Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08 August 23, 2004 Budget & Implementation• RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 00V0 TIME: 10:00 a.m. (Please note time change) DATE: Monday, August 23, 2004 LOCATION: Board Chambers County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1St Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RECORDS ***COMMITTEE MEMBERS*** Terry Henderson, Chair / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee Vice Chair / Robert Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Art Welch / John Machisic, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Kelly Seyarto / Jack van Haaster, City of Murrieta Alan Seman / Ron Meepos, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto John F. Tavaglione, District Two/ County of Riverside Jim Venable, District Three / County of Riverside ***STAFF*** Eric Haley, Executive Director Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs ***AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY*** Annual Budget Development and Oversight Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs Public Communications and Outreach Programs Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement and SB 821 -Bicycle & Pedestrian Property Management SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol TUMF Program and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission (.3c4,.co RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 10:00 a.m. * Monday, August 23, 2004 BOARD CHAMBERS County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1s` Floor Riverside, California * Please note time change. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Committee 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 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 24, 2004 and June 28, 2004 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee 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 Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Budget and Implementation Committee August 23, 2004 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 6A. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 1 1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended June 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Pg. 3 This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the year ended June 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Pg. 6 This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Pg. 11 This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending June 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee August 23, 2004 Page 3 7. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-511, AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-042 WITH BERG & ASSOCIATES, INC., TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT/INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE ROUTE 60 HOV MEDIAN WIDENING PROJECT IN MORENO VALLEY Pg. 21 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Enter into Agreement No. 05-31-511, Amendment #1 to Agreement No. 02-31-042 with Berg & Associates, Inc., to provide additional Construction Management/Inspection Services for the construction of the Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley, for a not to exceed contract amount of $510,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and approve an the expenditure of Contingency funds up to the remaining $200,000, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIAL PRIORITY PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Pg. 24 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Establish a five year TUMF Regional Arterial Program for the period FY2005 to FY2009 pursuant to the Commission's first Call for Projects solicitation and direct staff to administratively update the approved project status, cost and revenue figures pursuant to any future actions taken by WRCOG to amend its TUMF 10 year Strategic Plan and Nexus Study; 2) Approve the list of 23 projects (Attachment A) as eligible for TUMF Regional funding; Budget and Implementation Committee August 23, 2004 Page 4 3) Program an estimated $71.4 million in TUMF Regional Funds as noted on Attachment A which represents either the amount requested by the local agency or the maximum TUMF Funding identified in the Nexus Study: a. $08.7 M - Project Development (PA&ED) FY '05 thru 09 b. $09.5 M - Design (PS&E) FY '05 thru 09 c. $19.0 M - Right of Way FY '05 thru 06 d. $09.1 M - Construction FY '05 thru 06 e. $25.0 M - Mid County Parkway and Route 79 Realignment Projects 4) Direct staff to develop and seek approval of a model TUMF Regional Funding Agreement between local agencies and RCTC for the selected TUMF projects and phase(s) that assures the Commission work will be completed as detailed in the project proposals and requires local agencies to commit to funding these and future phases of work on the project for which TUMF Regional funds can not fund or are insufficient to cover all costs of the project/phase, and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. • 9. APPROVAL OF EASEMENT DEED AND AERIAL EASEMENT DEED FOR 0 CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOX SPRINGS OVERPASS Pg. 32 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Easement Deed and Aerial Easement Deed on behalf of the Commission to assist Caltrans in the construction of the Box Springs Overpass, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • Budget and Implementation Committee August 23, 2004 Page 5 • • • 10. SURPLUS OLD 1-215 RAIL RIGHT OF WAY (PHASE 1) APN#'S 263-080-011, 263-080-010, 263-091-011, 263-100-010, AND A PORTION OF 263-070- 004 Pg. 45 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Declare the property identified as the "Old 1-215" Rail Right of Way (Phase 1), APN #s 263-080-011, 263-080-010, 263-091- 011, 263-100-010, and a portion of 263-070-004 as surplus, as shown on the attached parcel map; 2) Authorize staff to initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period and if no interest is expressed, authorize the Executive Director to offer the parcels for sale, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 04-014 ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION'S APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY 2004/05 Pg. 48 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Resolution No. 04-014 establishing the Commission's appropriations limit for FY 2004/05, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. APPROVE SELECTION OF BOND COUNSEL Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 55 1) Approve the selection of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP to perform the services of bond counsel to the Commission; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 05-19-510 on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 23, 2004 Page 6 13. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR • THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Pg. 57 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the City of Palm Desert's request to change the scope of its approved SB 821 sidewalk project; 2) Grant the City of Palm Desert a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2006 to complete the Portola Avenue sidewalk project, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. FY 2005-09 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF CALIMESA AND LAKE ELSINORE Pg. 59 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Calimesa and Lake Elsinore as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 71 1) Direct staff to work with the California Performance Review Commission to influence state government reform efforts that provide greater funding for transportation and overall infrastructure investment, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • Budget and Implementation Committee August 23, 2004 Page 7 • • 16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 17. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview 1) This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 18. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 A.M., Monday, September 27, 2004, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 4 • Minutes • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, May 24, 2004 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chairperson Terry Henderson at 2:00 p.m., in the Board Chambers at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Roger Berg Chris Buydos Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Bob Magee Ameal Moore John F. Tavaglione Jim Venable Robert Crain Juan DeLara Gregory Pettis Alan Seman Robin Lowe Kelly Seyarto 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Buydos/Tavaglione) to approve the Consent Calendar. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting May 24, 2004 Page 2 5A. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT 1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended April 30, 2004; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6. TUMF - REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECT SEGMENT PRIORITIES Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, presented the Regional Arterial Call for Projects Segment Priorities. In response to Commissioner Chris Buydos' question regarding criteria, Hideo Sugita responded that special criterion has been included for multi - jurisdictional projects and improvements for volume to capacity ratios. He also noted that each jurisdiction has been asked to report any development approvals, including requirements placed on developers, within a one -mile radius of the project. M/S/C (Buydos/Moore) to: 1) Approve a call for Western Riverside County Regional Arterial Program Project Segment Priorities using the included forms and schedule; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, presented the Proposed Budget for FY 2004-05, reviewing the following areas: • Budget Process • Guiding Policies • Budget Summary • Revenue Trends and Highlights • Expenditures • Personnel Cost Trends • Measure "A" Administration She noted that a public hearing and adoption of the budget will be held at the June 9th Commission meeting. • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting May 24, 2004 Page 3 • • • M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) to: 1) Schedule the public hearing to receive input and adoption of the Proposed FY 2004-05 Budget for the June 9th Commission meeting; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 Theresia Trevino reviewed the list of recurring contracts for FY 2004-05. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) to: 1) Approve the Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2004-2005; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. AGREEMENT NO. 04-45-503 BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND SAN BERNARDINO SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES FOR THE PROVISION OF CALL BOX CALL ANSWERING SERVICES Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, reviewed the agreement for call box call answering services. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-45-503 with the San Bernardino Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) for the provision of call box call answering services; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. AGREEMENT NO. 04-45-504 BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Jerry Rivera reviewed the agreement for overtime supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol program. At Commissioner Ameal Moore's request, Jerry Rivera provided an explanation of how the overtime hours were calculated. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting May 24, 2004 Page 4 M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-45-504 with the California Department of Highway Patrol to provide overtime supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol program in Riverside County; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2004 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Jerry Rivera presented the City of Palm Springs' request to amend its Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 2004 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF BLYTHE Jerry Rivera presented the City of Blythe's request for an extension to December 31, 2004 to complete the Rice and 7th Street sidewalk improvement project. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) to: 1) Grant the City of Blythe an extension to December 31, 2004 to complete the Rice and 7th Street sidewalk improvement project; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT John Standiford, Director of Public Information, updated the Committee on the status of Proposition 42, the reauthorization of the federal transportation act, SB 1397, AB 2085, and reviewed the staff recommended bill positions. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting May 24, 2004 Page 5 • • • M/S/C (Buydos/Hanna) to: 1) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy positions: SUPPORT SB 1397 and AB 2085; 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Status Report as an information item; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 15. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF There were no comments from Commissioners or staff. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:46 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 28, 2004. Respectfully submitted, ( ''''''''-9"_ \-\, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 4 Minutes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" (Due to lack of a quorum, the Commissioners present operated as a "Committee as a Whole". Recommendations from the Committee as a Whole were submitted to the Commission.) Monday, June 28, 2004 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Bob Magee called the "Committee as a Whole" to order at 2:04 p.m., in the Board Chambers at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Roger Berg Chris Buydos Robin Lowe Bob Magee John Machisic Ameal Moore Jim Venable Robert Crain Juan DeLara Terry Henderson Ron Meepos Gregory Pettis Kelly Seyarto John F. Tavaglione 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 22, 2004 Approval of the minutes was deferred until the next meeting when there is a quorum present. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting June 28, 2004 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Buydos/Machisic) to present the following Consent Calendar items to the Commission for approval. 6A. QUARTERLY CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the months of March, April, and May 2004. 6B. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended May 31, 2004. 7. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 05-51-501 (AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 04-51-030, WITH EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager, reviewed the agreement with Epic Land Solutions for property management support services highlighting the five key objectives of the property management efforts: 1) revenue maximization, 2) property inventory, 3) reduction of liability, 4) on -call services, and 5) project management. In response to Commissioner Chris Buydos' question regarding anticipated annual costs, Stephanie Wiggins responded that annual costs are estimated to be under $100,000, utilizing property lease revenues as the funding source to support the ongoing costs. M/S/C (Lowe/Moore) to recommend to the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-51-501 (Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-51-030) with Epic Land Solutions, Inc. for Phase II of the property management support services related to all Commission owned parcels for a not to exceed amount of $374,589; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting June 28, 2004 Page 3 • • • 8. COACHELLA VALLEY REGIONAL ARTERIAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager, reviewed the budget adjustment to increase the Coachella Valley Measure "A" Regional Arterial Program expenditure budget to allow for an anticipated payment of expenditures. M/S/C (Buydos/Lowe) to recommend to the Commission to approve an increase in the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial budget to allow payment for invoices incurred as of June 30, 2004. 