2 Summary of FY 2003-04 Statistics by Line Table 3.1 provides the estimated operating statistics by line for FY 2003-04 and the calculation of various performance ratios. Revenues and expenses are allocated to lines using formulae described in detail in Sections 6.1 through 6.4. Average trip length for FY 2003-04 is projected at 36.4 miles. Dependent on ridership and revenues received for each line, operating statistics vary considerably. The Orange County, San Bernardino, and IEOC Lines have the highest revenue recovery and most favorable cost- effectiveness and service efficiency indices as these lines have the highest ridership per train and train -mile. The Ventura County and Antelope Valley lines have the lowest revenue recovery and least favorable cost-effectiveness indices as these lines have lower ridership per train and the corresponding highest operating costs and subsidy per train -mile. 3.3 Components Of The Operating Budget The two components of the Operating Budget - Operations and Maintenance -of -Way, have multiple sub -components of both expenses and revenues, which are provided to permit allocation to line and to member agencies. • Operations — This portion of the Operating Budget includes expenses required to operate the Metrolink system including train operations, maintenance of equipment, fuel, security, utilities, transfer payments to other transit operators, revenue collection, payments to freight railroads for dispatching, station maintenance, passenger services, general and administrative expenses, professional services, and insurance. * Maintenance -of -Way — This portion of the Operating Budget represents ordinary maintenance of the rights -of -way owned by SCRRA member agencies, and includes routine inspection of track, signals, structures and repairs as needed. 3.4 Operating Budget Assumptions Service - The FY 2003-04 Budget assumes the operation of 143 daily trains on seven lines and 32 weekend trains on two lines. Total Revenue Train Miles are expected to increase approximately 3% over the FY 2002-03 Budget. The FY 2003-04 budget assumes new services will be provided on the San Bernardino, Inland Empire Orange County, and the Ventura County Lines. Two new round trips, one AM and one PM peak period trains, LAUS to Covina, are. proposed on the San Bernardino Line to alleviate crowding on peak period trains. A new off 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 28 109 TABLE 3.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGI ONAL RAIL AUT HORITY FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET OPERATING STATISTICS i f I LINE: San I_ .` 3ecri tixn a Vea4ura t way #eiplie Vie :. ,. .hrlaan[ .. ilLversid± i?range ° . r: aunty •. Lrilaid Etnpl • ClraageOh ; 4' ,14 • Tai:((. OPERATING STATISTICS: Train Trips - FY 03'04 Bu dget 58 20 32 1 I 12 19 14 9 175 Passenger Boardin gs FY 02'03 Budget 2,832,650 903,740 1,595,750 1,173,000 1,565,397 816,000 204,000 9,090,537 Passenger Hoardings FY 03'04 Proposed 2,864,944 934,400 1,682,792 1,129,472 1,411,584 844,800 414,720 9,282,712 Change - FY 03 Budget to FY 04 Proposed 1 .1% 3,3% 5.2% (3.9%) (10.9%) 3.4% 50 .8 % 2.1 % Train Miles FY 02'03 Budget 516,120 240,210 461,490 194,643 355,033 195,187 125,460 2,088,143 Train M iles FY 03'04 Proposed 531,025 256,135 463,203 198,171 359,546 210,501 127,168 2,145,748 % Change - FY 03 Budget to FY 04 Proposed 2 .8% 6.2% 0.4 % 1.8% 1.3% 7 .3% 1.3 % 2 .7 % Passenger Miles FY 02'03 Budget 102,266,357 26,243,202 59,761,907 48,519,631 60,353,400 34,435,200 7,140,000 338.719,697 Passen ger Mlles FY 03'04 Proposed 102,969,678 31,885,962 66,903,650 42,993,440 54,059,256 27,559,818 14,315,130 340,686,934 % Change - FY 03 Bu dget to FY 04 Proposed 0 .7% 17 .7% 10.7% (12.9 %) (11.6%) (24.9%) 50.1% 0.6% Average Weekday Ridership 10,256 3,650 6,209 4 ,412 5,514 3,300 1,620 34,959 Average Trip Length (Miles) 35 .8 33.9 39.6 37.8 38.0 32.4 34 .3 36.4 FINANCIA L ($=000): Operating Cost (w/ MOW) FY 02'03 Budget 24,158 .4 14,632.9 21,183.1 10,836 .7 17,965.4 7,962 .7 1,896.2 98,635.5 Operating Co st (w/ MOW) FY 04 Proposed 25,187.4 15,331 .7 22,039.5 11,488.2 18,553.4 8,539 .2 2,118.8 103,258.2 Chan ge - FY 03 Bu dget to FY 04 Proposed 4 .1 % 4.6% 3.9% 5.7% 3 .2% 6 .8 % 10.5% 4.5 % .-A. Operating Cost (w/o M OW Extra -Ordinary Mtne) FY 04 Proposed 25,062 .9 15,238 .4 21,908.2 11,469.8 18,450.1 8,513.0 2,115.9 102,758.2 ''-' Operating Cost (w/o MOW) FY 04 Proposed 19,560.4 12,012.7 17,103 .6 11,062.0 14,333.5 7,807.0 1,999 .5 83 ,878.7 Subsidy(wIM OW) FY 02'03 Budget 8,128.1 8,797.8 12,309.7 4,743.5 7,100.4 3,693.1 939.7 45,712.3 Subsidy (w/MOW) FY 03'04 Proposed 9,043.7 9,190 .7 13,056.5 5,231.4 7,836 .9 3,695 .5 634.7 48,689 .4 % Chan ge - FY 03 Budget to FY 04 Proposed 10. 1% 4.3 % 5.7% 9.3 % 9.4% 0.1% (48.0%) 6.1% Farebox Revenu e FY 02'03 Budget 13,443.6 3,734 .7 6,344 .6 5,852.4 7,652.4 3,947.9 925.3 41,901.0 Farebox Revenue FY 03'04 Proposed 13,561. 5 3,917.3 6,381 .3 5,986 .3 7,508 .6 4,494.7 1,450.4 43,300.1 % Chan ge - FY 03 Budget to FY 04 Proposed 0.9% 4.7% 0.6 % 2,2% (l .9%) 12.2% 36.2% 3 .2% Other Revenues FY 04 Propo sed (2) 2,582.2 2,223.7 2,601.7 270.6 3,207 .9 348.9 33.7 11,268.7 Av erage Fare Per Passenger FY 04 Proposed $4.73 $4.19 33.79 $5.30 $5.32 $5 .32 $3 .50 $4.66 COST / SER VICE EFFICIENCY FY 03-04 Op Cost / Passenger (w/o MOW Extra -Ordinary Main tenance) $8.75 $16.31 313.02 $10.16 $13 .07 310 .08 $5 .10 $10.80 Op Cost / Passen ger Mile (w/o MOW Extra -Ordin ary Maint) 50.24 $0.48 $0 .33 $0.27 $0.34 $0.31 $0 .15 3030 Subsidy/Passenger $3.16 $9.84 $7.76 $4.63 $5 .55 $4 .37 $1.53 $5.25 Subsidy/Passenger Mile $0.09 $0.29 $0.20 $0 .12 $0 .14 $0 .13 $0 .04 $0.14 Op Cost / Train Mile $47.20 559.86 $47.58 $57 .97 $51 .60 $40 .57 $16 .66 $48.12 Op Cost / Train Mile (w/o MOW) 536.84 $46.90 336. 92 355.82 539 .87 $37 .09 $15.72 539 .09 Subsidy/ Train Mile $17.03 535. 88 $28. 19 526 .40 $21 .80 $17.56 $4 .99 $22.69 Farebox Recovery 59. 670% 28.648% 32.278% 52.924% 45.609% 54 .532% 69.658% 45.932 % Reven ue Recovery 64.413% 40. 299% 41.003% 54.550% 58.084 % 56 .897% 70.141% 53.104% Notes: (1) Costs include all ex penses for Metrolink an d MOW on operating and n on -operating lines (2) Other revenues include dispatching fees an d MOW rev enues from freight an d Amtrak due to in dividual member agencies. (3) Farebox recovery is the ratio of farebox revenu e to total expenses net of MOW revenu es, rollin g stock lease pa yments and extra -ordinary maintenance. (4) Revenue recovery is the ratio of operatin g revenues to operating expenses net of ro llin g stock lease payments and extra -ordinary maintenance. Annual Stats 03'04 Budget.xls 4/4/20038:53 PM SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget peak round trip on the IEOC line is proposed utilizing equipment available out of Oceanside. One Oceanside to Irvine peak period train segment is being replaced by this new service. This service change will however leave the existing peak period Irvine to San Bernardino train in place. Additionally, two extensions to Mantalvo, one each in AM and PM peak periods, from Moorpark are anticipated on the Ventura County Line. The IEOC and Ventura County Lines services are expected to begin in the Fall of 2003, and the additional service on the San Bernardino Line is expected to be added in early calendar 2004 upon the completion of currently ongoing capacity improvements. A new program implemented in FY 2002-03 and continued into FY 2003-04 is the "Rail to Rail" program in which the SCRRA, Amtrak and CALTRANS work together to allow passengers, on those lines where complementary service exists, holding valid Metrolink inonthly passes or Amtrak tickets, to choose the service provider most convenient to their travel needs. A graduated reimbursement scale has been negotiated based on passenger counts. The service has been so successful that the number of passengers using the service surpassed the annual projections within the first seven months of operations. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 reflect service assumptions and revenue miles projected for FY 2003-04. TABLE 3.2 SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS FOR FY 2003-04* Line San Bernardino Ventura County Antelope Valley Riverside 91 Orange County Weekday Trains 30 San Bern -LA 4 Covina — LA 4 Chatsworth -LA 10 Moorpark -LA 6 Montalvo -LA 2 Santa Clarita-LA 4 Via Princessa-LA 18 Lancaster -LA 12 Riverside -LA (UP) 9 Riverside -LA (Fullerton) 6 Irvine -LA 2 Laguna Nigel — LA 1 San Juan Cap -LA 10. Oceanside -LA 5 San Bem-Irvine 1 San Bern -Laguna Nigel 1 San Bern -San Juan Cap 1 San Bern -Oceanside 3 Riverside -Irvine 2 Riverside - Laguna Nigel 1 Riverside -Oceanside Saturday Trains 7 San Bern -LA 9 Riverside -LA Sunday Trains 2 San Bern LA 6 Riverside -LA Inland Empire to Orange County Burbank urbankTurns 9 Burbank Airport -LA 2 Burbank -LA *Includes new service enhancements. 8 Lancaster -LA Maintenance of Equipment (MOE) — The current fleet of rolling stock consists of 38 Locomotives and 143 Passenger Vehicles. In FY 2002-03 the agency took delivery of 1 operating and 3 non -operating, used, locomotives. The operating unit is anticipated to be placed in service 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 30 111 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget in Spring of 2003. Upon completion of the rehabilitation of all four of these locomotives, the agency will have greatly expanded the capacity to perform ongoing ordinary maintenance, as well as the more extensive rehabilitation and renovation program, and anticipate the operation of longer trains on certain selected routes. It should be noted that as a result of a new contract for the provision of Maintenance of Equipment (MOE) services, effective July 1, 2003, a significant annual savings has been realized of approximately $1 million. Table 3.3 REVENUE TRAIN MILES FOR FY 2003-04 Line FY 2002-03 Budget FY 2003-04 Budget Increase/ (Decrease) % Change San Bernardino Line 510,646.2 525,486.2 14,840.0 2.9% Ventura County Line 240,210.0 256,135.2 15,925.2 6.6% Antelope Valley Line 439,559.6 443,130.4 3,570.8 0.8% Riverside. Line (via UP) 179,622.0 182,973.6 3,351.6 1.9% 91 Line 141,142.5 143,035.2 1,892.7 1.3%. Orange County Line 334,636.5 338,908.8 4,272.3 1.3% Inland Empire/Orange County Line 203,974.5 219,391.2 15,416.7 7.6% Burbank Turns 38,352.0 36,687.6 (1,664.4). -4.3% Total Revenue. Miles 2,088,143.3 2,145,748.2 57,604.9 2.8% Note: FY 2003-04 includes 1 additional service day over FY 2002-03 The reduction in Burbank Turn service is the result of a reallocation of service between Burbank Airport and Burbank not assumed in the FY 2002-03 Budget. Maintenance of Way (MOW) — The SCRRA is primarily responsible for the maintenance and integrity of approximately 331 track miles within the five county region. For further detail regarding the assumptions of the MOW program, please see Section 3.8. Revenues - Farebox revenues are projected from estimates of ridership developed in coordination with member agency staff. FY 2002-03 included the third of three Board approved fare increases and FY 2003-04 assumes no change to the underlying fare rates. The projected total annual ridership increase is estimated at 2% and assumes no lasting revenue or ridership impacts of the recent rise in gasoline prices. Average Weekday ridership is estimated to increase 2% as well. Revenue per rider is based on average trip length and mix of fare type. The revenue per rider experienced on each line is used to estimate farebox revenues for each line and is based on specific projections of ridership. Dispatching revenues are estimated based on agreements between the SCRRA and the freight railroads, Amtrak Intercity, and NCTD Coaster services. Dispatching revenues from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad are increased by the railroad index and Amtrak Intercity revenues are based on a formula that includes the movements of trains and certain performance incentives. The agreement has reached its current incentive cap and only increases to the base affect a change in the total. Revenues from Union Pacific Railroad are based on an agreed upon flat rate fee. Other miscellaneous revenues include potential sponsorship reimbursements of the annual special Holiday Trains, participation by Amtrak in the agency's Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 31 112 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget program based on a negotiated rate that assumes useage of SCRRA TVM equipment to sell Amtrak tickets, and other minor reimbursements to the agency. Expenses - In projecting expenses, cost of living or labor agreement -related increases built into existing contracts are assumed. These increases range from a low of 1% to a high of 3%. The average cost of diesel fuel is estimated to be $1.05 per gallon in FY 2003-04 Budget, an increase from $1.00 per gallon for FY 2002-03. A significant increase is also estimated in the cost of Operating and Liability premiums as a result of the continuing price shock to the insurance markets in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States. An increase of 56% is included in the FY 2003-04 Budget. For a detailed discussion of individual Operating Cost components, sec Section 3.6 below. 3.5 Summaryk`Revenues and Expenses by Operating Cost Component Table 3.4 shows revenues and expenses by operating cost component of the Operating Budget for FY 2003-04 with comparisons to FY 2001-02 Actual Expenses, and the FY 2002-03 Budget and Current Forecast. Operating revenues include farebox revenues, dispatching and other revenues as well as maintenance -of -way revenues. Operations expenses include expenses required to operate the Metrolink system including train operations, maintenance of equipment, fuel, security, utilities, transfer payments to other transit operators, revenue collection, payments to freight railroads for dispatching, station maintenance, passenger services, general and administrative expenses, professional services, and insurance. Operations expenses are distributed to the lines (and subsequently to member agencies) based on several formulae. Items such as direct Train Operations expenses and fuel are distributed based on train -miles. Payments to freight railroads are charged directly to lines. Additionally, a set of Base costs consisting of those costs that do not vary with the number of trains operated is included in the Operations Budget. These allocation formulae are described in Sections 6.1 and 6.2. Maintenance -of -way expenses are developed by SCRRA to ensure the level of ordinary maintenance is sufficient to prevent any loss of service quality. Levels of maintenance required on individual lines depend upon several factors including the condition of the infrastructure; levels of train traffic; levels of freight traffic; the number of road crossings; the number of curves; and exposure to storm damage. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 32 113 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TABLE 3.4 ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION BY COST COMPONENTS Revenues Farebox Revenue Dispatching/Other Revenues MOW Revenues Member. Agency Revenues $37,589.7 2,537.7 7,911.8 41,7093 $41,901.0 2,810.0 8,262.3 45,712.3 $41,542.2 2,650.0 8,152.4 45,178.9 �!rolLn, 15.2% 9.6% 7.3% 16.7% 3.3% (1.0%) 2.7% 6.5% 4.2% 4.9% 4.1% 7.8% $43,300.1 2,780.6 8,488.1 48,689.4 Operations & Services Train Operations Equipment Maintenance Contingency (Train Ops) Fuel Non -Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs Operating Facilities Maintenance Other Operating Train Services Security - Sheriff Security - Guards Supplemental Additional Security Public Safety Program Passenger Relations Holiday Trains TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection Marketing Media & Extemal Communications Utilities/1 eases Transfers to Other Operators Amtrak Transfers Station Maintenance Rail Agreements Subtotal Operations & Services Maintenance -of -Way MoW - Line. Segments MoW - Extra -Ordinary Maintenance Subtotal Maintenance -of -Way General & Administrative Staff Salaries & Fringe Benefits Ambassadors Non -Labor. Costs Allocated Overhead Subtotal Staff Services Professional Services Subtotal Services Subtotal General & Administrative Contingency (Non -Train Ops) Insurance Liability/Property/Auto Claims Claims Administration Subtotal Insurance 17,404.3 19,457.4 19,308.4 20,536.2 13,765.0 16,539.8 14,900.0 15,683.6 - 200.0 150.0 3,711.9 5,100.0 5,400.0 5,557.0 46.2 400.0 321.7 350.0 1,009.3 1,015.2 964.9 999.6 184.3 202.6 162.1 145.0 2,732.6 3,017.1 3,018.2 3,093.6 789.1 842.8 783.4 829.7 330.0 330.0 340.0 439.8 497.5 423.1 489.0 1,135.2 1,377.0 1,280.9 1,342.3 154.6 157.2 157.2 147.5 1,899.2 2,210.0 2,142.9 2,502.5 1,112.2 1,048.6 838.4 958.4 546.8 618.2 587.3 597.4 1,591.1 1,674.1 1,600.0 1,707.0 3,264.2 3,225.0 3,225.0 3,580.0 450.0 385.0 490.0 657.8 712.1 680.0 637.1 2,790.7 2,544.6 2,544.6 2,826.5 53,234.4 61,619.1 59,053.0 62,9623 18,123.9 520.5 18,644.4 4,933.8 567.0 803.7 4,391.1 10,695.6 993.7 993.7 11,689.3 19,521.7 500.0 20,021.7 5,075.8 496.0 671.3 4,622.2 10,865.3 18,350.1 470.0 18,820.1 5,165.0 580.0 760.0 5,690.0 12,195.0 18,879.5 500.0 19,379.5 6,008.6 490.7 602.0 5,259.7 12,361.0 1,359.4 1,365.3 1,485.4 1,359.4 1,3653 1,485.4 12,224.7 13,5603 13,846.4 1,028.7 500.0 500.0 500.0 2,322.1 1,943.1 886.7 5,151.9 2,945.0 750.0 575.0 4,270.0 3,996.3 750.0 843.9 5,590.2 4,595.0 1,350.0 625.0 6,570.0 18.0% 5.5% 6.4% 13.9% (5.2%) 5.3% (25.0%) 49.7% 9.0% 2.9% 657.0% (12.5%) 8.8% (1_0%) (1.5%) 3.6% (21.3%) (28.4%) (10.5%) 13.2% 2.5% 2.5% 5.l% (1.6%) 5.9% 3.0% 3.0% 11.2% (1.7%) 15.6% 18.2% (2.5%) 4.8% (4.6%) (6.2%) (6.2%) 31.8% 13.2% 16.8% (13.8%) (8.6%) 143% 9.3% (3.4%) 1.7% 7.3% 2.0% 6.7% 9.7% 11.0% 11.0% 8.9% 27.3% (3.2%) (10.5%) (6.3%) 1.3% 11.1% 11.1% 183% 2.2% 6.6% 4.2% (3.9%) 3.9% 21.8% (13.5%) (25.1%) 19.8% 15.6% (3.3%) (0.0%) (3.2%) 18.4% (1.1%) (10.3%) 13.8% 13.8% 2.9% 6.4% 3.0% 16.3% (15.4%) (20.8%) (7.6%) 1.4% 49.5% 9.3% 8.8% 49.5% 93% 8.8% 18.5% 133% 2.1% (51.4%) 97.9% (30.5%) (29.5%) 27.5% 56.0% 80.0% 8.7% 53.9% 15.0% 80.0% (25.9%) 17.5% 114 4/4f2003 8:55 PM Budget04-New Servicexls-Summary SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 3.6 Detail of Operating Budget The FY 2003-04 Operating Budget is $4.6 million or 4.3% greater than the FY 2002-03 Budget. . Major factors contributing to this increase are: • Increase of $1.4 million, 8%, in Train Operating expenses under the Amtrak contract, of which approximately $0.8 million is related to a significant and contractually required increases in the costs of fringe benefits paid on behalf of Engineers, Conductors, and Amtrak management staff. • As a result of the implementation of a new Maintenance of Equipment (MOE) contract beginning July 1, a significant savings has been realized. A reduction of approximately $1 million from FY 2002-03. • Increases in the number of stations, as well as increasing banking fees result in an increase to TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection of $300 thousand, 13%. • Increases in the costs of Operating and Property Insurance premiums, $1.7 million, 56%. • Increases for costs paid to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad for increased operations on non-member owned rights -of -way, $281 thousand, 11%. • Increase in required reserves for the agency's Self Insurance Reserve (SIR) $600 thousand as approved by the Board of Directors. The following section describes each element of the Operating Budget. Revenues. No increases or adjustments to the fare structure are assumed in FY 2003-04. Metrolink fares were increased for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2002, the third of three Board approved adjustments to the base fare structure of the agency. The policy of the agency has been to adjust the fare structure on a biannual basis in relatively small increments so as to avoid the imposition of large scale changes on our passengers, and allow the underlying fare revenue growth to more closely mirror the general level of price inflation in the Southern California area. Further, the budget does not assume a lasting impact on Revenue or Ridership from the recent increase in gasoline prices. In FY 2003-04, the agency is planning a reevaluation of the entire Fare Policy and the results, upon approval, are expected to be incorporated into the FY 2004-05 Budget preparation. See Table 3.5 Miscellaneous revenues include fees for dispatching freight, Amtrak Intercity and NCTD Coaster trains, and marketing revenues principally from sponsorship activities. Table 3.6 shows the Dispatching Revenues from FY 2001-02 through FY 2003-04. While not included in the budget amount, each year, actual Miscellaneous Revenues also include interest on fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects. Maintenance -of -way revenues are described in Section 3.8. The following section details expenses shown in Table 3.4. 4/7)2003, 9:57 AM 34 115 TABLE 3 .5 FY2003-04 Ridership/Far e R ev enue Forecast San Bernardino Weekday Saturday Sunday Ventura County Antelope Valley Weekday Saturday Riverside Weekday Saturday Orange County IEOC 91 Totals Wee kday Saturday Sunday 10,150 10,077 10,048 3,000 2, 841 2,944 1,700 1,508 1,527 3,544 3,681 3,650 5,850 5,749 5,999 2,000 1,650 1,746 4,600 4,249 4,372 6,139 5,467 5,459 3,200 3,074 3,127 800 1,456 1,473 34,283 33,753 34,128 5,000 4,491 4,690 1,700 1,508 1, 527 0` % w�F 43 dud' 10,256 2.06% 1.04% 3,077 4.53 % 2.56% 1,527 0.00 % -10.17% 3,650 0.00 % 2.98% 6,209 3 .50% 6 .14 % 1,794 2.72 % -10 .31% 3,300 34,959 4,871 1,527 0.91% -4.10% 1.00% -10.18% 5. 53% 3.13% 10. 00% 102.47% 2.44% 3.85% 0.00% 1.97% -2.59% -10.17% 4.80 3.65 3 .90 4.76 4 .02 4.48 4 .76 4 .02 4 .48 4 .10 4.16 4.16 4.00 3 .79 3 .79 3 .15 3.47 3.47 4 .95 5.26 5.26 5.28 5 .28 5 .28 5 .28 4.50 3.47 3.47 11,685,801 12,522,221 12,116,226 523,487 573,920 616,274 321,040 347,497 355,887 3,743,829 3,734,747 3,844,312 5,066,634 6,014,367 5,770,828 271,273 330,201 316,344 5,518,504 5,852,442 5,814,238 31,987 - 6,825,878 7,652,443 7,301,538 3,455,163 3,947,892 4,180,196 146,127 925,287 1,293,970 36,441,937 40,649,401 40,356,646 826,747 904,121 932,619 321,040 347 .497 355,887 :34186 LIZ +.. 4x,9pl,o .18 ,,=# i p9',8.1 i,I 12,592,146 614,060 355,323 3,917,279 6,071,085 310,227 5,986,272 7,508,606 4,494,724 1,450 ,389 42,020,502 924,287 355 .323 9 "1, in °Tac[�$rptd? 4EYOi cS �� tYi3 i0a 3.93% -0.36% -0.16 % 0 .56% 6.99% 2.25 % 1.90% 4.89 % 5.20 % 0 .94% -1 .93% -6.05% 2 .96% 2.29% 2.84% -1.88% 7.52% 13.85 % 12 .09% 56.75% 4.12% -0.89% -0 .16% 3.37% 2.23% 2.25% 4/5/2003 1:52 PM fy04 forecast-latest.xls SCRRA FY 2003-04 BUDGET TABLE 3.6 FY03-04 MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING REVENUES Amtrak Intercity Coast & Saugus Shared Use (UPRR/SPTC) East Bank Joint Facility (UPRR/SPTC) Mission Tower (UPRR/SPTC) San Diego & Olive Subdivision Shared Use (BNSF) Pasadena Subdivision Shared Use (BNSF) North County Transit District (NCTD) Marketing Reveunues Amtrak TVM Maintanance 1,575,477 256,920 86,728 185,335 45,813 32,652 319,810 35,000 1,642,678 256,920 86,973 193,722 57,882 43,312 330,977 147,500 1,642,678 256,920 89,325 198,960 48,325 44,483 339,927 35,000 125,000 4.27% 0.00% 2.99% 7.35% 5.48% 36.23% 6.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 2.70% -16.51% 2.70% 2.70% -76.27% 4/4/2003 9:10 PM 117 DISP-MOW.XLS•Disp-Mktg SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Train Operations. Amtrak provides train operations $17.8 million for FY 2002-03, which represents an 8% increase from the FY 2002-03 Budget. This estimate includes an increase to accommodate the new services as referenced above. Of the total Operations expense, $72 thousand is attributable to the costs FY 2003-04 increases in service given the anticipated schedule start dates. The contingency for Train Operations is set at $75,000. Equipment Maintenance. The budget for FY 2002-03 was $16.5 million, and the request for FY 2003-04 is $15.7 million, a decrease of 5%. Costs for FY 2003-04 are expected to decrease as a result of the implementation of a new maintenance contract which realized significant savings over previous rates and terms. The contingency for Equipment Maintenance in FY 2003- 04 is set at $75,000 compared to $100,000 in previous years. Fuel. Fuel usage of approximately 5.3 million gallons per year is based on the projected consumption levels assumed in the proposed schedule. In FY 2003-04, fuel prices are assumed to stabilize over the course of the year to an average cost $1.05 per gallon. An average of $1.00 per gallon was assumed for FY 2002-03 and the resulting projection of $5.6 million for the year is a 9% increase from the Budget for FY 2002-03. Non -Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs. This item is a contingency line item for repairs to accommodate medium scaled unforeseen damage to rolling stock. The amount requested for FY 2003-04 is $350,000 as compared to $400,000 in FY 2002-03. Operating Facilities Maintenance. This function is responsible for cleaning, maintenance, and hazardous materials compliance at the Central Maintenance Facility and other outlying SCRRA facilities. The budget fully incorporates the utilization of 4 converted Maintenance Technicians from contractor staff to permanent SCRRA positions at an overall savings to the agency. For FY 2003-04, the budget of $1.0 million represents a 1.5% decline from the FY 2002-03 budget. Other Operating Train Services. This budget includes a number of miscellaneous items directly related to operating the rail system. Weather data forecast and earthquake reporting services, publications, uniforms, emergency bus services, and FRA required training are all items considered in this category. Total expenditures are $145 thousand, a decrease of 28% from the FY 2002-03 Budget as a result of transferring certain Right -Of -Way worker training expenses to Maintenance of Way. Security - Sheriff. This line item shows an increase of 3% over the FY 2002-03 primarily as a result contractual costs increases. Security - Guards. The amount proposed for FY 2003-04 is a 2% decrease from the FY 2002- 03 level. The FY 2002-03 Budget assumed the costs of security services would raise significantly in the wake of the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. Final results to the agency were less than anticipated in the year leading to a more moderated rate of growth in FY 2003-04 Supplemental Additional Security. This program is funded through an increment on fare 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 37 118 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget revenues implemented in FY 2002-03. These funds are to provide for increased operational security, special upgrades to agency facilities and prevention of external threat incidents including the change in national security status as identified by the U.S. Justice Department. It is the intent of the agency to bring a comprehensive program to the Board for approval prior to the internal authorization to expend funds. Public Safety Program. The program declines by 2% from FY 2001-02 and includes American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements, continuation of the successful police and fire officer education train series, continuation of the "Don't Pick a Fight With a Heavyweight" campaign (including a community outreach event in each county), public information and school education campaigns, and safety and incident response training for staff and contractors. Passenger Relations. An 2.5% decrease is projected over the FY 2002-03 Budget for passenger relations and telephone infomr.ation services. Funds are allocated to provide for the continuation of the Station Call Box project, the continuation of contracted Telephone Information Services, the implementation of the Customer Promise program in which the SCRRA will guarantee to passengers the ability to reach their final destination, and other minor customer service related expenses. In order to accommodate increased costs in other areas of the budget, discretionary costs in this program were constrained to the degree possible. Holiday Trains. The amount projected for the holiday trains in FY 2003-04 is a decrease of 6% from the FY 2002-03 Budget. The budget anticipates labor charges by Bombardier in FY 2003- 04 for support at the CMF to decorate the train., the costs of actual train operations, and the associated community outreach and support costs. There is also the expectation that opportunities will be sought to provide sponsored offsetting revenue, including a return of previous program sponsors and the addition of more through extensive community outreach. Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) Maintenance/Revenue Collection. This item includes TVM and validator maintenance, revenue collection, ticket stock, replacement of destination and ticket type strips in the TVMs, fare/zone change programming, and merchant fees for credit and debit card usage. This line item increases $293 thousand, 13% from the FY 2002-03 Budget primarily due to the addition of new stations and the associated increase in the numbers of machines requiring maintenance and increased Revenue Collection, an increase in the underlying contracted rate of the primary maintenance vendor, and an increase in the fees charged by the agency's bank. Marketing. There is a decrease of 9% compared with the FY 2002-03 Budget. This line item includes market research & analysis, advertising, promotions, special events, sales, merchandising, and channel marketing. For the FY 2003-04 Budget, programs providing targeted market research, expanded efforts highlighting the agency's Rail 2 Rail program, and additional programs for the corporate and general markets. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 38 119 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Media/External Relations. There is a decrease of 3% compared with the FY 2002-03 Budget. This line item includes media and public relations, community relations, and web site maintenance and programming, and the production of the agency's printed schedules and Ride Guides. Also included are outreach activities with Station Cities including special events and the increased development of partnerships with Strategic Stakeholders. Utilities/Leases. Utility and lease costs are estimated at current monthly average costs and are expected to increase 2% from than the FY 2002-03 Budget. Growth has been moderated as result of a substantial decline in the costs of long distance telephone expenses to the agency through the anticipated implementation of a new service contract The agency otherwise expects current, non - fuel, energy related trends to continue with minor moderation. Additional lease costs for transmitter and other locations are assumed in outlying areas. Transfers to Other Operators. These transfers represent agreements between the SCRRA and other transit operators to allow Metrolink passengers a convenience of transfer to connecting transit. Revenue transfers to other transit operators show an 11% increase over the budget for FY 2002-03 due to the projected ridership and new agreements with additional operators. Included in the program is $250,000 additional funds from the LACMTA to facilitate the implmentation of its "Easy Pass" program throughout Los Angeles County. Amtrak Transfers. These funds represent the gross costs to the agency of the "Rail 2 Rail" program. The SCRRA, Amtrak, and CALTRANS agreed to work together to allow passengers, on those lines where complementary service exists, holding valid Metrolink monthly passes or Amtrak tickets, to choose the service provider most convenient to their travel needs. Reimbursements have been negotiated based on a sliding scale determined by passenger counts and have been capped at the fully budgeted amount. This service has exceeded all initial budget expectations and has led to an increase in agency fare revenues, increased ridership on Amtrak's Pacific Surfrider corridor service, and has relieved overcrowding on several peak period Orange County Line trains. Station Maintenance. This item is decreased by 11% from the FY 2002-03 Budget. The reduction is principally the result of a previously negotiated reduction in the rate the SCRRA pays for shared maintenance at Los Angeles Union Station as a result of the anticipated opening of the LACMTA's Gold Line light rail project. This item also includes maintenance of station equipment, signs, display cases, and public address/changeable message signs (PA/CMS), and LAUS platform maintenance. Rail Agreements. This line item represents payments to freight railroads, the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, for dispatching and other operating related services over property owned by these railroads. The amount budgeted represents an 11% increase from FY 2002-03 due to increases in as a result of new service enhancements discussed above, as well as contractually required indexed increases. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 39 120 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Maintenance of Way -Line Segments. This line item is discussed in Section 3.8. Maintenance of Way - Extra -ordinary Maintenance. This item is discussed in Section 3.8. Salaries and Fringe Benefits. Salaries and fringe benefits are forecast based on the actual salary rate of each position charging directly to the Operations Budget, and assumes a fringe benefit additive of 52% (SCRRA's actual experience with SCRRA employees and an increase from 48% in the FY 2002-03 Budget). A 3% pool is assumed and included for merit increases, a decrease of 1% from FY 2002-03. A shift in staff costs from Ambassadors to other Passenger Services positions results in additional increases. Additional increases result from the reallocation of labor resources among the various SCRRA modes of output. The agency has attempted to significantly improve its time and record keeping practices over the past two fiscal years. The estimates in the budget currently reflect this more accurate information. Ambassadors. Ambassador staff represent a principal point of contact for Metrolink customers with the SCRRA. Assigned to stations throughout the agency's service area, costs are declining as a result of a decision to freeze the hiring of 3 currently vacant part-time positions in light of other resource allocation requirements of the agency. Direct Non -Labor Costs. Costs included in this line include Direct Non -allocated MIS expenses including programming and maintenance of the agency's Train Management and Inventory System software, Board of Directors' per diem, Travel and Lodging expenses of operating departments, and additional minor miscellaneous expenses. These costs are expected to decrease 10% from the FY 2002-03 budget as the result of a significant reduction in all discretionary areas. Travel and training have been reduced and will be restricted to essential costs only, and each Director and Manager has been instructed to, whenever possible, substitute lower costs alternatives for ordinary administrative functions. Allocated Overhead. Staff charging practices changed in FY 2000-01 to accommodate a new standardized methodology of allocating overhead costs. As a result of an increase in the percentage of staff costs being charged to Train Operations, a higher rate of funds are being transferred. These have been offset by an almost equal reduction in allocations to the agency's MOW program. Professional Services. Professional Services includes contracted services for legal and legislative advocate representatives; development of the Strategic Plan; System Safety Plan and related operating plans; performance audit of operators; feeder bus coordination; equipment engineering assistance; signage design; and other minor items. Overall, Professional Services are projected to increase 9% over the FY 2002-03 Budget, due to the initiation of a program to recalculate and validate the agency's methodology for passenger counting and other operational statistics as required by the National Transit Database (NTD) reporting requirements. Contingency. This line item is traditionally budgeted at $500,000 and is included to be utilized under authority of the Chief Executive Officer to deflect any unanticipated increase in expenses 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 40 121 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget so as to avoid unnecessary increases to member agency subsidies in the event short term negative expense impacts are realized. Insurance. Overall, this item is projected to increase 54% compared with the FY 2002-03 Budget. Premiums for Operating Liability and Property Damages are projected to increase by 56%, and Claims Administration is assumed to increase 9%. Claims costs are budgeted at the payout estimates plus the level of Board approved increases in reserves to fund the agency's Self Insurance Reserve (SIR) requirements. Combined, these funds are requested at $1.4 million , an increase of $600 thousand, equally divided among claims payments and reserve increases. 3.7 Summary of Revenue. and Expenses by Member Agency Table 3.7 provides the FY 2003-04 Metrolink Operating Budget by member agency shares. Total local subsidies increase 6.5% over the FY 2002-03 Budget and are expected to equal $48.7 million. LACMTA increases by 7.1%, VCTC shows an increase of 7.9%, SANBAG is increased 9.9%, RCTC's subsidy increases 0.9% and OCTA is expected to increase 4.1% 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 41 122 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TABLE 3,7 OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY ($000s) Expenses Train Mile Allocation Base Allocation Direct Charge Maintenance -of -Way Gross Farebox Other Operating Maintenance -of -Way FY 2002-03 Budget increase/(Decrease) Percentage Change BASE ALLOCATION EXPENSES Equipment Maintenance Non -Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs Operating Facilities Maintenance Other Operating Train Services Security - Sheriffs & Guards Public Safety Program Holiday Train TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection Stations & Information Services DIRECT CHARGE EXPENSES Dispatching Rail Agreements $23,123.6 $13,211.7 $4,419.7 49,946.4 28,188.2 8,275.0 10,808.7 6,062.9 2,237.7 19,379.5 11,268.9 4,431.9 TRAIN MILE EXPENSES Train Operations (Non -Dispatching) 3,029.9 26.5 0.9% Fuel Passenger Relations Marketing Media & External Conununications Utilities/Leases Station Maintenance Staff Costs (Excluding Ambassador Labor) Professional Services Insurance 4,577.3 452.4 9.9% Transfers to Other Operators Ambassador Labor (Included under Staff Salaries) 3,343.4 263.6 7.9% 123 Budget04-New Servicexls-Allocate 4/4/2003 8:56 PM SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 3.8 Maintenance -of -Way Budget Assumptions This section provides the assumptions used to project revenues and expenses for the Maintenance -of -Way (MOW) portion of the Operating Budget. Over long periods, the expenses under a capital renovation program and ordinary maintenance budgets are somewhat interchangeable. Because the most economical methods of replacement of railroad elements (rail, ties, crossings, etc.) are through large specialized operations, railroad owners usually arrange for periodic replacement of elements using capital budgets. Under one extreme maintenance philosophy, a railroad owner may elect to continually replace wom elements using ordinary maintenance forces. In this scenario, the property is kept in excellent condition and there is no need for a Rehabilitation/Renovation capital program. However, total operating expenses are very high. The other extreme is to limit ordinary maintenance to little more than legally required inspections and to repair what breaks, counting on future expenditures in Rehabilitation/Renovation programs to refresh the condition of the property. This scenario results in reduction of speed and quality of operations as the maintenance level declines; however, ordinary maintenance expenditures are minimized. The recommended MOW philosophy of SCRRA is to perform ordinary maintenance sufficient to prevent any loss of service quality and to budget for Rehabilitation/Renovation at sufficient intervals to prevent the needed repairs/replacements from overwhelming the ordinary MOW budget. This philosophy is practiced by all of the successful freight railroads on their main routes. Conditions and Trends in the MOW Budget Current MOW programs are developed annually to maintain the tracks in their original condition. The factors listed below increase the MOW budget as compared to the budgets of the prior owners: + Higher standards for maintenance • Signal problem response time • Right-of-way and crossing response to community • No tolerance for speed reductions • No interference with train movements + More frequent trains/less work time/overtime for many tasks + Unforeseen expenses related to signals and storm damage + Some capital work not completed • Tunnel rehabilitation • Some old rail • Some old interlockings (Allen, First St., Ninth St.) + Right-of-way security issues • Graffiti • Trash dumping 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 43 124 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget • Vandalism to track and signals Actions that may eventually reduce the MOW expenses include: - Completion of Rehabilitation/Renovation projects Improvements to right-of-way security • Fencing • Law enforcement (SCRRA and community) • Signage Acquisition of maintenance site(s) to avoid rents and reduce travel time MOW Revenues and Expenses Table 3.8 provides maintenance -of -way revenues received from the freight railroads and Amtrak Intercity and includes revenues for operating and non -operating lines. Maintenance -of -way revenues were $7.9 million in FY 2001-02; $8.3 million in the FY 2002-03 Budget and the projection for FY 2003-04 is $8.5 million, an increase of 3%. Maintenance -of -way revenues are estimated from prior agreements and revenues from the freight railroads are increased by the railroad index, 2.7% and charged based on traffic on the lines. Amtrak Intercity revenues, per agreement, are increased by the CPI (3%). However revenues from Amtrak Intercity services are expected to be reduced as Amtrak did not initiate Los Angele to Las Vegas service as had been anticipated in the FY 2002-03 Budget. These funds have not been included in FY 2003-04. Revenues on the East Bank Joint Facility (East Bank of the Los Angeles River) are related to SCRRA's expenditures in this segment and vary from year to year depending upon both maintenance and capital work. Since FY 1997-98, the SCRRA has had an arrangement to exchange MOW revenues for an equal amount of Orange County Gas Tax Funds. These funds are budgeted outside the ordinary MOW budget. Table 3.9 provides the projection of Maintenance -of -Way Revenues, Subsidy and Expenditure by line and by county for FY 2003-04. Table 3.10 provides a summary of the projection of Maintenance -of -Way Expense Detail for FY 2003-04 by Line Segment/Territory and compares these projections to FY 2002-03 Budget. The maintenance category detail provided in Table 3.10 includes the following line items: • Track - payments to the maintenance -of -way contractor for projection of labor on inspections/repair of track. • Signal & Communications - payments to the signal and communications contractor for projection of labor on inspections/repair of signal and communication systems. • Structures- payments to the maintenance -of -way contractor for projection of labor on inspections/repair of bridges, tunnels and other structures. • Procurement — payments for items needed in repair of track, signals, communications, or structures which are allocated to segments and counties on the basis of track -miles. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 44 125 SCRRA FY 2003-04 BUDGET TABLE 3.8 MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY REVENUE Amtrak Intercity LAUS Rail Yard Operations & Maintenance (Amtrak) (1) Azusa Branch Shared Use (UPRR/SPTC) Baldwin Park Branch Shared Use (UPRR/SPTC) Coast & Saugus Shared Use (UPRR/SPTC) East Bank Joint Facility (UPRR/SPTC) Mission Tower (UPRR/SPTC) San Diego & Olive Subdivision Shared Use (BNSF) Pasadena Subdivision Shared Use (BNSF) State Grade Crossing (CPUC) (1) FY02-03 Budget amount was under budgeted. 1,012,363 188,617 81,084 175,997 2,700,086 733,546 77,278 1,059,406 1,564,324 319,102 1,177,547 123,205 76,519 175,647 2,740,562 806,575 122,821 1,102,301 1,627,670 309,405 1,099,765 181,347 78,588 180,395 2,871,902 828,381 126,142 1,132,102 1,671,674 317,770 8.63% -3.85% -3.08% 2.50% 6.36% 12.93% 63.23% 6.86% 6.86% -0.42% -6.61% 47.19% 2.70%. 2.70% 4.79% 2.70% 2.70% 2.70% 2.70% 2.70% 4/4/2003 9:38 PM 126 DISP-MOW.XLS-MOW SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TABLE 3.9 PROPOSED FY 2003-04 M.ATNTENANCE OF -WAY EXPENDITURES Revenue Forecast Allocation Operating Lines LA - San Bernardino LA - Ventura (Burbank Jct to Moorpark) LA - Lancaster Fullerton - San Diego CountyLine Olive Subdivision Riverside Layover Facility River Corridor Extra -Ordinary Maintenance (Derailments, Storm Damage) Non -Operating Lines Sierra Madre - Claremont (Pasadena Sub) Baldwin Park Branch (San Bernardino Co.) Operating Lines LA - San Bernardino (1) LA - Ventura (Burbank Jct to Moorpark) (2) LA - Lancaster Fullerton - San Diego County Line Olive Subdivision Riverside Layover Facility (3) River Corridor (4) Extra -Ordinary Maintenance (5) (Derailments, Storm Damage) Non -Operating Lines Sierra Madre - Claremont (Pasadena Sub) Baldwin Park Branch (San Bernardino Co.) Total Ex . nditure Forte Operating Lines LA - San Bernardino LA - Ventura (Burbank Jct to Moorpark) LA - Lancaster Fullerton - San Diego County Line Olive Subdivision Riverside Layover Facility River Corridor Extra -Ordinary Maintenance (Derailments, Storm Damage) Non -Operating Lines Sierra Madre - Claremont (Pasadena Sub) Baldwin Park Branch (San Bernardino Co.) 7,494,535 1,090,008 1,391,193 1,956,147 1,793,589 116,561 1,147,037 993,531 927,777 65,754 10,769,703 2,710,594 1,430,815 2,423,394 1,872,325 230,210 75,588 1,526,777 500,000 121,714 62,208 59,506 4,280,021 259,206 917,631 1,956,147 1,147,037 927,777 927,777 5,998,924 1,582,987 943,766 2,423,394 45,844 725,219 277,714 62,208 62,208 Net Subsld AJlaeatton 1,910,150 1,793,589 116,561 2,521,720 1,872,325 230,210 302,302 116,884 202,235 17,385 169,472 15,378 830,802 830,802 473,562 473,562 65,754 65,754 j ISMIITH 1,416,989 1,127,607 12,359 219,856 57,167 59,506 59,506 629,835 487,049 109,928 32,858 rvrr t k: Irr1"c y. ;6� !E'if, 'rfl l r �1 ' iy?c,r t;. fir..; 18,264,238 10,278,945 4,431,870 202,235 2,247,791 1,103,397 3,800,602 1,842,193 ' - - 1,958,409 - 2,822,008 1,861,397 - - - 960,611 4,379,541 4,379,541 _ - - - 3,665,914 - 3,665,914 - - - 346,771 - 346,771 - - - 75,588 45,844 - 17,385 12,359 - 2,673,814 1,872,256 302,302 169,472 219,856 109,928 500,000 277,714 116,884 15,378 57,167 32,858 1,115,245 989,985 - - 125,260 - 989,985 989,985 - - - - 125,260 - - -- 125,260 - d-..�.,r'.Q..: 'i6,C..e .`,.1 TI '' % y-7-,--,"4 ki.,,.4, t,,,, ` di jai, rC -ifin 3'� Ik ti's'r (1) Split of MoW net subsidy is by track miles (58.4% LACMTA and 41.6% SANBAG). Split MoW revenue forecast is by county specific revenues. (2) Split of MoW net subsidy and MoW revenue forecast is by track miles (65.96% LACMTA and 34.04% VCTC). (3) Split is by route miles (60.65% LACMTA, 23.00% RCTC, and 16.35% SANBAG). (4) Split is assumed All Share (47.5% LACMTA, 19.8% OCTA, 14.4% SANBAG, 7.2% VCTC, and 11.1% RCTC) of cost in excess of revenues. (5) Split is assumed All Share for derailments ($100,000) and percent of route miles owned (57.5535% LACMTA, 24.2709% OCTA, 10.6918% SANBAG, 6.4144% VCTC, 1.0694% RCTC) for storm damage, gate lmockdowns, and vandalism. 4/4/2003 9:02 PM 127 Input04-New Service.xls-MOW SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Southern California Regional Rail Authority FY 03/04 Proposed Maintenance -of -Way Budget Variance to FY 02/03 Budget & Forecast _ r yC 7 y 1 r 1 1 l . _ -,c. r .� C', (i il� p tr , r i +SS t., , s jj )),J r. 1 r#r:'S t:, r T .s� } QperAling` tes $18,8D0,464 -'- $18,264,08 _ ' :. (S536,226) ._. .. „t �_... S'{f .. t•:h 'r? i. ''' �{ 1".. .. ".;h� !fr o. �F�.d . WM _ t.5#1.4 SD!'. Track $723,947 $848,115 $124,168 Signal & Communications $1,194,009 $1,327,656 $133,647 Structures $175,957 $156,818 ($19,139) Procurement $165,909 $156,568 ($9,341) Other $594,092 $564,140 ($29,952) Agency Costs $$8852,287 $747,305 04,98_2» _ }($] Track $765,512 $833,731 $68,219 Signal & Communications $810,082 $775,917 ($34,165) Structures $I44,882 $116,238 ($28,644) Procurement $132,378 $123,869 ($8,508) Other $437,257 $418,330 ($18,927) Agency Costs $641,505 $553,923 ($87,582) .. _.-fah in, i a - - : . 52 rem • Track $1,119,143 $1,132,049 $12,906 Signal & Communications $1,182,383 $1,193,119 $10,736 Structures $236,510 $191,437 ($45,073) Procurement $218,772 $198,316 ($20,457) Other $808,048 $752,341 ($55,708) Agency Costs $1,085 324 $912,280 ($173,044) a-."�- ��.t yy4r ,rw i +yYtr vt�;T � �. w. 4 v mist, wargr ... C Y 7�� �...r hCtp� :' b ,r �s'r7�: -..-,,A ar . .. . Mecca -.;7-..40)5.0:48) , Me cc ._�Ay n . � ;7 -.. 0)5.0:48) Track $919,375 $999,337 $79,962 Signal & Communications $983,264 $990,919 $7,655 Structures $194,607 $165,071 ($29,536) Procurement $183,494 ' $164,809 ($18,685) Other $647,701 $559,142 ($88,560) Agency Costs $942,6211 $786,637 ($155,984)_ ,, YJyle 111 ,' Track $89,002 $95,555 $6,553 Signal & Communications $121,971 $118,212 ($3,759) Structures $14,866 $12,610 ($2,256) Procurement $14,017 $12,590 ($1,427) Other $49,065 $47,715 ($1,350) Ageac Costs $72006 $60,090 ($11916) " YY' 4 ' nn i ��-...,'yy.`''yayM��th+ { Mf} SFr • - 4?Q � �9� iY.i'.eEt'!`.td'[d, �. :,,tt.,,...,a.. .e. Yf _� * J. ,X .�_ •� xT f"� f • . . _ -7" r• i:.[. J .. . :• Track $16,704 $22,382 $5,678 Signal & Communications $8,018 $11,066 $3,048 Structures $4,054 $4,356 $302 Procurement $3,823 $4,349 $526 Other $12,328 $12,676 $348 Agency Costs $19,638 $20,758 $1,120 4/5/2003 10:42 AM FY04Mow-Rev3.xls Line 128 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Southern California Regional Rail Authority FY 03!04 Proposed Maintenance -of --Way Budget Variance to FY 02/03 Budget & Forecast (Derailments, Storm Damage, Gate Knockdowns, Vandalism) Track Signal & Communications Structures Procurement Other A_ency Costs Track Signal & Communications Structures Procurement Other Agency Costs Track Signal & Communications Structures Procurement Other (1) Extra -Ordinary Maintenance Agency Costs 4/5/2003 10:42 AM $572,910 $1,420,594 $72,167 $68,046 $232,641 $349,556 $222,352 $312,064 $54,058 $50,970 $189,884 £261,839 $20,879 $56,867 $5,135 $4,842 $17,505 $24,874 $4,449,824 $6,089,252 $902,236 $842,251 $2,988,521 $500,000 $4,249,650 $608,090 $1,454,840 $61,214 $61,117 $196,842 5291,711 $203,454 $295,365 $45,853 $45,780 $181,023 $218,510 $27,686 $49,974 $4,356 $4,349 $18,137 $20,758 $4,770,399 $6,217,068 $757,952 $771,746 $2,750,344 $500,000 $3,611,974 $35,180 $34,246 ($10,953) ($6,929) ($35,798) ($57,845) (818,898) ($16,699) ($8,205) ($5,190) ($8,861) ($43,329) $6,807 ($6,893) (8779) ($493) $632 ($4,116)' $320,575 $127,816 ($144,284) ($70,505) ($238,177) $0 ($637,676) 129 FY04Mow-Rev3.xis Line SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Other - payments for vegetation control, vehicle /equipment expense, rail flaw detection, and engineering which are allocated to segments and counties on the basis of track -miles. • Agency Costs - SCRRA labor, overhead and non -labor costs allocated to the Maintenance -of - Way Budget that are allocated to segments and counties on the basis of track -miles. Included in the agency's pool of general engineering are funds for the purpose of conceptual engineering and capital planning to better identify scope and construction concerns prior to the submission of grant applications. MOW Projections by Line The FY 2003-04 MOW Budget is $19.4 million. This is 3% lower than the FY 2002-03 Budget. The decrease is primarily due to a stable maintenance environment, and a concerted effort by agency staff to maintain current levels without degrading the quality of operations. Non -direct maintenance expenses have been reduced in light of the overall resource constraints of the agency for the fiscal year. The average MOW cost per track -mile is calculated excluding Extra -Ordinary Maintenance and Agency Costs. For FY 2003-04, the average MOW cost is projected to be $46,125 per track -mile compared with $47,223 per track -mile budgeted in FY 2002-03. Some inflationary cost increases have been absorbed by economies associated with the improved maintenance condition of the property as a result of the agency's Renovation and Rehabilitation program. The features that make some lines higher or lower in cost than the SCRRA averages, or are changes from last year are summarized in the following list. The figures (+) and (-) show factors that drive the maintenance budget higher or lower. Los Angeles - San Bernardino Line. (2.5% increase from the FY 2002-03 Budget due to an increase in both Track and Signal Maintenance requirements.) The budget represents the basic maintenance force plus a surfacing cycle. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Very high density of passenger train traffic + High density of road crossings + Some unresolved drainage issues + Assumption of Redlands First Mile - Capital rehabilitation still to be completed (I-10 Corridor work) - Light freight traffic Los Angeles - Ventura County Line. (4% decrease from the FY 2002-03 Budget.) The signal system on this line was renewed between 1991 and 1995, and the crossing, rail, and tie deficiencies of earlier years have been largely corrected by recent Rehabilitation/ Renovation work. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + High density of passenger train traffic (including weekends) + Deteriorated track/ties at selected locations + High density of road crossings + Moderately heavy freight traffic (affects curve rail) 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 49 130 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget + Tunnels and embankments + Poor ballast condition, embankment retains moisture - Signal system is new - Light to moderate curves and grades Los An_geles — Antelope Valley Line. (6% decrease from the FY 2002-03 Budget.) A considerable portion of this line has been recently improved. The major remaining capital improvement issue is the deteriorated subgrade in the Newhall Tunnel (Tunnel 25), old rail from Sylmar to Saugus, and old ties from Sylmar to Tunnel 25. In addition, the areas rehabilitated in 1994 for "earthq-uake" service are nearing tic replacement cycle time. It is a mountain freight railroad, which means that great care is required to inspect and control track geometry, curve rail wear, embankment stability (landslides and washouts), and safety detectors. The capital budgets for 97/98 and 98/99 included replacement of the worst of the old rail and ties, and the old signal system. This has reduced the signal costs on this line. Factors affecting MOW costs are: + High curve and grade territory + Tunnel 25 subgrade is very poor + Frequent trains (below Via Princessa) + Some heavy freight traffic (affects curve rail) + Exposed to flood damage (requires extra inspections) + Poor ballast condition, embankment retains moisture - Most of line has good rail, ties, and crossings Fullerton - San Diego County Line. (5% decrease from the FY 2002-03 Budget due principally to a decrease in all non track and signal maintenance expenses.) This line is in good to excellent condition. The budget has historically been the lowest per mile. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Frequent trains + Exposed to flood and ocean damage - Very little significant curvature - New track and signal system Olive Subdivision. (4% decrease from the FY 2002-03 Budget. The primary reason for the decrease is the level of bridge and structures maintenance completed in FY 2002-03) This line has received a significant cycle replacement of ties and surfacing, along with renewed road crossings and a modernized signal system. However, most of the rail is old and requires spot repairs to control defects. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Narrow embankment + Old rail - No significant curvature or grade Riverside Layover Facility. (17% increase from the FY 2002-03 Budget.) This segment has good track. However, this facility is requiring a four man track gang to inspect the facility once per month. Additionally, the Operations Department has requested increased 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 50 131 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget minor repairs at the facility associated with bumper repair, derail installation and additional signage. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Small segment requires specific maintenance assignments - Good Condition River Corridor. (2% decrease from the FY 2002-03 Budget.) This segment includes all of the tracks on both sides of the Los Angeles River from Redondo Junction on the south to CP Taylor on the north. It carries heavy freight and passenger traffic, including all SCRRA non -revenue movements in and out of the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF). Past capital programs have upgraded most of the track and signals. Even with these improvements, the track and bridges need continual maintenance. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Heavy freight tonnage + Frequent trains + Many turnouts + Some locations of severe curvature - Few road crossings Sierra Madre - Claremont (Pasadena Subdivision) (9% decrease from the FY 2002-03 Budget.) All components of MOW activity are decreasing on this line including Track, Structures and Signal Maintenance as a result of previous maintenance work to the ROW. SCRRA is maintaining this property for the Pasadena Blue Line Construction Authority under their agreement with the LACMTA. The line has jointed rail and wooden crossties in an adequate condition to carry the small amount of freight traffic now on the line. Some road crossings are being improved within the maintenance budget with the cooperation of community street departments. Some of the crossing waming systems are also being upgraded to reduce trouble calls while in freight operation. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Jointed Rail + Poor tie and ballast conditions + Some poor road crossings + Many road crossings + Obsolete open -wire signal system - Low freight traffic levels and no passenger services. - Light curvature and grade Rialto to Bench (Baldwin Park Branch) (4% decrease from the FY 2002-03 Budget). This line is a very lightly used freight line with small rail and old wooden ties. The forecast is an estimate of the time to inspect and make nominal repairs only. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Poor track and crossing conditions + Small segment requires specific maintenance assignments - Very few freight trains and no passenger service 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 51 132 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Extra -ordinary Maintenance This category covers damages due to vandalism, crossing gate knockdowns, accidents, derailments, fires, storm damage and other expenses as required. In years without unusual rainfall or train accidents, $500,000 has remained a reasonable estimate and is continued in FY 2003-04. In other years, such as has been experienced in FY 1999-00 with the El Nino storms, the total can easily exceed $3,500,000. These types of extreme conditions may be covered by insurance or FEMA reimbursement. However, insurance covers only SCRRA-owned bridges and facilities and LACMTA-owned bridges, tunnels and facilities and has a $100,000 deductible per storm. r'EMA reimbursement has never been timely. It should be noted, neither Extra- ordinary Maintenance nor Agency Costs are included in the calculation of MOW expense per track mile. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 52 133 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget SECTION 4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY CAPITAL BUDGET 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 53 134 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 4.0 CAPITAL BUDGET The Capital Budget consists of two major components. These are Rehabilitation/Renovation and New Capital. These budgets amount to $39.9 million and $100.8 million, respectively, of total approved outstanding project authority of $140.7 million. Details of the Capital Budget are described in the following sections. It should also be noted that each year additional funds continue to be sought for the Agency's capital program from Federal, State and Local authorities. If and when funds are secured, these projects will be brought to the SCRRA Board for amendment into the budget. 4.1 Rehabilitation/Renovation 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. Rehabilitation/Renovation recommendations are based upon tolerating only the most minimal and manageable risk of failure. The proposed Rehabilitation/Renovation Expenditures have been selected to meet projected funding available and are chosen from a larger field that SCRRA staff believes can be deferred until future years, but will have to be addressed eventually. Rehabilitation/Renovation projects of $ 39.9 million are summarized in Table 4.1. However, 40 of the projects are ongoing projects that will not be completed in FY 2002-03 for various reasons as explained below. They amount to $16.0 million. The new projects amount to $23.9 million and are also discussed below. Ongoing Rehabilitation/Renovation Projects The following projects are ongoing projects authorized in FY 2002-03 or earlier and are not expected to be completed prior to June 30, 2003. The following figures represent staff's estimation as to the outstanding authorized balance on each project as of the adoption of the fiscal year budget. These estimations in no way alter the authority approved by the Board of Directors. 1. RAIL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Ventura County Line $3,181,751 a. Moorpark/Strathern Siding Rail Program $1,952,480 The funding is State Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funds and was amended into the FY 2000-01 Budget in March 2001. The work (all in Ventura County) includes: Upgrading the Moorpark Siding for higher speeds by: Relaying the main track Continuously Welded Rail (CWR) in the siding area and moving the recovered. CWR to the siding replacing the Jointed smaller Rail; and, Upgrade the Strathern Siding for higher speeds by relaying the Main Track in the siding area and moving the recovered CWR to the siding replacing the worn rail. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 54 135 TABLE 4.1 -1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL. RAIL AUTHORITY FY 2003-04 BUDGET REHABILITATION/RENOV ATION PROJECTS: ONGOING PROJECTS 7 rv ' t -1.," va .>•r; : A . _ �, �, i�% •r est T4 r::x� 'F: Fs .r. `' w �7 It 11 get? ,, o d, C A'. tJO T () u Or•TC- .un s'` •`.: -RR() 'v ...,% °& cvenuer T . 4 '5 A ()' .G a ; a er 1a Rall Progra m Ventu ra IVe ntura Co 2 ,500,000 1.952.480 1,852,480 1 b Rail Improvements - Ventura County Line Ventu ra Co 526,991 312,225 312,225 lc Rail Progra m - Antelope Valley Line A nt elope V 2 .073,386 917.046 917.046 2a Road Crossing Program- San Bernardino Line San Bern 341,381 319.237 191.542 127,695 26 Road Crossing Pro gram - Ora nge County Line Orange Co 337,558 237,068 237 ,068 2c Crossing Rehabilitations - Ventura County Line (Ven Co) Ventura Co 328 ,101 310,606 310.606 2d CrassingRehabiiitations- RiverCorridor River 295,202 293,688 6,979 2,905 1 ,631 2,113 1,056 279 004 3a Wood And Co ncrete Tie Program - Ventura Courtly Line IVen Co) Ventura Co 553.420 553 .420 553,420 3b Wood And Concrete Tie Program - Antelope Valley Line Antelope V 391 .664 180,258 180 ,258 4a Tumout Program - Ve ntu ra County Line Vent ura co 173,073 173,073 173.,073 45 Tumult Progra m -Antelope V alley Line A ntelope V 635,313 382,495 382,495 4c Turnout Program - San Bernardino Line San Bern 169,328 162.003 97,202 64,801 _ 4d Turnout Pro gram - Ora nge County Llne Orange Co 164,691 156 ,683 156.683 4e Turnou t Program - IEOC Line (Clive Sub) IEOC 329,382 _ 329,382 _ 329,382 4f Turnout Upgrades a nd Replacements - Ventura C ounty Line (Ven Co) Ventura Co 637.185 297,696 _ 297,696 4g Turnout Upgrade s and Re placements • Antelo pe Valley Line Antelope V 471,068 110 ,000 110,000 5a Bridge Replacement Program - Ventura County Line (Ven Co) Ventura Co 214,000 214,000 214500 _ 5b Bridge Repla cornen t Pro gram - Ventura County Line (La Co) Ventura Co 92,020 80,458 80.458 _ 5c Brdge Replacement Pro ram - Orange Coun Line Orange Co 839.950 202 .085 202.085 6a Signal Improvemen ts - Rive r Corridor Riv er 580,000 _ 59,420 28,242 11,753 6,602 8,551 4,272 6b Signal And Communications Program - Ventura County Llrie Ventura Co 128,649 30.000 30,000 6c Signal And Communication s Program - San Bernardino Line San Bern 749,670 230,000 138 .000 92,000 _ 6d Sign al And Commun ic ation s Program - Oran ge County Line Oran ge Co 348,872 160000 160,000 Be Signal And Communication s Program -Systemwide System 1,549,405 530,000 251.909 104,834 58,883 76,267 3.8,107 _ 7 Grade Crossing M onitor Syste m System 517,000 450,000 340.605 100,890 2,880 3 .735 1.890 8 Cro ssovers At C.P. Bake Orange Co 1,800,000 592,885 592,885 9 Switch Machine& Rod RepllRepalr - Rive r Corridor River 135. 000 87,000 41,351 17,209 9,666 12,519 6,255 10a Special Track. Work - Frog. Replacement - River Car River 400,000 354,380 7,560 3,154 1,772 2,295 1,147 338,433 lob Replace Rail Crossing Frogs R iver 400,000 400,000 8.555 3 560 2,000 2.590 1.294 382,000 11 Upgrade to Interlocker © Ninth Street - River Corridor River 1,036.000 94.769 45,044 18,745 10529 13.637 6,814 12 Station & Right of Way Upgrades (San Bern Co) San Bern 1.376.160 _ 980.025 980 .025 13 Dra ina ge Study and Mitigation Orange Co 484.825 168, 765 168 ,765 14 Install No Trespassing Signs on Right of Way System 658,080 152,037 122,055 1,140 639 18,625 9.578 15 Rail Grirxiing System 412,906 220,000 104,566 43.516 24.442 31 .658 15.818 16 Union Station Platform Lighting Upgrades _ System 180. 500 160500 76, 286 31 .747 17,832 23,096 11,540 17 Remove Bridge 14. 66 At Sun Valley Antelope V 130,000 130,000 130,000 18 Tun nel 26 Improvements Antelope V 201.379 201,220 201,220 19 Tunnel 26 Improvemenis (Pha se II) _ Ventura Co 4, 212,000 260,000 _ 260,000 20 Fixed Asset System Imple mentation System 1,073,942 750,000 _ _ _ 750,000 21 Rolling Stock Rehabilitation Program System 3,500. 000 2,800000 951,551 395,996 222.422 288,088 143.944 _ 798,070 {; �., c . ,,i a.. .�,, y. r..��, . ._ 7,-' , -�tx= . !`x[i:1 � ,. V. : , Tata3,U ngaing Pre eGis . ... f..rk.. � .:, .. �,..<, r,J }� y .� , .. .g.a„ _. .,�- -�i ,_-.*�. +v,G-t,...�s � . r. ^,d,P ,i;I.A�5,1�1t� .:'�_,_�.�' 9�5��1.� Mara, � 2��2;d174 ...�59296;� .�k. ''I:747,fi� + r...ic� d- '-^� .,,1�9296� •= 1s+__.. ..a� y�:.p .,x _ �3�f'�S �� - 1 i4 :v7>5l1 '�0 ' + � . . �eS 43T v MY : ,.n ,. �.,. 7itB a (1) OCTA and SBAG "loc al" funds are 80% fe deral fun ds and 20% local matc h. (2) RCTC and VCTC funds are 100% federal. (3) Per agreement with Union Pacific Railroad, work is a ssociated with the River Corridor, 4/4/2003 9:12 PM NC-RR .XLS TABLE 4 .1 - 2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 2003-04 BUDGET REHABILITATION/REN OVATION PROJECTS: NEW PROJECTS FOR FY2003-04 b c 1d 1e Rail Program -IEOC Line ldlive Sub) 2a Wood Tie Program - Ventura County Line (LA Co) 2b W ood Tie Pro gram - San Bernardino Lin e (4) 3a Turnout Progra m - Antelope Valle y Line 3b Turnou t Pro gram - Ora nge County Line 3c Turn out Progr am - IEOC Line (O live Sub) 4a Road Crossing Surface Program - Antelope Valle y Une 46 Road Crossing Surface Program - San Bemardlno Line 4c Road Ctossin. Surface Program Orange Caun Une 5a Bridge Program - Ventura County Llr (Ven Co) 5b Bridge Program - Ventura County Ling (LA Co) 5c Bridge Program - Orange County Line 5d Bridge Progra m - River Corridor 6 Rail Grinding Progra m 7a Signal & Communication Prog. • Ventura County Line (Ven Co) 7b Signal & Communicatio n Prop. - Ventura County Line (LA Ca) 7c Signal & Commun ication Pro g. - Antelope Va lley Una 7d Signal & Commun ication Pros, - San Bernardino Line 7e jSign at & Co mmunica lion Prog, - O range County Line 7f Sign al & Communication Prog. LAUS Platform Improvements 9 Pas senge rSignage C 10 Trespasser Barriers 11 Trespasse 12 Ve cJe s 13 Rotting StockRehaix+Ri enovation Rail Program - Ventura County Line (Ven C o) Rail Progra m - Antetope Valley Line Rail Program - San Bernardino Line Rail Program - Orange County Line Barriers & Rlghl of Way im Nafil arts" Ventura Co Antelope V San Bern Orange Co 479,20 IEOC Ventura Co San Bern Antelope V Or ange Co IEOC Antelope San Bern Orange Co Ventu ra Co 1 .0 Ventura Co 128,400 Orange Co 1,963,4 River 550 ,000 System Ventura Co Ventura Co 196 ,861 812,206 60,897 1.528,575 310,602 7,499,741 417,059 552,147 187,798 125,587 592,682 273,694 4,971 elope V Sa n Bern ran.o Ca 472,906 247,705 342,935 400.180 46,010 133,750 342,400 756,800 Sy51em River System System San Bern 353,497 71,540 System 3,500,000 3,500.000 1.188,325 494,525 277,725 359,700 t " TOW 3r $ S$633n, 110 • g 1 5 CO78 ,•_'4.4;589 53,500 60,000 353,497 195,881 612,206 53,897 479,205 1,523,575 310,602 7.499, 41 36,538 310,602 4.499.,645 417,059 _ 417,059 552 ,147 187.798 126,587 _ 125,587 592,682 3.55,609_ 273,694 1,014.971 128,4011 1,963,450 550,000 472,906 247,705 342,935 400,180 46 ,010 133,750 756,800 53,500 60,000 353,497 128,400 261,432 224,786 342,835 400,180 27,606 162,753 122,065 25,430 479,205 1,528,575 552,147 187,798 1,963,450 108,796 93,545 133,750 67,730 10,583 11,869 61,100 52,535 24.359 2,999,896 237,073 79 134 58,042 18,404 39,540 03,997 247,705 49,265 24,515 36,948 18,461 7,698. 3,846 6,633 4,313 S stem 500,000 500,000 237,665 98,905 55,545 (1) OCTA and SBAG "local" funds ere 80% fede ral funds and 20% loca l match. (2) RCTC and VCTC fu nds are 100% federal, (3) Per a greement with Union Pacific Railroad, work is associated with the River Corridor. (4) $1,486,470 carried over from FY03 Project, Wood and Concrete Tie Program - San Bemardlno Line. Split 60% LACMTA 140% SBAG. 4/4/2003 9:12 PM 35,945 179.725 500,000, NC-RR .XLS SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget b. Ventura County Line Rail Program $312,225 The funding is 100% VCTC. The funds will be used for additional track work associated with the Moorpark/Strathern Siding upgrades. c. Antelope Valley Line $917,045 The program will replace worn rail on 11 curves between Lang and Kocian and 3 curves at CP Taylor. The old rail at Harold will be replaced and this used main track rail replace the Ravenna siding rail. 2. ROAD CROSSING PROGRAM $556,305 a San Bernardino Line $319,237 This funding is 60% by LACMTA and 40% by SANBAG. The program will rehabilitate the crossing surfaces, ties and rail at three (3) crossings at MP 38.1 (Grove Ave), MP 39.1 (Vineland Ave.) and MP 53.0 (Riverside Ave). b. Oranze County Line $237,068 This funding 100% OCTA. The program will rehabilitate the crossing surfaces, ties and rail on both main tracks crossings at E. Broadway Dr. (MP 167.89) and La Veta Ave. (MP 173.3). Any existing 115-1b. rail in the crossings will be upgraded to 136-1b., consistent with the rail in this territory c. Ventura County Line $310,606 The funding is by VCTC. The work (all in Ventura County) includes rehabilitation of both the Main Track and siding road crossing surfaces at Moorpark Ave. and Spring Rd. d. River Corridor $293,688 The funding is $14,760 by all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula, and $280,442 by UPRR under the East Bank Agreement. We will rehabilitate both the Main Track surfaces and underlying track at the Main St. (within Zone 1 of the UP Agreement) Crossing (MP 481.7). 