9. AMENDMENT TO MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, briefly reviewed the request from the City of Palm Desert to amend its Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads. M/S/C (Lowe/Buydos) to recommend to the Commission to approve the amendments to the FY 2004 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert. 10. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2009 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Jerry Rivera briefly reviewed the FY 2005-2009 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads, noting that not all of the cities have submitted the required documents. He also noted that since the mailing of the agenda, the City of Rancho Mirage submitted its plans. Vice Chairman Magee noted that the City of Lake Elsinore's CIP will be submitted in July. M/S/C (Venable/Machisic) to recommend to the Commission to approve the FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads. 11. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATION M/S/C (Lowe/Buydos) to recommend the Commission approve the FY 2004-05 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program recommended funding. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting June 28, 2004 Page 4 12. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT John Standiford, Director of Public Information, updated the Committee on the reauthorization of the federal transportation act, the state budget, and AB 496, the Santa Ana River Conservancy Bill. In response to Commissioner Robin Lowe's concern regarding the impact of AB 496 on transportation, John Standiford responded that its impact at this time is uncertain, however, it would create a new level of potential issues. In response to Commission Lowe's request, Commission Ameal Moore explained the City of Riverside's decision to support AB 496. Commissioner Ameal Moore then requested the reasoning for the oppose position taken by the Commission on AB 2628. John Standiford explained that the Commission's concern related to the potential overload of the HOV system as the system provides congestion management as well as emissions control benefits. M/S/C (Lowe/Moore) to recommend the Commission receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Status Report as an information item. 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 14. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF Commissioner Lowe reported that the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) will be making a formal public information request on all consultant contracts for Air Quality Management District (AQMD). 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 0,,„,,, jeluz_ \-\cks..0\Q,-- Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board • • • AGENDA ITEM 6A • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended June 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 14, 2004 the Commission approved the Interfund Loan Policy and adopted Resolution No. 04-009 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans". The Commission requested that interfund loan activity be reported on a monthly basis. The attached report details all interfund loan activity through June 30, 2004. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of June 30, 2004 are $575,000. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report 1 • Ri versid e C ounty T sp ortation Commission Interfund ctivity Report For period en ed June 30 2004 Amount Maturity Date of Loan of Loan Date Lending Fund Borrowing Fund April 2, 2003 $ 300,000 July 1, 2006 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Measure A - WC LSR (227) Date Commissioned Purp ose of Loan Approved Advance to make repairs/improvements to Railroad Canyon Road March 12, 2003 March 4, 2004 $ 275,000 July 1, 2009 Measure A - WC Commuter Assistance (226) Measure A - WC Highway (222) Additional local match for the SR71 Widening/Animal Crossing Project December 10, 2003 Total $ 575,000 V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2004\09 September\Budget & Imp'\Cisneros - Interfund Loan Activity Rpt AGENDA ITEM 6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the year ended June 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • • The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the year ended June 30, 2004 under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. Some contracts reported in prior quarters are not listed in this final report for the fiscal year as they were misclassified as single signature contracts. The unused capacity at June 30, 2004 is $174,644. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of June 30, 2004. 3 • CONSULTANT SINGLE SIGN AUTHORITY AS OF J 30, 2004 DESCRIPTI ON OF SERVICES AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2003 Inland Mailing Services (Adv anced Marketing) Advance Data Transcribing Center, Inc. Ernst & Young Amend #1 re extension of term and cost for Commuter Assistance RideGuides Amend #1 to extend term (implied cost) for data entry services Compute rebate on 1997 Series A & B Amend #2 to increase original agreement for Comarco Wireless smart call b oxes MHV Enterprises, Inc. Arthur Bauer & A sso ciates, Triennial performance audit of Sunlin e Transit Inc. Agency Original Agmt & Amend #1 for Rideshare suite database enhancement project Consultant to evaluate economic impact of non - Economics & Politics, Inc. residential TUMF fees Ninyo & Moore Zamiski Construction Volt Edge Services Condu ct subsurface investigation of former Royal Citrus Company Storage and Distribution facility Weed and rubbish abatement services of properties owned and managed by RCTC Electrical and mechanical repairs at the five Commission -owned Metrolink stations ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 500,000.00 25,000.00 45,000.00 2,250.00 25,000 .00 38,332.50 8,500 .00 25,000 .00 10,000 .00 50,000.00 50,000.00 REMAINING CONTRACT PAID AMOUNT AMOUNT 6,036.67 49,486 .59 2,250 .00 0.00 37,407.50 8,500.00 0.00 0 .00 37,116 .50 3,731.45 18,963.33 (4,486 .59) 0.00 25,000.00 925.00 0 .00 25,000.00 10,000.00 12,883.50 46,268.55 V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2004\09 September\Budget & Impl\SINSIG04 SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF JUNE 30, 2004 CONSULTANT Ernst & Young 169,778 .71 AM OUNT USED DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Arbitrage Rebate calculation 2000 Series "A" Revenue Bonds Less Return of Remaining Contract Value Due to Expiration: Inland M ailing Advance Data Transcribing Comarco Wireless AM OUNT USED, net of adjustments AMO UNT REM AINING THROUGH June 30, 2004 Donna Polmounter Prepared by • Michele Cisneros Reviewed by • ORIGINAL REMAINING CONTRACT CONTRACT A MOUNT PAID AMOUNT AMOUNT 3,250 .00 364,832.50 (18,963.33) 4,486 .59 (25,000 .00) 325,355.76 $ 174,644 .24 3,250.00 0.00 0 0.00 13,000.00 195,053.79 V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2004\09 September\Budget &I SIG04 AGENDA ITEM 6C • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the fiscal year, staff has closely monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements show the revenues received and expenditures incurred during the fiscal year. Accrual adjustments for revenue and expenditures have been made for June 30, 2004 and are reflected in these financial statements. The Commission will continue to make year end accrual adjustments depending upon materiality through August 31, 2004. The financial statements show the Sales Tax Revenue for the fiscal year at 105% of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires Sales Tax Revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure "A" funds and remits them to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two -month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections from July 2003 through May 2004. On a cash basis, the Measure "A" and LTF revenues are 14% higher than the same period last fiscal year. The Commission did not receive the budgeted amount of Federal, State, and Local agencies revenues as these revenues are realized on a reimbursement basis. Once the projects have been completed, staff will invoice the respective agencies. 6 TUMF revenues were not included in the original budget due to continued development of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between WRCOG and RCTC at the time the budget was compiled. Since these revenues are fees from new development and can vary, staff will continue to monitor the revenue and develop trends and analysis for future budgeting. Interest is higher as a result of unbudgeted TUMF revenue. All other revenues were received as expected. Administrative expenditures were under budget by approximately $658,000. Overall, expenditures in Programs/Projects are under budget by approximately $13,037,000. Local Streets and Roads and the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program exceeded budgeted amounts. The Local Streets and Roads budget is based on estimated Measure "A" Sales Tax revenues. Since these revenues are higher than budgeted, the related disbursement to the local jurisdictions exceeded the budget. The Commission will continue to accrue for Measure "A" Sales Tax disbursements to the local jurisdictions through September with the 4th quarter clean-up allocation received from the State Board of Equalization. Listed below are the capital related projects and their status: Highway Engineering/Right of way • Route 74 - Agency approvals delayed completion of engineering for Segments 1 & 11 . Utility relocation has not been completed. We are waiting for final approval of agreement with utility agencies. • Route 79 — Delays occurred in obtaining approval from various resource agencies. We are waiting for approval from resource agencies on project criteria and alternative solutions. • Route 91 — We are waiting on right of way data from the State to complete the Environmental Document for the Mary to 7th street HOV project. Highway Construction • Route 60 - Additional right of way requirements, traffic control and permitting issues delayed the start of construction. • Route 74 — Segment 11 utility relocation was delayed due to the damages caused by the fires. Utility workforces were redirected to support the repairs of utilities throughout the fire damaged area. Construction commenced in June 2004. • Route 111 — Design changes and permitting processing delayed completion of construction for the Palm Desert projects now forecasted to be completed August 2004. e • • 7 • • • Rail Engineering/Right of Way • North Main Corona Station Parking Structure — City's planning process has taken longer than anticipated. • Perris Multimodal Facility — Design was late in starting due to the completion of the pre -award audit and resolution of insurance related issues. Right of way issues existed regarding parcel acquisitions. • Phase II Downtown Riverside Parking Lot Expansion — Start of design was delayed until the additional right of way acquisition was completed. • Perris Valley Line - Delays with SCAG modeling and obtaining Federal Transit Administration approval affected the start of preliminary engineering. Rail Construction • La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Phase 11 — Project was held pending issuance and approval of permits. New parking area has been opened and construction punch list items were completed July 2004. TUMF Engineering • Late start related to concurrence from resource agencies on alternatives, approval on proceeding with Project Study Report, traffic modeling by other agency, and completion of pre -award audit. Regional Arterial • The Regional Arterial Program provides reimbursement to the cities for projects they have completed. Program is administered by CVAG, who requests reimbursement from the Commission. The Commission provides reimbursement based on available funds and sufficient budget authority. • Reimbursements to CVAG for the Jefferson and Gene Autry Trail projects exceeded the budget due to advance progress and installation quantities. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements — June 30, 2004 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 4TH QUARTER FOR TWELVE MONTHS ENDED 6/30/04 DESCRIPTION REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues Sales tax $ 107,504,400 $ 112,492,274 $ 4,987,874 105% Federal, state & local government reimbursements 27,007,900 22,918,971 (4,088,929) 85% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) - 34,526,703 34,526,703 0% Other revenues 6,319,900 6,858,629 538,729 109% Interest 2,689,700 3,441,914 752,214 128% Total revenues 143,521,900 180,238,491 36,716,591 126% Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits 1,213,700 1,167,758 45,942 96% General legal services 119,000 82,555 36,445 69% Professional services 1,042,657 807,135 235,522 77% Office lease & utilities 302,000 297,177 4,823 98% General administrative expenses 922,000 587,218 334,782 64% Total administration 3,599,357 2,941,843 657,514 82% Programs/projects Salaries & benefits 1,705,350 1,486,589 218,761 87% General legal services 1,146,000 928,147 217,853 81% Professional services 1,661,831 1,379,202 282,629 83% General projects 2,134,257 2,044,012 90,245 96% Highway engineering 2,505,900 1,568,050 937,850 63% Highway construction 34,487,300 27,895,054 6,592,246 81% Highway right of way 2,908,000 1,395,852 1,512,148 48% Rail engineering 1,585,500 538,585 1,046,915 34% Rail construction 4,265,603 3,150,118 1,115,485 74% Rail right of way 3,300,000 3,030,524 269,476 92% Local streets & roads 36,999,600 39,963,077 (2,963,477) 108% Regional arterial 8,113,200 8,244,197 (130,997) 102% TUMF engineering 2,940,000 1,145,519 1,794,481 39% TUMF construction - - 0% TUMF right of way - - - 0% Special studies 1,134,616 1,129,054 5,562 100% FSP towing 1,561,270 1,221,992 339,278 78% Commuter assistance 2,614,900 2,121,946 492,954 81% Property management 54,700 45,492 9,208 83% Motorist assistance 667,900 617,299 50,601 92% Rail operations & maintenance 4,443,900 4,437,881 6,019 100% STA distributions 2,666,000 1,794,869 871,131 67% Specialized transit 4,510,500 4,269,107 241,393 95% Planning & programming services 394,514 357,762 36,752 91% Total programs/projects 121,800,841 108,764,326 13,036,515 89% Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay 750,200 750,183 17 448,000 27,022 420,978 Debt service Principal 26,290,261 26,290,000 261 Interest 9,192,839 9,187,218 5,622 Total debt service 35,483,100 35,477,218 5,883 Total expenditures 162,081,498 147,960,591 14,120,907 100% 6% 100% 100% 100% 91% Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in 46,627,000 41,310,672 5,316,328 89% Operating transfer out 46,627,000 41,310,672 5,316,328 89% 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 Fund balance July 1, 2003 Fund balance June 30, 2004 flusers/preprinllmclquarterliestmaster quarterly (18,559,598) 32,277,900 154,132, 843 158, 894, 518 13,718,303 -174% 4,761,675 103% $ 135,573,245 $ 191,172,418 $ 55,599,173 141% 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY ACTUAL BY FUND 4TH QUARTER F OR TWELVE MONTHS ENDED 6/30/04 DESCRIPTION Revenues Sa les tax Federal, state & local government reimbursements Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TU MF) O the r revenues Interest Total revenues Expen ditures Administration Salaries & benefits General legal serv ices Professional services Office lease & utilities General administrative expen ses Total administration Programs/projects Salaries & benefits G eneral le gal services Professional services General projects Highway engineering Highway co nstru ctio n Highway right of way Rail enginee ring