3. TIE PROGRAM $773,678 a. Ventura County Line $553,420 This funded is by VCTC. The program will replace approximately 25% of the wood ties on 3.3 miles of the main track MP 436.7 to MP 440.0 (Simi Valley). b. Antelope Valley Line $180,258 This funding is by LACMTA. The program will replace approximately 25% of the wood ties on the Sylmar siding. The program will also replace the wood ties with concrete ties in a sharp curve at CP Kocian (MP 53.9 to 54.03) 4. TURNOUT PROGRAM $1,203,636 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 57 138 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget a. Ventura County Line $173,073 This funding is 100% LACMTA. The program will rehabilitate the Turnout at MP 458.1 b. Antelope Valley Line $382,495 This funding 100% LACMTA. The program will rehabilitate three (3) Turnouts at MP 53.9, MP 61.8 and MP 62.2. c. San Bernardino Line $162,003 This funding is 60% LACMTA and 40% SANBAG. The program will rehabilitate the Turnout at MP 44.3. d. Orange County Line $156,683 This funding is 100% OCTA. The program will rehabilitate the turnout at MP 179.4 at the east end of the Tustin wye. The turnout will be upgraded from 115-1b. to 136-1b., consistent with the rail in this territory. e. Inland Empire Orange County Line (Olive Sub.) $329,382 This funding is 100% OCTA. The program will rehabilitate two (2) turnouts at MP 0.8 and 0.9 near Tustin Ave. The turnouts will be upgraded from 115-1b. to 136-1b., consistent with the rail in this territory. f. Ventura County Line $ 297,626 This funding is by VCTC. The work (in Ventura County) includes remaining rehabilitation and upgrading of the Moorpark Turnouts in connection with the larger MoorparldStrathern Rehabilitation project. . e. Antelope Valley Line $110,000 This funding is by LACMTA, and is to complete the replacement of three (3) Turnouts at MP5.4, MP25.3 and MP26.4. 5. BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM $496,543 a. Ventura County Line $214,000 This funding is 100% VCTC. The program will install additional bracing to the four (4) Arroyo Simi bridges. This will extend or insure the life expectancy of the structures. b. Ventura County Line $ 80,458 This fuunding is 100% LACMTA. The program will rehabilitate the deck on the bridge at MP 452.1 between Balboa Blvd. and Roscoe Blvd. c. Orange County Line $202,085 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 58 139 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget This funding is 100% OCTA. The program will replace the 28 foot ballast deck bridge at MP 202.7 (San Clemente). The program will also initiate the Civil design for the replacement structure for the 191 foot San Juan Capistrano bridge at MP 195.8. 6. SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM $1,009,420 a. River Corridor $59,420 This work will complete the upgrade of the signal system from the First St. crossover to a new signal at Yuma Junction. b. Ventura County Line $30,000 This funding is 100% LACMTA. This program will repair erosion at two signal locations with installation of retaining walls and replacement fill material. Secure & protect signal equipment enclosures by installation of fencing and upgrade standby power requirements at four locations with replacement installation of LED lights. LED lights require approximately one-third the energy to light thus increasing standby power life and decreasing commercial power requirements when not in standby. Also included is the installation of dispatcher controlled power operated switch machine on the existing derail at CP Woodman MP 456.10. c. San Bernardino Line $230,000 This funding is 60% LACMTA and 40% SANBAG. This program will: relocate & upgrade Wayside detection equipment at CP Rancho MP 55.0. Install additional electronic modules used in standby racks for constant warning equipment. Replace conditioners used to maintain temperature stability in signal locations that have been in service for over five years. Replace underground cabling at various locations between MP 11.1 and MP 11.2. Replace one constant warning device at Temple Avenue at MP 16.07. Secure & protect Signal equipment enclosures by installation of fencing. Upgrade standby power requirements with replacement installation of LED lights. Continue a program to install event / analyzer monitoring equipment at each "at grade' rail crossings. d. Orange County Line $160,000 This funding is 100% OCTA. This program will: Upgrade the existing power system at CP Tinkham MP 184.50. The existing commercial power configuration will not allow for the continuous operation of the A/C system during peak heat periods due to inadequate power feed. Replace deteriorated signal equipment due to high oxidation at various locations between MP 198.8 and MP 206.0. Upgrade standby power requirements with replacement installation of LED lights. Continue a program to install event / analyzer monitoring equipment at each at grade rail crossing. e. Systemwide $530,000 The funding is by all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula. The programs will: Provide a mirror Dispatching server to be installed at a separate facility from the Metrolink Operations Center (MOC) with it's own structure and power. This will serve as an alternate to the MOC Dispatch server when or if a major failure occurs at the MOC. Provide significant 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 59 140 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget rehabilitation and upgrades to multiple radio relay points, provide upgraded communications through the installation of modems for the agency's PA/CMS systems, new lenses for PA/CMS, and provide Omni -Directional Antennas at Selected Control Points. 7. GRADE CROSSING MONITOR - SYSTEM $450,000 This program is to continue with the gradual installation of these devices on a priority basis on important glade crossing controls. This system uses sensors to determine the "health" of the crossing system and will communicate to the Metrolink Operations Center any exceptions. Many of these exceptions are situations that can be repaired before the crossing actually fails, thereby avoiding delays to train or highway traffic. In all cases the monitors provide diagnostic information to signal personnel, reducing troubleshooting time and aiding prompt maintenance. The costs are allocated to the lines based upon the number of crossings to be equipped each year. 8. CROSSOVERS AT CONTROL POINT BAKE $592,885 This project is funded with OCTA Federal Section 5309 Rail Modernization funds (80%), and OCTA local funds (20%). It will complete final elements of the crossover south of the Irvine station in conjunction with the Irvine Siding. 9. SWITCH MACHINE/ROD REPLACEMENT $87,000 This FY 2000-2001 program was delayed due to availability of Union Pacific forces and coordination. This program is the systematic removal and replacement of the dual control power switch machines and their associated connecting rods. These devices will last approximately ten years in heavy service but need to be rehabilitated at the end of that time in order to assure reliable operation. The machines are sent to the manufacturer for reconditioning. This work is scheduled for the River Corridor and is funded using the Revised Allshare formula. 10. REPLACE RAIL CROSSING FROGS $754,380 Crossing frogs are special assemblies of steel castings and rail that permit the railroad tracks to intersect, and have gaps for the rail wheel flanges. The engineering for the new Frogs is being completed. This item is to replace current units where the two tracks of the East Bank Main Track cross the Coast Connector track at grade. Existing units were installed in the 1950s and have reached the limit of economical and safe repair. 11. CP NINTH ST. — UPGRADE TO INTERLOCKER $94,769 This project would complete the replacement of the antiquated (1900 technology using DC Track Codes) Signal equipment at CP 9th Street on the River Subdivision. The existing equipment is expensive, and no longer manufactured. Therefore, replacement parts are not available. This equipment is hard to maintain, repair and replace. The existing facility will not support any upgrades or expansion. Failures of this System could cause substantial delays to Metrolink trains. Also, it will interfere with train transfer between Metrolink and Union Pacific dispatchers.. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 60 141 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 12. STATION AND RIGHT OF WAY UPGRADES $980,025 This program is for platform extensions at Rialto and Fontana. This program will rehabilitate and upgrade other Station items and Right Of Way in San Bernardino County. The identification of other specific station items and upgrades is currently in discussion with affected Member Agency staff. 13. DRAINAGE STUDY AND MITIGATION $168,765 This project is to mitigate the effects of heavy rainfall at various locations in Orange County including 4th Street in Santa Ana, and at Milepost 192 in Mission Viejo. In prior years, these areas have been identified as problem areas and conceptual engineering has been performed for remedial action. This current project is to take the design to completion, secure all necessary permits, and to contract for the construction of the mitigation measures. The mitigation measures for 4th St. are to install catch basins and short sections of storm drain to carry rainfall into nearby storm drains. The work at Mission Viejo is to stabilize an earth embankment with improved local drainage and removing soil from the cut area. 14. INSTALL NO TRESPASSING SIGNS ON RIGHT OF WAYS $152,037 This project is to complete the installation of a series of NO TRESPASSING signs throughout the SCRRA's territory. Funding is based on the placement of the sign and ownership of the ROW. State Law requires the posting at a minimum of 600 feet and at entrances to the ROW. The costs include the procurement of the signs as well as the costs of installation. 15. RAIL GRINDING $220,000 This program is to grind the rail to restore the original profile and remove surface defects. A regular program of rail grinding will more than double the life of the rail, particularly in curved track. The amount of grinding expense is assigned to each line on approximately the mileage of that line. 16. UNION STATION PLATFORM LIGHTING UPGRADES $160,500 This project will replace approximately 270 lighting fixtures on the five boarding platforms at Los Angeles Union Station. Current units are over ten years old and have become costly to maintain. The replacement lighting system will be energy -efficient and is expected to significantly reduce maintenance and utility costs. 17. REMOVE BRIDGE AT SUN VALLEY $130,000 This project is to study the feasibility of, and the potential removal of a bridge on the Valley Subdivision at MP 14.66 in association with the completion of the New Capital Sun Valley siding project. 18. TUNNEL 25 IMPROVEMENTS $201,220 This project is to provide for improvements to Tunnel 25 on the Antelope Valley Line. 19. TUNNEL 26 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (Phase II) $260,000 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 61 142 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Tunnel 26 is located on the Ventura County Line. This phase will address the design of emergency egress of passengers from trains during unplanned stoppage and seismic anchor bolting. The improvements under design will include lighting, walkways and further drainage. The project is essential for the continued safe operation of Metrolink and Amtrak passenger trains as well as of freight trains operating in the corridor. 20. FIXED ASSET SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION $750,000 This project was approved by the Board of Directors at its February meeting of 2003. The funds are to complete work begun in FY 2002-03 to procure an upgrade to the Authority's current materials management system as utilized by the Equipment Department. The upgrade of the software will allow for an expansion of the system to include the agency's Track, Structure, and Signal material inventories and assets. Further, upon completion of this implementation, the SCRRA will be compliant with the requirements under Pronouncement 34 of the Government Accounting Standards Bureau (GASB 34) 21. ROLLING STOCK REHABILITATION PROGRAM $2,800,000 This item is composed of rehabilitation and renovation programs on SCRRA rolling stock, partially funded by interest on proceeds from the U.S. Leveraged Lease Transaction on SCRRA rolling stock and member agency funds, split to the member agencies on the basis of the revised All -Share formula. A number of programs in FY 2002-30 were delayed as a result of the transition to a fully Federally compliant procurement system. The elements of the ongoing programs are described below: Car Door Operators Proper operation of doors on rail cars is critical to providing a safe, efficient commuter rail service. The doors are in constant use and suffer a fair amount of abuse. The schedule calls for a four-year cycle for teardown and rebuild of these units. Truck Overhaul The truck assembly serves as the suspension system for cars, along with supporting wheels and braking systems. The trucks should operate approximately 400,000 to 500,000 miles if no extra- ordinary wear occurs_ Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC) Overhaul The HVAC system is the most important customer comfort appliance on the cars and operates under heavy demand in our service for most of the year. This system requires periodic overhaul about every four years to ensure steady, reliable performance. Traction Motors Each locomotive has four traction motors. These are located underneath the unit and provide driving effort to the wheels. The motors should run about 400,000 miles without needing major work. As with the Truck Overhaul program above, this program is started in advance of the maintenance cycle time. Replacement of Carpet, Seats and LLEPM This program consists of the replacement of wom carpet, seat covers and foam in the rail cars. The seat cushion replacement program will be emphasized this year. This same program 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 62 143 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget incorporates the installation of Low Level Exit Path Markings to meet new standards. Rehabilitate and Upgrade Cab Cars to current standards This program consists of the redesign of the Cab areas on the older Cars to provide a more secure, quite environment for the Operator. NEW PROJECTS FOR REHABILITATION/RENOVATION IN FY 2003-04 The following 13 new projects are proposed for Rehabilitation/Renovation in FY 2003-04. 1. RAIL $3,077,764 Rail is replaced for two reasons: one is that the rail worn away by rail car wheel flanges in curves, the other is that the rail reaches the fatigue life limit where small internal flaws have grow into fractures. On the SCRRA, replacement rail is most often needed at sharp curves and where we still have old rail that the freight railroads installed many years ago. The decision to replace rail is driven by observing the wear patterns and by monitoring the rate of rail defect detection. a. Ventura Comity Line $196,881 This funded is by VCTC. The program will replace both worn rails on curve number 218 near Santa Susana Rd. b. Antelope Valley Line $812,206 This funding is by LACMTA. The program will reposition (repositioning is the practice of changing the rail from one side to the other side thereby using the opposite side of the rail head to make contact with the rail car wheel) and in some locations replace worn rail on 9 curves. One (1) curve is near the Sylmar Siding. Two (2) of the curves are near CP Portal. The remaining six (6) curves are between CP Soledad and CP Ravenna. c. San Bernardino Line $60,897 This funding is 60% by LACMTA and 40% by SANBAG. The program will reposition the worn rail on the curve at CP Rancho near the Rancho Rd. crossing. d. Orange County Line $479,205 This work is funded by OCTA. The program will reposition wom rail on three (3) curves. The first curve is right after we leave the Fullerton junction. The next two are between Fairhaven Ave and 17th St. in Santa Ana. e. Inland Empire Orange County Line (Olive Sub.) $ 1,528,575 This work is funded by OCTA. The program will rehabilitate worn 112# rail that the freight railroads installed many years ago. The worn rail between MP 2.50 (Lincoln Ave) and MP 4.80 (Collins Ave.) will be renewed with 136# CWR. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 63 144 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 2. WOOD AND CONCRETE TIES $6,323,873 Wood ties last about 35 years in this region. There are 3,250 ties per mile of track. This results in the need to replace about 100 ties per mile per year to keep a stable track structure. The engineering standards and the FRA Track Safety Standards are predicated upon there being a limited number of failed ties in the track, the redundant design of the track will enable the remaining sound ties to hold the track in alignment, gauge, and surface. It is more economical to replace about 25% of the ties on about 8 -year cycles with specialized crews than to replace a few ties at more frequent intervals. Letting the track deteriorate until more than 25% of the ties have failed results in rough and unstable track, a decrease in the life of the remaining ties, and the need to reduce train speeds. The Rehabilitation/Renovation program is based upon keeping within this range of tie replacement. a. Ventura County Line $310,602 This funded is by LACMTA. The program will replace all of the wood ties in Tunnel No. 28 MP 443.90. b. San Bernardino Line $7,499,741 This work is funded 60% by LACMTA and 40% by SANBAG with $6,013,271 in FY2003-04 funds and, upon approval by the Board, will be supplemented by $1,486,470 in funds programmed to the agency in FY 2002-03. In an effort to consolidate the scope and achieve maximum economies of scale, funds from a planned under run, in conjunction with Member Agency agreement, are being collected into a single project. The program will replace all of the wood ties on the main line between MP 1.15 to MP 44.5 (12.1 miles), I-10 corridor, with concrete ties. This work will bc done with a special piece of equipment that will; 1. Remove the old tie and rock. 2. Place and anchor the new concrete tie. 3. Then put back the cleaned old rock along with new supplemental rock. 3. TURNOUTS $1,157,005 Under the Rehabilitation/Renovation Program entire turnouts and other special track work components are replaced or upgraded, including sub -grade. Under ordinary maintenance, the special track work is repaired, welded, ground and surfaced to extend its surface life. The Rehabilitation/Renovation Program is to do the periodic renewals of the special track work. a. Antelope Valley Line $ 417,059 This funding is by LACMTA. The program will rehabilitate three (3) Turnouts at MP 40.2, MP 43.9 and MP 53.5. b. Orange County Line $ 552,147 This funding is entirely by OCTA. The program will rehabilitate three (6) Turnouts. Four (4) of the turnouts will have the turnout frog component only replaced (Located at MP 165.9, 166.3, 166.55 and 175.6). The other two (2) turnouts will be rehabilitated in their entirety at MP 197.3 and 197.8. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 64 145 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget c. Inland Empire Orange County Line (Olive Sub.) $ 187,798 This funding is entirely by OCTA. The program will rehabilitate the turnout at MP 4.65. 4. ROAD CROSSINGS $992,963 Under the Rehabilitation/Renovation Program, an allowance is set aside for each line for each year for the maintenance staff to plan rehabilitation of crossings. This gives them a resource in planning to respond to civic requests to repair or upgrade crossings, and to work off the worst of the existing crossings each year. The nature of this work will vary between lines and between years on each line. a. Antelope Valley Line $ 126,587 This funding is by LACMTA. The program will rehabilitate ties, rail and crossing surface on the main track crossings at Golden Oaks Ave. (MP 34.97). b. San Bernardino Line $ 592,682 This funding is 60% by LACMTA and 40% by SANBAG. The program will rehabilitate the crossing surfaces, ties and rail at three (4) crossings at MP 35.1 (Benson Ave), MP 35.7 (Mountain Ave.), MP 35.8 (Euclid Ave.) and MP 41.1 (Haven Ave). c. Orange County Line $ 273,694 This funding is by OCTA. The program will rehabilitate the crossing surfaces, ties and rail on both main track crossings at Main St. (MP 171.5) and at Walnut Ave. (MP 172.3). Any existing 115-1b. rail in the crossings will be upgraded to 136-1b., consistent with the rail in this territory. 5. BRIDGE REPLACEMENT $3,656,821 The Bridge Rehabilitation and Renovation capital program consists primarily of replacing obsolete and decayed timber bridges with concrete and steel bridges. These bridges eliminate maintenance due to decayed wood, eliminate fire danger and enlarge the channel opening because the concrete spans are longer than the wood spans. This program also includes painting of major steel bridges in future years and replacement of small timber structures with culvert pipe when feasible. This program will also address improvements that will extend or insure the life expectance of a structural unit. a. Ventura County Line $ 1,014,971 This funding is by VCTC. The program will fund Phase 1 of 2 for the rehabilitate of the bridge at MP 429.26. This is a seven span structure on concrete piers. Two of the spans have been replace by the former owner (SPTC). We must continue the replacement of the remaining spans. The other a part of this fund will be used to conduct drainage studies on the VCTC owned portion of the Line Segment. b. Ventura County Line $ $128,400 This funding is by LACMTA. This fund will be used to conduct drainage studies on the LAMTA owned portion of the Line Segment. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 65 146 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget c. Orange County Line $1,963,450 This funding is entirely by OCTA. The program will replace the ballast deck bridge at MP 188.5 (Aliso Creek) near CP Bake (El Toro). Also, the program will fund Phase 1 of 2 for the replacement structure for the 191 ft. bridge at MP 195.8 (Trabuco Creek) near San Juan Capistrano Station. d. River Corridor $550,000 The work is funded by all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula. The program will paint the Bridge that crosses the L.A. River between Pasadena Jct. and CP West Diamond. 6. RAIL GRINDING $412,906 This program is to grind the rail to restore the original profile and remove surface defects. A regular program of rail grinding will more than double the life of the rail, particularly in curved track. The amount of grinding expense is assigned to each line on approximately the mileage of that line. 7. SIGNAL AND COMMUNICATION IMPROVEMENTS $1,512,980 a. Ventura County Line $ 247,705 This funding is by VCTC. The program will: 1. Continue the program to install event / analyzer monitoring equipment at each "at grade' crossings. This will be done at ten (10) locations. 2. Upgrade crossing controls by replace the antiquated crossing control equipment and the enclosure at five (5) locations. 3. Upgrade standby power requirements at five (5) locations with replacement installation of LED lights. LED lights require approximately one-third the energy to light thus increasing standby power life and decreasing commercial power requirements when not in standby. 4. This will fund a study and designing for a Fiber Optical cable system from Moorpark to Burbank (VCTC portion of Line Segment). b. Ventura County Line $ 342,935 This funding is by LACMTA. The program will: 1. Upgrade crossing controls by replace the antiquated crossing control equipment and the enclosure at three (3) locations. 2. Upgrade standby power requirements at five (5) locations with replacement installation of LED lights. LED lights require approximately one-third the energy to light thus increasing standby power life and decreasing commercial power requirements when not in standby. 3. Repair erosion at four (4) Signal locations by installing retaining walls and replacement fill material. 4. This will fund a study and designing for a Fiber Optical cable system from Moorpark to Burbank (LACMTA portion of Line Segment). 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 66 147 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget c. Antelope Valley Line $400,180 This funding is entirely by LACMTA. The program will: 1. Upgrade crossing controls by replace the antiquated crossing control equipment and the enclosure at four (4) locations 2. Upgrade standby power requirements at ten (10) locations with replacement installation of LED lights. LED lights require approximately one-third the energy to light thus increasing standby power life and decreasing commercial power requirements when not in standby. 3. Repair erosion at Robins Nest by installing retaining walls and replacement fill material. d. San Bernardino Line $ 46,010 This funding is 60% by LACMTA and 40% by SANBAG. The program will: 1. Repair erosion at twenty (20) Signal locations with install retaining walls and replacement fill material. e. Orange County Line $133,750 1. Upgrade crossing controls by replace the antiquated crossing control equipment and the enclosure at five (5) locations 2. Upgrade standby power requirements at five (5) locations with replacement installation of LED lights. LED lights require approximately one-third the energy 3. Repair erosion at seven (7) locations by installing retaining walls and replacement fill material. f. System $342,400 The funding is by all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula. The programs will: 1. Install Power Off indicators at 250 locations. This program will install a light at Grade crossing instruments enclosure that will serve two purposes: • illuminate the emergence 800 number at all times. • When the light is extinguished, it will indicate a loss of commercial power. 2. Communication Systems programs that will rehabilitate and upgrade: • PA/CMS Modems. • Lens for PACMS signs. • Mobile Comm. Pack (Radios) on the System. • Base Comm. Pack (Radio Control Console). • Omni -Directional Antennas at selected Control Points (CP). 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 67 148 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 8. UNION STATION PLATFORM REHABILITATION $756.800 a. Platform 4 (Tracks 7 & 8) $378,400 Direct grant funding of $250,000 will be Federal. The remaining funds will be all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula. This project will replace TACT-TIL tile surface adjacent to Station tracks No.7 and No. 8. b. Platform 5 (Tracks 9 & 10) $378,400 Direct grant funding of $250,000 will be Federal. The remaining funds will be all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula. This project will replace of TACT-TIL tile surface adjacent to Station tracks No.9 and No. 10. A portion of this cost will be billed to Amtrak based on the number of Trains (Metrolink / Amtrak) at the time of the billing. 9. PASSENGER SIGNAGE CHANGES $ 53,500 The funding is by all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula. This item is to allow the installation of Boarding Information signage at Stations with multiple Platforms. 10. TRESPASSER BARRIERS $ 60,000 The funding is by all Member Agencies using the revised All -Share formula. This item is to allow the procurement and placement of Concrete barriers at strategic location on the system to help prevent the unauthorized ingress on the right of way by various parties. 11. ROW SECURITY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS $353,500 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY The funding is by SANBAG.. This item is to allow security and drainage improvements on operating right of way by placement of barriers and fences. Also, by rehabilitating existing drainage systems 12. VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM $ 500,000 This project is funded by all members using the all share formula. The SCRRA currently owns approximately 135 rubber -tired vehicles used in the agency's Operations, Maintenance of Way, Capital, and General Administrative pools. A significant number of these vehicles have reached or exceeded their originally projected useful life. It is expected that this program is the second year of a multi year vehicle replacement cycle during which the most critical needs will be addressed originally, and the balance of the fleet will be scheduled for replacement on the basis of mileage and repair costs. Similar funding amounts will be requested in future years so as to avoid one time spikes in the funding requirements of members, and so as to allow for an orderly and efficient cycle of procurement. 14. REHABILITATION/RENOVATION ON ROLLING STOCK $3,500,000 This item is composed of rehabilitation and renovation programs on SCRRA rolling stock, partially funded by interest on proceeds from the U.S. Leveraged Lease Transaction on SCRRA rolling stock and member agency funds, split to the member agencies on the basis of the revised All -Share formula. The elements of the ongoing programs are described below: 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 68 149 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Car Door Operators Proper operation of doors on rail cars is critical to providing a safe, efficient commuter rail service. The doors are in constant use and suffer a fair amount of abuse. The schedule calls for a four-year cycle for teardown and rebuild of these units. Truck Overhaul The truck assembly serves as the suspension system for cars, along with supporting wheels and braking systems. The trucks should operate approximately 400,000 to 500,000 miles if no extra- ordinary wear occurs. Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC) Overhaul The }VAC system is the most important customer comfort appliance on the cars and operates under heavy demand in our service for most of the year. This system requires periodic overhaul about every four years to ensure steady, reliable performance. Traction Motors Each locomotive has four traction motors. These are located underneath the unit and provide driving effort to the wheels. The motors should run about 400,000 miles without needing major work. As with the Truck Overhaul program above, this program is started in advance of the maintenance cycle time. Replacement of Carpet, Seats and LLEPM This program consists of the replacement of worn carpet, seat covers and foam in the rail cars. The seat cushion replacement program will be emphasized this year. This same program incorporates the installation of Low Level Exit Path Markings to meet new standards. Rehabilitate and Upgrade Cab Cars to current standards This program consists of the redesign of the Cab areas on the older Cars to provide a more secure, quite environment for the Operator. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 69 150 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 4.2 New Capital New Capital projects are those capital projects that expand the system such as sidings, double track, upgrade of the signal system, and new rolling stock. Further, the Board approves the total funding and scope of the projects in the year in which they are approved. The figures listed below represent, for projects other than newly adopted in FY 2003-04, represent estimated outstanding project balances as of June 30, 2003. These staff estimates in no way alter the approved funding or authority of a project as approved by the Board. For the FY 2003-04 Budget, projects in the agency's New Capital program Table 4.2 and the outstanding project balances amount to $100.8 million. Projects for which funding is currently being pursued are not listed in the budget. If and when the agency has been awarded funds and is authorized for expenditure, these project will be amended into the FY 2003-04 budget. 1. LINCOLN AVENUE DOUBLE TRACK $15,645,332 ORANGE COUNTY LINE This is a multi -year project which is funded with prior year State Intercity Rail funds, Orange County's SB-45 Regional Choice Program, commitments of additional OCTA local funds, and received an additional allocation from the State in April 2003. The 1.8 -mile segment between Santa Ana and Orange on the Orange County Line has only one main track and causes significant scheduling problems for both the Orange County and Inland Empire -Orange County Lines. Environmental assessment and significant design work have been completed. The authority expects completion of all design and the start of construction on this project in FY 2003-04. 2. PA/CMS INSTALLATION AT ORANGE $170,130 COUNTY STATIONS This project balance represent funds for the final expenses related to the installation of Public Address/Changeable Message Signs (PA/CMS) at Orange County stations and is funded by OCTA. 3. FREMONT SIDING $2,028,258 SAN BERNARDINO LINE The siding in the I-10 Corridor is a new CTC controlled passing track (siding) on the single track San Bernardino line between Marengo (near Los Angeles) and El Monte at Milepost 6.2 in the city of Alhambra, near the Fremont Ave. freeway interchange. It has, in the past, been identified as the "Fremont" siding. This portion of the rail line is located in the center median of Interstate Highway 10, which is a very narrow right of way with room for only one track. At Milepost 6.2 the highway lanes are separated, yielding a wider right of way that can be used for a siding about 1000 feet long. The work will consist of constructing a railway embankment, two new turnouts, about 1000 feet of track, and two control points (signals, power switch machines, and associated controls). Most of the work is within railroad right of way but easements may be required for installation of some track and signals (as was done with the original construction of this line). Special construction access must be coordinated with Caltrans. In order to capture as many economies of scale in construction as possible, funds, upon approval by the Board, and in 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 70151 TABLE 4.2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 2003-04 BUDGET NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS ✓tt.b''71 y,, W:R-_7t Jt. '(nL,,.,d § rF* "1 ri "" P c 5. ti nik F5 �liF\ Il . .et lrtti r' L a)` c t t o ;;��n }ta iiD' � F S laf!,�'VcTC i=a 1 ' .4;ds-%="ldc9� a Otffer ,'- "'Am "A e a7 7 Unds .. a Tdk :fr _ c 'C M7FA? 13O 'CTA1 ', FiCTC' U ny 1 Lincoin Avenue Double Track Orange Co 17,297,232 15 ,645,332 2,468,232 13,177,100 2 PA/CMS Installation at Orange County Statio ns Orange Co 350,000 68,380 68,380 3 `Fremont Siding (1) San Bern 3.175,000 2,028,258 1.021.490 10.000 163,871 832.897 4 Platform on South Side of Covina: Phase I San Bern 1.600.000 1,119,393 600,000 519,393 5 Marengo Siding (2) San Bern 4,574,31 3 3,115,628 1,595.617 36,000 229,511 1,254,501 6 San Bernardino Line Improv ements - Pomona Double Track San Bern 17,190,644 5,406,180 3,206,180 2,200,000 7 San Bernardino Line Improvements - Kaiser Project San Bern 15,000,000 1 ,786,763 _ 1,786,763 8 Sun Valley Siding Antelope V 6.500.000 1,432,577 _ 1,432,577 9 New hall Line Changes Antelope V 1 .033.000 569,478 _ 65.490 503,985 10 Grade Crossin g Safety Program System 434,633 365,258 50,982 14,952 6,836 11,775 5,768 274,945 11 PRA High Speed Rail Study Orange Co 75,000 28,788 - 28.785 12 Eastern Area Maintenance Facility Design _ System 782.000 586,930 _ 67.497 519,433 13 GPSIPACMS in San Bernardino _ _ San Bern 520,000 427,181 _ 427,181 14 5th Lead at LAOS System 389.000 75,339 75,339 X15 Ante lo pe Valley Line Changes at Santa Clarita Antelope V 500.000 421,374 48,458 372 .916 X16 Platform Extensions in LA Coun ty San Bern 3,200,000 2,579.624 1,579,624 1,000,000 X317 Cassidy Brothers Cro ssing in Dana Point Orange Co 30,000 30.000 30.000 18 Crossing Improvements - Moorpark to Siml Valley Ventura Co 700,000 625.946 625,946 19 Penton Bridge Antelope V 838.752 763,601 400,967 362,634 20 Penrose Avenue Crossing Antelope V 364,000 156,238 156.235 21 Rolling Stock Acquisition System 35,000,000 465.000 465 .000 22 Upgrade Ticket Vending Machine s System 13,039,000 7,539.000 939,000 6,600,000 23 Additional Rolling Stock Phase 1 System 11,500,000 5,350,000 5,350,000 24 New Cab Car Procurement System 1 •.1111 10,860.000 1.248,900 _ _ 9.611,100 25 Rebuild 4 Used Locos System : s r i s s r 7,300,000 7,300,000 26 Rolling Stock Procurement _ S stem 32,089.754 32,089,754 1,513,754 1,544,000 1 29,032,00D Totat 1 y: ''''' '47:: -. .t. 8a�1.423Z8 `:1:QO,fl36;0 2 f5,3.1i3 4 : _4095,S&t : E, 836 ` 577'7.5'c:: 5,768.' 3621634 -'! ,23.;825;30F:r'.935,fl0 *"58231;$9.£1 (1) Additional $150,000 in funding added from FY02 Project, Rall Improvements - San Bemardino Line. 60% LACMTA Local and 40% SBAG (80/20 Fed/Local split) . (2) Additional $540,000 in funding added from FY01 Protect, Rail Replacement: San Bemardlno Line. 60% LACMTA Local and 40 % SBAG (80/20 Fed/Local split) . 4/4/2003 9:43 PM NC-RR .XLS SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget conjunction with Member Agency agreement will be $15n 000 funds p--- J p•--••�+-�_•�, supplemented by ip1JV,VVV 1111LLL1LL`v previously programmed to the agency in FY 2001-02. 4. PLATFORM ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COVINA:PHASE I $1,119,393 SAN BERNARDINO LINE This project is funded through the application of LACMTA local funds and $1 million in State funds. This project is to construct passenger platforms to permit passenger access to the existing second tracks at the Covina station. The project consists of grading an embankment, placing a concrete platform, installing passenger shelters, lighting, and landscaping, and modifying utilities. An inter -track fence will be installed to prevent pedestrian access across the tracks. Passengers will use the existing street crossing that has warning devices. All of the work is to be done on railroad right-of-way, no property is to be acquired. 5.MARENGO SIDING $3,115,628 SAN BERNARDINO LINE The siding on the east bank of the LA River (identified previously as "Marengo Siding" after a local street) is located immediately north of the HOV lanes of Interstate 10, San Bernardino Freeway, and extends from the east bank of the Los Angeles River, at Pasadena Junction, Milepost 1.0, to the interlocking "CP Marengo" at Milepost 2.5, beneath the Marengo Street overpass, in the Boyle Heights district of the City of Los Angeles. The existing track structure and geometry limits trains on the siding to 25 MPH and the special trackwork at the Pasadena Jct. end is deteriorated and unreliable. This project is to upgrade a passing siding to main line standards and to reconfigure the turnouts connecting it to the routes leading to Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal. The project is located on SCRRA's San Bernardino line, which is a single-track railroad line with passing sidings located at five to ten mile intervals. In order to provide reliable bi-directional service, this improved siding is required. In order to capture as many economies of scale in construction as possible, funds, upon approval by the Board, and in conjunction with Member Agency agreement, will be supplemented by $540,000 in Member Agency funds previously programmed in FY 2000-01. 6. POMONA DOUBLE TRACK PROJECT $5,406,180 SAN BERNARDINO LINE The funds for this project were originally amended in to the FY 2000-01 Budget upon approval of funding by the State. This project is to install a second main track to create a 3.8 -mile length of "double track" on SCRRA's single-track San Bernardino line. The project is located between mileposts 30.8 and 34.6, extending through Pomona and Claremont in Los Angeles County and Montclair in San Bernardino County. The work consists of constructing track, signals, road crossings, and station platforms. FY 2003-04 expects to see the completion of this project which will greatly expand the ability of the agency to more efficiently operate on this line. 7. KAISER SIDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT $1,786,763 SAN BERNARDINO LINE 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 72153 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget The remaining funds for this project is to complete the installation and extension to the west, a new CTC controlled passing siding on the single track SCRRA maintained and operated San Bemardino line between the Rancho Cucamonga (Milepost 42) and Fontana stations (Milepost 49) in unincorporated land in San Bernardino County. The work consists of constructing a new passing track (with related signals and switches) and shifting an existing freight storage track to the south. Presently it is 8.4 miles between the passing sidings at CP Rochester (MP 42.3) and CP Locust (MP 50.7). This project will significantly reduce this gap. This project is also to reconfigure tracks and signals at each end of the siding to permit moderately fast (45 MPH) entry to the siding, and to resolve freight/passenger conflicts at the west end of the project. The project included constructing the siding westward about 3000 feet, through the California Speedway station area. The speed in the siding between switches will be 60 MPH. The project is located on a single-track railroad line with passing sidings located at five to ten mile intervals, its completion is expected to allow the agency far greater efficiency in its operations on the line. 8. SUN VALLEY SIDING $1,432,577 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE The funds for this project are to complete the construction of the Sun Valley Siding (passing track) on the Antelope Valley Line. Metrolink provides commuter rail service on the Antelope Valley Line between Lancaster and Los Angeles. The siding will increase capacity and reduce travel times on the Antelope Valley Line. The Antelope Valley Line is primarily a single-track line with widely spaced passing sidings. 9. NEWHALL LINE CHANGES $569,478 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE The line changes consist of constructing a replacement track embankment and either constructing replacement track or shifting the existing track in order to broaden the radius of curvature and thereby permit higher speeds of operation. At Newhall, milepost 31.1 to 31.6, there are two reversing curves of 4 degrees and 5 degrees, 36 minutes which restrict speed to 45 MPH. This project will realign about 0.5 mile of track to curves of about 4 degrees and 30 seconds, which will permit speeds of 55 MPH. This speed increase is significant because the speed on both sides of these curves is 70 MPH and any increase here affects significant distances each way. In addition to the increase in operating speed, this reduction from a very sharp curve reduces maintenance expenses due to rail wear 10. GRADE CROSSING SAFETY PROGRAM $365,258 DEMONSTRATION PROJECT This project involves improvement of a grade crossing in the Sylmar area, located Northwest of the city of Los Angeles would include both traditional and non-traditional hazard elimination measures. The grade crossing at Van Nuys Boulevard handles 40,000 vehicles and 35 trains per day. It is funded through Federal and Local funds as a demonstration project to increase and demonstrate the effectiveness of various measures. 11. FRA HIGH SPEED RAIL STUDY $28,788 This project is to study the feasibility of upgrading certain segments of the Authority's operating 4/7/2003, 9.57 AM 73 1 54 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget territory to 105 mile per hour operations. A segment the Orange Line _ _ , of utt, County Lull% currently designated as 90 mile per hour is being examined and evaluated. 12. EASTERN AREA MAINTENANCE FACILITY DESIGN $586,930 SYSTEMWIDE This project consists of the design and engineering stages for the development of an additional facility to provide maintenance on SCRRA equipment. Current capacity constraints call for trains to move to the agency'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. Funds for the actual construction of the facility are not included in the budget at this time. Upon final approval and agreement by and among the Member Agencies, an amendment will be brought before the Board of Directors for approval. 13. GPS and PA/CMS IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY $427,121 SAN BERNARDINO This project is to provide for the final components of the agency's Global Positioning Satellite systems in agency locomotives. It is also to provide for PA/CMS installations at selected San Bernardino Line stations in San Bernardino County. The funding is State SHA funds. 14. 5th LEAD AT LOS ANGELES UNION STATION $75,339 This project is for the design of a 5th lead track at LAUS to improve the ability of trains to move in and out of the station. 15. ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE CHANGE AT SANTA CLARITA $421,374 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE The line changes at Santa Clarita consist of constructing a replacement track embankment and either constructing replacement track or shifting the existing track in order to broaden the radius of curvature and thereby permit higher speeds of operation. At Santa Clarita, mileposts 34.3 to 34.7, there are two 10 -degree curves, which will be reduced to less than 6 degrees, resulting in a speed increase from 30 MPH to at least 50 MPH. In addition to the increase in operating speed, this reduction from a very sharp curve reduces maintenance expenses due to rail wear and fuel and braking of trains to reduce and increase speed before and after the curve and will thus reduce overall operating expenses 16. PLATFORM EXTENSIONS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY $2,200,000 The funding for this project is LACMTA local funds from the application of previous year's surplus subsidies and $1,000,000 in Federal funds received under the JARC (Job Access Reverse Commute) grant program. The project is to design and construct up to three platform extensions on San Bernardino Line stations in Los Angeles County. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 74155 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 17. CASSIDY BORTHERS CROSSING $30,000 This project is to improve a crossing in Dana Point known as the Cassidy Brothers Crossing. 18. CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS — MOORPARK TO SIMI VALLEY $625,946 This project is to improve eight crossings in the City of Simi Valley. They are Katherine Avenue, Los Angeles Avenue, Tapo Street, Tapo Canyon Road, Sequoia Avenue, Sycamore Drive, Erringer Road, First Street. The work will include median islands, LED signal lights, fences, signs etc. The costs include design, construction, construction management. 19. PENLON BRIDGE $763,601 This project is to construct a grade separation bridge on the Antelope Valley Line. It is funded through the application of LACMTA Ca11 for Projects funds, and funds from a private party requiring access across the Right -of -Way. 20. PENROSE AVENUE CROSSING $156,238 [Need Narrative] 21. ROLLING STOCK ACQUISITION $465,000 These funds represent the balance of the Agency's original grant value of $35 million for the procurement of rolling stock. They will be utilized to complete the procurement and make final payment of funds to Bombardier, the manufacturer. 22. UPGRADE TICKET VENDING MACHINES $7,539,000 SYSTEMWIDE The project will provide for the final installation of new and/or upgraded passenger rail ticket vending machines (TVMs) at Metrolink and Amtrak stations. Funding includes State and Federal as well as participation from Amtrak. These new machines will be able to vend either Metrolink or Amtrak tickets and will vend different types of tickets. This equipment is expected to make the buying experience of the traveler simpler, allow for a greater range of destination potentials, and provide the authority with invaluable and detailed information regarding the point to point travel patterns of its users. 23. ADDITIONAL METROLINK ROLLING STOCK PHASE I $5,350,000 SYSTEMWIDE This project was funded originally with $11.5 million in STP funds. Metrolink's ridership has continued to grow at an impressive rate. However, future growth will be constrained by the lack of new equipment. These funds represent the current balance against the original grant and will be available to make final payments of vehicles received in 2001-02 to the vehicle manufacturer after final acceptance and settlement of any potential claims. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 75156 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 24. NEW CAB CAR PROCUREMENT $10,860,000 SYSTEMWIDE The funds are Federal funding matched by with local funds from the LACMTA. The new funding will allow for an additional 5 cab cars. Cost of the project also includes oversight of the procurement. This oversight will be particularly important as these cars will be the first to comply with new regulations _recently adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration. A total of $1.26 million in local funds has been committed to match this allocation of 2000 IT1P funds which will be received as STP funding. 25. REBUILD 4 USED LOCOMOTIVES $8,000,000 The agency took delivery of 1 operating, and 3 non -operating locomotives in FY 2003-04. These funds are to provide for the overhaul and necessary expenditures to remanufacture the locomotives with higher horsepower engines to allow the Authority to potentially operate longer trains. 26. ROLLING STOCK PROCUREMENT $32,089,754 These fimds represent funds committed through the SCRRA's Member Agency's for the current procurement of up to 31 additional rolling stock vehicles. It is expected that a proposal for vehicles will be released for bid in the Summer of 2003. Additional funds are continuing to be sought for this project so as to ensure the most productive ordering capacity as is available. As funds are received, they will be amended into this project upon approval by the Board. The Authority is currently anticipating an additional $21 million which will be added to the figure above. These funds are currently included in the LACMTA's SRTP and if awarded in June 2003, they will be amended into the FY 2003-04 Budget. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 76157 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget SECTION. 5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT BUDGETS 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 77 158 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 78159 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 5.0 DEPARTMENT BUDGETS The seven departments of the SCRRA currently include: • Executive • Support Services and Technology • Operations • Engineering & Construction • Equipment • Communications and Development • Finance 5.1 Organizational Summary Table 5.1 provides a roster of approved positions by department along with the new positions proposed for FY 2002-03. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 79 160 TABLE5.1-1 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Listing of Current and Proposed Positions and Staffing Fiscal Year 2003-04 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget rExecvsvr Office Department IClriefExecutive Office: moan Resources 1.141 on System arid Teehuology+ Pinatlre Assistmt Executive Officer Division Position Chief Executive Officer Executive Assistant Board Secretary Manager, Haman Resources Human Resources Analyst Human Resources Representative Human Resources Specialist Administrative Assactnai Assistant Executive Officer Materials Mana et Records Management Specialist Administrative Services Coordinator Administrative Services Supervisor Receptionist Administrative Assistant Manager, Cant. Admia and Procurement Senior Contract Administrator (2) Contract Administrator (3) Buyer Contract Document Processor Administrative Assistant Manager, IT Communications Signal Manager Network Engineer Network Administrator Database Administrator Application Administrator Manager, Railroad Services Railroad Services Assistant Railroad Program Cost Analyst Operations Administrative Manager Operations Analyst MOW Contract Administrator Operations Contract Administrator Signal and Communications Contract Administrator Mangan, Claims Administration Director of Finance Executive Aret bat Manager, Accounting Supervisor, General Accounting Supervisor, Accounting Operations Senior Financial Analyst Senior Accountant Accountant (3) Accounting Specialist, Payroll Accounting Specialist, Cash Management Accounting Assistant (4) Finance Contract Specialist Aduanistrative Assistant Manager, Budgets Senior Budget Analyst Budget Analyst Assistant Budget Analyst Parc Collectinn Services Manager Fare Collectiou Services Ass' teat. Director of Operations Manager, Operations Manager, Safety and Security Safety Education Coordinator Rail Safety Education Specialist (2) System Safety Officer Operations 5e Safety Assistnut Manager, Passenger Services Administrative Assistant Customer Relations Manager Operations Planner Passenger Services Administrator Passenger Service Manager Station Coordinator (3) Transportation Coordinator (3) Customer Service Representative (5) Passenger Services Specialist (2) Administrative Services Co et Adrrnaistrarion and;Proeurement In ion Technology Railroad Se tees Claims Administration Dimctor of Fina Acco udget Fnre Collection Services Operslhrns Director of Operations ety and Scant Passenger Services 'Ambassadors Passenger Services Supervisor Field Services Representative (4) Ambassadors - Full Time Ambassadors - Part Time Dispatching Manager, Dispatching Operations Dispatching Operations Supervisor (6) Train Dispatcher (18) Administrative Assistant 161 TABLE 5.1- 2 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Southern California Regional Rail Authority Listing of Current and Proposed Positions and Staffing Fiscal Year 2003-04 Departrneul Division Position Equipment Dttrcdor of Equipment Director of Equipment Manager of Equipment Equipment Engineer Mechanical Compliance Officer Equipment & Vehicle Assistant Facilities & Fleet Maintenance Facilities & Fleet Maintenance Manager Fleet Maintenance Supervisor 'Communications & Development Director of Communications & Development Director of Communications & Development Executive Assistant Governmental Affairs Manager Strategic Planning & Grants Development Manager Strategic Planner Market Research Manager Geographic Information Systems (GIE) Analyst Marketing and Sales Manager, Marketing and Sales Marketing and Sales Assistant Corporate Relations Administrator (2) Event Marketing Administrator Event Marketing Specialist Administrative Assistant Media and External Communications Manager, Media and External Communications Community Relations Administrator Media Relations Advisor Publications Administrator Communications Assistant Public Information Specialist Engineering & Construction Director of Engineering and Construction Director of Engineering & Construction Assistant Director of Engineering & Construction Executive Assistant Rules & Training Coordinator Design Engineer Utility CADD Operator Public Projects Manager, Public Projects Administrative Assistant Right of Way Engineer Public Projects Engineer Assistant Engineer (2) Maintenance of Way Manager, Maintenance of Way Administrative Assistant District Maintenance Manager (2) Structures Manager Engineering Rehabilitation Project Manager Bridge Inspector Right of Way Coordinator Senior Construction Inspector Construction Inspector Construction Inspector Senior Construction lnspector Senior Construction Inspector Senior Construction Inspector Signal and Communications Manager, Signal & Communications Signal and Training Assistant District Signal Manager (2) Senior Signal Engineer Signal Designer Signal CADD Operator Construction (Civil) Manager, Construction (Civil) Resident Engineer Station Facilities Station Facilities Manager Proposed Positions Department Division Position Facilities & Fleet Maiatenanee Maintenance Technician (4) 162 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget L` Al;l:uLlve The Executive Department is responsible for setting the strategic direction for the Agency based on policy principles established by the Board of Directors. The Chief Executive Officer ensures that business initiatives arc accomplished by providing leadership to the management team and staff and by maximizing our human resource potential. Human Resources provides services to SCRRA including recruitment and selection, employee relations, benefits administration, employee development and training, performance and salary management, and compliance with equal employment opportunity/affirmative action regulations. Executive Goals NOTE: FINAL FY 2003-04 DEPARTMENTAL GOALS ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT Table 5.2 provides the budgeted expenses for this department 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 82163 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TABLE 5.2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) ? -e - �� K M Y 1 } . 1 x U i k �. yT i I W� -'Y '` p"_� 1 �{}yr 1 l'''n�111 R t x4nrytc^.h' f'•vx Operating Budget Labor $106.3 $95.3 $99.1 4% Purchased Transportation - - - - Services 486.9 900.0 950.0 6% Utilities/Leases 1.5 - - - Maintenance -of -Way - - - - Insurance & Liability - - - - Other Expenses 99.2 75.0 81.0 8% Subtotal Direct Operating Expenses 693.9 1,070.3 1.130.1 6% Indirect Transfer to Operating _i 1,026.2 1,038.8 1,023.0 (2%) !I tUt Sl Id " 'a� .- ,1 >` ti /4t�� .i.- , -6 , rEii, ' e a Y ,alvsry t>� rli Capital Budget Labor $5.3 $0.0 $0.0 Services - - - Utilities/Leases - - - - Capital - - - - Other Expenses - - - Subtotal Direct Capital Expenses 5.3 -- Indirect Transfer to Ca s 'tat 191.8 195.0 159.8 (184 U ) �kI�ijP el"�,�I�F�J��r up'�4' -_r,4 ^�",•.�ir��S,.�+,� htN� i ^.H.yM1 '��'; �+y. M.'�...��e+ �_"i'=, r-`\._ � � .f°y-°his �A�.r . 3"4T Indirect Agency Support Labor $701.7 $732.8 $808.2 10% Services 495.8 522.0 380.0 (27%) Utilities/Leases - - - - Maintenance -of -Way - - - - Insurance & Liability - - - - Other Expenses 123.4 93.2 68.5 (26%) Subtotal Indirect Agency Support 1,320.9 1,348.0 1,256.7 (7%) Indirect Transfer to Operating (1,026.2) (1,038.8) (1,023.0) (2%) Indirect Transfer to Capital (191.8) (195.0) (159.8) (18%) Indirect Transfer to Recollectable (102.9) (114.1) (73.9) (35%) ala i, 4 g p L ;To ' Mill �. _-- k. .. x '• s 4/4/2003 8:43 PM 164 Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY04xls-Exec SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 5.3 Support t err and Tccb_a gr �,,..-�v� Services xc.c.uua�v'._. The department of the Support Services and Technology encompasses the departmental divisions outlined below. Railroad Services provides operating service contract administration, operating analysis, management of railroad joint facility/shared use agreements, and program control of maintenance -of -way and capital expenditures. Claims Administration is responsible for procuring insurance and managing third party claims. Contract Administration_& Procurement provides centralized procurement and contract administration services. Information Technology supports hardware and software resources to maximize workflow efficiency, identifies and implements technological enhancements to existing resources and assists employees in the transition to new technologies. Administrative Services handles records management, reprographic requirements, offices supplies, office equipment and furniture. Support Services and Technology Department Goals NOTE: FINAL FY 2003-04 DEPARTMENTAL GOALS ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT Table 5.3 provides the budgeted expenses for this department. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 84165 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TABLE 5.3 SUPPORT SERVICES & TECHNOLOGY EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) 1 iT S t�f'rS` C�J �tt;%4 0 1'� C:1,,r J 4+1 lax -•u _'`�Rk^ �4 a wi ,y $.:.x c. al _: -gd_ -it k f hi d Operating Budget Labor $747.6 $710.8 $979.1 38% Purchased Transportation - - - - Services 3,536.7 3,119.6 3,516.5 13% Utilities/Leases 2,147.9 1,810.0 1,871.2 3% Maintenance -of -Way - - - - Insurance & Liability 3,718.4 3,965.0 6,120.0 54% Other Expenses 295.2 317.4 283.0 (11%) Subtotal Direct Operating Expenses 10,445.8 9,922.8 12,769.9 29% Indirect Transfer to Operating 2,699.3 3,169.9 3,225.3 2% '.¢,' +21A )i; ` t: Capital Budget Labor $211.5 $285.7 $437.6 53% Services - - - - Utilities/Leases - - - - Capital 115.8 - - - Other Expenses 10.5 - - - Subtotal Direct Capital Expenses 337.8 285.7 437.6 53% Indirect Transfer to Capital 504.4 595.2 503.9 (15%) I. • fk,. „'3,.:- Ai Indirect Agency Labor $1,242.9 1,452.3 1,522.6 5% Services 647.1 469.8 435.4 (7%) Utilities/Leases 733.2 1,101.1 910.1 (17%) Maintenance -of -Way - - - - Insurance & Liability 86.0 - - - Other Expenses 765.2 1,089.9 1,094.0 0% Subtotal Indirect Agency Support 3,474.4 4,113.1 3,962.1 (4%) Indirect Transfer to Operating (2,699.3) (3,169.9) (3,225.3) 2% Indirect Transfer to Capital (504.4) (595.2) (503.9) (15%) Indirect Transfer to Recollectable (270.7) (348.1) (232.9) (33%) ..„. _. 4/4/2003 8:43 PM 166 Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY04xls-SST SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 5.4 Operations The Operating Department consists of the following four divisions as outlined below. Operations manages train operations and dispatching through contracts with Amtrak and through access agreements with freight railroads. The division, in conjunction with Strategic Development and Communications, develops train schedules. Safety manages all aspects of safety for the agency including health, public safety and security, environmental regulatory compliance, and regulatory reporting. Safety and education training programs are conducted system wide for passengers and the general public. Passenger. Services manages the call center, handles all customer inquiries and dissemination of infonnation, and provides station personnel, Ambassadors and Field Service Personnel for passenger assistance. Dispatching is responsible for managing and controlling access to member agency owed rights - of -way. New in FY 2002-03, this addition to the SCRRA includes 25 personnel previously provided under contract, and one administrative support position. Operating Department Goals NOTE: FINAL FY 2003-04 DEPARTMENTAL GOALS ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT Table 5.4 provides the budgeted expenses for this department 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 86167 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TABLE 5.4 OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) - SCE' r t 2 �., • .-.- - r.. ;� + r , �YY l' ,i*:rr ' ' -.+ : e r T . . ---a � 4— 0. 7d{sl .: e 6:¢ J T 1 . '[ . In ,a a *�$ 47 14,6 Operating Budget Labor $2,508.4 $4,976.3 $5,781.8 16% Purchased Transportation 20,942.8 20,874.5 21,583.5 3% Services 5,452.1 5,987.9 5,825.6 (3%) Utilities/Leases 128.3 - 2.5 - Maintenance -of -Way 27.3 - - - Insurance & Liability 1.0 - - - Other Expenses 405.6 407.3 373.6 (8%) Subtotal Direct Operating Expenses 29,465.5 32,246.0 33,567.0 4% Indirect/}�t Transferyy��to,,,77Operating 6, .4 - - �y 5 01 1�� l7 'i t Capital Budget Labor $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 - Services 55.3 - - - Utilities/Leases - - - Capital 5.9 - - - Other Expenses 6.3 - - - Subtotal Direct Capital Expenses 67.6 - - - Indirect Transfer to Ca u ital 1.2 - - - .T ,` r cTi .f:x 1J• s. + r Y S:,•1,. - • Indirect Agency Labor $8.0 $0.0 $0.0 - Services - - - Utilities/Leases - - - - Maintenance -of -Way - - - Insurance & Liability Other Expenses - 0.2 - - - - Subtotal Indirect Agency Support 8.2 - - - Indirect Transfer to Operating (6.4) - - - Indirect Transfer to Capital (1.2) - - - Indirect Transfer to Recollectable (0.6) - - - h. 4/4/2003 8:43 PM 168 Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY04.xls-Ops SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 5.5 Enzineering & Construction The department of Engineering and Construction encompasses the following divisions as outlined below. Maintenance -of -Way administers the contracts which provide for maintenance of track and structures. Signals & Communications administers contracts which install, test and maintain signals and related communications devices that control train movements and provide warnings at road ' crossings. Capital Construction and Design oversees project design, development of engineering standards, development of construction bid packages, and management of the construction process. Public Projects manages the design of third party projects and controls the entry/use of right of way by others (i.e., road crossing, public utility construction, etc.) Station Facilities is responsible for oversight of local station maintenance functions and their compliance with federal requirements, coordinating implementation/maintenance of SCRRA public facilities including station and public address/changeable message signage. Rules and Training is responsible for administration of federally mandated operating rules and practices that govern the performance of maintenance and construction on the railroad right of way. Engineering & Construction Department Goals NOTE: FINAL FY 2003-04 DEPARTMENTAL GOALS ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT Table 5.5 provides the budgeted expenses for this department 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 88 169 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TABLE 5.5 ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) _ r ;, ti. . �� � . v w . .,. `�, S! 't w. _,_'>< - ,ca7 r � ,rr+p�a l tlpl. ' gY, r.� to m iif +� k .�� � 1 J� \T.I�--g.1.'+��. �K+ .,v _ .1� Sr 'JJw.e6� i Operating Budget Labor $1,810.5 $1,787.5 $1,843.2 3% Purchased Transportation 11.7 - - - Services 1,761.1 911.7 1,090.3 20% Utilities/Leases 586.4 824.0 690.1 (16%) Maintenance -of -Way 13,264.5 14,360.2 14,383.2 0% Insurance & Liability - - - - Other Expenses 376.6 141.0 135.5 (4%) Subtotal Direct Operating Expenses 17,810.8 18,024.3 18,142.3 1% Indirect Transfer to Operating 22.0 1.8 21.0 1,057% ¢k ri mil-`�II -.� . .G .4 • ,v's -- ,+,�_> •a - Capital Budget Labor $1,011.9 $1,083.9 $1,214.9 12% Services 698.4 200.0 156.0 (22%) Utilities/Leases - - - - Capital 36,968.3 83,728.7 67,207.3 (20%) Other. Expenses 109.0 3.7 4.2 14% Subtotal Direct Capital Expenses 38,787.6 85,016.4 68,582.4 (19%) Indirect Transfer to Capital 4.1 0.3 3.3 862% Sri" Indirect Agency Labor $8.2 $2.4 $25.8 995% Services 7.0 - - - Utilities/Leases - - - - Maintenance -of -Way - - - Insurance & Liability - - - - Other Expenses 13.1 - - - Subtotal Indirect Agency Support 28.3 2.4 25.8 995% Indirect Transfer to Operating (22.0) (1.8) (21.0) 1,057% Indirect Transfer to Capital (4.1) (0.3). (3.3) 862% Indirect Transfer to Recollectable (2.2) (0.2) (1.5) 661% sP kt7 '4`Q•. .�i `,/..5v � K r,. 0 .. _ •(� Sys. y ,y`� C �' �L'�sC y t T �.4� i� L �. 5' m 31 �' �... i .S li+.-L ata7- + en [ 4/4/2003.9:26 PM 170 Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY04.xls-Eng & Const SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 5.6 Eauipment The department of Equipment encompasses the two divisions outlined below. The di vision of Equipment ensures availability of passenger cars and locomotives, and oversees the contract with Bombardier to ensure proper maintenance of rolling stock. The division of Facilities Maintenance maintains the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) in Los Angeles, the Metrolink Operations Center (MOC) in Pomona, outlying layover locations, and the maintenance of non revenue, over the road fleet. Equipment Department Goals NOTE: FINAL FY 2003-04 DEPARTMENTAL GOALS ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR INCLUSION IN TUF BUDGET DOCUMENT Table 5.6 provides the budgeted expenses for this department 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 90171 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TABLE 5.6 EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) �, xsS�tY`� ' 'S`rt � . . �1`f Y. " p w + l; a�.�. .� udT .'t "d'. �� �. .i i I'_.,3., nirF ;lr t4 i . , � �`.^ - tr.- y�l `�r;1 ,� n �y'ti ,y . �. ,'F-'7kr... C' Operating Budget Labor $540.8 $679.2 $1,015.3 49% Purchased Transportation 14,353.2 16,435.4 15,572.4 (5%) Services 1,179.2 1,630.2 1,502.6 (8%) Utilities/Leases 14.1 - - - Maintenance -of -Way 2.6 - - - Insurance & Liability 87.2 400.0 350.0 (13%) Other Expenses 3,810.1 5,383.8 5,848.8 9% Subtotal Direct Operating Expenses 19,987.1 24,528.6 24,289.1 (1%) Indirect Transfer to Operating 4.4 - - - . " r• .'d 7 8 1it ' F T �'r ' _ .. s � i ]� Y! C e • J Capital Budget Labor $145.0 1 $41.9 $46.3 11% Services 49.9 35.0 - (100%) Utilities/Leases 0.0 - - - Capital 18,345.8 19,729.4 62,437.3 216% J Other Expenses 8.4 68.1 - (100%) Subtotal Direct Capital Expenses 18,549.2 19,874.4 62,483.6 214% Indirect Transfer to Capital 0.8 - - , - �., tS�ii"e 13rf tk] 5� v ° ' rr.rr s i { [ 1 i !� �� !' i�� �i k opal N z! a ?