Rail construction Rail right of way TUM F engineering TUMF construction TUM F right of way Local streets & roads Regional arterial Special studies FSP towing Commuter assistance Property management Motorist assistance Rail operations & maintenanc e STA distributions Specialized transit Planning & programming services Total programs/pro jects Intergovernmental distributio n Ca pital o utlay Debt servic e Principal Interest Total debt service Total expenditures Other financing sources/uses O perating transfer in Operating transfer out Bond proc eeds Payment to escrow agent Cost of issuance Total financing sources/uses Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other fina nc ing so urces over (u nder) expenditures and otherfinandng uses Fund balance July 1, 2003 Fun June 30, 2004 ..0Ve rtmieem ,e aerqu arterly GENERAL FUND FSP/ SAFE $ 10,306,968 $ - 1,620,897 1,908,350 674,081 2,699 78,157 46,418 12,680,103 1,114,198 78,644 779,923 282,823 558,978 2,814,567 1,957,466 53,560 3,911 27,212 14,354 28,240 WESTER N COUNTY PALO VERDE VALLEY COACHELLA VALLEY STATE TRANSP ORTATION UNIFORM WESTERN TRANSIT MITIGATION FEE C OUNTY ASSISTANCE TU MF CONSTRUCTION $ 75,467,689 $ 963,489 $ 25,754,128 $ 19,389,724 1,891,724 1,105,276 97,854,415 931,754 186,383 457,873 936,835 45,492 4,437,881 357,762 7,353,980 750,183 25,716 127,276 96,176 5,191 40,137 1,221,992 617,299 1,980,795 1,305 424,825 724,826 844,762 1,959,363 1,509,065 25,668,748 1,395,762 538,585 3,150,118 3,030,524 29,984,860 192,219 2,121,946 1,246,726 72,792,328 1,430,048 567 52,124 964,056 963,489 963,489 27,236,300 13,837 3,409 2,600 32,950 58,986 2,226,305 90 9,014,727 8,244,197 3,022,381 22,619,483 2,899,065 32,699 2,931,764 34,526,703 190,160 34,716,863 330 1,794,869 1,795,199 10,944,446 2,109,376 72,792,328 963,489 22,619,483 1,795,199 25,977 248,300 248,300 14,298,449 19,375,016 19,997 8,338 33,500 51,699 1,145,519 1,259,052 554,121 554,121 1,259, 052 7,388,907 - - 14,272,472 DEBT SERVICE (38,989) 1,382,391 1,343,402 26,290,000 9,187,218 35,477,218 35,477,218 26,763,922 25,977 - 5,076,566 7,388,907 - 14,272,472 (26,763,922) COMBINED TOTAL $ 112,492,274 22,918,971 34,526,703 6,858,629 3,441,914 180,238,491 1,167,758 82,555 807,135 297,177 587,218 2,941,843 1,486,589 928,147 1,379,202 2,044,012 1,568,050 27,895,054 1,395,852 538,585 3,150,118 3,030,524 1,145,519 • 39,963,077 8,244,197 1,129,054 1,221,992 2,121,946 45,492 617,299 4,437,881 1,794,869 4,269,107 357,762 108,764,326 750,183 27,022 26,290,000 9,187,218 35,477,218 147,960,591 41,310,672 41,310,672 1,709,680 (151,909) 19,985,520 567 (2,772,089) 1,136,565 33,457,811 (13,718,351) (7,369,893) 32,277,900 5,757,792 3,225,168 87,281,322 47,362 7,428,955 1,600,346 - 15,928,766 37,624 .806 158,894,518 $ 7,467,472 $ 3,073,259 $ 107,266,842 $ 47,929 4,656,866 $ 2,736,911 $ 33,457,811 $ 2 .210,415 $ 30,254,913 0 11 1172,418 AGENDA ITEM 6D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending June 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. Attachment: Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending June 30, 2004. • 11 • • • Investment Portfolio Report Period Ending: June 2004 OPERATING FUNDS RATING PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED MOODYS/FITCH/S&P V ALUE DATE DATE MARKET PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS) City Nation $ 20,748 A3/BBB+ Cash with 1 106,231,177-M R1/AAAN +1 Local Ager 2,970,482 AAA/AAA A genc y/Treasury Se curities: FNMA 2,000,000 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 03/29/04 03/29/06 2 .05% 2,000,000 2,000,000 - Mon ey Mai 36,595 36,595 0 .45% 36,595 36,595 Federal Hc 1,987,500 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 11/12/03 11/15/05 2 .29% 1,993,716 1,987,500 (6,216) FNMA Not( 1,926,854 AAA /AAA 1,950,000 03/17/04 03/17/06 2.08% 1,951,066 1,926,854 (24,213) Sub-Tota 115,173,356 $5,986,595 $5,981,377 $5,950,948 $ (30,429) FUNDS HELD IN TRUST Cash with County: Loca lTra n 25,421,846-MR1/AAAN+ 1 Sub -Tots 25,421,846 INVESTMENT WITH CITIES (1) Maturity Dat % City of Can 300,000 06/01/09 4.75% City of Lak 173,526 11/01/04 6.00% Sub-To ta 473,526 COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE Milestone f 2,052,155 AAA/AAA First Ameri 8,014,053 AAA/AAA U.S. Tress 15,768,000 AAA/AAA Firs t Ame ri 1,996,246 AAA/A AA Sub- Tota 27,830,454 TOTAL $ 168,899,181 15,768,000 SUMMARIZED INVEST MENT TYPE Banks $ 20,748 Cash with County 131,653,023 LAIF 2,970,482 M utual Funds: First American Treasury - Trust Milestone Sub - Total Mutual Funds Federal Agency Notes U.S. Treasury Notes Investment Agreements TOTAL 10,010,299 2,052,155 12,062,454 5,950,948 15,768,000 473,528 168,899,181 06/01/04 (1) Investment with cities is reported as a loan receivable for financial reporting purposes. 11/30/04 2. 00% 15,924,819 15,792,598 (132,221) Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ending June 30, 2004 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on March 10, 2004. The Commission has adequate cash flows for six months of operations. Signed by - Chief Financial Officer • 0 • 13 • County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 4th Floor Capital Markets Riverside, CA 92502-2205 www.countytreasurer.org (909) 955-3967 • 14 June 2004 County Administrative Center Investment Objectives • Safety of Principal • Liquidity • Public Trust • Maximum Rate of Return Portfolio Statistics Merit Assistant Treasurer', Treasurer's Commentary "The Fed Giveth and the Fed Taketh Away" As expected, the Fed Funds rate was raised by .25% to 1.25%. This event was widely anticipated and was well re- ceived by the financial markets. We covered the Feds' new policy of measured change in the May report and at this point the Fed looks as if it will continue this policy for the rest of the year. The policy of containing INFLATION seems to have spurred consumers to the highest consumer confidence lev- els in almost two years, but, confidence still has a long way to go to reach its pre 9/11 highs. Confidence should continue to climb as the situation in Iraq improves, oil prices do not in- crease substantially, and, we have no further terrorist attacks at home. We also would like to honor the life and mourn the passing of a truly great and accomplished American, our former Gov- ernor and the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan. Treasurer -Tax Collector - CO 1_11 G m ante } Durable Goods Orders -for June24th -1.6% actual vs. 1.5% survey Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -for June 25th 3.9% actual vs. 4.4% survey Consumer Confidence— Index -for June 25th 101.9 actual vs. 95 survey Factory Orders -for March June 6th -1.7% actual vs. -1.4% survey Unemployment Rate- for June 4th 5.6% actual vs_ 5.6% survey At month's end, the Fed Funds rate was raised to 1.25%, with a balanced bias. The 2 -year T -Note was yielding 2.65% (up 15 bps.) while the 30 -year T -Bond was yielding 5.32% (down 1 bp.) For June, the Pool had an in- crease of 9 bps. in average monthly yield. At this juncture, we continue to stay the course, taking advantage of opportunities in locking in higher rates as they present themselves. • June May April March February January !Month -End Book Value ;Month -End Market Value* Paper Gain or (Loss) Fercent of Paper Gain or Loss ;Yield Based Upon Book Value i Weighted Average Maturity (Yrs) Modified Duration •Market values does not include accrued interest $ 2,611,034,734 $ 2,599,728,360 $ (11,306,374) -0.43% 154. 0.86 0.77 $ 2,689,592,662 $ 2 680,314,959 $ (9,277,703) -0.34%- 1.45 0.89 0.79 $ 3,037,624,588 $ 3 032,729,233 $ (4,895,356); -0.16% 1.38: 0.79 0.64 $ 2,754,663,449 $2,756311,367 $ 1,647,919 0.06% 1.36; 0.73; . .._ . .. . . . . . .._. . 0.70 $ 2,440,001,929 $ 2,559,239,668 $ 2,441 532,293 $ 2,559,890,416 $ 1,530,364 $ 650,748 0.06% 0.03% 1.51 1.45 0.79 0.84 0.76 0.82 THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: Aaa/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V1+ BY FITCH RATINGS • 15 Portfolio Characteristics SECTOR Federal Agency Cash Equivalent & MMF Commercial Paper Negotiable CD's Medium Term Notes Certificates of Deposit Local Agency Obligation Total Market Value 1,991,619,418 241,000,000 335,479,342 0 19,829,600 10,000,000 1,800,000 2,599,728,360 CREDIT QUALITY Federal Agency AAA A-1/ P-1or better ...__............. N/R Total Market Value 1991,613,413 -19,829,600 575A79,342 12,800,000 2,599,728,360 MATURITY 30daysorLess 30- 90 Days 90 Days -1Year 1- 2 Years 2-3Years Over 3 Years Total M arket Value 670,479,519 289,321,098 694,181,483 511,122,600 432,823,661 . . ..._. . . . . . 1,800,000 2,599,728,360 2000.% 10.00% 0.00% 1 0.07% 30 days 30 - 90 90 Days 1 - 2 2 - 3 Over 3 or Less Days -1 Year Years Years Years 24 Month Gross Yield Trends c D c W co O m W Z 0 O W c co n W All Taxable Average m A 7 A Market Data .1 w 6/30/04 5/28/04 Diff. 3 M 1.261 1.060 0.201 6 M 1.635 1.378 0.258 2 Y 2.677 2.532 0.145 5 Y 3.766 3.791 -0.025 10 Y 4.581 4.647 -0.066 30 Y 5.288 5.345 -0.057 3M0 6M0 2YR 5YR 10YR 30 YR Yiel 0.6 *The Money Fund reportTM/All Tax- able Average is compiled and re- ported by iMoneyNet, Inc. (formerly IBC Financial Data, Inc.) iMoney- Net, Inc. is a leading provider of independent analyses and informa- tion to the financial services indus- try, with a particular area of focus in money market mutual funds. The All- Taxable Index tracks the yield of over 500 taxable money market funds across several categories i.e. Treasury, Government, and Prime, and reports the average yield of those funds on a monthly basis. For more information on the iMoneyNet, Inc. Index see www.ibcdata.com/index.html Page 2 16 Summary of Authorized Investments The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund was in FULL COMPLIANCE with the Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy. The County's 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. California Government Code Investment Category Maximum Maturity I Authorized 5S Limit LOCAL AGENCY BONDS U:S `TREASURY: CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY DEBT FEDERALAGEHCIES BILLS OF EXCHANGE COMMERCIAL., PAPER: CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS REPURCHASE AGREEM ENTS REVERSE REPOS MED. TERM NOTES r CaITRUST SHORT TERM FUND MUTUAL FUNDS': SECURED BANK DEPOSITS • MORTGAGE PASS, THROUGH•SECURCTIES: LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS 92 DAYS 20% 5 YEARS 270 DAYS i 40% (1) 270 DAYS;; 5 YEARS 30% YEARS N/A N/A 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 5 YEARS., 20% N/A NO LIMIT Count Investment Polic Quality S&P/ Maximum Matur- Authorized % Quality S&P/ Moody's ity Limit Moody's N/A '45;DAYS, 3 YEARS <5 YEARS 3 YEARS 15%/ $150MM 2.5% Actual Riverside Portfolio % A/A2/A 0.00% INVESTMENT GRADE . 0.07% 180 DAYS 30% Al/P1/F1 70 DAYS 40% F Al/Pi/Fl 1 YEAR 25% MAX 40%25°_0 60 DAYS 10% MAX 2 YEARS. 2091; MAX DAILY LIQUIDITY 1% DAILY t-IQUIDITY 1 YEAR AA $EQU,RITYA- 3 YEARS 2% 0.00% 0% MAX Al/Pl/F1 A1/P1/F1 N/A AA/Aa2/AA Board Approved 0.00% 0.76% 0.0096 AAA by2 Of 3 RATINGS AGC. 0.00% 0.38% 1 No more than 30% of this category may be invested with any one commercial bank 2 Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days 3 Or must have an investment advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of $500,000,000. Projected Cash Flow The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. Based upon projected cash receipts and matu- rating investments, there are sufficient Funds to meet future cash flow disbursements over the next 12 months. Month Monthly Receipts Monthly Disbmts Difference Required Mat. Invest Balance Actual Inv. Maturities Avail. To Invest> 1Yr. 07/2004 07/2004 ..' . 08/2004 10/2004 11/2004,: ... 12/2004 01/2004 02/2004 03/2004 04/2004 05/2004.• 06/2004 533.2 460.9 1,046.5 5241, 5118 858.2 608.3 612.5 692.7 6616 • P984) (79.3) L06-9) (2318) 384.9 646.6 (134.8) 6991 729.1 129.1 699.9 (179.5)- 908.1 (299.8) 79.3 166.9 2318 134.8 278_0 142.5 384.9 2013 • 2118.: • 219.6 194.0. 134.2 1�5 89.1 34.5 5.0 10.0 25.0 1,416.5 Totals 7,219.2 8,556.2 (1,337.0) 1,194.5 1,654.4 • 45.75% 63.36% 54.25% THIS COMPLETES THE REPORT REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 53646 17 Page 3 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund th End Portfolio Holdings Report June 30, 2004 CUSIP PAR DESCRIPTION CPD - COMMERCIAL PAPER -DISCOUNT 641056681 50000 000 NESTLE CAPITAL CORP Al*/PI Qb`l l 2621, k ' O aIUG UN am 02581R1298 50000 000 AMERICAN EXPRESS A7/P7/F1 2411.01‘.4.4.7-41:- 17307.2GD8 50.000.000 CIT1 GRP GLBL MKTS A1.11.1 1,10 E(N3 : ..:M 000 i t li s'h�yy Ma. 335,716,000 FCDN - FARM CRED DISCOUNT NOTES 131 "I ' 0 4M ? 109 l Fits ES, 40,000,000 FFCB - FED FARM CREDIT BANK 1 1 WOrFt F'ARi gB d 313314484 10,000 000 FED FARM CREDrT BANK 2YrNc3Mo COUPON MATURITY BOOK VALUE' PRICE M. VALUE* GAIN/LOSS YLD MAT' M Our.' AvgLife2 1.20 7/82004 49,985,000 99 97 49 985 000 s 120 0 02 002 "') 13;'7 'f" `7J9f2oRA '.k5 ^n" 4907? u.C- �.r..��_'w4omoro_f. 7. ''' .r"" ` ' RrOF 4t??s 1.16 7/9/2004 49,975,833_ 99 95 49,975,833 _ 1.16 0.02 0.02 11 . t .,:.X,r , .... ...., cx =1x..9 .. .r: -r. s� � x"5.7 - . �a'���.� t7„a"O..,z.-�e..� 9s� "' 9i37�.r'��'c� _....:�-.�:'x5�s',=-'n..�.�`,s�.9;�1:.-'. 1.15 7/132004 49,960,069 99.92 49,960,069 1.15 0.04 0.04 vt)1c, x,.. 5631x919. n.: '9 ZCR4i; - 5f031"$1'9'r _-:: - - R ,M 335,479,342 n� _- ..,rye .18` . 335,479,342 - 1.16 0.03 k ]_ ..................... : VENCO .; ' Q2? , -i te5= �)a 39,508,333 39,423,052 - (85,281) 1.29 0.47 64 00_1 M?. 'r r. 4D.. 9.4.._ __ .mss W Agilf1 ` ).,250.) :. _a 4145, m 0:..:: 34 7/82005 10 000 000 94 31 9 931 250 (68 750) 1 58 101 1.02 7.7za 0� r e '2 Y9 X928 3 Y 2D7o00)x 10 l� 37337 rEY3 10 000 000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc 1 76 9222005 9 999 400 9919 9 978 750 (80 650) 1.76 1.22 1.23 313tiJl� � aaa 900 D, aw€ QhNP ? �D" o 9f) .10/24/299,9. , 2a'oob 900 99 9 g , ? : f1E2:�a) ) ? la t � 3ZF 31331TMP3 10 000 00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2YrNc1Yr 2 20 12/75205 10 00000 99 34 9 934 375 (65,625) 2.20 1.44 1.46 '068,750) (168,750) 1.80 1.69 1.71 28 125 2.65 185 188 (26,563) 3.02 2.26 2.39 (1,200,613) 1.95 1.45 (14,063) 1.47 0.67 0.67 (45,313) 1.37 1.00 1.00 ° .(49,438) 150:fi_ X1/13 is 114;; (43,750) 170 1.20 1.21 Y,14C (4,688) 2.58 1.42 1 44 r- :: (1.23.438) .. 183,22' -. 49 150•; (71,875) 1.75 1.53 156 ET6 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1 Yr 2.16 1/27/2006 5,000,000 99.16 4,957 813 1(421888) 216yn 1.54 ,1.58 ` _ '3i3'9kffij"7i' :' ,� T 5000006' EO HOME LOAN,B7 OK:Iq.. ; - , ''i:.. .; . .c 2.0:''' 2/I920)35 4990550 , ? :;0=98;51 , y �, 4,940 625 : :(4' 8;925) . 209; . 159 : ...162 3128X2VR3 10 000000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1 xSTEP 1_70 2/17/2006 10.000,000 99.56 9,955 500 (44,500) 2.34 0.63 1.64 31337(BRS7 900tl FED HOMELOAN BAM175YMc6Mo._;:Sw!.,-F 226 _:< ,_,,,,5/1712006 _y,- 5,000,000 99.19 __. 4.959375 - (40,625) 236; 161 " /'.1.64.: 3133X6VH6 5000.000 FED HOME LOAN BANK1 75YrNc9Mo/ 2.35 2/22/2006 5000,000 9934 4,987 188 (32 813) 2.35 1.62 1.65 31 X3,1'51_. ' , ; 5/0000009'E0 HOME,LQA)t ,4/ (2Yr99c3Mo. -; ... 335-1:./ .. 2/272038 .s ,;:. .5000,000...;. 993'1.. „ ._;4,965825 ,(345:75) ',235 162 ;: 1.66. 3133X4A27 _ 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc6NolxSt 1.50 2/272 0 006 5,0 .000 99.53 4,976,563 23.438) 2 32 113 1.66 .0.313147- .- .;103000000;FEDHOMELOANBAT4K2YrNF3 °oStep:: 178:.; 324/2006 10,000;000 , ,-9$34 ".;9,934375._ (65825) ;Ti70' 0.73 1.73- 3133X5J74 5,000 000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc3Mo 2 00 4/13/2006 5,000,000 98.47 _4,923 438 (76,563) 2.00 1.76 1.79 35..:.7, Y, .. . .. _„)3YJ(r �' :10;,000000 'FED HOMECQANBFLNK 23l4Yttdr.3M , , . : _ 2TU :: 7 .�42420pg ._.: t0000 000 9¢:59 •, :`._.9,859,375 :.;_ (140,825) 21,0'.-1 7,79 . : ; 182 3133X5ZF5 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc1Yr1X 2 15 4/2612006 5 000,000 98 66 4.932,813 (67,188) 2.15 1.79 1.82 313„,X6i(u1, 7.?' :10;,000000 FEOHOMEL04(4109NI(2YrNc3M4- ,;`y .. 