> rliYrr Indirect Agency Labor $4.7 $0.0 $0.0 - Services - - - - Utilities/Leases - - - - Maintenance -of -Way - - - - Insurance & Liability - - - - Other Expenses 1.0 - 1 - - Subtotal Indirect Agency Support 5.7 - - - Indirect Transfer to Operating (4.4) - - - Indirect Transfer to Capital (0.8) - - - Indirect Transfer to Recollectable (0.4) - - - 4/4/2003 8:43 PM 172 Dept Budgets by Exp Type+Y04.xls-Equip SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget S_7 Commiinieatio-s. and Development The department of Communications and Development encompasses the divisions outlined below. Governmental Relations develops state and federal legislative initiatives, designs and implements related advocacy programs, and assists in the identification of governmental funding sources. Grants Development & Programming coordinates the identification of and application for local, state and federal funding; oversees grant reporting; assists in strategic, capital, and special project planning. External Communications coordinates stakeholder relations efforts, internal and external publications, agency website and station city initiatives. Media Relations coordinates general media inquiry response, crisis communications and editorial outreach. Marketing &. Sales promotes Metrolink commuter and other services through advertising, promotions, special events, sales, and merchandising. Research provides market research, ridership forecasting and analysis, and marketing program evaluations. Communications and Development's Goals NOTE: FINAL FY 2003-04 DEPARTMENTAL GOALS ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT Table 5.7 provides the budgeted expenses for this department 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 92 173 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TABLE 5.7 COMMUNICATIONS & DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) ' vv$ i `.Jt p` 1' , .ra �..L' .�i'.`i i'{` ' �y �1 Y P a d F'14$�j`F�j ' .. ]' ft •�` � �.W` 15 f fJ+ 1, d ) �i Pal ' fi.} S t. yeL Operating Budget Labor Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses $1,390.6 - 1,593.8 2.7 - - 533.9 $1,377.9 450.0 1,725.1 2.5 - - 508.3 $1,612.4 490.0 1,749.3 2.8 - - 418.1 I7% 9% 1% 12% - - (18%) Subtotal Direct Operating Expenses 3,521.0 4,063.7 4,272.6 5% Indirect Transfer to Operating 174.5 290.1 242.0 (17%) Capital Budget Labor Services Utilities/Leases Capital Other Expenses $0.0 - - - - $0.0 I - - - - $0.0 - - - - - - - - - Subtotal Direct Capital Expenses - - - - Indirect Transfer to Capital 32.6 54.5 37.8 31%) Indirect Agency Labor Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses $215.0 1 3.9 I 0.4 - - 5.3 $376.4 - - - - - $297.3 - - - - - (21%) _ - - - - Subtotal Indirect Agency Support 224.6 376.4 297.3 (21%) Indirect Transfer to Operating Indirect Transfer to Capital Indirect Transfer to Recollectable (174.5) (32.6) _ (17.5) (290.1) (54.5) (31.8) (242.0) (37.8) (17.5) (17%) (31 %) (45%) 4/4/2003 8:43 PM 174 Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY04xts C&D SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 5.8 e Fin■11ancVV. The department of Finance encompasses the divisions outlined below. In addition, the department is responsible for managing investments and pursuing financing to benefit capital and operating objectives. Budget develops, monitors and manages the annual budget and related financial plans. Accounting manages the financial activities of projects and services including revenue collection, payment disbursement, and payroll. The division maintains the financial records and reports of the agency, and manages the financial information system. Fare Services oversees fare policy implementation and ticket vending machines located at all Metrolink stations. Finance Goals NOTE: FINAL FY 2003-04 DEPARTMENTAL GOALS ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT Table 5.8 provides the budgeted expenses for this department. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 94175 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TABLE 5.8 FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000s) . .. .. 0 3i2` ua ry 7 : iiwii MI. e _ . Operating Budget Labor Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses $182.7 1,781.7 0.1 29.9 34.4 $234.1 2,207.0 25.0 52.5 $259.7 2,410.5 79.3 11% 9% (100%) 51% Subtotal Direct Operating Expenses 2,028.8 2,518.6 2,749.4 9% Indirect Transfer to Operating 1,863.1 1,810.7 1,826.6 1% Capital Budget Labor Services Utilities/Leases Capital Other Expenses Subtotal Direct Capital Expenses $0.0 25.1 565.7 36.4 627.2 $10.5 13,220.0 13,230.5 $11.5 8,230.2 8,241.8 10% (38%) (38%) Indirect Transfer to Capital Indirect Agency Labor Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Other Expenses 348.2 $1,595.8 771.6 0.0 30.6 457.5 285.4 (38%) a• $1,992.0 395.0 80.0 $1,844.5 386.5 12.9 (7%) (2%) (84%) ;Subtotal Indirect Agency Support 2,398.1 2,467.0 2,243.9 (9%) Indirect Transfer to Operating Indirect Transfer to Capital Indirect Transfer to Recollectable (1,863.1) (348.2) (186.8) (1,810.7) (457.5) (198.8) (1,826.6) (285.4) (131.9) 4!4/2003 8:43 PM 176 Dept Budgets by Exp Type-FY04xls-Fin SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget SECTION 6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY APPENDIX 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 96177 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 6.0 APPENDIX 6.1 Formulae for Allocation to Counties Table 6.1 provides a summary of all the formulae that have been used to allocate expenses and revenues to the member agencies (counties). The table shows the eight different formulae that have been used. These eight formulae are described below: Allshare The original All -Share formula was developed to calculate county shares of systemwide projects such as the maintenance facility and used data developed in the Southern California Commuter Rail: 1991 Regional System Plan as required by SB-1402. The formula was calculated as 1/3 unduplicated route miles of the proposed system at buildout; 1/3 proposed stations (unduplicated) and 1/3 projected boardings and alightings after a year of service. This formula was also used to justify the number of positions each county had on the SCRRA Board. In 1993, the formula was adjusted to add the Riverside (UP) Line, and in 1998, the formula has been adjusted again to allow for the extensions to Lancaster and Oxnard. This revised formula is now used for systemwide projects such as those in the River Corridor. Point -in -Time While the All -Share formula was used in the Maintenance -of -Way Budget and in sharing costs of capital projects, the Point -in -Time formula was developed to provide each county's share of operating expenses in each fiscal year. Rather than representing the system at build out, the data used was the projection for the particular fiscal year. The formula was modified from the All Share to include train -miles as this data more accurately represents service provided. Through FY 1996-97, the formula was calculated as 1/6 unduplicated route miles; 1/6 proposed stations (unduplicated); 1/6 projected boardings and alightings and 1/2 projected source train -miles. Source trains were defined as peak trains starting out of layover facilities. Boardings and alightings were removed from the formula in FY 1998-99 as stations provided similar weighting and the formula was calculated as 1/4 unduplicated route miles; 1/4 stations (unduplicated) and 1/2 projected source train -miles. Base Service In the FY 1999-00 Budget a new formula was developed for the Operating Budget, which took all services that do not change with the number of trains operated ("base" services) and analyzed how they had been allocated as a group over the prior years. These items had been allocated by a combination of the Point -in -Time formula, even split, and direct allocation to lines. The resulting formula represents an average of the allocation of these "base" services over the prior two years. Train -Miles Those costs that change with the number of trains operated such as Amtrak crews and fuel are allocated on the basis of train -miles. This formula changes each year with the service 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 97178 Original Allshare SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget TABLE 6.1 FORMULAE USED TO ALLOCATE EXPENSES BY COUNTY 40.0% 25.0% 12.0% 5.0% 18.0% Allshare (Revised for. UP) Allshare 1998 Data (Lancaster/Oxnard) 40.3% 26.2% 47.5% 19.8% 13.4% 11.1% 15.9% 14.4% 4.2% 7.2% Point -in -Time FY 97-98 Base Service Formula (FY 98-99 on) (1) Tram Miles FY 98-99 51.9% 19.2% 56.4% 16.6% 58.7% 17.7% 8.9% 7.6% 7.1% 12.4% 13.0% 7.7% 6.4% 11.9% 4.6% .Train Miles FY 99-00 58.1% 18A% 7.4% 12.2% Train. Miles FY 00-01 57.7% 18.7% 7.1% 12.2% 4.2% 4.2% -Train Miles FY 01-02 Train Miles FY 02-03 1 56.5% 19.1% 57.3% 19.1% 7.3% 7.6% 13.1% 12.1% 4.1% 3.9% Train Miles FY 03-04 57.1% 19A% 7.6% 12.1% 4.1% Route Miles Dispatched Route Miles Owned Track Miles Owned 66.5% 18.5% 57.6% 24.3% 58.5% 25.8% 0.4% 0.5% 8.8% 10.7% 9.6% 5.8% 6.4% 5.6% (1) This formula was used to allocate all expenses that were not train -mile related or direct charge costs in FY 98/99 It is an average of what was previously split by Point -in -Time and even split. 4/4/2003 179 SHARES2004.xls-County SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget assumptions adopted for that year. Route -Miles Dispatched For FY 2002-03, dispatching expenses are allocated based on route miles owned and dispatched by SCRRA. Route -Miles Owned The Maintenance -of -Way Budget allocates the net subsidies for Extra -ordinary Maintenance for storm damage, gate knockdowns and vandalism using the formula representing route -miles owned by county. Track -Miles Owned The Maintenance -of -Way Budget allocates the net subsidies for maintenance -of -way on lines owned by more than one county by the formula representing track -miles owned by county. Direct Allocation Other costs that change with the number of trains operated on particular line segments such as payments for rail agreements for dispatching and maintenance -of -way are not allocated by formula but directly allocated to those line segments. 6.2 Formulae for Allocation to Lines Table 6.2 provides those formulae in Table 6.1 that are used to allocate operating expenses and revenues by line. This allocation is used to provide operating expenses, revenues, subsidies and statistics by line. 6.3 Allocation of Revenues Farebox revenues are received by each operating line and allocated to member agencies (counties) on the basis of train -miles for each line or county. Dispatching/Other revenues are allocated directly to those line segments that are subject to agreements with freight railroads and Amtrak. These revenues are allocated to the counties that own the particular segments, and to the lines that are made up of these segments. At the end of each fiscal year, the interest on fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects is assigned to counties based upon a calculation of funds on account throughout the year which were provided by each member agency. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AIVI 99180 SCRRA FY 2002-03 Budget TABLE 6.2 FORMULAE USED TO ALLOCATE EXPENSES BY LINE Allshare (Revised for UP) Allshare 1998 Data Base Service Formula (1) Train Miles FY 98-99 Train Miles FY 99-00 21.0% 21.9% 20.6% 24.0% 24.0% 23.9% rt 13.1% 15.1% 16.2% 15.6% 13.2% 12.4% Point -in -Time FY 97-98 6.6% 15.9% 17.8% 19.6% 21.4% 2L7% 15.0% 13.8% 13.9% 14.2% 11.4% 11.1% 16.9% 18.9% 16.7% 18.3% 19.1% 13.4% 12.6% 9.9% 9.9% I0.2% 6.1% 2.9% 0.0% 1.8% 1.7% Train Miles FY 00-01 24.3% 12.5% 21.1% 11.3% 19.3% 9.6% 1.8% Train Miles FY 01-02 Train Miles FY 02-03 Train Miles FY 03-04 25.4% 24.7% 24.6% 12.4% 11.5% 11.8% 20.1% 22.1% 22.0% 11.0% 9.3% 9.4% 18.4% 17.0% 17.1% 11.0% 9.3% 9.2% L7% 6.0% 6.0% Route Miles Dispatched 2L9% Route Miles Owned 18.0% 39.8% 1.8% 16.4% 2.1% 25.3% 19.6% 29.0% 1.2% 21.7% 3.2% Track Miles Owned 21.9% 16.5% 27.9% 0.5% 23.9% 1.9% 7.4% (1) This formula was used to allocate all expenses that were not train -mile related or direct charge costs in FY 98/99 It is an average of what was previously split by Point -in -Time and even split. 4/4/2003 181 SHARES2004.xls-Line SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 6.4 Allocation of Expenses Fuel and that portion of Amtrak services related to operation of trains are allocated to operating lines and counties on the basis of train -miles for each line or county. That part of Amtrak services related to dispatching is allocated directly to operating lines and counties on the basis of the ownership of line segments over which the agency has dispatching authority. Also allocated directly to line segments are Transfers to Other Operators, Rail Agreements, Maintenance -of - Way expenses and Ambassadors. All other expenses in the Operating Budget are allocated on the "base service" formula. Maintenance -of -Way expenses on lines shared by more than one county are split to the counties on the basis of track -miles in each county. The expenditures related to the Riverside Layover Facility are allocated to the counties through which the Riverside Line runs on the basis of route miles. The River Corridor is shared by all lines, thus the expenditures in excess of revenues on this segment are split to lines and counties on the basis of the "Allshare" formula. Extra -ordinary Maintenance expenses for derailments ($100,000) are split on the Allshare formula, and for storm damage, gate knockdowns and vandalism ($400,000) using the formula representing route - miles owned by county. 6.5 Allocation of Agency Costs to Budgets SCRRA allocates indirect costs to projects in a two-step allocation model, referred to as the cost allocation plan (CAP). In the first step, the CAP allocates general & administrative (G&A) costs to overhead pools. G&A costs represent agency wide costs that are incurred to maintain the administrative functions of the agency. Examples of these costs are the Chief Executive Officer, Human Resources, and the Finance Department. The G&A costs are allocated to the following overhead pools: • Train Operations • Maintenance of Way • Capital Maintenance • New Capital Projects • Recollectable Projects • In the second step of the CAP, the overhead pools are allocated to the direct projects within the program group based upon the percentage of individual project cost to the total project cost in the category. The projected overhead rates are defined in the budget process and utilized throughout the year. Staff evaluates the accuracy of the overhead rate projections throughout the year to determine if adjustments are necessary. At fiscal year end, the actual overhead rates are compared to the projected rates. The variance between the projected and actual rate will result in a balance in the 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 101182 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget overhead pools. This balance is in the - incorporated computation of future overhead rate calculations. The CAP has been submitted to Caltrans and the Federal Transportation Administration for review and approval. If any changes are required to the CAP following these reviews, the CAP will be revised and the overhead rates for Fiscal Year 2003-04 will be revised Departments primarily included in the distribution pool include: Administration, Finance including Budget and Accounting, and Human Resources. Additionally, small components of the following Offices are included in the Pool: Chief Executive Officer, Contract Administration and Procurement, Strategic Development and Communication. Labor and Fringe Benefits represent the cost to the agency of Salaries and Wages paid to employees as well and the costs of fringes including Medical Benefits, Retirement Contributions, Vacation Pay, and other similar expenses. Principal items in the MIS pool include consultant costs for network administration, lease costs of agency personal computers, and other miscellaneous hardware and software procurements. Other agency costs include the lease of agency corporate offices, Professional Services including the Annual Financial Audit, Consultants to the Director of Finance and Contracts and Procurement and Human Resources divisions, Recruitment Expense, an extensive program of agency wide staff training, and other miscellaneous expenses including travel, the Agency's membership in APTA, and other similar expenses. 6.6 Potential New Projects For New Capital In FY 2002-03 Each year as the development of the agency's budget progresses, there are a number of projects for which funding is being sought but, has not been sufficiently secured to include in the Preliminary Budget brought forward for consideration by the Committee and Board of Directors. As funding for projects is approved, they will be incorporated into the Budget through amendment after review by the Board. 6.7 SCRRA Policy on Debt The purpose of issuing debt is to finance essential capital facilities and equipment. The issuance of debt spreads the cost of the facilities and equipment over their useful life. Historically, SCRRA has not issued debt for the development of facilities or the purchase of equipment. Rather, the capital has been funded by a combination of federal, state, member agency, and other local sources. In the absence of the need to issue debt, SCRRA has not adopted a formal debt policy. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 102183 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget State law defines the means that a joint powers authority may issue debt. The Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling Act (Government Code, sec. 6584) provided flexibility to a JPA in permitting the identification of future revenues for the maintenance of debt. Under this statute, a JPA is given powers to issue bonds to pay for the cost of capital, including facilities and equipment. The statute requires the establishment of a new joint powers authority for the exclusive purpose of financing capital projects or acquisitions for its members. If future capital funding requirements ever require the issuance of debt, the member agencies may be asked adopt a debt policy incorporating the established of a joint powers authority as permitted in the Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling Act. Although the SCRRA has never issued debt for the construction of facilities or acquisition of equipment, two U.S. leveraged lease transactions have been completed. The deferred benefit of the two lease transactions was approximately $24.2 million. In Fiscal Year 1995-96, the SCRRA Board entered into an agreement to lease 94 coach and cab cars (cars) and 31 locomotives and simultaneously entered into a sublease agreement with the lessee to lease them back. The SCRRA received proceeds of approximately $193.9 million of which it used approximately $152.3 million to prepay future lease payments and defease part of its obligation. In addition, the Board invested approximately $21.2 million in U.S. Zero Coupon Treasury strips. The Treasury strips will mature at values sufficient to cover all remaining lease payments due under the lease agreement as well as amounts necessary to exercise the repurchase options. As a result, all obligations under this lease/leaseback transaction are considered to be defeased in substance. In fiscal year 1999, SCRRA entered into another agreement to lease 25 bi-level commuter rail cars and 2 diesel locomotives and simultaneously entered into sublease agreement with the lessee to lease them back. The SCRRA received proceeds of approximately $63.5 million of which it used $24.7 million and $7.7 million for debt and equity defeasance, respectively. This amount is sufficient to cover all lease payments due under the agreements and to exercise the repurchase options. As a result, all obligations under this lease/leaseback transaction are considered to be defeased in substance. 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 103184 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget 6.8 Statistical Information. Date of Formation August 1991 Form of Government Joint Powers Authority Purpose To plan, design, construct and administer the operation of regional passenger rail lines. Member Agencies Counties Served Population (1998) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Conunission San Bernardino Associated Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission Los Angeles County Orange County Riverside County San Bernardino County San Diego County Ventura County Los Angeles County 9,757,542 Orange County 2,775,617 Riverside County 1,473,307 San Bernardino County 1,654,007 San Diego County 2,853,258 Ventura County 742,008 Total Population: 19,255,741 Route Miles in System Los Angeles County 199 Orange County 87 Riverside County 38 San Bernardino County 39 San Diego County 19 Ventura County 34 Total Miles: 416 Route Miles Los Angeles County 222 Potentially in System Orange County 115 (SB1402 Rev. 1993) Riverside County 100 San Bernardino County 68 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 104185 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Ventura County 4 Total Miles: 539 Train Equipment Stations Locomotives 33 Cab Cars 37 Coaches 82 Los Angeles County 24 Orange County 8 Riverside County 4 San Bernardino 7 San Diego County 1 Ventura County 4 Total Stations: 48 Ticket Vending Machines TVMs Installed 96 Validators Installed 117 Ticket Office Machines 3 Installed Highway -Rail Grade Crossings Total Network Grade Crossings 399 Public Crossings 339 Private Crossings 61 SCRRA Maintained Crossings 238 Average Daily Riders Ventura County Line 3,736 (Jan 2001) Antelope Valley Line 5,039 San Bernardino Line 9,690 Riverside Line 4,572 Orange County Line 5,968 Inland Empire to Orange County 2,862 Burbank Turns 462 Riverside/Fullerton/LA 104 SYSTEM 32,433 Number of Auto. Trips Removed per Weekday 16,202 trips Percent of Freeway Traffic. Removed on Parallel Freeways Each Peak Hour 8.5 percent 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 1°5186 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget Average Commute Trip Length Percent of Riders Formerly Driving Alone Percent of Riders with Downtown Los Angeles Destination Percent of Ethnic Riders by Line Corridor (Latino, Asian, African -American) San Bemardino Line Riverside Line Antelope Valley Line Ventura County Line Orange County Line Source: 1998 State of California Department of Finance Report E5, Sheet, March 2000 Ridership, and 2000 SCRRA Customer 6.9 Glossary of l3 u d get Terms 35.7 miles 70 percent 70 percent 56 52 46 32 38 percent percent percent percent percent SCRRA's January 2001 Fact Satisfaction Survey APPROVED BUDGET: The official budget as approved by the five member agencies and then by the SCRRA Board. AMENDED BL]DGET: The approved budget as amended by the SCRRA Board through the course of a fiscal year. APPROPRIATION: Legal authorization to make expenditures and to incur obligations for specific purposes. An appropriation is usually limited in amount and to the time it may be expended. BUDGET: A plan of financial operations comprised of estimated expenditures for a given period (one fiscal year) and the proposed means of financing the expenditures (revenues). REHABILITATION/RENOVATION EXPENDITURE: Those expenditures that replace worn out assets with like or improved assets and thus extend the useful life of these capital assets. CONTRACTED SERVICES: Services rendered in support of SCRRA operations and other activities by external parties. These are generally based upon formal contracts or purchase orders. DEPARTMENT: An organizational subgroup of SCRRA. ENCUMBRANCE: The commitment of appropriated funds to purchase goods or services. EXPENDI'T'URE: Decreases in net financial resources. EXPENSES: Decreases in net total assets. Expenses include the total costs of operations and capital during a period. EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE: Includes damages due to vandalism, crossing gate knockdowns, accidents, derailments, fires, storm damage and other expenses as required. In 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 106187 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget years without unusual rainfall or train accidents, about $500,000 has been a reasonable estimate and this is the projection for FY 2000-01. In other years, such as has been experienced in FY 1998-99 with the El Nino storms, the total can easily exceed $3,500,000. These types of extreme conditions may be covered by insurance or FEMA reimbursement. However, insurance covers only bridges, tunnels and facilities and has a $100,000 deductible per storm and FEMA reimbursement has never been timely. FAREBOX REVENUE: Fares received from passengers for travel on Metrolink trains. FAREBOX RECOVERY: Ratio of farebox revenue to total expenses net of maintenance -of -way revenues, rolling stock lease and extra -ordinary maintenance. FISCAL YEAR: A 12 -month period to which the annual budget applies and at the end of which SCRRA determines its financial position, the results of its operations and capital program, and adopts a budget for the coming fiscal year. The SCRRA's fiscal year is from July 1 through June 30. FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (p"1E): The conversion of full-time and part-time employee hours to an equivalent of a full-time position. For example, one person working half-time would count as 0.5 FTE and a person hired for 6 months would also count as 0.5 FTE. GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES (GAAP): Uniform minimum standards of, and guidelines for financial accounting and reporting. They govern the form and content of the basic financial statements on an entity. GAAP encompasses the conventions, rules, and procedures necessary to define accepted accounting practice at a particular time. They include not only broad guidelines of general application, but also detailed practices and procedures. GAAP provides a standard by which to measure financial presentations. OBJECTIVE: A simply stated, readily measurable statement of aim or expected accomplishment within the fiscal year. OBJECT CODE: The classification of expenditures in terms of what is bought and paid for grouped into major object codes by subject. OPERATING BUDGET: A budget that focuses on everyday operating activities and programs. For SCRRA, the Operating Budget includes train operations and maintenance -of -way. PROPOSED BUDGET: A budget in its preliminary preparation stage prior to adoption by the SCRRA Board. REVENUE: Monies that SCRRA receives as income such as farebox revenue, payments from other railroads, local funds for operating or capital, grants, and interest. REVENUE RECOVERY: The ratio of operating revenues to operating expenses net of rolling stock lease payments and extra -ordinary maintenance. RIDERSHIP: The number of one-way trips carried on Metrolink trains. SALARY AND FRINGE BENEFI! EXPENSES: Compensation paid to or on behalf of SCRRA employees for salaries, wages, overtime, and benefits. 6.10 Acronyms ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act Amtrak: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (intercity rail service) APTA: American Public Transportation Association AQMD: Air Quality Management District 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 107188 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget BNSF: CAFR: Caltrans: CEQA: CMAQ: CTC: DOL: DOT: EIR: EIS: EPA: FCR: FHWA: FRA: FTA: IEOC: ISTEA: ITS: JPA: LACMTA: MOC: MOW: LNG: MOU: MTA: OCTA: PA/CMS: PERS: PRESS: RCTC: ROW: RTIP: RTPA: SANBAG: SCAG: SCAQMD: SCRRA: SHA: SPRR: STA: STIP: STP: TAC: TCI: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Comprehensive Annual Financial Report California Department of Transportation California Environmental Quality Act Congestion Mitigation Air Quality California Transportation Commission Federal Department of Labor Federal Department of Transportation Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Study Federal Environmental Protection Agency Flexible Congestion Relief Federal Highway Administration Federal Railroad Administration Federal Transit Administration Inland Empire to Orange County Line Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Intelligent Transportation System Joint Powers Authority Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metroiink Operations Center Maintenance -of -Way Liquified Natural Gas Memorandum of Understanding Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Public Address/Changeable Message Sign Public Employees Retirement System Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards Riverside County Transportation Commission Right -of -Way Regional Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Planning Agency San Bernardino Associated Governments Southern California Associated Governments South Coast Air Quality Management District Southern California Regional Rail Authority State Highway Account Southem Pacific Railroad State Transit Assistance State Transportation Improvement Plan Surface Transportation Program Technical Advisory Committee Transit Capital Improvement (funds/program) 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 108189 SCRRA FY 2003-04 Budget TDA: Transportation Development Act TEA -21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TIP: Transportation Improvement program TSM: Transportation Systems Management TVM: Ticket Vending Machine UP: Union Pacific Railroad VCTC:Ventura County Transportation Commission 4/7/2003, 9:57 AM 109190 AGENDA ITEM 7M RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Deferral of the Van Buren Metrolink Station PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April 1999, the Commission authorized staff to proceed with the initial development of rail stations at Van Buren Boulevard in Riverside and near Main Street in Corona as a result of the analysis and recommendations outlined in the "Tier II Station Study" prepared by Schiermeyer Consulting Services. These two stations were deemed necessary for future growth on the existing commuter lines, the Riverside & Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC), and to accommodate the inception of Metrolink service on the 91 Line. The April 1999 agenda item advised that "if projected costs exceed anticipated resources, staff would ask the Commission to revisit and possibly revise its decision" to proceed with the construction of one or both of the rail stations. Current Use of Van Buren Station Site The proposed station site consists of two major parcels: 6.6 acres referred to as the "Arlington Station Grounds" which borders Indiana Avenue and Van Buren Boulevard and 2.2 acres referred to as "Rudicill" which borders Rudicill Street and Van Buren Boulevard. The Arlington Station Ground property is partially leased for the purposes as a temporary Caltrans construction laydown yard for the current 91 auxiliary lane project. Two non -conflicting leases are pending for the Rudicill property: use as a laydown yard for the construction of residential development and use by Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad for access to the team tracks. BNSF uses the team tracks to serve local businesses and are also located on the Arlington Station Grounds. Agenda Item 7M 191 Status of the Tier II Stations In November 2002, the Commission opened the North Main Corona Metrolink Station for passenger service; construction of the pedestrian overcrossing is ongoing and completion is anticipated by this summer. However, progress on the Van Buren Station has not kept pace with the North Main Corona Station. Although the Commission retained the services of Pountney & Associates for preliminary engineering, environmental clearance, and final design services for the Van Buren Station, the final design has been temporarily suspended since March 2002 due to the expansion of the La Sierra Station. This expansion, among other key factors outlined below, provide the rationale for the staff recommendation to defer the construction of the Van Buren Station until after 2010. Changing Key Factors for the Van Buren Station The key factors related to the staff recommendation involve the changing circumstances related to the following: • Access Issues • La Sierra Station Parking Lot Expansion, and • Financial Considerations Access Issues — The "Tier II Station Study" indicated that additional traffic that would be generated by the new Station could be mitigated by developing parking lots on both sides of the tracks and linking both lots through the construction of an interior roadway underneath the railroad embankment. However the capital costs and anticipated limited access to the Arlington Station Grounds have prevented this option. The cost to construct a tunnel underneath the mainline railroad tracks greatly exceeds the cost estimate of $2 million for a pedestrian overcrossing. In addition, the planned expansion of the SR 91 will result in the creation of a widened hook ramp on Indiana Avenue which will eliminate the desired points of ingress and egress. The La Sierra Station and the proposed Van Buren Station are less than two miles apart. Both BNSF and Metrolink have expressed concerns with the train operational inefficiency of serving both stations. Namely, the close proximity of the two stations limits the ability to accelerate and decelerate between stations. In fact, when the Commission is ready to proceed with the construction of the Van Buren Station, BNSF will require the construction of a universal crossover, as well as widening of the bridge, estimated at over $2 million. Agenda Item 7M 192 La Sierra Station Parking Lot Expansion -In recommending the Commission initiate development of the Van Buren Station in 1999, the Tier II Study indicated that there was no guarantee that additional parking could be provided at the La Sierra Station on a short or long term basis. In March 2002 the Commission executed an option agreement with Riverside Community College District to purchase 21 acres at the La Sierra Station enabling parking lot expansion at the severely overcrowded station. Escrow closed on the property in February of this year and over 120 parking spaces opened this month, while another 130 are anticipated to open in July, and another 450 spaces by December. The acquisition of the 21 acres will allow surface parking of up to 2,000 spaces. The 2001 parking demand study performed by Schiermeyer Consulting Services indicated a need for 846 spaces by 2010 between the La Sierra and Van Buren stations. By December of this year, the La Sierra Station should have 1,048 parking spaces, more than ample to meet the 2010 demand. Financial Considerations - With the ability to expand the current La Sierra Station, capital and operating costs of the proposed Van Buren Station must be considered. The project cost to acquire right-of-way and expand parking at the La Sierra Station total $9 million. The current programmed amount for the Van Buren Station is $9.5 million. The ability to expand the La Sierra Station and defer the Van Buren Station until after 2010 reduces the need for an additional $225,000 annually in station operating funds, or $1.35 million between FY 2005 - FY 2010. Although these key factors have changed, the transportation need for the site still remains given that the site provides a regional link to the interior communities of Western Riverside County. Therefore, the staff recommendation is to defer the construction of the Station until after 2010. The Commission has received letters of interest regarding the Arlington Station Ground property, the north western piece of the Van Buren Station site. Given the limited access issues to this property, highlighted above, staff may consider bringing forward at a future date, a recommendation to surplus the property. Attachments: 1) Map of Van Buren Station Site 2) April 14, 1999 Agenda Item "Tier II Station Analysis & Recommendations" Agenda Item 7M 193 o j� C)_ 000 0 co RIN M 1iij4 RI \`\\ r \ \\\\ \` \\\ \\\"\\\\ \\\ \ \\\\ \\ r \\\ \\ \\rr �r\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ r\ \\ \\ \ \\\ \ \\\ `\\\r \ \ \ \\\\\\ \ \ \\.\\\ \\ \\\\\ \\ \\ \\`1\\\\ ,\\\\\\:\ \\ .\\ \\ \ \) ! r \\\ \r\\ \\\r \\\ \\\\\\\ \ \ \ \`\\ \\ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Tier II Station Analysis and Recommendations The separately published "Tier II Station Study," recently completed by Schiermeyer Consulting Services, is included with this agenda for Commission consideration. Staff and rail consultant Carl Schiermeyer will present elements of the study along with recommendations for construction of additional commuter rail stations in western Riverside County. Background RCTC's existing Metrolink stations ( Riverside -Downtown, Pedley, La Sierra and West Corona) were built over a period of 5 years using state rail bonds and grants, matched by local Measure A. These have been referred to as Tier I stations, necessary for the beginning levels of commuter rail service on both the Riverside Line to Los Angeles and the Inland Empire Line to Orange County. The Riverside -Downtown station has undergone two expansions to keep pace with demand and to better meet the operating requirements of the host railroads. The second level of Riverside County stations, referred to as the Tier II stations, have been envisioned as necessary for future growth on the existing commuter lines and to accommodate the inception of Metrolink service through Corona and Fullerton to Los Angeles. Current levels of ridership, anticipated growth, the need to serve additional markets, and the potential expiration of dedicated funding, require the Commission's timely attention in identifying and developing Tier II stations. This Study Several pieces of real property which could possibly serve as station sites were acquired from the Santa Fe railroad in 1992 and 1993, as part of the master purchase -and -sale agreement for operating rights -of -way and adjacent real estate. These properties as well as other locations have now been studied for their relative potential as Tier II stations. The intent of the study is to help the Commission choose the optimum sites for immediate development. It is a planning tool which identifies and analyzes multiple factors in site selection. The scope of the study did not include estimating relative costs; however, any 195 site with an obvious fatal flaw, including exorbitant cost, was eliminated from consideration. The purpose of the study is to identify the locations which will best attract and serve rail ridership and alleviate vehicle congestion. In the course of the study, it became apparent that existing stations serving the line to Orange County, particularly the La Sierra Station, are rapidly approaching their intended capacity. Even with construction of additional stations, available parking at La Sierra will be exhausted in the very near future. Regardless of sites chosen for new development, staff would recommend that the Commission seek additional land at La Sierra for expanded parking. Staff agrees with the consultant that both the proposed Van Buren Boulevard site in Riverside and a downtown Corona station near Main Street have the highest merit and would actually complement each other in serving the existing and projected markets. The presentation to the Commission will review the methodology, data, and findings which lead to this recommendation. The potential site at Highgrove would remain eligible for future consideration. Financial Considerations Preliminary engineering and design of the selected site or sites will more clearly define the anticipated costs of construction, including necessary modifications to the BNSF track and signal system, and possible acquisition of additional right-of-way. Though construction funding is no longer available from rail bonds and state transit capital grants, the State has an existing commitment to RCTC for additional rail improvements along the right-of-way of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, in the amount of $5.21 million. In addition, RCTC's rail program has accumulated federal Section 5307 formula funds directly attributable to Metrolink service in Riverside County. These federal formula monies are the remaining, ongoing source of capital funds for RCTC's rail projects. The commuter rail Short Range Transit Plan, scheduled for presentation to the Plans & Programs Committee in April, will propose the uses of rail capital funds for the next seven years, and that Plan is somewhat dependent on the Commission's decisions regarding station construction. Staff could also be directed to explore funding partnerships. Opportunities may exist for cooperative funding agreements between RCTC and the cities of Corona and Riverside, in such areas as joint development, improved access, waiver of fees, and/or maintenance. Expenditures for station upkeep, including utilities, maintenance and security, are borne by the rail program and must be included within RCTC's property management budget. At this time, staff is fairly confident that maintenance and upkeep of two new stations can be supported financially with available resources. If, however, projected costs exceed anticipated resources staff would ask that the Commission revisit and possibly revise its decision. 196 Financial Assessment Project Cost N/A Sources of Funds State (STIP commitment) Federal Section 5307 Rail portion of State Transit Assistance Funds (Match to federal) PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Approve the Tier II Station Analysis and Recommendations Report. 2) Proceed with initial development of rail stations at Van Buren Boulevard in Riverside and near Main Street in Corona, including preliminary engineering, cost analysis, design, and identification of and negotiation for necessary real property. 3) Pursue funding partnerships with the cities of Riverside and Corona, especially in the areas of improved vehicular access and waiver of fees and assessments. 4) Seek additional property adjacent to the La Sierra Station for expanded parking. 5) Secure the cooperation of Metrolink and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. 6) Initiate the appropriate funding applications and allocations from State and Federal agencies. 197 AGENDA ITEM 7N RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Karen Leland, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file 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 March averaged 4,377, a 4% decrease from the month of February. The Line has averaged an overall decrease of 5% from a year ago March 2002. March on -time performance averaged 97% inbound (+2% from February) and 81% outbound (-10% from February). Inland Empire -Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of March averaged 3,414, a 2% increase from the month of February. The line has averaged an overall increase of 13% from a year ago March 2002. March on -time performance averaged 87% inbound (-6% from February) and 90% outbound (-3% from February). Agenda Item 7N 198 91 Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of March averaged 1,624, a 1% decrease from the month of February. March on -time performance averaged 85% inbound (-6% from February) and 90% outbound (-2% from February). Rideshare 2 Rails (R2R) Program Rideshare BAILS Rideshare Incentives: As of March 31st, enrollment totaled 214 (Riverside -Downtown 75, Pedley 15, La Sierra 50, West Corona 42, North Main Corona 32), freeing up 107 spaces for new riders. A Passenger Questionnaire was submitted to 83 inactive rideshare participants to determine if they were still interested in the carpool program. Enrollees were selected based on those who had not utilized the R2R spaces for one month or more. Results of this assessment will be provided in a future agenda item. RTA Express Bus Shuttle: Ridership for the month of March averaged 20 one-way trips per day, a 1% increase from the month of February. Station Activities Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station: An additional 120 spaces were open for Metrolink passengers the week of March 24th bringing the total number of spaces to 870. The new spaces are located across the street from the station on the west side of Vine St. La Sierra Metro/ink Solar Station Dedication Ceremony: Unveiling ceremony of the 254 space parking lot expansion with solar panels provided by Riverside Public Utilities was held on Friday, April 1 1 th. The solar panels will generate enough electricity to power over 100 homes while providing an added amenity to Metrolink riders, namely shade for more than 120 parking spaces. RCTC Metro/ink Station Dai/y Activities: Daily activities are recorded by station security guards. Attached is summary data covering third quarter (January — March 2003). Attachments: 1) Metrolink Performance Summaries, March 2003 2) RCTC Metrolink Stations Daily Activity Report, January -March 2003 Agenda Item 7N 199 METROLINK PERFORM ANCE SUMMARIES March 2003 APR . (l.8 2003 D TRANOMPrassiom 11��111 METROLINK METROLINK AVERAGE . WEEKDAY . PASSENGER TRIPS 36,000 34,000 — 33,097 32,000 30,000 26,000 28,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 Mar -02 Apr -02 May -02 Jun -02 Jul -02 Sep -02 32,257 1 33,571 ss 34,294 33,759 Aug -02 33,485 34, • 34,912 OtY-02 Nov -02 Dec -02 Jan -03 Feb -03 ,—. Unadl Avg 35,170 32,032 34,988 3 k\ Mar -03 PERCENT PASSENGERS ON -TIME. vs. TRAINS ON -TIME * 100. 0% , 95.0% 90. 0% 85.0% 80.0% Mar. 02 Apr May Jun * Within 5 -Minutes Of Schedule Includes Weekend Service Jul Aug Sep. Oct [O Passenger OTP% ® Train.OTP% l Nov Dec Jan Feb Ma.03 3 METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) 0 % Arriving Within 5 -Minutes. Of Scheduled Time 1 Sep. 02 Oct 02 . Nov 02 .Dec 02 Jan 03 Feb 03 Mar 03 4 OT-13MoNew °'o of Train Delays. By . Responsibility .12 Month Period. Ending March. 2003 TRK-Conbector 1% SIG -Contractor 9% SCRRA 10% Passer 2% Inw,de. W.*ke+d Service UPRR 8% of Trai n Delays. By . Responsibility March 2003 Vandalism 4% Mechanical 11 % OP.AfFea_ Law•Enf 2% 2% lmprov:(SCRRA ) 8% \\\N BNSF 33% 5 PERFORMANCE CHARTS - BACK-UP u � unnEraouNK METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED � •r • -.. Y i., 7; C t . d'+�S`�t3C ...:� . k ' - r A.3- ¢ �•,. ,'z,� . _ Gf:L};�d61fJ,y *1 I 1• , ', . n r � ,,•.y 3d ����1� y��,:{�4 ��P� k ,•.,* ', �.�. A `itLL c ar k- �+.: �� � M �+ q, iY ' rr V.� au.-- ' p �:v .. ,::n• �}f.)�ir �yF 1! ` �' ` - . 'a n ray ,Y`.�,1 - - � � �' 1 ?.... �-�.. .. f4 u.;a: ; w• .[� �I� a .. .• � � `&`� �' - �+ rf 4 f .�Y*i�.+� p i yt� � "i ` �frfS�'LFi'i'� .lf � .��1 � .�,_,....s.. fir, A 9 4 [ii:+r�f'l lx� `•yt�f' v . i f r�d ;-r .. }. Ai ,p yy,,,,....,, +.4WVA H ���J}YMCQ�'�1 �lN/t,"�..�iawi' �[�� 445 Mar 02 3,650 5,135 10,082 518 4,615 5,931 3,033 133 33,097 0% Apr 02 3,441 4,913 10,124 507 4,524 5,848 2,791 109 32,257, 33,571 -3% 4% May 02 3,565 5,597 10,039 525 4,288 5,794 2,916 847 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 33,759 -2% Aug 02 3,506 _ 5,694 9.688 524 4,047 5,556 3,092 1,378 33,485 -1% Sep02 3,689 5.495 10,141 531 4 ,222 5.432 3,053 1,546 34,109 2% Oct 02 3,770 5,704 10,32B 541 4,380 5,465 3,140 1,584 34,912 2% Nov02 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 c. 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% .% Change Mar. 03 vs Feb. 03 5% 0% 3% 0% -4%. 2% 2% -1 % To Change Mar. 03 vs M ar 02 7% 5% 5% 7% 7 -5% -5% 13% 1121% 7% ADR Ma Table N O 8 AOP,MoNew.es Sa n. Bernardin o. Line. Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Avg Daily Riders 3000 2500 2000 1500- 1000- 504 - Jan Feb Mar -03 Note : Sept Includes LA . County. Fett 1$dertl San. Bernardino . Line. Sunday. . Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Avg Daily Riders 3500 3000- 2500C- 2000 i500 1000 500 0 Mar -02 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep a7 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar -03 Note: Sunday.SeMce Began 06!25/00 9 0303WKendNew Antelope. Valley Line. Saturday. Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Mar -02 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar -03 10 0303WKesENew METROLINK SCHEDULE . ADHERENCE SUMMARY Percentage of . Trains . Arriving Within 5. Minutes . of . Scheduled. Time LATEST. 13 MONTHS v.. ' .�.^4j{�ttv Y•!"� �� s .�, ��x,. ..r, n /a nn / +l�ot� � � �t-��n:'ai% � 4"" .- ti' ; -- Y,R' 3?�i. ±: i:r5i�'1`^ _v ~ I r � ��.. '9alfrg "ii --. .E j LS:.�����` �'t'�i': ✓ ae .may V •���r V• � i� a. . �[•�iv r .lq $ • e r I��: �-�ti f� '� y� iiii i ill' �9�hYl�yj{��' . �� dz:� qy y 41' ._ .w�A :. n t"', . -?,.x. .. l�'1 ���iHV�°eEf � y+-� r k-/h •Y\ . L , ..y H31 � ! f'�t+5:Y .1 e�.,r .' :dR. ...4.01,-..ty��y,. f^'•^ .. - i4�� .A� .�4'r�"_'!�!J'-�.S:�r� .rf{ V �' i., std . rY`+i`'.� � � � 'a �'" ' - tr':t. ,+q+ , ��5 '."a'Y,f _���'.i '. i .' '' S. L �('+ �L , [1 ie7�s s s, p. .��. `3'r�i-+ " f �t ^ � � ._.�. pi ,4 r � TYI "Ys1r i. 9 -- ; yv �� er. cLFe� Mar 02 J 100% 99% 97% 94% 97% 97% 99% 100% 92% 94% 98% 96 % 95°% 95°% 86 % 98% 97% 96% 97 % Apr02 99% 100% 97% 93% 98% 95% 100% 99 % 94% 98 % 91% 96% 97% 94% 95 % 95% 96% 96% 96 % May 02 _ _ 99% 97% 98% 98% 97% 96 % 100% 98 % 96% 92% 89% 87% 87% 92 % 87% 83% 95% 94% 94 % Jun 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°0 100% 99% 99% 96 %I 91 % 95% 93% 90% 92 % 92 % 97% _ 98% 96% Aug 02 100% 97% 99% 96% 96% 91 % 100% 99% 97 % 95% 69 % 91% 92% 90% 91% 90 % 96% 94% 95% Set) 02 98% 99% 95% 94% 94% 91% 98% 98% 96% 98% 85 % 92% 94 % 84% 89% 92% 94 % 93% 94 % Oct 02 99% 98% 99% 99% 96% 95% 98% 95% 95 % 96% 92% 98 % 93% 93%I 92% 96 % 96 % 96 % 98 % Nov 02 98% 97% 98% 97% 94% 84% 100% 99% 97% 98 % 88% 89% 92% 95% 88 % 94% 94% 93% 94 % Dec 02 98% 97% 98% 97% 97% 91% 99% 100% 97% 97% 98% 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% 95% 93 % 94% 03 1/4 95% Feb 03 97°J 96% 95% 92% 95% 95% 100% 96% 95% 91 % 061 93% 93 % 93% 91% 92% Mar 03 97% 99% 88% 92% 94% 94% 99% 97% 97% 81 % 87% 93% 87% 90% 85% 90°% 92% 930% 92 % Peak Period Tralns Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time Mar 03 - . .................... M;Ta s'-Iiaa' Mari +MWRAP 3K46 .1wilir t8U13' fit sIFF r 4icr-tVRIvflWaftb Mifivmalit14 rit�h tpLC}. vtltdal' ," .' ':?-lgt'v1hrsi EINI-t?1! 'Tilt?Jr]bltikiatt itlitx RtdS" • Peak Perio d Trains 95% 98%. 90% 93% I 93% 93%I 100% 95% 99% 78% 85 % 949 87% 91% 88% 93% 914'0 92% 92%0 No adjustments have been made for relievable delays. Terminated trains are considered OT if they were on -lime at point of termination. Annulled trains are not Included In the on -the calculation. . Riverside route OTP represents on -time performa nce against schedules temporarily modified for the UPRR tie replacement program. O TP against regular schedul e Is 67% Inbound, and 55% outbound . 11 OT-13MONow CAUSES. OF. METROLINK DELAYS MARCH 2003 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CAUSE. VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INiJOC. RIFIL TOTAL % of TOT f Signals/Detectors 1 2 9 0 2 1 1 3 19 9% Slow Orders/MOW 2 22 0 1 12 0 1 0 38 17 % Track/Switch 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 71 3% Dispatching 1 1 2 0 10 29 19 15 77 35 % Mechanical 4 4 9 1 0 3 1 1 23 10% Freight Train 1 0 4 1 3 0 0 1 10 4% Amtrak Train 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0% M etrollnk MeetiTum 0 8 2 0 0 2 0 1 13 6% Vandalism 0 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 14 6% Passenger(s) 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 3% SCRRA Hold Policy 0. 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 1% Other 1 1 0 1 0 5 3 1 12 5% ,TOTAL 10 49 40 4 27 42 29 22 223 100%l Saturday SNB 0 0 5 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 Saturday AVL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 Sunda SNB 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 0303CAUS FREQUENCY OF TRAIN. DELAYS BY DURATION MARCH. 2003 MINUTES. LA TE: VEN AVL SNB BUR . RIV OC IE/OC. RIV/FUL TOTAL % of TOT NO DELAY 367 . 389 434 218 193 300 203 143 2247 78.6% 1. MIN. -.5 MIN 43 65 155 9 19 57 20 22 390 13.6% 6MIN -10 MIN 4 27 16 3 8 18 14 9 99 3.5 % 11. MIN -20MIN 4 16 12 1 8 18 6 5 70 2.4 % 21 MIN - 30 MIN 2 2 3 0 3 2 4 1 17 0.6% GREATER THAN. 30. MIN 0 4 9 0 8 4 5 7 37 1.3% ANNULLED 0 1 1 0 13 0 0 2 17 0.6% TOTAL TRAINS. OPTD 420 503 629 231 239 399 252 187 2860 100% TRAINS. DELAYED >0. min 53 114 195 13 46 99 49 44 613 21.4% TRAINS DELAYED > 5 min 10 49 40 4 27 42 29 22 223 7.8 % 13 0303FREQ 1 - Standard Procedures 1A - RCTC Staff on Site 1B - Customer Assistance 1C - Ambassador on Site 2 - Criminal Incidents 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandalism 2 0 1 2D - Criminal Behavior 0 0 0 2E - Grafitti 1 0 0 Daily Activity Report Metrolink Stations Generated from 1/01/2003 to 3/31/2003 Riverside Pedley La Sierra W. Corona N. Corona Total 3 2 3 3 9 20 78 77 76 76 77 384 89 10 12 13 33 157 Total 170 89 91 92 119 561 3 - Crisis Situations 3A - Medical / Fire Emergencies 4 - Maintenance/Repairs 4A - Lights 4 1 1 0 0 6 4B - TVM / Validator Machine 26 13 8 9 15 71 4B - TVM / Validator Machine 0 1 0 0 0 1 4C - Elevator 3 0 1 1 0 5 4D - Station Cleaning 0 1 0 0 0 1 4D - Station Cleaning 32 21 17 20 6 96 4E - Landscaping 25 23 9 25 1 83 4F - Dumpster/Porta Potti 5 17 12 12 2 48 4F - Dumpster/Porta Potti 0 0 0 1 0 1 4G - Pepsi Vending 3 0 0 2 0 5 4H - Other 1 2 1 1 0 5 Total 99 79 49 71 24 322 0 0 1 4 O 1 O 1 Total 3 0 1 1 1 6 3 0 0 0 0 3 Total 3 0 0 3 5 - Miscellaneous 5A - Miscellaneous Activity 6 - Parked Overnight • 6A - Parked Overnight 20 3 10 6 6 45 29 25 63 9 23 149 Total 29 25 63 9 23 149 7 - Overflow * 7A - Veh. In Overflow 0 0 52 0 0 52 Total 20 3 10 6 6 45 Total 0 0 52 0 0 52 9 - Empty Spaces • 9A - Empty Spaces 46 0 0 285 0 331 91 - R2R Vehicles Total 46 0 0 285 0 331 • 91A - R2R Vehicles 8 1 7 2 4 22 Total 8 1 7 2 4 22 * Value is averaged over the data entry days 213 Monday, April 21, 2003 �43v_3'n��i4�n .:?'.°"7....�➢a.-.�r�v�-:..._:... ... i�.l�n'Pn�� 92 - Vehicles Parked • 92A - Vehicles Parked Daily Activity Report Metrolink Stations Generated from 1/01/2003 to 3/31/2003 Riverside Pedley La Sierra W. Corona N. Corona Total 0 0 0 0 373 373 Total 0 0 0 0 373 373 * Value is averaged over the data entry days 214 Monday, April2l, 2003 1/29/2003 10:05am 66394 Corona PD escort man, no arrest. North Main Corona (0) 01.01 RCO4I V Tharrp,rtrrrlu n ( -pou nrlis#ran Riverside - Downt own Activity Detail Report Metrolink Stations Date Time Acti vity Log # Des criptio n Activity Ty e Activity S ub e # Vehicles 1/20/2003 10:35am 66143 3 vehicles vandalized 2 - Criminal Incidents 2A - Burglary / Theft / V andali 0 3/11/2003 1:46pm 67428 Car broken into, note left to owner 2 - Criminal Incidents 2A - Burglary/Theft / Vandal/ 0 3/11/2003 1:10pm 67426 Graffiti on bench's no. pltfm-crew cleaned up 2 - Criminal Incidents 2E - Grafitti 0 La Sierra Date Time Activity Log # Descriptio n Activity Type Activity Subtype # Vehicles 1/20/2003 4:40pm 66149 Vehicle break -In 2 - Criminal Incid ents 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandal' 0 West Corona Da te Time Activity Log # Description Activity Type Activi Sub pe # Vehicles 2 - Criminal Incidents 2D - Criminal Beha vi or 0 Da te Time Activity Log # Desc ription Activity Type Activity Subtype # Vehicles 3/3/2003 6:50pm 67352 2 cars broken into -stole stereo&CD player 2 - Criminal Incidents 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandal/ 0 waia• rr:. ... ... ...: r, renv�x+or`-=�° - - x7a�.��<s•;- .--���-rs Mo nday, April 21, 2003 Page 1 of 1 RrrmR. ahCra,xei. TYraSprrllifi rr (iorr nui »Jun Riverside - Downtown Activity Detail Report Metr olink Stations Date Time Activity Log # Description 1/24/2003 2:10pm 1/24/2003 5:32pm 3/10/2003 7:27pm s _ - ,erg —rte •. Activity Type Activity S ubtype # Vehicles 66262 Man suffering allergic reaction 3 - Crisis Situations 3A - Medical/ Fire Emergencl 0 66263 Woman fell off train step, minor Injury 3 - Crisis Situations 3A - Medical / Fire Emergenci 0 67396 Man in ambulanc e complained of chest pains 3 - Crisis Situations 3A - Medical / Fire Emergencl 0 711MMi-' K�TG�awnmi7�• ' linen: ...TR3 5R�:;':x. `. :?,. _ .•i:�i:r f.' _^�.•.:.' TEAS`1.. .. s tNCT111�ILY. 9JF!.'. ,..1.,,,MMIVI.54p9851XIMPI=NERISrarC:`.4�a¢F+Xi:_:": .: Monday, April 21, 2003 Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM 70 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director State and Federal Legislative Update SUBJECT: BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. State Update The Budget and Implementation Committee unanimously approved and recommends the following positions on these state bills: SCA 7 (Murray) - Requires that any loan of transportation funds be paid back with interest when the loan exceeds one year in duration. Budget and Implementation Committee recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. SB 957 (McClintock) - This bill would include a transportation gridlock emergency, as defined, within the definition of "state of emergency." It would also require Caltrans to prepare a report of vehicle delay on every state highway and provide the report to the Legislature and the Governor. Budget and Implementation Committee recommends: WATCH. The staff analysis is attached. AB 496 (Correa) - Establishes a new Santa Ana River Conservancy to acquire and direct the management of public lands and create the Santa Ana River Conservancy Fund. Budget and Implementation Committee recommends: WATCH. The staff analysis is attached. Agenda Item 70 217 Another bill (SB 981) by Inland legislators Nell Soto and Gloria Romero was mentioned during the April C meeting by AQMD Director Barry r-�Nl Commission Executive UIICIaUr 6drry Wallerstein. The bill would impose a fee on each barrel of gasoline or diesel that is refined in California and distributes the revenue to a variety of air pollution control districts and other emission reduction programs. It is staff understands that this bill will be amended again in the near future. Given the expressed interest of some Commissioners during the April meeting, a detailed analysis will be forthcoming once the bill takes shape in a more final form. The Inland Empire Transportation Agencies' 2003-2004 Legislative Program as approved by both RCTC and SANBAG, included two sponsored bills primarily advanced by SANBAG. SB 294, a bill that addresses eminent domain damage awards that may reduce the cost of acquiring property for highway projects was to be heard before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 8, but was pulled by the author. AB 427, a bill cosponsored by SANBAG and the Self -Help Counties Coalition that deletes the 20 year term limit passed out of the Assembly Local Government Committee with a bi-partisan vote on March 26, 2003. AB 427 has been set for hearing in Assembly Transportation Committee on May 5, 2003. The Commission previously endorsed a SUPPORT position on ACA 7 (Dutra), a proposed constitutional amendment that would reduce the voter approval threshold for local option transportation sales taxes from the currently required 2/3' majority to 55% majority. ACA 7 was heard in Assembly Transportation Committee on April 21, 2003 where it passed out of committee on a party -line vote of 13-5. The bill is double -referred to the Assembly Elections, Redistricting, and Constitutional Amendments Committee (ER&CA) but has not yet been set for hearing. Should ACA 7 pass out of ER&CA the bill would proceed to the Assembly Floor where a 2/3' vote is required. All of these bills are incorporated into the legislative bill matrix that is included with this staff report. Federal Update The reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century continues to evolve slowly in light of international events. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leadership has rolled out the committee's proposal for funding a $375 billion reauthorization of TEA -21, a 72% increase over the current act. The proposal includes a variety of revenue enhancements to fund this unprecedented growth of investment in a national transportation infrastructure program including: Agenda Item 70 218 • gas tax increase of 12 cents per gallon over six years; • national container fee of $200 per container; • depositing interest revenue generated by highway trust fund assets back to the highway trust fund; • better addressing of fuel tax evasion schemes; • redirecting 2.5 cents of the tax on ethanol that currently goes to the general fund to the highway trust fund and eliminating the 5.2 cent subsidy; and, • drawing down on the existing highway trust fund balance. The Administration has not yet officially released their proposal for reauthorization, however, some elements of the proposal have been "leaked." The Administration's proposal dubbed the "Safe and Flexible Transportation Efficiency Act of 2003" (SAFTEA) does not identify any new revenue sources and generally follows the blue print of TEA 21. There is clearly a chasm between these two proposals and the Senate Committees responsible for reauthorization have yet to release a reauthorization proposal leading transportation industry experts to believe that it is unlikely that a new transportation authorization will be realized prior to the end of TEA 21. Attachments: 1) Legislative Analysis — SCA 7 (Murray) 2) Legislative Analysis — SB 957 (McClintock) 3) Legislative Analysis — AB 496 — (Correa) 4) Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 70 219 BILL: SUBJECT: STATUS: SCA 7 (Murray, D -Culver City) Introduced February 19, 2003 Requires that any loan of transportation funds be paid back with interest if not paid back within a specified time period. Senate Transportation Committee — Do Pass — 12-0 Hearing pending before Senate Constitutional Amendments SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 19, 2003: This proposed constitutional amendment would require that loans from the State Highway Account or the Public Transportation Account to the General Fund or any other state accounts for extended time periods shall be repaid with interest. BACKGROUND: In 1998, the state's voters approved Proposition 2 (ACA 30, Murray) which placed additional conditions and safeguards on the loan of constitutionally - protected motor vehicle revenues and related transit and local transportation funds. As amended by Proposition 2, Article 19 of the Constitution now requires that state gasoline tax and motor vehicle revenues loaned to the General Fund are to (a) be repaid within the same fiscal year, or (b) be repaid within three fiscal years if the Governor either (1) has proclaimed a fiscal emergency, or (2) General Fund revenues decline from one year to the next, as specified. Article 19 also authorizes loans of funds in the Public Transportation Account to the General Fund under the same terms and conditions as those for loans of gas tax and vehicle fee revenues. Proposition 2 authorized the Legislature to statutorily approve loans of Article 19 funds to local transportation agencies and cities and counties, provided that a loan be repaid within four years and that it be repaid with interest . Despite the tightening of the restrictions on loans of fuel tax, motor vehicle registration and Public Transportation Account revenues, the California Constitution does not require that loans to the General Fund, or any other fund, be repaid with interest. In addition, the loan payback requirements and timelines are applicable only to loans to the General Fund. This constitutional amendment, if approved by the state's voters, would place additional conditions and safeguards on the loan of Article 19 - protected transportation tax and fee revenues and funds in the Public Agenda Item 70 220 Transportation Account to the General Fund or other state accounts. S ecific 01•, th I.J. p f�11 y, U 111wa$ur a VV VUIU. 1. Require that any loan of gas tax/vehicle fee revenues to the General Fund for more than one year shall be repaid with interest; 2. Require that loans from the PTA to the General Fund for more than one year he repaid with interest; 3. Extend the terms of the Highway -Account -to -General -Fund loan provisions to all other state funds or accounts, thereby requiring that the payback periods and interest requirements would be applicable to Article 19 transportation loans to any state fund or account. 4. Specify that the required interest be paid on loans of the transportation funds at the rate paid on money in the Pooled Money Investment Account. The intent of the SCA 7 is to extend the constitutional loan conditions on Article 19 funds to any state account in order to avoid the "laundering" of such loan funds through new accounts for condition -free loans. The intent also is to capture interest on multi -year loans of transportation funds so that transportation funds do not subsidize other state accounts and do not suffer lost interest income which would otherwise have been credited to the transportation accounts. Budget and Implementation Committee and Staff Recommends: SUPPORT Agenda Item 70 221 BILL: SB 957 (McClintock, R -Thousand Oaks) Introduced February 19, 2003 SUBJECT: This bill would include a transportation gridlock emergency, as defined, within the definition of "state of emergency." STATUS: Failed Senate Transportation Committee on April 29, 2003, reconsideration granted. SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 21, 2003: This bill would define and authorize the Governor to declare a "transportation gridlock emergency" for the purpose of constructing new highways. The bill would require the Department of Transportation to determine the average hours of vehicle delay on all state highways and issue a report annually for purpose of declaring transportation gridlock emergencies. BACKGROUND: The California Emergency Services Act and related provisions of law authorize the Governor to declare a state of emergency proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of people and property within the state caused by conditions such as fire, flood, storm, earthquake, epidemic, riot, drought, energy shortage, plant or animal infestation, etc. The law specifies and defines three conditions or degrees of emergency: (a) state of war emergency, (b) state of emergency, and (c) local emergency. A "state of emergency" means disaster or peril within the state which condition, by reason of its magnitude, is likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of any single city or county. Existing law establishes broad emergency power for the Governor when a state of emergency is declared and gives the Governor complete authority over all agencies of the state government and the right to exercise all police power vested in the state. The law allows the Governor to make, amend or suspend any order or regulatory statute, statute prescribing the procedure for conduct of state business, any state regulation, where the Governor determines that complying with the statute or regulation will hinder mitigating the effects of the emergency. This bill would broaden the definition of a state of emergency with regard to conditions within the state, by adding a transportation gridlock emergency. Agenda Item 70 222 Specifically, the bill would: 1. Define a "transportation gridlock emergency" as conditions that require extraordinary state action including, but not limited to, construction of new highway lanes or highways in order to relieve traffic congestion that presents a severe threat to the safely and economic well being of any region in the state. 2. Permit the Governor to declare a transportation gridlock emergency for the purpose of relieving traffic congestion on any highway or segment of highway for which the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has determined that the average daily vehicle hours of delay, excluding weekends, exceeds 3,000 vehicle hours. 3. Require Ca!trans to determine the average daily vehicle hours of delay, excluding weekends, for each highway in the state, rank the highways based on this determination, and submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature on the rankings each year. IMPACT ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY: The provision requiring an annual census and ranking for highway delay for every state highway has merit and could be useful in demonstrating levels of congestion in Riverside County. However, since other versions of this bill have been introduced and in past years and have failed passage, staff and the Budget and Implementation Committee recommends a wait -and -see approach to ascertain the status of this measure before taking a formal position. Budget and Implementation Committee and Staff Recommends: WATCH Agenda Item 70 223 BILL: SUBJECT: STATUS: AB 496 (Correa, D -Santa Ana) Introduced February 14, 2003 Establishes the Santa Ana River Conservancy to Acquire and Direct Public Lands in the Santa Ana River Watershed Area 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 70 224 The Santa Ana River watershed area covers about 2,800 square miles in parts of Oran P San Rernardinn and Riverside counties. watershed - •gar �, A vV aIGI JIIGU 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 emptics 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 70 225 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 will be monitoring the progress of the bill. If needed amendments are not adopted, staff will return to the Commission in the next few months for a possible change in position. Budget and Implementation Committee and Staff Recommends: WATCH Agenda Item 70 226 RIVE RSI DE C OU NT Y T RANSPO RTATION COMMISSION LE GISLATIVE INFORMATI ON 2003 Subject ;.: Rail 'Bill r' urnber Author .. S.104 (Hollings -SC) Description Latest Major Action A 1/07/03: Referred to following the Senate Committee: Commerce, Scie nce & Tra nsportation 'Positi on, No Position Date of tBoard p prova ;1, The "National Defense Rail Act" wo uld establish a national rail passe nger tr ansportatio n system, reauthorize Amtrak, improve security a nd service on Amtrak, and for other purposes a nd appropriate $515M for 2004. Section 201 requires the Secretary of Transportation shall establish the natio nal high-speed gro und transport ati on poli cy required by sectio n 309(e)(1) of this title no later than December 31, 2003. Sectio n 202 req uires the Secretary of Tra nsportation shall provide planni ng assistance to States or group of States a nd other public age ncies promoti ng the de velopme nt of high-speed rail corridors designated by the Secretary under section 104(d) of title 23.(last updated 2/03/03). Tribal Traces ortation Proktm Improvemen t A ct of 2003 S. 725 (Bingaman-) To amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Cent ury to pro vid e from the Highway Trust Fund additional fu nding for I ndian reservatio n roads, a nd for other purposes. 3/27/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice a nd referred to the Committee on Indian Aff airs . No Position Amber Alert S.121 (Hutchison -TX ) The "Natio na l AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003" will enhance the operation of the AMBER Alert commun ications network in order to facilitate the reco very of abducted children, to prov ide for en hanced notification on highways of alerts a nd information on such children, an d fo r o ther pu rposes. There are 3 versio ns of this billing that would each approp. $20M during 2004 for freeway communication systems and plans and coordi nate services between DOT, D OJustice, FBI. (last updated 2/03/03) 4/2/03: House preparation for floor. Status: motion to discharge committee filed . No Position Rail H.R. 413 (Green -TX) The Neighborhoo d R ail A ccountability Act requires the Surfa ce Transportation Board to considere certain local issues when certifying an additional railroad li ne, or the construction of an extension to any railroad. 