7,244 _:; : ,4 9)5Oo§ 1000;000 99.16 .;9,915,825 (84375) _244 : . :' 179: i? .1183; 3133X6S49 5,000 000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc3Mcix 2.50 5/19/2006 5,000,000 99.16 4,957 813 (42,188) 2.50 1.85 1.88 :3]55 2 Y0" . .5,050;000:FED HOMELOANgANK2VrNc6MoStep,;: .. .200 _ -- -525%20 6 5046;844 ... -.. .,:5.045.260 :99.9} 3128X3KS1 5,000 000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Yr 3.00 6/8/2006 5,000,000 99.44 4,972,000 (28,000) 3.00 > / 0 1.94 ,3(339t2t7 , _.. 17;000,0002EDHF OELGAN M 8AN)(3Y/Nc3Mp ,,,. , ,. ,, ' __ ' -:. , - 2.38, .6(12/2006 51:4: 17 000,000 9878 .,.:..:1j&,792,640 : (297,060) ,2 36', 92 2.1. 7:95': 3133X4QP9 6,480 000 FED HOME LOAN BANK225YrNe3Mo 2.32 6/26/2006 6,478,988 98.63 6,390,900 (88,088) 133 194 1.99 13089 J5_. ., .. . 20,00000/ tOH()MELON 4i ..3'ri94 s ! ::'; - ,.. t11 .'e00e..2. . 20000000 , '9&19"-; x;',,,x;19.637,500 i (362,50(0) 211.. „197- -, -- -2,00, 3138X5NR5 25.000 000 FEO HOME LOAN BANK2 25YrNc3Mo 2.01 6/30/2006 25 00,000 97.97 24,492,188 (507,813) 2 01 1.97 200 __,, :;i . ,' ,0,. ! 6/30/5006 4997;406 98,03 ..`,x..,`" 4907,663 ((89,844) 211'.. ,_,497 2:00: 11' v'w,4 *K. $,DOQ 000't~EO HOME -LOAN BANPF2''25 r[JC� mow. _ _ 20$ �. , 3133X3564 3100,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2 SYrNo6MoSt 3.00 7%13/2006 3,800,000 9 3• .. ...„. .. . , e ,, _ - 9 ; 84., . ,.. 794 063 (5,938) 2.69 118 2.04 3T1231SSHK7: � 5.000000`'O,EO HOME iQAN,�IK22$Y.rNc'1u1"'� - ;:; 201 .,�� '7!].42008 5,000;000 �,97;9T�(?•'.��;{;�`�4;�98436.-. _;.. _,(1:01 63) .: .zOi. . .z.0:;; :2334-. 31339YFE7 13,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 2.25 7/24/2006 13.000.000 98.38 12,788,750 (211,250) 225 201 2.07 s 14000000' D HOMELOA(417jt 1 ] `- �33 (�.: . .. ;� ... .,,a , ,�C'8�l�oitvlb :: _. 230:.`mt - --7/28/2006 �- 14,00;000 -:J8„44„ ,-13,781250 '�. . � :{218,]50)... - 230." 2.03%'.' , ., zQB 31339YPK2 10 000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNe3MoSte 2.00 7/28/2006 10 000,000 98 81 9,881 250 (118,750) 2.33. 2.02 2.08 1.133 YRBk".,: .„r„ 00000,Midif ED HOMELOANBAN0.043 1" X2;00 .:; p4�, . .. 7/2&2006 0;00 1000 0 ::98.94 ,;_9;893750 (1)36;250) Z>37;� _2.02.':.. ,:,2.08.: 31339YR61 10 000000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNcMoStep 200 7/28/2006 10 000,000 98.94 9,893,750 (106,250) 237 2.02 2.08 3133X3C92„�' , 10,000000 060 HO00,:(44BAN112''SE70c6'85 o$ .!; 2(70 :9 a 728)2006 10000;1100 - 9,75 .»;;.9,76,000 ;0118) 2.75^ :201,.%; "208:. 0 �. (. 3733X6260 5,000 000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2 25YrNe3Mo 2.38 7/28/2006 5 000,000 98.59 4,929,688 70,313 2.37 2.03 2.08 31331(5Zc6,.:_ : ;57,00 00D..FEO HOME(OAN BAFTK25'2 ,N*Io , _: -;,-' _;_ 3 2:51 :: . 2{28/2006 5.000,000 0 x 9 8M1 :4942 188_ •! (27,875) 2.51` .205 *7',.!* -0.-g-; 31339YRZ7 10,00 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3MSTEP 2.00 8/7/2006 9196,875 98.75 9,8/5,000 (121,875) 23 34 2.05 2.10 :31,'.'1.,3HP1, -- :: . . %( 000P E0 HOM5LLQA[8§40121s7r„ rw.9„Mo._,;?; x: •- .,2:50!--:ig 611)2009. .. 9996,313-,„,190,78-,... ...:.9;OI&550 :: (517,063) 252.' ,-2,05.: 2,12- 31339YXD9 12,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 2.50 8/14/2006 12.000,000 98.78 11,853 750 (146.250) 150 2.06 2.12 X133ix75A7 ;:' -';'--'1'''': •000s0- ._., 00> FE0 NOMEOAN 94 o,8 2 SY,t,L`lr p.„:;;.,r.. ;; :,s iiIIANW.-21,,..!:-:,-,.9/12086, ' 5,000;000 ,100.18. .:5,007 813 7513. 3,30'. 0.17:: ' .,•,. 2-17 3133MYZJ9 15,000,00D FED HOME LOAN BANK 3.25 YrNc3M 2.50 9/11200 15 000,00 98.63 14,793 750 206,250) 2 50 2 15 2.20 ( ;l1nC5tiS3 'F .':;r1D4o0 DOp FEU HO)AE'l',O.M],B,/�NKZ:S}'f1;Ic0.Mo. >r ,. , :igL? r5t.75 :'. -E�9i18/2V06 :-,10000",g00 97.@S .:-, ,.x,,.9,Tp1,250 ;.- {218.75,0) ii15_ 249,._ ,. 2 :25' 3133X5MA3 10,08,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.SYrNc6Mo1X 211 929)2006 10,000,000 97.71 9,771,015 (228.925) 2.11 2.20 2.25 . S,O00 0dcg FEU . .:. ;3f 33-��.. C.¢ .�, L...._HOMErLOAt48A�lIY2SVRNgO;Xf�',; °:-;..,;.�;�10 ..+. .:... 132.0116* ,„�.:.. -,:.5.000;000 ,9';;83 .x..; 4.863250 ,e (]18,150). 2.10 _: 223_:.`. .s 229.; 2.15 .... .,Y. 10/20/2006 5,00,00 97.72 4,885938 (114,063) 2.15 2.25 2.31 EZDO :, ,. 10232df16 ;i :. '14,0000001.1,-:, .99:88 ,.']3,982,50 j; .(17,500) 2:96 .0.31 ,: '.2.32.: 2.42 10/27/2006 5.000,000 98.25 4,912,50 (87,500) 2.42 2.27 2.33 2,57. rr .:: 10/27/200 i . . 5.00,000 ,':98.59 _., _ ':4,929,688 ' ' (70`,313) 257. 2.28 _':.. -: 2.33: 2.25 11/13/2006 9,995,313 99.88 9,987,500 (7,813) 3.08 0.37 2.37 ,,,;306 11/17/2006... - 5.000,000 - 99.56 ,T4,978.125. - ;_(21,875) :3.06: 231•'? 2.38: 3133X22E4 5,00,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YMc3MoStep 2.25 11/20/2006 4.995,313 9944 4,971,875 (23,438) 3.10 1.37 2.39 5133)(OVMS;i_c .: : , ; 5,00.000 FEU HOME LOAN BANK2 5Yt(1c6Mg1x ; ' _ - -. 3.00. • .:.:.11222006 - 5,000,000 • .99.44 4;971,875 • ..(28,125) 3.00 232:::::.: 2;40 S93 6,750,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.75YrNc3Mo 2.00 12/22/2006 6,750,00 98.84 6,671,953 (78.047) 2.72 2.41 2.48 ^Q9;:- ,10,000,00 FED HOMELOAN 8ANK2;75YjNc6Mo ..1/52097 10,000,000 97.91 . 9;780.625 (209,375) • 2.42. 244 ', 2.52 - .. : 242-.:?: - �� 31331TXF3 10,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2YrNc1Yr 1.80 3/17/2006 10 000000 98.31 9 831 250 3.' %? RT ' 5.000,od0 tEb Fgtul01.10: 10-5. le6hjp CtFC' 1 : 2.60'Vt ' 3282006 '$ 000 00O 98.5'9 r s,r, ,492 550 31331TKP5 5,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT 8ANK5.5YrNc6Mo 2.65 6/19/2006 5 000 000 99 44 4 971 875 .2. i r _..'):p;00600b F'g[f.FAR Tf jE17F 3AN 2:5irNt7Yr.::.._,,; ✓a'z?4.;,.; ,„.?t„207x _ ..,,; .:. a9(28f 0 .... . 10000,`}3)0 9768' .'7... .;0;1.65625 31331THNO 5,000 000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNc6Mo 3.02 11212006 5000 000 9147 4,973,438 �.' Z . . . _ _1 EOZ ,4 0 1?KFAR8 RFAfii31'rNo St ,?. l& „;':; a "' .._ .6Q ?, : ' 8 &2007 ' S BOO,b00... 9094 _ _pd 4996 750 133,800,000 133,799,400 132,598,788 FHLB FED HOME LOAN BANK y,- le 145'J,".�'r:.,. /1i/2805 .. _ .. ..33 ,4,0:__ -, ?�7tl d�DO Otf0,KE4 FIOMEiOAN_0A`101ji�'S(�"e1, �„ . ...:... _I. ,::? 70,000500 _-.:99,66 ,.1:9965825 3133X3TW3 5,000 000 FED HOME LOAN BANK13MoNc3Mo 1 47 3/1/2005 5.000,000 99.72 4,985,938 -,4133x7623:. , `..6:Ofw,y000,OEi1HOafE LOANBitllt;],;CrtJc3.kt.t�".,...i.3'... 200.-;, x!...;I/f(2oo5 1o000Z;50D 99.0),,.x. 25 ,.. 0981, 0 3133X5RL4 5,000,000 FEO HOME LOAN BANK1 25YrNc3Mo 1.35 8/30/2005 4998 438 99.06 4,953,125 '4fA( :: .. ._.: 50 )3000,,FEDHOMEIOAN BAf,1-"K„ .-,SyfH.O_al _. _«.i::4 '$r.'),50l,. ., ,..9/192005 900,000 :99'03, a.- - K4,951,563 3133X4HR5 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK78MoNc3Mo 1 70 9/162005 5,000,000 99.13 4,956,250 6 . w . . AN.f N_ 2.114, 1N M.. _ x _>.: .:.: ,2,03.:- ,11/1e 2005 : 10,000,000 •3133X05„�8:�- -::'fO 00,0000 FED HQME LO._. K Y,` `"�� -:..: _9g35� �.;�,.;�. .9 ,1,060. 3133X7CM4 5,000 000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 1 5YrNc6Mo1 2.58 12/9/2005 5,000,000 99.91 4,995.313 (?,'t :7;a. ,,.r,",x 19r r0004EEgH0Mr=L0;/t18ANf 173 14141 2190/2[ 5 .. • _.�.,4 .4.& �'TIERu4$7`'.. .. -, �.*, 182..- .YF1�,k 7 _ _ 9 998 438 9 7 T'"�'� "•.. . � �D00 D6 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK7 75YrNc6Mo 1.75 1/19/2006 5,000,000 98.56 4,928,125 z '' ;.1:7.00 ,-6:10 :)10MEL A[J8+,4t;))C,2,S't{[NgMc a art...:;..;',x,a. 1-89, 112312005.. 1000:000 MMIA ._ ,. VP.A7,5A00 3133X M1 5,00 00 FEO HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc9Mo .- 31 . 1(1P5„ ",Sd:f7110 0Q ,f,'ED HOMELOAIJ BAP1K3Y114p3Mo3tep-, 3133X5WCB 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc3Mo 3133X6053.:.. .:: 5;000005,0E0 HOME LOAN 850,2 5Y(Nc6MP ..':'. 3133X1U70 10,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc3MoSlep 3133X6RE8:- ;i,5:000000-0E0HOME,LOAN,I5ANI253frt(clMo, .' Page 1 of 3 18 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 30, 2004 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP PAR DESCRIPTION COUPON 31339YKH4 13000000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3.5YrNc3MoST 3,18$!' 11' 0ML•`-F,EDi0:11104P1W 0114 P , _.._j: 3133X4HY0 8,215,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc3MoStep 3133X5TLZ 5.000.000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc3Step §SPI 'IS -"S :aMEo QMEI,. i ,.� 2: 3133X62Z8 10,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3MoSt 3133X6H25 10,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1 Mo 3133*$S56. „'= ,..,T„,,.,1i ,.8r'60p A 5' ED (TOME LOAFLBANK3' rt p'tA')pili W 3133X6Y42 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Mo 570,200,000 FHLC - FHLB - MORTG. CERT. 3? A17VM •srFo4:!? MOIz7Ge zMktitig. :'s', ;!::1,, to?ff.?.Qa> . _, ,il1 ?g._ 5,449 ab 9WsAitil' Eafftilf'Mr;'r._'t- ; ):"SiEtra. fttl J8 = ES:' 3128X2BW4 5,000,000 FHLB MORTG CERT 2YrNc6Mo1X 2.25 1128/2005 5,000.000 99.56 4,977,800 (22,200) 2.25 1.39 1.41 . .3 t8_ ,.y.' tiMillk.d„9iiifiIL MI ir0!CERY:3 :'t.:, 'is"w 090 7"sI' .>:'I1' 99 fr: . ,5 4:Qo0s 4"e`&al ... ` :4 R_1t4S i ,',FJ:a' .rP �i t. ' t 3133X5ZA9 5,000,000 FHLB MORTG CERT 1 75YrNc9M1 2.02 1/27/2006 5,000.000 98.94 4946 875 (53,125) 2.02 1.55 1,58 PP,, .� , ' 000,4oa : O.: Gg .gY1ri3O*st>L 2xY, . _;., _ .` : }ate 6714071 :' "AP` A a 9 MOLI1 ' ? 0.03 0. 3128X2ZV0 6,275,000 FHLB MORTG. CERT.2YrNc3Mo 2.11 3/15/2006 6,273,118 98.85 6.203,089 $ (70,029) 2.13 168 1.71 lOT26*3C7"L3,�i '�( 1'D OOIFOQO FHLB` MORTG CEk7, Y 9.4.1e' '" ;; :: 3128X3AX1 10,000.000 FHLB MORTG. CERT2YrNc6Mo ° IMB:.s.,��•lr.1,.u1:1':: 1 COM1-6 1013.17 CE T;.#r4lelYilYgn: , .. :.. . a.: 4 . ` 24:B ` fo or,. ,rte.,, � r'i -c1 EigiERIS BO 090' 3128X3FS7 5,000,000 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc3Mo 7$7C Cl'T.4"'�s'7.2'.-_5`OW'OQif,:HLB MORTG CFi)l29:00.Mi 3128X2784 5,000,000 FHLB- MORTG. CERT3YrNc1Yr1,St 4136}.„4 gai1>O Hf IHI-E MORTG, CE.T3Yr{,1c1Yf7xSt 3128X2F42 5,000,000 FHLB MORTG. CERT3YrNc6MoSte 3128 p _ .. rfaii170F% 004 MORjG.CEl2Y31k/Nc1Xry `. . 3128X2404 5,000,000 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.3YrNc1YStep 3128MAYO S.e:k 4,.400 uo0: NLe MORTG CER1;;3YrNe3Mo 106,275,000 FHLD - FED HOME LOAN DISCOUNT 313304YYU13-, _...... • .3 000000..FE(1 HOM �EOANDISCOUNT .. •i, 1,91:. -!:- 7/22QR4, 313384C56 35,000.000 FED HOME LOAN DISCOUNT 1.01 8/18/2004 70,800.000 FNMA FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 31g§. :, . = o: Mi.4;ii000/)0,q,P60 NATMORTGASSOE.1Yrfl0. z;:..'.r. ' 1;.T5,,;, -::.: .5/23t2095 10000,0,00, 99;66 .,...m._. 9,965,625'..>_..'. a"iillAgOlig -y 5�.,- .n'09¢, x.7,6 0- ' 3136F3748 20000888 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC? YrNc3MoSt 1.30 72912005 20,000.000 99.72 19.943,750-- (56,250) 1.71 1.07 1.08 3)33X236,3,„ '�)))`q00 000�,;*ED NAT.MO6TG A5'S'',OQ.2YtN41 5i- ';,; °- 5,17'200 , ,, iWI:T g08, 10090 000 99-91 [ 'r=i f9 590 625.,,Y;(,;'y� z $3 :'fit 2-5 .', ` 1 ' 6 EL r 3136F4MG6 10000 000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 225YrNc1Y 200 1/27/2006 9,906,250 98.88 9,887.500 (18,750) 2.43 1.55 3135F3S23:_� " g' '! NA1'44O,RTG7k5SO 5Yrll)a3M 'x"a:0,0]:,'•.',::. 1 - 7846;154 '.9899 .7764„;11 e 1 2 k /' - �_..-�..- sa.,65g0?(2.;`�? ,.,. ._. .. ., ... ��, -.� .. ...>�. .�� �!a200g.. > .. >.).. 4. w;.w. ::t82,f).91 .a _0� ` r.S? �- ';'-. 3136F3V29 10000 000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 2.5YrNc 2.02 2/6/2006 9,995,313 98.91 9,890.625 (104,688) x 2.04 1.57 3136F45N¢' ,'�_ 136,000: FED NAT MORTG,/ SOC2YrNc6Mo , ;a'' :. .: - ;:1,.217: -7.. ,.7,7, 2/17/2006. 5'000:000 '. 9906 :4953,1251_. : +'" 1`•`(46 B ..>n ,. .. 7�) r�''�a,#771:;i7�'F-.1:60 _ ;'.-;3 `.z'°4.0¢'- 3136F45N0 4,775,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc6Mo 2 17 2/17/2006 4 773,508 99.06 4,730.234 (43,273) 2.19 1 60 1.64 31359M11A9 , "006800 F60i NAT MORTGASEOC 2Y,Nc1Yrix ':.: _,; 225 '°10'22872606 5 000000 991.1 44 9562,2 0 .d -%.143,75 V8'1 .117N. 3., ., 1:67 . 3136F5HR5 2000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc3Mo RCTC 3136F5)1g'S�z, „ ; 3)000 000 F_E,D NAT MORTG ASSOG2YrNc3Mo , 3136F5HQ7 5,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc1YrSt 3136F5R)41: �' _ F �--,8,000,000 F,.ED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2VrNc1X 3136F41N2 10,000.000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC2.5YrNc6Mo 3136F9ED9 -.'10 00000(5 'E0 NAT MMMOtRTG ASSOC2:25YrN91Y, 3136F3U53 10.000.000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC3YrNc3MoSte 01360:11,9j,., - '10 000,000r PEO NAT•MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc6Mo .;'.: 3136F5JT9 m5 000 000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2.5YrNc1Yr MATURITY HOOK VALUE' PRICE M. VALUE* GAIN/LOSS YLD MAT' M Dur.4 Avg. Life 200 1/30/2007 12,995,938 98.97 _ 12,865,938 (130,000) 2.71 2.03 2.59 ".,,.'Z..2 J x' 7_ . . 5 ds3' , .: llik .. -: MIDECr? 'rt9 n�` c; .',, ', ' . . i ...�:%-� 9 2.00 3/16/2007 8,215,000 99.06 8137,984 (77,016) 2.98 1.68 2.71 WIERriMge i,�.UR .% 00 .._.`'9 O" ;" � 3;3�ia `E" $� t e::, >. : .lre ,�s_ 2.00 4/27/2007 5.000,000 98.44 4,921,875 (78,125) 282 2.73 2.82 `. . 313 ,N L4;ITr'> OMNE *� 1 ,49,9`? t�; ? ), "31 2 ::u 225 4/30/2007 9,998,438 98.94 9,893,750 (104,688) 3.07 1.80 2.83 8 • S�Ep' `5)_ 7 s- r 1` 000._ '=,rr"- F:. Tx; J37" I a Y)' `� ,a rB"I"i 439„:;:':.*:"" 3 21 5/11/2007 10000 000 9928 9.928,125 (71,8751_X321 2.7s 286 3A . l,"L?kfl: '::. .�sear000. ; 5: *¶ �� 1 1) -4 a ?16 . 3.61 5/25/2007 5,000,000 100.09 5,004.688 4,688 3.61 0.07 2.90 570,150,943 563,822,867 (6,328,076) 2.41 2.04 g'a 'r 2.506`='. ... b..W.fllg VK'a"!"""h ' Q 'V4N ' . ,y . rl. 929 (i6,' P.. 9. ._r.. ... , 2.22 4272006 10 000000 98.79 9 879200 (120800) 2.22 1.79 1.82 3.00 ' `>_.,,.,g. X000 100;0,... `.i7,.', Br :a 5002,. -:.,.._ ?:, ,i 2: :„ , .x.53 ,s�0_..',4. 7 :_0 2.93 5/26/2008 5,000,000 99.89 4,994,350 (5,650) 2.93 1.86 1.90 300:'. ---... . 0rnwg .. . 5000000 _ 9,9-96 ... . . ,, 499&100n.. . , . _w*„tt900 ' I ITE _>MI,:.f.92a_: 2.00 3/2/2007 5,000,000 99.11 4.955,380 (44,700) 2.88 2.58 2.67 ,2,9914.. _,x.3(2/29,7 :� 10AP4.00 .. - .: 9.91`11„Qs o ;_ r .. ?3:56; IM i,7, 2.00 3/8/2007 5,000,000 9745 4,672,250 (127,750) 3.01 2.60 2.69 2.49 :..,;.',4a. .3., ..5 .. 10000.0000. 9776.. d.3077&7.,..t'.<..;s'.w o 0oFsk 49"7 6.8..: '� 2.10 4/12/2007 5,000,000 97.88 4,893.750 (106,250) 2;56 2.70 2.78 .. -1:'..141)-9":',::•'•':.•''E'•"444(01,01'. -- �:: :', 5,000.D9Si, ...96;86 ,44992.`7.+0..��1,,:•s:4:3ii67250}:s.:.]aA9C - 2,72 w:�7?n.@'3.,. 2.05 3/29/2006 2 000,000 98.66 1.973.125 26,875) 2.05 1 72 1.75 34.5`:' 3/29/2006 3000.000 .98,66 . .. . >29! 9688. M: "b:(49, 13) ,..,::20 ._ 1''72 - 7S 1.40 3292006 5.000.000 99.09 4 954,688 (45,313) 2.19 0.74 1.75 ..2'1.0.` -07192006`. 5000;000 .-1:!'.-]::::::00i617:',!:,: .,:!;:'',...-Oat250 . :::_-..10875V.0)..W: 21(1„ ¢:70:.:,n ,1,80 2.48 4/21/2006 10,000,000 98.22 9,821,875 (178,125) 2.48 1.77 1.81 7,713 ` s/ts/2u96: • ;; .3.998<38 /8:34. ...._ -'9.8344375._.... .. C1:13:'�=013111.x. 2:?3. ,. .a92..t :- .)....... 2.07 7/24/2006 10,000,000 98.84 9.884,375 (115,625) 2.35 201 2.07 200; .'7/28/2006 -' 101000;000 ,':98:81 ,:9881250 i^ (1.18;750„)/# .7200 2,02' ,248. 207 9292006 5,000,000 97.63 4,881,250 51 ,750) 2.07 2.20 - 2 25 4)4004.00 i; .. 04O.P.00y fED NAT AgffrG ASSOC.25YrNC6N10::;,. < . 2 13.' '',40.04000.:-:,::•••'•:0•.;!;:000:0.0- '0.4-. --_=+4 84$5,9 88 : if18t:ij i 2 t:.._ 2 21.-: .227 2.00 11/92006 5,000,000 99.84 4992188 _- (7,813). 2.00 0.86 236 313665057.., rta..W 5x15'000000 F NAT MOR1:0: 00C.2.5YrN01Yr, :�•`: • � 225:;;:':, 12)15/2008 ;4998.438 ;. 1006 .,a. ':.5007660,9: zi .-:$a��:. 3:- _:. -:'. 5':� � 246 :.., ....:. :_., ... - :: 0 .__._.._.. �� 2.13 4/12/2007 10000,000 97.69 9768750 (231,250) 2.53 2.70 2.78 38.'x, .: 1.`1/,11012007". .-i.:.w'-... 6,49$:984 '99.75 4837 6, -:_ _ :. (l L.•7. 44..623 0:6.16 ,:vz;"� 586 174,017,083 172,342,175 (1,674,908) 224 1.79 „.1.09?, a 7/7)2)104 ';; ;44,751.,456 .:99.45-..,?•:. ,-."4f.41,458.�,', :ur.,, 'f/',E11..._::.DU2i� 1.13 7/13/2004 49,959,194 99.92 49.959,194 3136F5V1Z 5,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2.5YrNc6MS 3136F5M00 10000 000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc1YrSt 31360'.114- > rS:6-,00o )1DO FDONATI'99 T(1 As)1bc 3YrNG3MoSt.;'.. , _ �_ 174,125,000 FNMO - FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 3,'(,3596X6.4' _- ,", '4 00)1 000, FNMA. DISCOLJNT/1OTE3 `:; .:> �7"y 3135887-H1 50,000,000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 3T358t3�70 ;,�,;�4�01100 FiNMADI50btINTNOT,E.S �" 106.273,118 105,173,145 (1,099,973) 2.56 2.09 34,92+.444 ' 9978 34,839,943 99.54 69,761,388 ':34 9244 ,x.: _ 5A,; ud1 . ,_ 001':: ,1." 1; 34,839.943 - 1.01- 0.13 0.13 69,761,388 - 1.81 0.07 101:. ''.•-.13•/4•&004!!n!.. :•' :398321789 •.9958 ,„' :;:•'-B9, .832 .05:,-`t,,,' .':' 4.,. _a. 104.:,:•--0 0 0.040: 313508E35 35000 000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES '----1'.02:" 9/12004 34,832,408 99.52 34832 408 1.02 .6:ii 0 17 ,`3/13588691: .7.w, § ;050009.>$.T.'/,MADISCOUNT TES :. r 103;::.., _9%15/3004, ' 'n:.34817;747. :9948` 34877,747,.,.E :a'2 4 -. . 114'1 021. .0421. 313586H73 35.000,000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 1.06 9/29/2004 34,814,349 99.47 34 814,349 - 1.06 0.25 0.25 3135881/0.1 ' ` :' 1 -: `50,004010 FNMA DISCOUNTNOTES r 1.052'.: 9/302004 ! 49:695;000 98.:30 '.:. ., , 49647705.;.. ) •.:1, .% 1;07 r"'+025 '>: ,.. .: 46,25 313396H89 40,000,000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 1.10 9/30/2004 39,804,444 9966 39.864.000 59,556 1.13 025 0.25 313586K53': :.`35000,000?ei4MAOISCOUN(10- S x- - :':" :1:17:: ,10/132,00,/ ,34,792 ,975 pip, -- . 34,Y60r810:- -(52165)53221W.El=:•0- • _:. ._. 313588M36 40 000000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 1.23 10/272004 39 751,267 99.29 39.716.532 (34,735) 1.26 0.33 313588M51. S '' ;50000;000 FNf.4ADISCOUNTNOTEs .:. q : 103:' 01292004 94969/569 - •99.22 49611235 .'- (78334)"•0-,,;x,06` 033ir 313396M8 10.000,000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 107 11/1/2004 9936,100 99.45 9945000 . .. . . . . 0.34 'r. .x34.766;142 .. . .0 9916. > ::. .: 34 705 41` - : _ a... "(50, .. .. 8,900 1.'1"1 10 7 11 034036. . . 7034 313566t4.92��� V ,/-�35�90b,�f00�)<(,4MQDISCQUNTTIO„iES �' - :% .�'. ., 1 14.;: 11/10/{004. : _ 313588073 35.000,000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 1.05 11/24/2004 34,751,938 99.07 34,673,478 (78,460) 1.08 0.40 0.40 3133986 r .3 ,,,�{� 000 , „ „ ISCOUNTyf47}TFS.,.- - -`:. .r_: . 1.13, 1.1.. ... ' x.34,739:629 .99 ..':34 ti:,, 1', 67 . 1 r0' .,54�!. r:?.:,.� .X�!!n._...i�f?4MAD _ .:. ... . .�' �' :._o�.. .- :. 666a4�--_�•' � �3 )- "�$4�� 0,42:�--. 313396R62 15,000,00D FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 1.07 12/12004 14,882,300 99.28 14,892,000 9,700 1.07 0A2 0.42 313388S53<:r r x 35000(100 F?'1MA OISOOUNT NOTES. X125 ;1218120404 34726563 • 99'01 :3439:49$',600 34 65 x5 „1,556) '001413 :'.. 44 '0744: 313589AU7 40.000000 000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES ! 26 • 1/19/2005 39615,000 98.73 39 493 600 121,400 :1.31)2i11;; 056 0 56 313589BY$; ,.' .. 35000,000 ¥FMMADISCOUNT NO TES ": , a "141.:- ;• 2/162005 ;' X34.50'7;379 .., : 98 . _ 34,482,669 :: ,5(;104,711) .. 9466WT 0:63:: . _-r: 6$: 690,736,250 690,124.381 (611,869) 1.14 0.29 695,000,000 FRMC - FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 313396887- . ,:1d,�00000(5 E.DEIAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP 61 313396E25 50,000,000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 31$396023 - :§ 000000=('EDERALHOME LOAN MORG 00RPDI 313396071 35,000,000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI $13396854 :`50 000000; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 313397AE1 25 000.000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 220,000,000 • 7;1;29: -::8/122004,-`, . : ".. ., 9.869188, 9169'; 1.02 1.02: 1.14 ;1.12 1.38 8/31/2004 49,746,417 99.49 '8731/2004 - 49;750,667 997,$0, 11/24/2004 34,749.517 99.35 11/302004 49,629,778 99:05' 1/5/2005 24.763.292 98.83 218,508,878 .:9869208:' : 1:29 :012 `Qi2` 49,746,417 1.03 0.17 0.17 : ., ;49,750667 34,772,500 22,983 1.15 0.40 0.40 49526375 ;.(103,403). 131 ... ..0:42: 24,708,458 (54,834) 1.39 0.52 218,373,624 (135,254) 1.12 Page 2 or 3 19 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund th End Portfolio Holdings Report June 30, 2004 CUSIP PAR DESCRIPTION LAO - LOCAL AGENCY OBLIGATIONS COUPON MATURITY BOOK VALUE' PAVITATA uhA_ MS . I' " MEMU? YMIti rzoage g 865,000 LOCAL AGENCY OBLIGATIONS 1,800,000 MMF - MONEY MARKET FUND_ fkaRRIERREP 1,000,000 MTNO - MED TERM NOTES 369620F82 10,000,000 GE CAPITAL GROUP 20,000,000 REPO - REPURCHASE AGREEMENT SMitinkiSERWANO:iMPROINOCKgY 40,000,000 MERRILL LYNCH 240,000,000 TCD - TIME DEPOSITS a ., iM.. .?',.1't" Fi0 `C!? o'BtJSgtSS li,r 10,000,000 2,617,916,000 17(ttc 'The market value. and yield of shonneno money make, saurnwa arc based on pucka., price. 'Average fife is Se number of years until p,:neip 1 is ,carves, at maturity. weighted by mark. value, 'local Agency Obligations have variable rate coupons. spread to to Pool. • PRICE M. VALUE* 2.13 6/15/2020 865,000 100.00 865,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,000,000 GAIN/LOSS iteVEBRIMMORGEZ3RMItt 1,000,000 - YLD MATT M Dur.4 Avg. Life2 - i3X E wa9.o5 2.13 13.46 15.97 2.13 11.85 0899 -!:ig;a;L:: 0.89 0.08 = ..�;.:. ..? a�F tONAD A.;IR_MiONWEEMOIWO}R.riEEN,. :S 't w 2.00 7!3012006 10,000,000 98.69 9,668,600 (131,400) 2.00 1.55 1.59 1rtit 4 1.40 7/1/2004 20,000,000 19,829,600 (170,400) 2.12 1.36 40,000,000 100.00 240,000,000 40,000,000 240,000,000 10.000,000 10,000,000 2,611,034,734 2,599,728,360 'Modified Duration. The percentage twice change ofa savorily fora given change in yield. The I,igher the modified duration of a se -eerily. die higher its risk 1.40 0.00 0.00 - 1.44 0.00 1.60 x;28; 8.28 (11,306,374) 1.63 0.77 0.86 Page 3 013 20 AGENDA ITEM 7 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement No. 05-31-511, Amendment #1 to Agreement No. 02-31-042 with Berg & Associates, Inc., to provide additional Construction Management/Inspection Services for the Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Enter into Agreement No. 05-31-511, Amendment #1 to Agreement No. 02-31-042 with Berg & Associates, Inc., to provide additional Construction Management/Inspection Services for the construction of the Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley, for a not to exceed contract amount of $510,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and approve an the expenditure of Contingency funds up to the remaining $200,000, and 3) Forward to the Commission for approval. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Route 60 Moreno Valley High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Median - Widening Project extends from the East Junction of the Rt-60/I-21 5 Interchange to Rt-60 and Redlands Boulevard in Moreno Valley. The project includes the construction of one (1) HOV lane, in each direction, in the median of Rt-60, between Pigeon Pass Road and Redlands Boulevard. This median widening requires the construction of two new median bridges at Pigeon Pass Road and Heacock Street and the reconstruction of the Perris Boulevard Undercrossing. Additionally, noise barriers and landscaping will be constructed at various locations along the right of way. On February 13, 2002, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 02-31-042 to Berg & Associates, Inc., to provide Construction Management/Inspection Services for the construction of the Route 60 Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening Project, 21 for a Base Work amount of $3,011,440 and a Contingency amount of $300,000, for a total Contract not to exceed amount of $3,311,440. On June 18, 2003, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 03-31-052 to SEMA Construction, Inc., for construction of the Route 60 Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening Project, for the low bid amount of $23,919,049. SEMA was given a Notice to Proceed on August 18, 2003 with the first day of construction starting on August 25, 2003. The Agreement required that SEMA complete construction, excluding plant establishment, within one (1) year after start of construction. This accelerated schedule was to minimize the amount of time and inconvenience to motorists dealing with the concurrent construction activities associated with the construction of this project and the Rt-60/Rt-91 /I-215 Interchange Project. To meet the Contract schedule requirements, SEMA has consistently worked overtime and multiple shifts, during the week, and some Saturdays and Sundays. To support the construction effort, the Berg & Associates Construction Management and Inspection Team has also had to work overtime and multiple shifts, during the week, and some Saturdays and Sundays. This additional shift work was not included in Berg & Associates Contract scope of work and respective cost estimate in the subject contract. Staff has been working with Berg & Associates tracking the progress of construction and also tracking the costs associated with Berg & Associates/RCTC Construction Management/Inspection Services Contract. It is estimated that an additional $410,000 in Berg & Associates Construction Management/Inspection Services will be required to support construction through the end of the construction portion of the project, which is currently scheduled for the end of November, 2004, and the end of plant establishment, which is scheduled for November of 2005. During the start of construction, the amount of surveying services required exceeded that anticipated and authorized in the Berg & Associates/RCTC Contract. The main reason for the overrun in surveying services was because of the extensive surveying required to perpetuate the existing monumentation of all the property corners adjacent to where new sound walls were to be constructed as part of the Route 60 Moreno Valley HOV Project. This extensive surveying requirement was greater than that anticipated, estimated and included within the original contract budget and required additional survey work to be performed by Berg and Associates which totaled approximately $100,000. On August 13, 2003, the Executive Director authorized this additional survey work to be reimbursed from the Contingency amount of $300,000, which was authorized by the Commission as part of the initial Budget for Agreement No. 02-31-042 to Berg & Associates, Inc., to provide Construction Management/Inspection Services for the construction • • • of the Route 60 Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening Project. The authorization of the approximate $100,000 from the Contingency results in a final Contingency Balance of approximately $200,000. To assure complete compliance with Federal Funding requirements staff is recommending that this additional survey work be included in this Amendment #1 request. The approximate $200,000 balance in contingency will remain in addition to the $510,000 ($410,000 for overtime + $100,000 for additional survey work) authorized by Amendment #1. With this agenda item, staff is recommending that the Commission approve Agreement No. 05-31-511, Amendment #1 to Agreement No. 02-31-042, to Berg & Associates, Inc., to provide additional Construction Management/Inspection Services for the Construction of the Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley, for a not to exceed contract amount of $510,000. This will bring the new contact value to $3,521,440 ($3,011,440 + $510,000) with $200,000 remaining in contingency. Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the final agreement and approve the expenditure of Contingency funds up to the remaining $200,000 as needed on behalf of the Commission. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 04/05 Amount: $510,000.00 Source of Funds: Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) and Measure "A" Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 222-31-81302 P 3000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \)/-iteAz,i40.1t Date: 8/23/04 23 AGENDA ITEM 8 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Western County Members of the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs & Public Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: TUMF Regional Arterial Priority Project Recommendations WESTERN COUNTY MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Establish a five year TUMF Regional Arterial Program for the period FY2005 to FY2009 pursuant to the Commission's first Call for Projects solicitation and direct staff to administratively update the approved project status, cost and revenue figures pursuant to any future actions taken by WRCOG to amend its TUMF 10 year Strategic Plan and Nexus Study; 2) Approve the list of 23 projects (Attachment A) as eligible for TUMF Regional funding; 3) Program an estimated $71.3 million in TUMF Regional Funds as noted on Attachment A which represents either the amount requested by the local agency or the maximum TUMF Funding identified in the Nexus Study: a. $08.7 M - Project Development (PA&ED) FY '05 thru 09 b. $09.5 M - Design (PS&E) FY '05 thru 09 c. $19.0 M - Right of Way FY '05 thru 06 d. $09.1 M - Construction FY '05 thru 06 e. $25.0 M - Mid County Parkway and Route 79 Realignment Projects 4) Direct staff to develop and seek approval of a model TUMF Regional Funding Agreement between local agencies and RCTC for the selected TUMF projects and phase(s) that assures the Commission work will be completed as detailed in the project proposals and requires local agencies to commit to funding these and future phases of work on the 24 project for which TUMF Regional funds can not fund or are insufficient to cover all costs of the project/phase, and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June, the RCTC issued a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial CaII for Projects to the cities and county in Western Riverside County. The Call for Projects requested local agencies (14 incorporated cities and four Supervisorial Districts) to submit their top priority projects on the nine High Priority Arterial Corridors which were approved "in concept" by the Commission at their meeting on February 11, 2004. A total of 29 projects from 12 agencies requesting over $230 million in TUMF Regional funds were received on the July 12th submittal due date. Being the first TUMF CaII for Projects process, a "learn as you go" cooperative attitude was clearly exhibited by all stakeholders in the process. RCTC wishes to acknowledge and thank the local agencies for their active participation and patience during the evaluation process. A number of lessons were learned in applying the selection criteria adopted in the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) TUMF 10 year Strategic Plan. The project evaluation process was initiated by performing a TUMF Nexus Study consistency review of the proposed projects. WRCOG provided the assistance of their TUMF consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. (PB), to perform the consistency review and support RCTC's overall process. The detailed consistency review information prepared and presented by PB's Darren Henderson was valuable to the evaluation process. Clearly, the local agencies and RCTC Staff appreciated the high level of technical support provided by WRCOG's consultant team. The western county members of RCTC's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) were convened to review the projects. Each project(s) proponent had an opportunity to present their project and respond to various questions posed by Committee members including challenging the consistency review findings such as the calculation of maximum eligible TUMF funding. The TAC and Staff are recommending that a five year TUMF Regional Program (2005-2009) be established to provide the greatest flexibility in funding and support the development of projects to move forward to construction. The five year program will require periodic updating to administratively account for any changes in the Strategic Plan and Nexus Study as approved by WRCOG and local jurisdictions to incorporate cost, revenue and project specific adjustments. Staff • 25 • • • also anticipates that additional TUMF Regional Call for Projects efforts will likely be needed within the five year period to adjust programming of new projects or new phases of existing projects being recommended for funding. In addition, it is recommend that 23 projects as detailed on Attachment A be awarded $71.3 million in TUMF Regional funds. Of the original 29 projects submitted, six (6) projects are not being recommended for consideration at this time. Two projects, Moreno Valley's Reche Vista/Reche Canyon realignment and widening project and the County's I-215/Clinton Keith interchange project will be brought back to the Commission for funding consideration at a later date. Additionally, one project was deemed to be duplicative and was withdrawn, and three projects, while on the TUMF Network, were not on the list of High Priority Regional Arterials nor on the Backbone System and are not recommended for funding. They will appropriately be referred to the TUMF Zone Program for funding consideration by WRCOG's sub areas. The recommended projects are in various states of development. Some agencies have started or completed the environmental phase (project approvals and environmental document (PA&ED)) and design (plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E)) with local funds. Other agencies are requesting TUMF funds to begin PA&ED and PS&E. The earliest construction is programmed to occur in 2006. Once the project development work is complete, we anticipate a significant level of demand for construction funds beginning in 2007 through 2009. Staff is recommending the Commission approve the allocation of all project development (PA&ED and PS&E) work requested over the five year period, 2005 thru 2009. Right of way and construction funding is recommended for project requests in 2005 and 2006. By not programming funds for right of way and construction at this time, it will allow RCTC to consider cash flow impacts as projects become ready for construction. This "first come, first serve" concept will hopefully act as an inducement to lead agencies to move as quickly as possible through the project development and environmental stages. Staff will return to the Commission with funding recommendations for right of way and construction requests in year 2007 and beyond after WRCOG completes its planned update of the TUMF Strategic Plan and Nexus Study this coming winter. It is anticipated that the update will affect project segment and maximum TUMF eligibility data. One other significant issue affects Riverside County as three of their projects are currently included in existing Road and Bridge Benefit Districts (RBBD). The issue is that the proposed project can either be funded in the RBBD or in the TUMF program, but not both. The projects affected by this condition that require a County decision are the Route 79 - Domenigoni to Thompson, the Clinton Keith/I- 26 15 interchange and the Bundy Canyon/Scott Road improvement. The recommendation in this item is to approve funding for these projects conditioned upon the County removing the projects from the RBBD's. WRCOG's Strategic Plan estimated Regional TUMF funding for a five year period at approximately $220 million. This revenue estimate may be increased or decreased based on the outcome of the Taussig study jointly funded by WCROG and RCTC. The revenue projections are expected to be available around August 20th with a final report due in mid -September. Based on the WRCOG forecast, it appears that there are sufficient TUMF Regional funds to support the allocation of $71.3 million as detailed on Attachment A and in the Recommendation section above. Included in the recommendation is the establishment of an initial allocation of $25.0 million to support development of the future Mid -County Parkway and Route 79 Realignment projects. The purpose of this allocation is to support the projects as they are developed. Staff is certain the initial allocation for the Mid County and Route 79 projects will likely require additional TUMF funds in the near future. Previous TUMF Regional fund commitments made by the Commission include: $ 1 .00 M - Route 79 (Domenigoni to Thompson) $ 5.00 M - Mid County Parkway (Cajalco/Ramona Corridor) $13.40 M - Route 91 /Green River Interchange project loan There were a number of issues wrestled with during the evaluation process by the Western County TAC. Several of those issues are discussed below which the Commission should be aware of prior to taking action. First, the improvements identified in the approved TUMF Network and the Nexus Study are currently estimated to be at least 25% under funded by the existing TUMF Fee. This projected revenue shortfall exists for several reasons including, but not limited to, development agreements approved prior to the TUMF fee being put in place, phasing in of the fee on commercial development, exclusions for government and educational facilities, etc. Second, the TUMF Network includes improvements on several segments along Cajalco Road and Van Buren Blvd, for example, which cannot be fully funded by TUMF. TUMF funds can only be used for improvements addressing traffic impacts generated by future development not existing conditions. These arterial segments will be evaluated on a case by case basis and local jurisdictions may be required to fund the improvements needed to meet existing traffic impacts or the TUMF update may assist in addressing the funding gap. Third, cost estimates for the various phases of roadway and interchange improvements including right of way acquisition, earthwork, bridges and other • 27 • structures used in the Nexus Study were developed using "average" costs for these types of improvements rather than specific cost estimates for each segment or interchange. There will be many arterial segments where the actual cost to environmentally clear, design and construct the improvement will exceed the estimated cost basis incorporated in the Nexus Study. Conversely, there may be segments where the eligible TUMF funds will be higher than the actual cost of delivering the project. Overall it is anticipated that the issue of "average" cost estimates will increase the estimated 25% shortfall in TUMF funding for the arterial and local systems. Fourth, the Commission should take great care to maintain a relationship between the cost estimates used in the Nexus Study and the TUMF Funds programmed for various roadway segment and interchange improvements in order to not compromise the integrity of the Nexus Study and Fee relationship and/or increase the estimated 25% gap between estimated costs for the projects and the revenues anticipated from the fees. In response to this gap issue, the WRCOG 10 Year TUMF Strategic Plan included criteria to encourage local funding participation. It is safe to say that no one project is simple or without unique conditions, particularly in this first TUMF Call for Projects process. To ensure that the various issues are consistently addressed in each of the selected projects, Staff is recommending that a model agreement be developed by which the terms and conditions for receiving TUMF Regional funds will be clearly understood by the Commission and local agencies. Once developed the TUMF model agreement will be presented to the Commission for its review and approval. The Commission's agreement with local agencies should require that when TUMF Regional Arterial funds are committed to a project, the local agency will complete the improvement. This means that local agencies will have to provide local or other funding where necessary to cover costs exceeding the maximum TUMF funding for the segment or interchange, as identified in the Nexus Study, so that funds are not committed to projects that will not be built. This requirement will place additional match responsibility on local agencies. In some cases, the funding gap may be addressed by a TUMF fee increase which goes beyond inflationary adjustments. Attachment: TUMF Regional Arterial Priority Project Funding Recommendations 28 Riverside County Transportation Commission 2004 TUMF Cali for Projects Funding Recommendations aerials Project Funding Recommendations ect Phases: A&ED = Project Approvals & Environmental Document R/W = Right -of -Way acquisition and utility relocation Cons = Construction PS&E = Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Track 10 Year Rating Arterial Project Details Lead Agency Project Title Project Limits Project Schedule and Funding Requirements ( $'s in millions) Note: Gray FY cells are not recommended for funding at this time Phase 1 A Corona Green River Road Project Dominguez Ranch Road to SR 91 2 B Corona Foothill Parkway - Westerly Extension Paseo Grande to Lincoln Avenue 4 A/C Riverside County Transportation Department Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Bundy Canyon Road from I- 15 Munieta Road, Scott Road from Murrieta Road to 1-215 5 A Riverside County Transportation Department State Route 79 Improvement Project Widen State Route 79 to four (4) lanes from Thompson Road (south limit) to Domenigoni Parkway (north limit) 6 A Riverside County Transportation Department Van Buren Bridge Boulevard Widening and Bridge Replacement On Van Buren Blvd from Clay Street (north limit- approx. 1000 feet north of the Santa Ana River) to approx. 1200 feet south of the Santa Ana River. 8 A Riverside County Transportation Department Van Buren Widening - Washington Street to Wood Road - Project Development On Van Buren Blvd between Washington Street and Wood Road in the Woodcrest area 11 A/B Riverside County Transportation Department Eastern Bypass Project Development Eastern Bypass from Auld Road to 1-15 13 A Riverside County Transportation Department Potrero Boulevard Project Development Potrero Blvd. from San Timoteo Canyon Road/ Oak Valley Pkwy to SR 79 7 A Riverside Van Buren Boulevard Widening - Andrew Street to Garfield Street Van Buren Boulevard from Andrew Street to Garfield Street PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons FY 2005 Year Total PA&ED PS8,E R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons $ 0.712 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 $ 4.242 $ - $ 2.000 $ 2.000 $ 4.000 $ - Year $ 0.712 $ Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons $ 1.000 Year $ 1.000 $ - Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons $ 0.226 $ 17.282 $ 13.000 $ - $ - $ 4.860 $ - Year $ 0.226 $ - Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons $ 1.000 $ 0.564 $ - $ 1.000 Year Total $ 1.000 $ 1.000 $ 1.000 $ - PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Year Total $ 2.000 $ 2.000 $ - $ 0.905 $ - Phase Total $ - $ 2.000 $ 2.000 $ 17.282 $ 21.282 $ 0.712 13.000 $ 14.000 Page 1 of 3 29 Arterials Project Funding Recommendations - Continued Date: 08/23/04 Project Phases: PA&ED = Project Approvals & Environmental Document R/W = Right -of -Way acquisition and utility relocation PS&E = Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Cons = Construction • Arterial Project Details Project Schedule and Funding Requirements ( $'s in millions) Note: Gray FY cells are not recommended for funding at this time Track 10 Year Rating Lead Agency Project Title Project Limits Phase 18 A Riverside Van Buren Boulevard Widening - Santa Ana River to Jackson Street Van Buren Boulevard from Santa Ana River to Jackson Street 19 A San Jacinto Ramona Expressway Widening (TUMF Priority) Sanderson Avenue (Hwy 79) to westerly city limits 20 C San Jacinto Extension of Ramona Expressway (Gap Closure) Seventh Street in San Jacinto to Cedar Avenue unincorporated territory - Riverside County PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons FY 2005 Year $ Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons $ 0.600 $ 0.160 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 $ 0.765 $ - Year Totes $ 0.600 $ 3.160 $ - PA&ED $ 0.200 PS&E R/W Cons $ 0.300 Year $ 0.500 $ 0.900 $ 4.500 $ - Total 26 A Temecula Western Bypass Corridor Alignment Study Approximately, from I-15/ SR 79 South Interchange in a northerly direction to the proposed 1-15/ French Valley Interchange 28 B Moreno Valley Perris Boulevard Widening Ramona Expressway to Cactus Avenue PA&ED 29 B Moreno Valley Perris Boulevard Widening Ironwood Avenue to Manzanita Avenue PS&E R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED PS&E Interchanges Project Funding Recommendations Track 10 Year Lead Agency # Rating Project Title Project Limits R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Year Total $ 0.700 $ - $ 0.871 $ 0.389 $ 0.871 $ 1.955 $ 7.710 $ 0.134 $ 1.361 $ - $ 1.342 Phase FY 2005 FY 2006 PA&ED PS&E R/W $ 2.738 $ 1.300 Cons $ Year $ 4.038 $ 21.385 $ 22.966 $ 1.955 $ 26.334 Total $ 2.223 $ 5.900 $ 9.102 FY 2007 FY 2008 $ 1.000 $ - $ 1.771 $ - Phase FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 3 A Corona El Cerrito Rd/ 1-15 Interchange Capacity Improvements Bedfoord Canyon Road to the 1-15 Northbound Ramps PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons $ 0.120 Year $ 0.120 $ - Total $ 1.505 $ - Phase Total $ 0.765 $ 0.765 $ 0.600 $ 0.160 $ 3.000 $ - $ 3.760 $ 0.200 $ 0.300 $ 0.900 $ 4.500 $ 5.900 $ 0.700 0.389 0.871 1.955 7.710 10.925 0.134 0.336 1.025 1.342 $ 5.961 $ 7.231 $ 8.880 $ 54.606 $ 76.678 Phase Total 0.120 1.505 Page 2 of 3 30 Date: 08/23/04 Project Phases: PA&ED = Project Approvals & Environmental Document W = Right -of -Way acquisition and utility relocation Interchange Project Details PS&E = Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Cons = Construction Project Schedule and Funding Requirements ( $'s in millions) Note: Gray FY cells are not recommended for funding at this time Track 10 Year Rating Lead Agency Project Title Project Limits Phase 7 B Riverside County Transportation Department New Interchange on 1-15 at Schleisman Road New IC along 1-15 between the existing Limonite Ave IC and Sixth St IC in the Mira Loma region. The proposed IC at Schleisman Rd will be approx 1.31 miles s/o Limonite Ave. 10 A Riverside County Transportation Department Clinto Keith Rd/ 1-15 IC Improvement Project Clinton Keith/I-15 Interchange 12 B Riverside County Transportation Department New IC at the Eastern Bypass/ 1-15 Eastern Bypass/I-15 16 A Riverside Van Buren Blvd - 91 Freeway Interchange Van Buren Blvd at the 91 Freeway Interchnage 22 A Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon Road/ 1 15 Interchange Improvements Interstate 15 to Canyon Hills Rood 24 A Temecula French Valley Pkwy/ 1-15 Overcrossing and IC On 1-15, approx 0.98 km north of Winchester Rd (SR79) IC and 2.43 km s/o the I-15/ 1-215 junction 25 A Temecula I-15/SR79 South Ultimate Interchange Intersection of 1-15 and SR79 South TUMF Arterials and Interchanges Summary Totals PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Total Year PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons FY 2005 $ 0.500 FY 2007 FY 2008 $ 2.000 $ 0.750 $ - $ 2.000 $ 24.250 $ 0.750 Year $ 0.500 $ 0.750 $ 0.750 $ - Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED PS&E R/W $ 4.000 Phase Total $ 0.750 $ 2.000 $ 4.250 $ 20.000 $ 27.000 13.500 13.500 $ 2.000 $ - $ - $ 2.000 $ 8.000 $ 2.000 $ - $ 8.000 $ - $ 10.000 $ 0.300 Est $ 6.000 + $ 7.200 $ 6.300 $ 7.200 $ - $ 13.500 $ - $ - $ 7.000 $ 20.000 $ 7.000 $ - $ - $ 20.000 $ 27.000 $ 0.300 Year $ 4.000 $ 0.010 $ 5.900 $ - Total $ - $ 0.010 $ 4.000 $ 5.900 Page 3 of 3 31 • AGENDA ITEM 9 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Steven DeBaun, RCTC Legal Counsel THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Easement Deed and Aerial Easement Construction of the Box Springs Overpass Deed for STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Easement Deed and Aerial Easement Deed on behalf of the Commission to assist Caltrans in the construction of the Box Springs Overpass, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission owned San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) currently passes under the 1-215 freeway near Moreno Valley. In 2002, work began on the 60/91/215 Interchange Project, one of the largest and most complex projects in the Inland Empire. The improvements are targeted at the interchange as well as portions of the 1-215 and the junction of the 1-215 and SR 60/Box Springs area. The improvements include widening the 1-215 freeway which requires the reconstruction of the Box Springs Road Interchange and Box Springs Overpass Bridge, which crosses over the SJBL. Caltrans has requested permission from the Commission to use portions of the RCTC rail right of way for purposes of this construction. To that end, the Commission and Caltrans entered into an agreement in November 2003 under which RCTC granted Caltrans permission to use portions of the RCTC property as necessary for the project. In return, Caltrans agreed that it would not interfere with the Commission's current or future use of the SJBL for commuter rail purposes. • In order to perfect its rights to utilize the property, Caltrans has requested that the Commission execute an Easement Deed and Aerial Deed, both of which are attached. The Commission staff and consultants have reviewed the proposed 32 deeds, and have determined that they do not interfere with the Commission's proposed use of the right of way for commuter rail purposes. Therefore, staff recommends that the Committee authorize the Executive Director to execute the deeds in support of the 60/91/215 Interchange project. Attachment: Easement Deed and Aerial Easement Deed • 33 • Betty Bobosik State of California Department of Transportation 464 W. 4th Street, MS M San Bernardino, CA. 92401-1400 Space above this line tor Recorder's Use AERIAL EASEMENT DEED CORPORATION District County Route Post Number 08 Riv 215 KP 62.10 18021 0 to of California an EASEMENT for freeway purposes, an easement and right of way to construct, replace, inspect, f ' maintain, repair, operate or remove an overhead freeway bridge and highway, including any and all appurtenances GRANT to the thereto (excluding those appurtenances related to columns and footings) over, under, upon and across the real property herein described as Parcel 18021-2 together with all abutter's rights of access to and from owner's remaining. property to the freeway viaduct: TOGETHER with easements and right of way to construct, replace, inspect, maintain, repair, operate or remove supporting columns and footings and incidents thereto, upon, over, and across the real property herein described as Parcels 18021-3, 18021-4, 18021-5, and 18021-6 all said easements being within the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" 08-Riv-215-KP 6210-18021 (18021-2, 18021-3, 18021-4, 18021-5, 18021-6) Form RW 6-1(Y) (Revised 10/99) 34 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 18021-2 That portion of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the southerly line of Parcel No. 3 (State Highway Parcel No. 9554-C) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded March 3, 1965, in Book 3938, page 49 of Official Records of said County, with the easterly line of the 60.960 meters (200 feet) wide Right of Way described as Parcel 10, in the Correction Grant Deed and Grant of Easement to the Riverside County Transportation Commission recorded May 10, 1994 as Document Number 191848 of Official Records of said County, said easterly line being a curve concave westerly having a radius of 321.657 meters (1055.30 feet), a.radial line to said intersection bears North 85°28'49" East; thence southerly, along said easterly Iine and said curve, 28.312 meters (92.89 feet) through a central angle of 5°02'35"; thence continuing along said easterly line, South 0°31'24" West 4.179 meters (13.71 feet); thence North 55°06'05" West 77.518 meters (254.32 feet) to a point on the westerly line of said Parcel 10, being a non -tangent curve, concave southwesterly having a radius of 260.70) meters (855.32 feet),, a radial line to said point bears North 81°47' 20" East; thence northwesterly ,along said non -tangent curve 23.985 meters (78.69 feet) through a central angle of 5°16'17" to the westerly terminus of that certain course in said southerly line, cited in said deed to the State of California as "North 88°13'51" West 89.23 feet"; thence the following four (4) courses along said southerly line: (1) South 87'43'17" East 27.197 meters (89.23 feet); (2) thence South 58°46'52" East 11.418 meters (37.46 feet) to a point on a non -tangent curve, concave westerly having a radius of 295.394 meters (969.14 feet), a radial line to said point bears North 79°30'35" East; (3) thence southerly along said non -tangent curve 31.373 meters (102.93 feet) through a central angle of 6°05'07"; (4) thence North 84°11'26" East 26.270 meters (86.19 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 18021-3 That portion of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 4 West; San Bernardino Meridian, in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the southerly line of Parcel No. 3 (State Highway Parcel No. 9554-C) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded 08-Riv-215-KP 62.10-18021 (18021-2, 18021-3, 18021-4, 18021-5, 18021-6) (continued) • • 35 EXHIBIT "A" (page 2) PARCEL 18021-3 (continued) March 3, 1965, in Book 3938, page 49 of Official Records of said County, with the easterly line of the 60.960 meters (200 feet) wide Right of Way described as Parcel 10, in the Correction Grant Deed and Grant of Easement to the Riverside County Transportation Commission recorded May 10, 1994 as Document Number 191848 of Official Records of said County, said easterly line being a curve concave westerly having a radius of 321.657 meters (1055.30 feet), a radial line to said intersection bears North 85°28'49" East; thence southerly along said easterly line and said curve 2.391 meters (7.84 feet) through a central angle of 0°25'33"; thence South 85°54'22" West 5.225 meters (17.14 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 35°44'47" West 2.217 meters (7.27 feet); thence South 5°52'35" East 18.338 meters (59.51 feet); thence North 54°27'25" West 4.003 meters (13.13 feet); thence North 5°54'21" West 21.099 meters (69.22 feet); thence South 54°29'46" East 5.978 meters (19.61 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 18021-4 Thatportion of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the southerly line of Parcel No. 3 (State Highway Parcel No. 9554-C) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded March 3, 1965, in Book 3938, page 49 of Official Records of said County, with the easterly line of the 60.960 meters (200 feet) wide Right of Way described as Parcel 10, in the Correction Grant Deed and Grant of Easement to the Riverside County Transportation Commission recorded May 10, 1994 as Document Number 191848 of Official Records of said County, said easterly line being a curve concave westerly having a radius of 321.657 meters (1055.30 feet), a radial line to said intersection bears North 85°28'49" East; thence northerly along said easterly line and said curve 13.790 meters (45.24 feet) through a central angle of 2°27'23"; thence South 83°01'26" West 21.876 meters (71.77 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 5°51'17" East 21.814 meters (71.57 feet); thence South 83°57' 11" West 2.397 meters (7.86 feet); thence North 5°53'00" West 21.840 meters (71.65 feet); thence North 84°34'16" East 2.408 meters (7.90 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 08-Riv-215-KP 62.10-18021 (18021-2, 18021-3, 18021-4, 18021-5, 18021-6) (continued) 36 EXHIBIT "A" (page 3) PARCEL 18021-5 That portion of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the southerly line of Parcel No. 3 (State Highway Parcel No. 9554-C) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded March 3, 1965, in Book 3938, page 49 of Official Records of said County, with the easterly line of the 60.960 meters (200 feet) wide Right of Way described as Parcel 10, in the Correction Grant Deed and Grant of Easement to the Riverside County Transportation Commission recorded May 10, 1994 as Document Number 191848 of Official Records of said County, said easterly line being a curve concave westerly having a radius of 321.657 meters (1055.30 feet), a radial line to said intersection bears North 85°28'49" East; thence northerly along said easterly line and said curve 28.781 meters (94.43 feet) through a central angle of 5°07'36"; thence South 80°21'13" West 36.285 meters (119.05 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 6°02'48" East 22.189 meters (72.80 feet); thence South 83°54'15" West 2.404 meters (7.89 feet); thence North 6°043'02" West 22.195 meters ,(72.82 feet); thence North 84°02'54" East 2.412 meters (7.91 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 18021-6 That portion of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the southerly line of Parcel No. 3 (State. Highway Parcel No. 9554-C) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded March 3, 1965, in Book 3938, page 49 of Official Records of said County, with the easterly line of the 60.960 meters (200 feet) wide Right of Way described as Parcel 10, in the Correction Grant Deed and Grant of Easement to the Riverside County Transportation Commission recorded May 10, 1994 as Document Number 191848 of Official Records of said County, said easterly line being a curve concave westerly having a radius of 321.657 meters (1055.30 feet), a radial line to said intersection bears North 85°28'49" East; thence northerly along said easterly line and said curve 42.736 meters (140.21 feet) through a central angle of 08-Riv-215-KP 62.10-18021 (18021-2, 18021-3, 18021-4, 18021-5, 18021-6) (continued) 37 EXHIBIT "A" (page 4) PARCEL 18021-6 (continued) 7°36'45"; thence South 77°52'04" West 49.279 meters (161.67 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 6°23'23" East 22.834 meters (74.92 feet); thence North 55°37'08" West 6.880 meters (22.57 feet); thence North 33°07'15" East 2.201 meters (7.22 feet); thence North 6°22' 12" West 19.948 meters (65.45 feet); thence North 55°24'07" East 5.038 meters (16.53 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The bearings and distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Multiply all distances shown by 1.00006349 to obtain ground level distances. This real property description has been prepared by me, or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Signature Professional Land Surveyor Date: April 7, 2003 oikt LAND 44. O p� cr a a No. 6681 * EXP. 6-30-04 sS 9TF °F CIO S o 73 08-Riv-215-KP 62.10-18021 (18021-2, 18021-3, 18021-4, 18021-5, 18021-6) 38 Number 1' 18021 ALSO, TOGETHER with non-exclusive right of access to the aerial easement hereinabove described for th purpose of inspection, maintaining, retrofitting and repairing said freeway structures and for inspecting the uses mad of the land under the aerial easement by way of such roads or passageways as may now or hereafter exist on owner's remaining property; provided, however, that State's exercise of such right of access shall not unreasonably interfere with owner's use of such roads or passageways. RESERVING unto owner, its successors and assigns, lessees and licensees all rights in and to the airspace at an elevation higher than a plane parallel with and 9 meters above the roadway surface of said freeway structure as originally constructed, provided, that the use of such space shall not interfere with the enjoyment, safety and compatibility of said aerial easement, provided further, that owner, its lessees and/or licensees shall first secure such encroachment permits as may be required by law, which permits shall not be unreasonably withheld. Encroachment permits issued to owner or its subsidiaries or affiliated companies, shall have designated across the face thereof "For Notice of Record Purposes Only"; provided however, that in case of any subsequent conveyance by owner, its subsidiaries or affiliated companies, such facilities and installations shall be subject to a standard encroachment permit ALSO RESERVING unto owner, its successors and assigns, the general right to use and enjoy the area of land under the aerial easement hereinabove described. The general right to use and enjoy said land by owner, its successors and assigns, shall however, be subject to the following limitations and conditions: 1. No use may be made of the area of land under the aerial easement hereinabove described which would impair the full use and safety of said freeway structure, or would otherwise interfere with the free flow of traffic thereon or would unreasonably impair the maintenance thereof. 2. No use may be made of the area of land under said aerial easement hereinabove described for the manufacture or storage of flammable, volatile, explosive or corrosive substances, and such substances shall not be brought onto said land except in such quantities as are normally required foe the maintenance operations of occupants of said land and except as may be transported by rail or pipelines. Installation of any pipelines carrying volatile substances shall have the written approval of the State as to the safety and compatibility with freeway purposes and such discretion shall not be exercised in a capricious or arbitrary manner. The use of any such substances shall be in conformance with all applicable code requirements. 3. No hazardous or unreasonably objectionable smoke, fumes, vapors, dust or odors shall be permitted, which would adversely affect the use or maintenance of said freeway or the traveling public thereon. 4. No building of combustible construction shall hereafter be constructed on the area of land under the aerial easement hereinabove described. The State shall be given the opportunity to review and approve plans for any construction within said aerial easement area 60 days prior to said construction. No buildings, no permanent structures, and no advertising displays, may be constructed within 2.5 meters of the undersides nor within 4.5 meters (measured horizontally) of the sides of said freeway structure without the express written approval of the State. The State shall have the discretion to determine whether such proposed construction will be inimical to or incompatible with the full enjoyment of the public rights in the freeway or against the public interest, but such discretion shall not be exercised in a capricious or arbitrary manner. EXCEPTING AND RESERVING THEREFROM all oil, oil rights, minerals, mineral rights, natural gas, natural gas rights, and other hydrocarbons by whatsoever name known that may be within the area of land hereinabove described, together with the perpetual right of drilling, mining, exploring and operating therefor and removing the same from said land or any other land, including the right to whipstock or directionally drill and mine from lands other than the area of land hereinabove described, oil or gas wells, tunnels and shafts into, through or across the subsurface of said land, and to bottom such whipstocked or directionally drilled wells, tunnels and shafts under and beneath or beyond th � exterior limits thereof, and to redrill, retunnel, equip, maintain, repair, deepen and operate any such wells, or mines, without, however, the right to drill, mine, explore and operate through the surface or the upper 30.5 meters of the ,ubsurface of said land or otherwise in such manner as to endanger the safety of any highway that may be constructed on said land. Form RW 6-1(Y) (Revised 10/99) 39 Number t. 18021 The grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby waives any claim for any and all damages to grantor's remaining property contiguous to the right of way hereby conveyed by reason of the location, construction or maintenance of said highway. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto, this day of , 20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4Pthis ounty of the By President By , Secretary clay of personally appeared [CORPORATE SEAL] } SS 20 , before me, PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT Name, Title of Officer-E.G., "Jane Doe, Notary Public' Names) of Signer(s) D personally known to me 0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislherltheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Notary Public's signature in and for said County and State) (for notary seal or stamp) THIS IS TO CERTIFY, That the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (pursuant to Government Code Section 27281), hereby accepts for public purposes the real property described in the within deed and consents to the recordation thereof. arITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand day of , 20 Director of Transportation Form RW 6-1(Y) (Revised 10(99) 40 By Attorney in Fact Betty Bobosik State of California Departrnent of Transportation 464 W. 4th Street, MS M San Bernardino, CA. 92401-1400 space above this line for Recorder's Use EASEMENT DEED CORPORATION 1 District County Route Post Number 08 RIV 215 KP 62.10 18021 State of California an EASEMENT for property in the City of Riverside State of California, described as follows: GRANT to the freeway purposes upon, over and across that certain real • , County of Riverside SEE EXHIBIT "A" • 08-RIV-215-KP 62.10-18021 (18021-1) 1 41 EXHIBIT "A" • • • That portion of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the southerly line of Parcel No. 3 (State Highway Parcel No. 9554-C) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded March 3, 1965, in Book 3938, page 49 of Official Records of said County, with the easterly line of the 60.960 meters (200 feet) wide Right of Way described as Parcel 10, in the Correction Grant Deed and Grant of Easement to the Riverside County Transportation Commission recorded May I0, 1994 as Document Number 191848 of Official Records of said County, said easterly line being a curve concave westerly having a radius of 321.657 meters (1055.30 feet), a radial line to said intersection bears North 85°28'49" East; thence along said easterly line the following five (5) courses: 1) southerly along said curve 28.312 meters (92.89 feet) through a central angle of 5°02'35"; 2) thence South 0°31'24" West 30.478 meters (99.99 feet) to a curve concave easterly, having a radius of 318.887 meters (1046.22 feet); 3) thence southerly along said curve 27.828 meters (91.30 feet) through a central angle of 5°00'00" to a compound curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 144.372 meters (473.66 feet); ,4) thence southeasterly along said compound curve 94.491 meters (310.01 feet) through a central angle of 37°30'00" to a compound curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 318.887 meters (1046.22 feet); 5) thence southeasterly along said compound curve 11.735 meters (38.50 feet) through a central angle of 2°06'31"; thence South 47°58'26" West 60.989 meters (200.10 feet) to a point on the westerly line of said Parcel 10, being a non -tangent curve concave northeasterly, having a radius of 379.843 meters (1246.20 feet), a radial line to said point bears South 46°14'43" West; thence along said westerly line the following five (5) courses: 1) northwesterly along said non -tangent curve 11.787 meters (38.67 feet) through a central angle of 1°46'41" to a compound curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 205.328 meters (673.65 feet); 2) thence northwesterly along said compound curve 134.387 meters (440.90 feet) through a central angle of 37°30'00" to a compound curve, concave easterly, having a radius of 379.843 meters (1246.20 feet); 3) thence northerly along said curve 33.148 meters (108.75 feet) through a central angle of 5°00'00"; 4) thence North 0°31'24" East 30.478 meters (99.99 feet) to a curve concave westerly, having a radius of 260.701 meters (855.32 feet); 5) thence northerly along said curve 63.727 meters (209.08 08-RIV-215-KP 62.10-18021 (18021-1) 42 EXHIBIT "A" (continued) feet) through a central angle of 14°00'21" to the westerly terminus of that certain course in said deed southerly line cited in said deed to the State of California as "North 88°13'51" West 89.23 feet"; thence along said southerly line the following four (4) courses: 1) South 87°43'17" East 27.197 meters (89.23 feet); 2) thence South 58°46'52" East 11.418 meters (37.46 feet) to a point on a non -tangent curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 295.394 meters (969.14 feet), a radial line to said point bears North 79°30'35" East; 3) thence southerly along said non -tangent curve 31.373 meters (102.93 feet) through a central angle of 6°05'07"; 4) thence North 84°11'26" East 26.270 meters (86.19 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The bearings and distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Multiply al] distances shown by 1.00006349 to obtain ground level distances. 08-RIV-215-KP 62.10-18021(18021-1) This real property description has been prepared by me, or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Signature Professional Land Surveyor Date: April 7. 2003 `oNp,L LAND sG GAttiCi 73 �z 0 a No. 6681 73 EXP. 6-30-04 OF CA1-I* a' Number 18021-1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its orate seal to be affixed hereto, this day of 20 By President By Secretary [CORPORATE SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT SS County of this the day of 20 , before me Name, Title of Officer-E.G., 'Jane Doe, Notary Public' personally appeared Name(s) of Signer(s) - personalty known to me _ proved 10 me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Notary Public's signature in and for said County and State) (tor notary seal or stamp) THIS IS TO CERTIFY, That the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (pursuant to Government Code Section 27281), hereby accepts for public purposes the real property described in the within deed and consents to the recordation thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand • day of ,20_ Director of Transportation By Attorney in Fact 44 • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Claudia Chase, Property Agent THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Surplus Old 1-215 Rail Right of Way (Phase 1) APN#'s 263 -080 - 011, 263-080-010, 263-091-011, 263-100-010, and a portion of 263-070-004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Declare the property identified as the "Old 1-215" Rail Right of Way (Phase 1), APN #s 263-080-011, 263-080-010, 263-091-011, 263- 100-010, and a portion of 263-070-004 as surplus, as shown on the attached parcel map; 2) Authorize staff to initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period and if no interest is expressed, authorize the Executive Director to offer the parcels for sale, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 1993, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (ATSF), currently known as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, sold the 38 -mile San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) to the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Between 1992 and 1994, Caltrans relocated less than a mile of the SJBL rail right of way for the construction of 1-215; the rail line moved from the east side of 1-215 to the west side in an area near Alessandro Blvd. The relocation of the SJBL resulted in remnant parcels along the "Old 1-215" rail right of way. The Commission property management consultant, Epic Land Solutions, recommends that the remnant parcels be disposed of in three phases over the next few months. Phase 1, which is the subject of this agenda item, requests the surplus of approximately 14 — 19 acres north of Alessandro Blvd in the unincorporated area of the County. 45 Caltrans and March JPA Property Transfer Needed While Caltrans, ATSF, and the United States Air Force executed the original agreement for the relocation of the SJBL, March JPA became the successor to the US Air Force property. However, the property was never conveyed to the Commission. As a result, a portion of the current SJBL is located largely on property owned by March JPA. RCTC is working with March JPA on a property exchange to trade a portion of the "Old 1-215" (Phase 2) rail right of way for the new rail right of way. The new right of way is to accommodate two tracks and be protected from unhistorical drainage. Staff anticipates bringing a draft agreement to the Committee for review and approval within the next few months. The disposition of the balance of the "Old 1-215" rail right of way, or Phase 3, anticipates transferring the parcels to Caltrans for future highway projects (i.e., widening of the Cactus Avenue interchange). Upon the completion of the disposition of Phase 2, Staff will bring a draft agreement to the Committee for review and approval of the disposition of Phase 3. Phase 1 Properties to Surplus After numerous discussions with March JPA and Caltrans over the last 10 months, staff recommends the "Old 1-215" rail right of way be disposed of in three phases. The subject Phase 1 parcels are all vacant properties of which both March JPA and Caltrans have expressed no interest in obtaining through an exchange of properties. As identified below, the combined parcels total between 14 — 19 acres: Old 1-215 Rail Right of Way (Phase 1) Assessor Parcel Number (APN) Acreage 263-080-011 0.73 263-080-010 4.48 263-091-011 2.95 263-100-010 2.19 263-070-004 (a portion) 4.00 — 9.18 TOTAL 14.35 - 19.53 Staff has identified the above parcels (Phase 1) to be of no future use for RCTC and recommends the property be surplused and offered for sale. • • • 46 I-2 5 Pendinz Transactions Legend CALTRANS to March JPA March IPA to RCTC RCTC to March JPA RCTC to CALTRANS CALTRANS to RCTC Potential RCTC Surplus Property = Phase 1 Proposed ROW Boundary Epic Land Solutions, Inc, 0 03 a) 014 0,21 4t9 ,,.id.N1. __. ___.. r,l09 47 1 Cactus Ave AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Resolution No. 04-014 Establishing Appropriations Limit for FY 2004/05 the Commission's STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Resolution No. 04-014 establishing the Commission's appropriations limit for FY 2004/05, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section 7910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution by requiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriations limit for each fiscal year and to make documentation used to determine the appropriations limit available to the public fifteen days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriations limit. Staff has performed the calculations necessary to determine the limit. Attached is Resolution No. 04-014 and the attachments supporting the calculation. The Commission chose to use the percentage change in the California per capita personal income and the population change within Riverside County as the factors in determining the appropriations limit. As required, the adoption of the Commission's Gann Appropriation Limit was posted in the local newspaper (see attached). Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution No. 04-014 to establish the FY 2004/05 appropriations limit. Attachments: Resolution No. 04-014 California per capita income — California Department of Finance Population, Riverside County — California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit Announcement posted in local newspaper 48 • RESOLUTION NO. 04-014 "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT" WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the California Constitution places an annual limitation upon appropriations from proceeds of taxes by each local government of the State of California; and WHEREAS, in 1988, pursuant to Article XIIIB, section 4 of the California Constitution, the Riverside County Transportation Commission established its appropriations limit at $75 million for fiscal year 1988-1989 under ordinance No. 88-1; and WHEREAS, Section 7910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution by requiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriations limit for each fiscal year and to make the documentation used in determining the appropriations limit available to the public fifteen days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriations limit; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 1 approved by the voters of the State effective June 6, 1990, beginning with fiscal year 1990-1991 and for each fiscal year thereafter, the Commission's Board of Commissioners is required to select either the percentage change in California per capita personal income or the percentage change in the local assessment roll due to the addition of local non- residential construction, and either the population change within the Commission or the population change within Riverside County, as the two factors to be applied in calculating the appropriations limit for each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, this Board wishes to select, as factors in determining the Commission's appropriation limit for fiscal year 2004-2005 the percentage change in California per capita personal income and also the population change within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, this Commission has documented its calculations of the Commission's appropriations limit for fiscal year 2004-2005 and said calculations have been made available to the public at least fifteen days prior to the adoption of this resolution. 49 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission as follows: 1. For fiscal year 2004-2005, the factors selected for calculating the appropriations limit are (a) the percentage change in California per capita personal income, and (b) the population change within the County of Riverside. 2. The appropriations limit applicable to this Agency pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for fiscal year 2004-2005 are hereby established and determined to be $224,291,642. 3. A copy of the documentation used in the determination of the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2004-2005 shall be affixed hereto and shall be available for public inspection. 4. Pursuant to Section 7910 of the California Government Code, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the establishment of the appropriations limit as set forth herein must be commenced within forty-five days of the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 2004. Roy Wilson, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • 50 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2004-2005 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT 2003-2004 Appropriations Limit $212,121,630 • • 2004-2005 adjustment: Change in California per capita income Change in Population, Riverside County = 2.30 percent = 3.36 percent 2.30 + 100 = 1.0230 100 3.36 + 100 = 1.0336 100 1.0230 x 1 .0336 = 1.0573728 $212,121,630 x 1.0573728 = $224,291,642 2004-2005 Appropriations Limit $224,291,642 Source: California per capita income — California Department of Finance Population, Riverside County — California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit 51 PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME United Californi uautorma % Change States % Change %.of;U: 1950 $1,877 - $1,510 - 124.3d 1955 2,379 - 1,911 124.5% 1958 2,596 - 2114 - 122.8% 1959 2,740 5.5% 2,,215 4.8% 123.7% 1960 2,823 3.0% 2,276 2.8% 124.0% 1961 2,880 2.0% 2,334 2.5% 123.4% 1962 3,004 4.3% 2,447 4.8% 122.8% 1963 3,102 3.3% 2,534 3.6% 122.4% 1964 3,274 .5.5% 2,679 5.7% 122.2% 1965 3,417 4.4% 2;859 6.7% 119.5% 1966 3,663 7.2% 3,075 7.6% 119.1% 1967 3,878 5.9% 3,264 6.1% 8.5 118.8% 1968 4,207 '/0 3,550 8.8% 118.5% 1969 4,529 7.7% 3,836 8.1% 118.1% 1970 4,810 6.2% 4,085 6.5% 117.7% 1971 5,034 4.7% 4,342 6.3% 115.9% 1972 5,454 8:3% 4,717 8.6% 115.6% 1973 5,944 9.0% 5,231 10.9% 113.6% 1974 6,552 10.2% 5,707 9.1% 114.8% 1975 7;129 8.8% 6,172 8.1% 115.5% 1976 7;825 9.8% 6,754 9.4% 115.9% 1977 8,570 9.5% 7:405 9.6% 115.7% 1978 9,580 11.8% 8,245 11:3% 116.2% 1