1/29/03: Referred to S ubmc ommittee on Railro ads. No position Sprawl H .R. 748 (Udall -CO) To assist Federal agencies impro ve environmental rev iews to more adequately address , u rban sprawl, the Council on Environmental Quality will study 5 cities and submit its finding to the House of Represen tatives an d the Committee on En vironment and Public Works of the Sen ate. 2/24/2003: House committee/subcommitte e actio ns. Stat us: Executive Comment Requested from CEQ . No Position V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2003\05 May\Budget & Impl\Legis Matrix Page 1 of 8 4/23/2003 RIVERSIDE COUNT Y TRANSPORTATIO N COMMISSI ON LE GISLATI VE I NFORM ATI ON 2003 Subject R oadway Safety/Congestion Mitigation N tb Noise Hybrid Vehicles Biodiesel H. R. 288 (Inslee-WA) H. R.475 (Lowey -NY) H.R.243 (Issa-CA ) H,R.3181H (Shin ku s-IL) The "Roadway Safety and Congestion Mitigation Improveme nts Act" will amend title 23, United States Code, allowi ng lo ng range planning and establish funding for rail projects, establish programs to enhance roadw ay safety and impro ve transportation efficie ncy in the U nited States, and for other purposes.$3B for 2004-08, eligible projects include: older drivers r oadway safety enha ncments, safety management systems, run - off -road mitigati on, speed mgt, pedestrian and bicycle safety, intersection safety, emergency mgt, seatbeltialcohol, highway rail crossi ng(last updated 1/31/03) The " Quiet Communities Act of 2003" will reestablish the Office of Nois e Abatement and Control in the Environmental Protection Age ncy, and for other p urp oses. Appropria tes $21B during 2004-08, will reestablish EP A Office of Noise Abateme nt and Control to pro vide fun ds, assista nce to states for noise programs, "too carry out a national no ise environ mental assessment program to identify trends in noise e xposure a nd respon se, ambien t levels, and compli ance data and to determine the effectiveness of noise abatement actions, including actions for areas around major transportation facilities (such as highways, railroad facilities, and airports" (last upd ated 2/03/03) The "Hybrid Vehicle Incen tive Act" will amend title 23, United States Code, relating to the use of high occupan cy vehicle lanes by hybrid vehicles. (last updated 1/31/03) The "Biofuels Air Qu ality A ct" will amend title 23, Un ited States Code, to require consideration un der the co ngestion mitigation an d air qu ality improveme nt program of the extent to which a proposed project or program reduces su lfur or atmospheric carbon emission s, to make renewable fuel pro jects eligible under that program, and for other purposes. (last updated 1/31/03) Di ne of Latest Major Action . Position Board ¢ Apprava:; 1/08/03: Refd to Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure: 1/09/03 Referred to the Ho use Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. 2/14/03: Referrred to Subcommittee on E nviro nment and hazardo us waste . 1/09/03 Refd to Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 1/09/03 Refd to S ubcommittee on Highways and Tr ansit No Position No Positio n No Position No Position V:\L S\PREPRINT\2003\05 May\Budget & Impl\Legis M atrix Pag 8 4/: )3 RIVE RSIDE COU NTY T RANSPO RTATION C OMMISSIO N LEGISLATIVE INFORMATI ON 2003 Subject Bill Number Author Deeeription Latest Major Action f Position Date of Board Approval Rail Infrastructu re H. R. 1617 IH (Lipinski-) This bill would establish a National Rail Infrastructure Program to pr ovide grants for projects that address railroad infrastructure and systems deficie ncies in order to pro vide substantial public benefits such as mitigating highway traffic co ngestio n, reducing tra nsportation emissio ns, reducing e nergy used in tra nsportati on , or impro ving the overall efficiency of railroad operations. 4/3/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Tra nsportatio n a nd Infrastructure, and in additio n to the Committee on Ways and Means No Positi on Disability, Access N Nco S. B. 69 (Oiler) Existing law pro vides that individuals with disabilities are entitled to full a nd equal access to accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges of vario us modes of tran sportation, and as specified . The bill would set forth the duty of the owner or man ager, or o ther responsible party, to notify the complaints from disabled individuals of planned access improveme nts, as defined, and to make those improveme nts within a specified period. (last updated 2/03/03) 1/27/03: Referred to Committee on J ud No Positio n In tercity Rail S.B.91 (Florez) This bill, effective Janu ary 1, 2004, would transfer all of the duties and responsibilities ofn the departmen t relative to intercity rail passe nger service to the High -Speed Rail Authority. The bill would also require the authority to cond uct a review of all programmed intercity rail projects that have not received an allocatio n of state funds as of that date and to only proceed with the implement ati on of projects that are determined by the authorityto be complementary to the planned high-speed rail service . (last updated 1/31/03) 4/7/03: Set for 4/29/03 hearing No Position Transportation Finance (Committee on SBX 17 Budget and Fiscal Review) This bill would additionally authorize a loan of TCRF funds to the General Fu nd through legislation other than the annual Budget Act.The bill would ca ncel any obligation for repayment of $100,000,000 loaned from the TCRF to the General Fu nd in the Budget Act of 2002.(last updated 1/31/03) 2/03/03: Referred to B udget Committee No Position Sales Tax SCA2 (To rlakson ) This measure would au thorize a city, a county, a city and county, or a regi onal transportation agency, as defin ed, with the approval of a majority of its voters voting on the proposition , to impose a special tax for the priv ilege of selling tangible personal pro perty at reta il that it is o the rwise authorized to impose, if the tax is imposed ex clusively to fun d transportation projects and serv ices and smart gro wth planning. (last updated 1/31/03) 3/13/03: Read 2nd time, to 3rd re ading Support if Amended V:\USERS\PREPRINl12003\05 May\Budget & Impl\Legis Matrix Page 3 of 8 4/23/2003 RIV ERSIDE COUNTY T RANSP ORTA TI ON C OMMISSION LEGISLATIVE INFORMATI ON 2003 Subject Bill Nu mber Author Description Latest Major Action �rd *ton Date l Board d Appro val Californ ia Freight Advisory Commission S.B. 924 (Karnette) This bill would create the California Freight Advisory Commission within the department in order to collect informatio n abo ut important freight -related transportation needs. The commission would co nsist of 13 members and wo uld advise the departme nt, the California Transportatio n Commissio n, and transportation planning agencies on those needs a nd w ould recommend projects to address those needs. riiii 4/7/03: Set for 4/29/03 hearing No Positi on Emtint Domain Con densation S. B. 294 (Soto) Un der existing law, if property acquired pursuant to eminent dom ai n is part of a larger parcel, compensation is award ed f or property taken pl us is awarded for injury, if any, to the remainder. This bill would pro vide compe nsatio n only on the difference of the val ue of the parcel taken less the value of the remai nder taken . 4/2/03: Set for heari ng No Positi on Motorist Aid Program S.B. 795 (Karnette) This bill wou ld abolish the Emergency Roadside Assistance Advisory Committee which curren tly recommen ds training standards for designated providers of emergency roadside services. ' 4/7/03: Set for 4/29/03 hearing No Positio n Children's Health and Petroleum Pollution Remediation Act of 2003 S.B. 981 (Soto) Ex isting law designates the State Air Resources Board as the state age ncy with the primary respon sibility for the control of vehicular air pollution, and air pollutio n control districts an d air qu ality management districts with the primary resp onsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources . This bill would enact the Children's H ealth and Petroleum Pollution Remediation Act of 2003, to require operators of every q p ery refi nery to pay the equivalent of a $0.30 fee for each barrel of crude oil receiv ed at a refinery within the state that is used for the production of gasoline and diesel fu el. 4/21/03 hearing cancelled at request of auth or No Position V:\U ;\PREPRINT12003\05 May\Budget & Impl\Legis Matrix Page 3 4/2 3 RIVE RSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LE GISLATI VE INF ORMATI ON 2003 Subject • N• Bill Number Author Description • Latest Major Action Position Date of Bo ard Approval V ehicle License Fee Offset /DUI N A. B.19 (Leslie) E xisting law imp oses various penalties on pers ons convicted of dri vi ng while under the influe nce. Existi ng law provides for a reduction in the full am ount of the vehicle license fee by an offset,as specified.This bill would prohibit persons co nvicted of a dri ving while under the i nfluence offense from receiving for 5 years from the date of the con victio n the red uctio n in the full amount of the vehicle lice nse fee by the offset, provided that the perso n committed the offe nse on or after Ja nuary 1, 2004.This bill would create the D.U.I. subaccount in the Motor Vehicle License Fee Account in the Transportation Tax Fund, and would require the in creased fees that otherwise would have been offset to be deposited int o that subaccount. The bill wo uld continuously appropriate the fu nds in that s ubaccou nt to the Califo rnia Departme nt of the Highw ay Patrol . 2/25/03: In committee No P osition Vehicle Hybrid/HOV lanes A. B. 114 (Nakano) "Existin g law authorizes the Department of Transportati on and local authorities, with respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, to authorize or permit e xclusi ve or preferen tial use of highway lanes for high -occupancy vehicles. This bill would authoriz e a hybrid vehicle, as defined, to be operated upon an e xclusive or preferential use lane, regardless of the number of occupants in the vehicle, unless specifically prohibited by a traffic con trol device. The bill also addressed other transit vehicles (ie ma in ten ace, supervisors) that occupy these lanes d uri ng emergencies (ie b us acciden t,etc). " The prov ision s of this section regarding mass transit vehicles sh all o nly apply if the Director of Transportation determines that the applicatio n will not subject the state to a reduction in the a mount of federal aid for highways ." 1/23/03: Referred to Committee on Transportation No Positi on Transportation Needs Assessment A.B. 139 (Corbett) " Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation has full possession a nd con trol of all state highways. Ex istin g law establishes a planning and programmi ng process involv ing the department, regional transportation planning agencies, and the California Transportation Commission relativ e to the selection of transportatio n improv ement proje cts. This bill would declare the intent of the Le gislature that a statewide tran sportation needs assessment be conducted ev ery 5 years. " 1/21/03: May be heard in Committee No Positio n V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2003\05 May\Budget & Impl\Legis Matrix Page 5 of 8 4/23/2003 RIVERSIDE C OUNTY T RANSPO RTATION COMMISSION LEGISLATIVE I NFORMATION 2003 Subject Bill Number Author , riptiun liG9C • • Latest Mni0r Actio n 4/2/03: Amended to allow data to be shared with transportatio n age ncies. In Committee, pl aced in Appropri ati ons suspense file I'vsition 1 = ;� No Position Date of B oard Approval Tolls Bridges A.B.198 (Nation) Existi ng l aw a uthorizes the Department of Tra nsportati on to fix the rate of tolls on any toll bridge or toll road and to prescribe any rule and regulation with respect to any toll bridge or toll road withi n the state. This bill would prohibit the departme nt or any specified transportatio n agency from selling or shari ng the actual drivi ng patterns of a motorist who uses an electronic toll payment device to dri ve through a toll bridge, toll lane, or toll highway. N Vehp�e License Fee ABX1 4 (Wesson) ' The Vehicle Lice nse Fee (VLF) Law establishes an annual license fee f or any vehicle subject to registration in this state in the am ou nt of 2% of the market val ue of that vehicl e and offsets this am ount by 67.5% for VLF's and requires the Controller to transfer General Fun d moneys to reimburse local governments for losses res ulting from the vehicle licen se fee offset . If there are insufficie nt moneys in the Ge neral Fu nd for the Con trolle r to fu lly reimburse local governments for losses resulting from the vehicle license fee offset, that the offset amount be red uced in proporti on to the shortfall in fun ding to reimburse local governme nts for those l osses. E xisting law does not designate the person or agency responsible for making the determinatio n of whether there are sufficient mon eys in the General Fund to make these reimbursements. This bill would provide that the D irector of Finan ce is required to make the same determination of whether there are insufficient moneys in the General Fund for the Controller to fully reimburse local gov ernments for losses resulting from the vehicle license fee offsets. This bill would clarify that the term "G eneral Fund," as used with refere nce to the vehicle license fee offset, has the same mean in g as set forth in a specified stat ute, and would specify that the term "Gen eral Fund" does not include any m oneys in that fund that the state is obligated to repay to the source from which those moneys were recei ved, or any mo neys in tha t fund that are derived from loans or other forms of indebtedness. 2/03/03: In Assembly. To Enr ollme nt No Position Sales Tax ACA 7 (Dutra) This measure wo uld authorize a cou nty, a city and coun ty, and a regional tr ansportatio n agen cy to impose an additional sales and use tax for a period of 20 to 30 years, as specified, at a rate of 0. 5% exclusively for transportation purposes within the jurisdiction of the cou nty, city an d county, or region al transportatio n agency if the a dditional tax is approv ed by 55% of the v oters of the jurisdiction votin g on the propo sition to impose the tax. (last u pdated 1/31/03) 4/7/03: In committee S upp ort V:\L 3\PREPRINT\2003\05 May\Budget & Impl\Legis Matrix Pagt 8 4/; 13 RIVE RSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LE GISLATIVE INFORM ATION 2003 Subject Infrastructure Fund Bill Number A uthor ACA 11 (Levine) Description Establish the California Twenty -First Ce ntury I nfrastructure I nvestment F und to assure co ntin ual funding and i ncrease the amou nt of General F und re venue committed to pay-as-you-go capital outlay projects . To be all ocated by the Legislature, 50% for state, 50% for local (excluding sch ool a nd community college districts). Begins in 2006-07 fiscal year, transfers 1% of Ge neral Fund reve nue and increases by 0 .3 percent annually until reaches 3% of General Fund re venues in 2013-14 . Co ntains provisio ns to slow and accelerate the annual amount to be transferred depending on the co ndition of the General Fu nd . Latest Major Action -. on March 2004 Statewide ballot Position , Dateni. ., ; Board Approval;, Support pp Local Sales Tax A .B. 427 (Lo ngville) This bill wo uld delete the 20 -year limit on the d uration of a local tra nsportati on sales tax under the general provisions described above a nd would instead pro vide that the tax shall remai n in effect for the period of time specified in the ta x ordinance that is adopted by the authority and appro ved by the voters. 4/3/03: Fr om Committee, re -referred to Transportation Committee No Positi on N W Con gestion Management A.B. 420 (Longeville) Existin g law requires that a congestion management program be developed, adopted, and updated biennially for each county that includes an urbanized area. This bill would inclu de county welfare -to -work tra nsp ortation programs among the alternative transportation metho ds included within the congesti on management program. 2/24/02: Referred to Transportation Committee No Position Public Contracts A. B. 692 (Dutra) Ex isting law sets forth requ irements for the solicitation and evaluation of bids and the awarding of contracts by public entities for the erection, construction, alteration, rep air, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement. Existin g law also au thorizes specified state agencies, cities, and counties to implement altemative procedures for the awarding of contracts on a design -build basis . This bill would authorize, until Janu ary 1, 2010, certain tran sportation a uthorities to use a design- bu ild process fo r biddin g on tran sportation projects, including a requirement that certai n information be verified un der oath. Becau se a verification under oath is made under pen alty of perjury, the bill wou ld create a newcrime an d thereby impose a state -ma ndated local program. The bill would require these transportation authorities to rep ort to the Legislature regarding implementation of the design -bu ild process. 4/08/03: From committee: Do pass, and re -refer to Committee No Position Transportation Plan A. B. 775 (Parra) Under existin g law, the Le gislature has made findings of the need for continui ng a nd improving transportation plan ning at the state, region al, and local lev el. This bill would add the unique tran sportation n eeds of rural areas to the con cern s in transportation planning that the Legislature fin ds that n eed to be addre ssed. 3/03/03: Referred to Tra nsp ortatio n Committee No Position V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2003\05 May\Budget & Impl\Legis Matrix Page 7 of 8 4/23/2003 RIVERSIDE CO UNTY T RANSPORTATION C OMMISSI ON LEGISLATIVE INFORM ATIO N 2003 Subject Bill N umber Author N w Tran sportation Financing A. B. 875 (Wyland) Descriptio n Existing law allocates specified amo unts of the revenues in the Highway Users Tax Acco unt to cities a nd c ountiesfor local street a nd road purposes, a nd tra nsfers the remaining revenues to the State Highway Account . Existing law requires revenues in the State Highway Account to be allocated for various pu rposes, inclu din g state highway mainte nance and operatio ns, state highway rehabilitation and other needs related through the state highway operation and protection plan, and other transpo rtation capital projects programmed by the California Transpo rtation Commission pursuant to the state transportation improvement program pro cess. This bill, notwithstanding any other provision of law, would instead require all rev enues a ttributable to sales an d u se taxes on motor vehicle fuel available for allocation for tran sportation capital improvement purposes be apportioned proportionally to each county in which the revenu es were gen erated and to be used solely for freeway construction purposes, effective July 1, 2008. 3/20/03: Referred to Transportati on Committee No Position Date of Board Approval '. V:\L .S\PREPRINT12003\05 May\Budget & Impl\Legis M atrix Pac 8 4/ 03 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: FROM: Riverside County Transportation Commission Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Oral Report - Status of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore CETAP Corridor At the meeting, an oral report will be presented to the Commission on the status of the Hemet to Corona/ Lake Elsinore CETAP Corridor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive the report providing status of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore CETAP Corridor and provide possible direction to staff. Agenda Item 8 235 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Audit Ad Hoc Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: TDA and Measure "A" Audit Results BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the TDA and Measure "A" Audit Results Report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Ernst and Young was contracted by the Commission to perform the TDA and Measure "A" Audit. They have completed the audit of most of the local governments and transit agencies that receive TDA and Measure "A" Funds. Attached is the report that is being presented to the Audit Ad Hoc Committee. The Commission was issued an unqualified opinion on the basic financial statements of the Commission and the financial statements of the Local Transportation fund for the year ended June 30, 2002. Per their report, there are no areas requiring significant judgements or accounting estimates in the 2002 financial statements. In addition, for TDA and Measure "A" Claimants there are no areas requiring significant judgments or accounting estimates in the 2002 financial statements, except for collectibility of receivables and self-insurance liabilities recorded by SunLine Transit Agency. For this agency, SunLine management has recorded as claims payable the expected loss for claims made and incurred but not report losses. Issues Identified Several compliance findings were noted in the overhead allocations. Based on Ernst and Young's recommendations, the Commission adopted a TDA/Measure "A" Overhead Allocation Policy on July 21, 2001. The policy capped the overhead at 8%. Staff will work with the cities that have compliance findings to bring them under compliance. Agenda Item 9 236 Other compliance finding included two cities that had Measure "A" Expenditures that were not on the approved list. The cities have submitted d five-year submitted revised plans to include these expenditures. The City of Riverside did not meet the minimum fare ratio requirement. Staff met with city representatives in June 2002 and were informed that the City was taking steps to meet the minimum fare ratio. Fiscal Year 2003 will be the determination year. There were three Specialized Measure "A" Recipients that did not meet the match requirements. Anza has shut down its operations on October 31, 2002, and is no longer receiving Measure "A" Funds. Care -A -Van is requesting that an overage of local match from prior year be used for this year and Transportation Specialists, Inc. has undergone a performance audit and at the Commission meeting held on March 12, 2003, the Commission decided not to provide Measure "A" Funds in the upcoming fiscal year. Value Ideas — Suggestions for Improvement In addition to these findings, Ernst and Young presented several Suggestions for Improvement. Listed below is management's response to those suggestions. Timely Employee Reviews Response: The Riverside County Transportation Commission, for Fiscal Years 2001-02 and 2002-03, has had a number of activities such as CETAP, extension of Measure "A" and relocation of offices. However, project activities should not delay review of employees' and needs to complete the evaluations when they are due. To prevent delay of the reviews, employees and their supervisors are notified 60 days in advance of an upcoming performance review. In addition, all employees were briefed on the process and have signed a commitment to follow the process to conduct and complete the performance reviews in a timely manner. Revenue Recognition Response Staff was submitting an invoice to SCAG based on the invoice sent by the consultants to the County. This was done in order that the revenue might be received from SCAG prior to the Commission receiving the invoice from the County. The expenditure was recorded upon receipt of the invoice from the County. The CETAP program is the only one under these procedures, however, staff will record the expenditures based on the consultants invoice to the County. Agenda Item 9 237 Information Technology Environment Business Continuity Planning Response: Staff is aware of the need to have in place a business continuity plan that includes guidelines for disaster recovery. Because of anticipated relocation of offices, the development of the plan was placed on hold since the location of RCTC offices affects the development of the plan. Now that RCTC has relocated, it is anticipated that the plan will be completed by November 2003. User Account Administration Response: RCTC has maintained a process wherein new employees are assigned access authorization for programs that they will need and terminated employees are removed from the system; however, there are no forms in place documenting the process. Staff has developed a form to document access authorization and termination of access authorization. Security Policy and Procedures Response: Staff plans to develop this policy in conjunction with the business continuity plan. Special Authorities Response: This will be part of the Security Policies and Procedures that will be developed. Password Controls Response: The Commission's current system has been that password change interval to be activated is at 90 day intervals on all users, so this recommendation has been in for about 5 years. We have added AFW to the Commission's accounting system and this recommendation applies to the users for AFW. Because the AFW is hosted on a terminal server, automated password changes cannot be done. In order to proceed, training is required to manually change the password at 90 -day intervals. Agenda Item 9 238 Staff will take steps so that the AFW system will be set up for a password change interval to be activated at 90 day intervals on �F\A/ Users The current minimal length of password by RCTC users is currently set up to five characters, not four as indicated in the audit report. Also, as a security measure, when a password entry is entered after three tries, the system disables the account requiring system administrator intervention. Also, the current Novell operating system that the Commission has does not provide security features to require a certain combination of password parameters. In order to follow the auditor's recommendation would require a change in operating system which would be would be costly for the Commission at this time. Article 4 Grants - Capital Project Status Reports Response In February 2002, the Commission adopted a "Funding Disbursement Policy" that included a section on "Tracking of Capital Funds". That section of the policy states: "In order to track progress on the capital program (for the current year as well as prior fiscal years), a quarterly report will be submitted to the Commission indicting progress on each project. Quarterly reports are due within 30 days after the end of each quarter " Since that time, the program has been implemented. Article 3 Grants - Final Status Reports Response Most cities are currently requesting funds upon the completion of the project. Staff has not seen instances of unspent monies and more often, this part of the project is part of a larger landscaping project. Staff will explore with the cities receiving these funds and if instances of unused funds exist, will initiate a policy recommended by the auditors. Specialized Measure "A" - Quarterly reporting process Response The Measure "A" report format was developed as a result of the Specialized Transit Study conducted by A -M -M -A in 1999. That report includes both passenger and financial data. It requires the operator to identify revenues including 1) fare box/donations; 2) contributions/fund-raising and 3) in kind. In addition, each operator submits a form with the Operating Report indicating that the match was met. It does appear that even though they are signing the form, that during FY 2001-02, at least three non -profits were not able to meet the match. Agenda Item 9 239 Measure "A" - Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans Response Staff has considered this suggestion and believes this requirement will be counterproductive as it will require the cities and county to get very specific, thus not allowing them to do the necessary repairs and maintenance as it happens. Staff recommends the continuation of current requirements. Attachment: Management Letter and Audit Results from Ernst & Young dated March 24, 2003 Agenda Item 9 240 Di ERNST & YOUNG March 24, 2003 Audit Sub -committee Riverside County Transportation Commission Dear Members of the Audit Sub -committee: ■ Emst & Young LLP Suite 1000 18111 Von Kansan Avenue Irvine, CA 92612 Ir Phone: (949) 794-2300 Fax (949) 437-0590 www.ey.com We are pleased to present the results of our audit of the fmancial statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission) and our audits of the financial statements of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants and Measure A recipients. This report to the Audit Sub -committee summarizes our audits, the scope of our engagement, the reports issued and various analyses and observations related to the Commission, TDA claimants and Measure A recipients financial position and results of operations as well as compliance with laws and regulations. This document also contains communications required by our professional standards. The audit is designed to express an opinion on the 2002 financial statements and, accordingly, includes assessments of risks that could materially affect the current year's financial statements. In addition to auditing the historical financial statements, we will continue to work with you and management to understand the Commission's and the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients' business processes and risks and to provide our business insights responsive to risks that might affect the Commission's or the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients' future results. We received the full support and assistance of the Commission's finance, program and administrative personnel. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Audit Sub -committee, the Budget and Implementation Committee, the Board of Commissioners and Commission management and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. We appreciate this opportunity to meet with you_ If you have any questions or comments, please call Sally Anderson at (949) 437-0580, Julia Cox at (949) 437-0494, or Lou Roberts at (732) 516- 4669. Very truly yours, A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global 1 241 TABLE OF CONTENTS Focus: 2002 Audit Results Summary of What We Agreed to Do 4 Communication with the Audit Sub -committee Regarding Our Responsibilities 6 Required Communications 8 Comments on the 2002 TDA Claimants and Measure A Recipients Financial Statements 13 Focus: 2002 Value Results Value Ideas — Suggestions for Improvement 16 2 J ERNST &YOUNG Qualify In Everything We Do 242 Riverside County Transportation Commission Focus: 2002 Audit Results A Year in the Life of an Ernst & Young Client J ERNST&YOi1NG Methodology Team n(E ri)4:p " EijisY un Portfolio of Procedures Value Scorecard GI eiT1 Satist{ctfon A process focused on continuous improvement and exceeding client expectations. 3 J ERNST &YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do 243 SUMMARY OF WHAT WE AGREED TO DO Riverside County Transportation Commission Our Approach As previously discussed with management, our audit plan represents an approach responsive to the assessment of risk for the Commission. Specifically, we designed our audit and other procedures to: • Express an opinion on the basic financial statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission • Express an opinion on the financial statements on the Local Transportation Fund • Report on the Commission's internal control over financial reporting and compliance with certain provisions of laws, contracts and grants Express an opinion on the Commission's compliance for major federal award programs and report on its internal control over compliance relating to federal awards Express an opinion on the statement of expenditures related to the State Transportation Improvement Program and report on the related compliance and internal control over financial reporting Issue a management letter Areas of Audit Emphasis The principal areas of audit emphasis were as follows: • Review of implementation of GASB 34 • Evaluation of the Commission's investment policies and internal control over cash and investments • Evaluation of the Commission's accounting for investments at fair value • Evaluation of the Commission's accounting for debt and debt covenant compliance • Evaluation of the Commission's accounting for project expenditures • Analytical review and inquiry into the nature of various account balances • Evaluation of litigation, claims and assessments • Evaluation of the Commission's internal control • Evaluation of TDA and Measure A expenditures • Review of compliance with the provisions of Measure A, including level of administrative salaries and benefits • Review of compliance with the provisions of TDA and Measure A 4 244 J ERNST &YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do SUMMARY OF WHAT WE AGREED TO DO (continued) TDA Claimants and Measure A Recipients Our Approach We designed our audits and other procedures to: ■ Express an opinion on the Transit and Transportation financial statements of the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients • Express an opinion on the financial statements of SunLine Transit Agency • Express an opinion on SunLine Transit Agency's compliance for major federal award programs and report on its intemal control over compliance relating to federal awards Report on the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients internal control over financial reporting and compliance with certain provisions of laws, contracts and grants • Issue a management letter Areas of Audit Emphasis The principal areas of audit emphasis were as follows: • Evaluation of TDA and Measure A expenditures • Evaluation of Measure A expenditures in relation to the approved Measure A five-year capital improvement plans • Evaluation of accounting for fixed assets, deferred revenues and capital grants equity, as applicable • Review of implementation of GASB 34, as applicable • Evaluation of accounting for long-term debt obligations, as applicable • Evaluation of accounting for self-insurance liabilities, as applicable • Analytical review and inquiry into the nature of various account balances • Analytical review of actual results and comparison to budgeted amounts • Review of compliance with the provisions of TDA and Measure A • Evaluation of internal controls • Review for compliance for major federal award programs, as applicable There were no changes to our planned approach or audit areas of emphasis. 5 J ERNST&YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do 245 COMMUNICATION WITH THE AUDIT SUB -COMMITTEE REGARDING OUR RESPONSIBILITIES Pursuant to our contract, you have engaged us to conduct an audit of the Commission's basic financial statements and the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients' financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2002 in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States and the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations. Our responsibilities for testing and reporting on intemal control and on compliance with applicable laws and regulations under those standards are described in the table below. In addition, the table contrasts our responsibilities in this engagement with other procedures that we could perform in other financial -related engagements. Service That We Could Provide Our Responsibility Regarding Internal Controls Our Respansibility Regarding Compliance with Laws and Regulations Financial Statement Audit—GAAS We consider intemal control to plan the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements. We report, orally or in writing, any reportable conditions, including material weaknesses, that we identify as a result of our audit procedures. Our report .does not provide assurance on internal control over financial reporting. We design our audit to provide reasonable assurance of detecting fraud that is material to the financial statements and illegal acts that have a direct and material effect on the financial statement amounts. Financial Statement Audit — Government Auditing Standards In addition to the GAAS responsibilities, we are required to issue a written report on our consideration of internal control and identify reportable conditions, including material weaknesses, if any. Our reports do not provide assurance on internal control over financial reporting. In addition to the GAAS responsibilities, we design our audit to provide reasonable assurance of detecting material misstatements resulting from noncompliance with provisions of contracts or grant agreements that have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. We issue a written report on the results of these procedures; however, our report does not express an opinion on compliance. OMB Circular A-133 We consider internal control over federal award program compliance. Our tests of controls include the controls over all major federal programs (aggregate expenditures of all major programs are to encompass at least 25% or 50% of total federal program expenditures for low -risk and high -risk auditees, respectively). We report on such consideration and testing and disclose reportable conditions including material weaknesses we identify. Our report does not provide assurance on the internal control over compliance. We perform procedures for the purpose of expressing an opinion whether major federal programs (aggregate expenditures of all major programs are to encompass at least 25% or 50% of total federal program expenditures for low - risk and high -risk auditees, respectively) have been administered in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 6 J ERNST &YOUNG Qualitytn Everything We Do 246 COMMUNICATION WITH AUDIT SUB -COMMITTEE REGARDING OUR RESPONSIBILITIES (continued) Service That We Can Fio ide Our Responsibility Regarding Internal Controls Our Responsibility Regarding Compliance frith Laws and Regulations Examination - Level Attestation We could be engaged to examine the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, or an assertion thereon. The engagement would be conducted in accordance with AICPA standards for attestation engagements, and would include an evaluation of the design of the entity's intemal control, and perforating tests of relevant internal control .policies and procedures to evaluate their operating effectiveness. We could be engaged to examine an entity's compliance with specified laws and regulations, or an assertion thereon. The engagement could be conducted at the financial statement level, or could evaluate whether federal programs have been administered in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The engagement would be conducted in accordance with AICPA standards for attestation engagements, and would include obtaining an understanding of the specific compliance requirements, obtaining an understanding of the design of the entity's internal control over compliance, and testing compliance with specified requirements. Agreed -upon Procedures Level Attestation We could be engaged to perform agreed -upon procedures related to the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, or an assertion thereon. The objective of the agreed -upon procedures is to present specific findings to assist users in evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, or an assertion thereon. Our procedures generally may be as limited or extensive as the users desire as long as the users (a) participate in establishing the procedures to be performed and (b) take responsibility for the sufficiency of such procedures for their purposes. We could be engaged to perform agreed -upon procedures related to an entity's compliance with specified rules and regulations, or an assertion thereon. The objective of the agreed - upon procedures is to present specific findings to assist users in evaluating the entity's compliance with specified rules and regulations, or an assertion thereon. Our procedures generally may be as limited or extensive as the users desire as long as the users (a) participate in establishing the procedures to be performed and (b) take responsibility for the sufficiency of such procedures for their purposes. 7 Ell ERNST&YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do 247 REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS Statement of Auditing Standards No. 61 and other professional standards require the auditor to communicate to the audit committee or an equivalent group to ensure that it is provided with additional information -regarding the scope and results of the audit that may assist the group in overseeing management's financial reporting and disclosure process. Below we summarize these required communications. Area Comments Auditors' Responsibilities under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) The financial statements are the responsibility of management. Our audits were designed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards in the United States and Government Auditing Standards (GAS), which provide for reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We have a responsibility to opine on whether the financial statements are fairly stated in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. As a part of our audits, we obtained an understanding of intemal control sufficient to plan our audits and to determine the nature, timing and extent of testing performed. Commission — We have issued an unqualified opinion on the basic financial statements of the Commission and the financial statements of the Local Transportation Fund for the year ended June 30, 2002. Management did not place any restrictions on the scope of our audits. TDA claimants and Measure A recipients — We have issued or anticipate issuing unqualified opinions on the financial statements of the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients for the year ended June 30, 2002, with the exception of Anza Valley Community Services, Inc. (Anza), for which a disclaimer of opinion was issued for the 16 month period ending October 31, 2002. Anza ceased operations as of November 1, 2002 and has not implemented the liquidation basis of accounting. Other than the audit for Anza, management did not place any restrictions on the scope of our audits. Significant Accounting Policies Initial selection of and changes in significant accounting policies or their application and new accounting and reporting standards implemented during the year must be reported. TDA claimants and Measure A recipients — The significant accounting policies used by the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients are described in Note I to the financial statements_ There were no changes in significant accounting policies or new accounting or reporting standards, except for the following: • The implementation of GASB Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements -and Management's Discussion and Analysis for State and Local Governments for the cities of Coachella, La Quinta and the County of Riverside. 8 J ERNST &YOUNG Quality In Everything We Elo 248 REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS (continucd) Arca Cwuuneiifs Significant Accounting Policies (continued) Initial selection of and changes in significant accounting policies or their application and new accounting and reporting standards implemented during the year must be reported. Commission — The significant accounting policies used by the Commission are described in Note 1 to the basic financial statements. There were no changes in significant accounting policies or new accounting or reporting standards, except for the following: The Commission has changed its financial reporting to comply with GASB Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements -and Management's Discussion and Analysis for State and Local Governments. As part of the implementation of GASB Statement No. 34, the Commission's basic financial statements consist of government -wide statements, including a statement of net assets and a statement of activities and fund financial statements which provide a more detailed level of financial information. The historical cost of infrastructure assets is included as part of the governmental capital assets reported in the government -wide statement. Thus, the depreciated value of construction costs for rail stations is reported. In conjunction with the implementation of GASB Statement No. 34, the Commission has implemented GASB Statement No. 37, Basic Financial S'tateneents and Management's Discussion and Analysis for State and Local Governments: Omnibus, an amendment of GASB Statements No. 21 and no 34; and GASB Statement No. 38, Certain Financial Statement Note Disclosures, which rescinds some and modifies other financial statement disclosure requirements. Significant financial reporting changes resulting from the implementation of the new financial reporting model include management's discussion and analysis providing an analysis of the Commission's overall financial position and results of operations, financial statements prepared using accrual accounting for all of the Commission's activities, and- fund financial statements focusing of major funds. 9 JERNST&YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do 249 REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS (continued) Area Comments Auditor's Judgments About the Quality of Accounting Principles (1) Selection of new, or changes to, accounting policies — See "Significant Accounting Policies" above. (2) Estimates, judgments and uncertainties — see "Management Judgments and Accounting Estimates" below. Unusual transactions — no unusual transactions were identified during the course of our audits, other than Anza, who ceased operations of the Measure A Transit Fund as of November 1, 2002. (4) Consistency in application of accounting policies — the Commission and the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients were consistent in their application of accounting policies with the prior year, except for the new accounting policies adopted in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States — see "Significant Accounting Policies" above. Disclosures in the financial statements are adequate for the year ended June 30, 2002. (3) (5) Management Judgments and Accounting Estimates The preparation of financial statements requires the use of accounting estimates. Certain estimates are particularly sensitive due to their significance to the statements and the possibility that future events may differ significantly from management's expectations. Commission — There are no areas requiring significant judgments or accounting estimates in the 2002 financial statements. TDA claimants and Measure A recipients — There are no areas requiring significant judgments or accounting estimates in the 2002 financial statements, except for collectibility of receivables and self-insurance liabilities recorded by SunLine Transit Agency. For this agency, management has recorded as claims payable the expected loss for claims made and incurred but not reported losses. Methods of Accounting for Significant Unusual Transactions and for Controversial or Emerging Areas We are required to inform the Audit Sub -committee about the methods used to account for significant unusual transactions and the effects of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. None noted during the audits. 10 J ERNST&YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do 250 REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS (continued) ArrA Comments Audit Adjustments Commission — There were five audit adjustments related to: an understatement of accounts payable of approximately $442,000, an understatement of sales tax revenue of approximately $1,640,000, a reclassification to restricted cash of approximately $25,000, an understatement of assets and liabilities relating to the capitalization of a lease amounting to $140,000 and an understatement of depreciation related to the capital lease of approximately $8,000_ There were no audit adjustments passed. TDA claimants and Measure A recipients — Various audit adjustments were recorded by the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients. Such adjustments were primarily related to recording of prior year adjustments, deferred revenue and capital grants equity. There were no audit adjustments passed. Fraud and Illegal Acts None identified and management has represented that they are not aware of any fraud or illegal acts. Material Weaknesses in Internal Control None_ Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements None. Disagreements with Management on Financial Accounting None. and Reporting Matters Serious Difficulties Encountered in None. Performing the Audit Major Issues Discussed with Management None. Prior to Retention Consultation with Other Accountants We are not aware of any consultation. 11 J ERNST & YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do 251 REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS (continued) Area Comments Most Recent Ernst & Young LLP Peer Review Results GAS requires the independent auditor to communicate the most recent peer review results to its governmental clients. KPMG Peat Marwick LLP recently completed the 2002 peer review of Ernst & Young. The peer review results are contained in an unqualified Peer Review Report, which indicates that the quality control policies and procedures for E&Y's accounting and auditing practice are being complied with in such a manner as to provide the firm with reasonable assurance of conforming with professional standards. Independence Consistent with the report and recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees and as required by Independence Standards Board Standard No. 1, Independence Discussions with Audit Committees, we communicate, at least annually, the following to the Audit Committee or Board of Directors of the Company subject to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission: 1. Disclose, in writing, all relationships between Ernst & Young and our related entities and the Company and its related entities that, in our professional judgment, may reasonably be thought to bear on independence; 2. Confirm in writing that, in our professional judgment, we are independent of the Company within the meaning of the Securities Acts; and 3. Discuss our independence with the Audit Committee. 1. We are not aware of any relationships between Ernst & Young and the Commission that, in our professional judgment, may reasonably be thought to bear on our independence_ 2. Relating to our audit of the Commission as of June 30, 2002, and for the year then ended, we are independent certified public accountants with respect to the Commission within the meaning of the applicable published rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the pronouncements of the Independence Standards Board, and under Rule 101 of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' Code of Professional Conduct, its interpretations and rulings. Our policies related to financial interests (e.g., stock ownership) are stricter than the requirements imposed by these regulatory and professional bodies. 12 J ERNST &YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do 252 COMMENTS ON THE 2002 TDA CLAIMANTS AND MEASURE A RECIPIENTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Balance Sheet Items The following have a fund balance representing at least three full years of unspent monies. Per discussion with management and/or review of budget -to -actual analysis, most of the unspent monies relate to project delays resulting from environmental, contractual and other project delay issues: Audits in Progress City of Riverside Measure A monies of $29,166,706, representing revenues since 1998. City of Blythe Measure Amonies of $2,463,181, representing revenues since 1999. County of Riverside Article 8 monies of $708,581, representing revenues since 1995. Income Statement Items For your information, the following cities/agencies allocate indirect costs and other overhead allocations to TDA or Measure A funds: • City of Banning • City of Beaumont • City of Blythe • City of Calimesa • City of Corona Compliance Findings • City of Indio • Inland AIDS Project • City of Lake Elsinore • Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency • City of Riverside • County of Riverside • City of San Jacinto • City of Temecula • Transportation Specialists The following cities charged overhead allocations to the indicated funds based on estimated costs, which were not supported by actual costs. These costs were identified as questioned costs: City of Beaumont— Transit Fund $59,000 City of Beaumont — Measure A Fund $20,000 City of Lake Elsinore — Measure A Fund $300 Audits in Progress City of Blythe — Measure A Fund $50,000 City of Riverside — Measure A Fund $163,000 City of Riverside — Section 99234 Fund $1,600 City of Riverside — Section 99400(a) Fund $1,500 City of Riverside — Special Transit Fund $278,000 13 J ERNST &YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do 253 COMMENTS ON THE 2002 TDA CLAIMANTS AND .MEASURE A RECIPIENTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) Compliance Findings (continued') The City of Lake Elsinore had approximately $145,000 of Measure A expenditures that were not on the approved Measure A five-year expenditure plan_ They were identified as questioned costs. The City intends to request that the submitted five-year expenditure plan be revised to include these expenditures. Audits in Progress The City of Riverside had approximately $145,000 of Measure A expenditures that were not on the approved Measure A five-year expenditure plan. They were identified as questioned costs. The City intends to request that the submitted five-year expenditure plan be revised to include these expenditures. The City of Riverside Special Transit fund is required to maintain a minimum fare ratio of 10% and maintained a fare ratio of 7.7% and has not met the minimum fare ratio requirement. The City of Riverside's management intends to increase passenger fares in order to be in compliance with the minimum fare ratio requirements. As of June 30, 2002, the total cumulative shortfall to meet the minimum fare ratio requirement is approximately $91,000. The noncompliance in 2001 is deemed to be the grace year and the noncompliance in 2002 is considered to be the non-compliance year. Fiscal 2003 will be the determination year. The following Specialized Measure A recipients are required to match the Specialized Measure A grant and have not met the matching requirements. With the exception of Anza, the Specialized Measure A recipients intend to request that RCTC apply funds from the excess match from prior fiscal years grants to cover the shortfall_ Anza — required to provide $30,400 and provided $26,813 Care -A -Van — required to provide $139,134 and provided $126,905 Transportation Specialists, Inc. — required to provide $176,000 and provided $149,877 Other Matters City of Desert Hot Springs bankruptcy in December 2001 — Measure A Fund has $524,975 cash as of June 30, 2002. We are not aware of any impairment of these funds; however, we do not know the ultimate impact of the City's bankruptcy on the Measure A funds. 14 J ERNST&YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do 254 ■ Riverside County Transportation Commission Focus: 2002 Value Results J 15 J ERNST &YOUNG Qualify In Everything We Do 255 VALUE IDEAS — SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Riverside County Transportation Commission Timely Employee Reviews In the course of our audit, we noted that certain employees were not receiving timely performance reviews. Although the employees are paid retroactively once a performance review is conducted, they are not compensated for interest earned on those wages nor earnings lost in relation to the employee's investment plan_ We recommend the Commission implement procedures to ensure that employees receive timely reviews from their supervisors, such as performance reviews due within 30 days subsequent to employees' review date. This would ensure that the Commission's employees are compensated in a timely manner and that the Commission's interim and year-end financial statements are properly stated. Revenue Recognition In the course of our audit, we noted that the Commission had recorded revenues in relation to the CETAP program, but did not properly record the related expenditures. As the Commission should properly record revenues and expenditures in the period incurred, we recommend that the Commission implement procedures to ensure that the revenues and expenditures are recorded and subject to supervisory review for reimbursement programs. This would ensure the Commission identifies any journal entries that have not been properly recorded. Information Technology Environment Business Continuity Planning We noted that the Commission does not have a formal written business continuity plan. Additionally, there is also no formal disaster recovery strategy in place. The Commission, if unable to resume its normal operations promptly after a disaster or emergency, may suffer substantial financial losses due to lost business. The continued operations of an organization depend on management's awareness of potential business disruptions and disasters, the ability to develop a plan to minimize disruptions of critical functions, and the ability to implement this plan and recover operations efficiently and successfully. Although the Commission performs regular system back-ups, this does not provide assurance that a recovery would be successful should the system need to be restored. Backing up the system on a regular basis is very important, but this alone does not provide for a successful recovery of computer operations; there are a number of other critical areas that need to be addressed to ensure a successful recovery. The Commission may incur substantial losses if computer processing or general business operations are restored in a timely manner should a disaster or other event occur that impacts business processes. We recommend that management evaluate the need for developing a formal business continuity plan detailing the necessary procedures to ensure a timely recovery of computer and general business processes to minimize potential losses. A business continuity plan is a comprehensive statement of consistent actions to be taken before, during, and after a business disruption. Development of the plan should be preceded by an analysis of the vital business functions, including those dependent on computer processing, to determine how long the Commission can continue operating without these functions. Accordingly, a business continuity plan should be developed to address the recovery of those business units and systems critical to the Commission within the specified time frame. 16 J ERNST &YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do 256 VALUE IDEAS - SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT (CONTINUED) The following areas should be considered in evaluating the need for and developing a business continuity plan: • Roles and responsibilities of Commission personnel before, during restoration, and after an event that encumbers normal business operations. • Priorities for recovery and interdependencies of vital business functions and computer processes. • Procedures for periodic testing, reviewing, and updating the plan. • Hardware replacement strategies. • Off -site back-up of system software, application programs, data files, database, and documentation. • Procedures for restoring computer systems. • Communications requirements. • Workspace relocation and general office equipment/supplies. User Account Administration Management has implemented controls to ensure that user access to information systems is properly assigned based on the employee's job function. Although a request to add users to the system has to be submitted by the Department Manager to the IT department, during our review we were not able to obtain four out of five user access request supporting documents. In addition, we also noted in our User Profile testing that there is a user that was granted an access not needed to perform her job. Without formal procedures or evidence of approval for documenting functions assigned to users, management cannot be assured proper functions are assigned or proper approvals were obtained and this increases the effort needed to perform periodic reviews of access privileges. We recommend that the user -access forms, whether paper -based or electronic, be retained for a permanent record to document access authorization and to allow subsequent review processes. In the event an employee is transferred to another department, the Department Manage] should submit an updated form to the IT Manager. Security Policy and Procedures An information security policy and comprehensive procedures have not been documented. The lack of a well- defined and documented information security policy and comprehensive procedures can expose the Commission to liability for inadequately addressing information security and can allow data integrity to be compromised. We recommend that an information security policy and comprehensive security and access control procedures be documented and communicated to all employees. This is an important and effective tool for management to communicate their objectives and intent with regards to information security practices and show support for information security efforts. An information security policy should include, at a minimum: • An overall statement of objectives for security over corporate systems and data. • A definition of the responsibilities associated with information security. • Policy statements for security in the development and use of information systems, including system access control privileges, password standards, system backups and system monitoring. • Confidentiality ufdata. • Desktop computer security. • Security administration and authorization. • Back-up of critical data. • Security of hard -copy information. • Penalties for non-compliance. 17 J ERNST&YOUNG Qualify In Everything We Do 257 VALUE IDEAS — SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT (CONTINUED) Special Authorities During our fieldwork, we noted that there are three users with excessive special authorities that are not needed to perform their jobs. Inappropriate administrative capabilities could be provided to uncertified users, creating tangible risk to the integrity of Commission data. Enhanced and documented communication between the systems administrator, human resources, and department head would decrease the likelihood that users are allowed system authorities incongruent with job responsibilities. We recommend the regular review and maintenance of special authority assignments to mitigate the risk of improper access to data and programs. Password Controls Passwords act as mechanisms to provide reasonable assurance that system access is permitted only in accordance with management's authorization. To be effective, passwords should be determined and set by the users, and of sufficient length to reduce the likelihood that they will be easily guessed. They should also be forced by the system to be changed on a regular basis by the user and to adhere to a format that will reduce the likelihood that they will be easily guessed. As a result, often it is only the password that truly protects the account. During our review, we noted that the password change interval (QPWDEXP1TV) is not activated_ The minimal length of password is currently set to four characters and none of the parameters that could prevent easily guessed passwords (i.e., numeric character - QPWDLMTCHR, certain character should not be used QPWDLMTREP, etc.) are used. We recommend management activate the security features provided with the operating system and institute administrative procedures to require that all users initially set their passwords and to enable them to change their own passwords every 90 days (QPDWEXPITV = 90) without administrator assistance_ In addition, at a minimum, we recommend that the minimum password length feature be set to five characters. Also, we recommend that a certain combination of password parameters be used to create hard -to -guess passwords and not result in a password that is hard to remember without writing it down_ This will provide reasonable assurance that passwords are serving their intended purpose to assure user accountability and to provide a secure password environment. 18 J ERNST &YOUNG Qualify in Everything We Do 258 VALUE IDEAS - SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT (CONTINUED) TDA Claimants/Measure A Recipients Compliance Findings — Timely Resolution The Commission should develop a process regarding timely followup with the various TDA claimants and Measure A recipients regarding resolution of compliance issues and questioned costs reported within the audited financial statements, such as requiring the cities to respond in writing to state the cities corrective actions and timing as to the resolution of these various matters. The following summarizes various compliance issues and questioned costs that remain open for resolution: Overhead allocations The following cities charged overhead allocations to the indicated funds based on estimated costs, which were not supported by actual costs. The Commission should take action to resolve these costs, which were identified as questioned costs in the prior years: City of Blythe 2001 — $40,000 of Measure A funds 2000 — $403,000 of Measure A funds, including overhead allocations from prior years City of Beaumont 2001 — $49,000 and $16,000 of Transit and Measure A funds, respectively 2000 — $46,000 and $17,000 of Transit and Measure A funds, respectively City of Calimesa 2000 — $11,000 of Measure A funds City of Lake Elsinore 2001 — $500 of Measure A funds 2000 — $3,000 of Measure A funds City of Riverside 2001— $154,000 and $299,000 of Transit and Measure A funds, respectively 2000 — $142,000 and $157,000 of Transit and Measure A funds, respectively Measure A expenditures not on approved Measure A five-year expenditure plan The following cities charged expenditures to the Measure A fund for projects that were not on the approved Measure A five-year expenditure plan. They were identified as questioned costs in a prior year. The Commission should followup with the City as the City intends to request that the submitted five-year expenditure plan be revised to include these expenditures. City of Riverside 2000 — $11,000 19 JERNST&YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do 259 VALUE IDEAS - SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT (CONTINUED) Article 4 Grants — Capital Project Status Reports The Commission should develop a policy related to the completion of each Article 4 capital project to request an annual or quarterly status report from each Article 4 capital recipient for each approved Article 4 capital project. The annual or quarterly status report should be similar to the Federal grant quarterly status reports whereby the following information should be listed: each individual approved Article 4 capital project listed by year of approval, the approved amount by funding source, the cumulative amount spent on each project as of the beginning of the period, the current period amount spent on each project and the remaining balance for each Article 4 project. This annual or quarterly reporting will ensure that each approved capital project is being properly tracked, approved funds are being spent on the proper project and will provide the Commission with important information regarding the timely completion of the Article 4 capital projects. In accordance with the Transportation Development Act Statutes and California Code of Regulations section 99318. (a) "Funds shall be allocated for a transit capital improvement project in an amount not exceeding that which can be encumbered within three years after allocation by the commission" and section 99318.4 (b) "Funds that are not encumbered within the three-year period shall revert to the account." Article 3 Grants — Final Status Reports The Commission should develop a policy relating to the completion of each Article 3 project to request a final report from each city which would provide detail of the final costs of the project and the related funds used to pay for the Article 3 project. Since the TDA claimant may request disbursement of the Article 3 funds approved by the Commission as soon as the Article 3 project is approved, the Commission should ensure that a final accounting of the Article 3 funds be made to the Commission. Any unspent Article 3 grant funds and any interest earned upon the Article 3 funds that was not needed to pay for the completion of the Article 3 project should be remitted back to the Commission. Specialized Measure A — Quarterly Reporting Process The Commission should revise the Specialized Measure A quarterly reporting process to require quarterly financial information and in -kind services support from the Not -For -Profit entities to support the quarterly signed statements that the Not -For -Profit entities have meet the matching requirements. The current quarterly reporting requires the submission of passenger data, but there is no financial information provided to support the statement that each Not - For -Profit entity has met the matching requirements. Measure A — Five-year Capital Improvement Plans The Commission should revise Measure A five-year capital improvement plan requirements to include descriptions of specific projects rather than listing general street improvement projects on the five-year capital improvement plan. 20 21 ERNST&YOUNG Quality In Everything We Do 260 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET May 14, 2003 NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE # ,M id, /s 7o,C, 3yL -2-Y 5)e?� 5 90� — )--3--,3-0 67,-061.7 1:5'7e,‘ ( ex_ / C,)( .1'44 , �sr.coh.p 7 frJG� /v /�1' .s r(2/ r 71--; Q'� y' n'/Pccva la-zzy 9 ,9 .9�, 3- 3 D O 6 ,2 , 4N/< #i4L L 6 r4' o Vo,¢cry 909 -2 ,3- - 2-19 v Z6 /5t ?a f - ¢s.T io/D C -L 0P ve.est 5107-8.24-5111 (( - U&( 1 ( �% / �4— (3665 "64 / ni IA ti ( -Ira4 f017) 63-009 q) d Pc/6 V _..\,o, --3 \-AJAc kc.,-)&3-6.--- 6,9)01 5 -3 ----co o eAfif 5_ SGT L c%.5 J cc 901 7 Y7- �ZGe6 C,. - "b. 1- .► Pte,, - 1(.6 t/ F a', ' ! 7�- 16 C! ^ dJ 6'Z I,) CG' 0t, :. -. v 2- 7J 1-76 i -S i 0 - __ ,� ` - 6-aq0 1 rielkif (.0.1# MSe-2-4-. d#4,K7,12X (1171/1(e- 9; ci LI V ,57,-- ,A/ ,C 1zkcJ AJ I -)L- % lRvv��rrfN cav'ry -n1 — o4 —d VAVICKEg ffSe r )4oT SPQI&Js AD- -6(I,, j eg , d_e_ese,3 L ii 001 "ALA 7 G a ' , 0 4 -a 1 f 11 C H l L,L ,(I 0 I LS -o ,-' ,-N.s 6 L ' %,2- " U 511 / 1_ ✓'W #19-01M /2-- 41-1 F1A-- SP4 " 6-r- `/1— RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL May 14, 2003 Present Absent O ( 0 0 .-C'J 0 7 D 0 /21: _ice D 0 Er /` .Q- 0 0 �-` 0 -or 0 0 0 0 County of Riverside, District I 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: NA PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: G f F;1 4 . �1.' R DATE: S ti ADDRESS: "? QCs )2(L\) tS TEL. NO: C S'7 REPRESENTING: Ctr . Q �J P f Ij . BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 PUBLIC COMMENTS: TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS:. AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): .7 125-7; Aee NAME: °►c' `/C 5.e. DATE:J�/ 3 ADDRESS:/'.._352, c'� rt,.c/ TEL. NC( c"tij)'7 Y _ ?/ � REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: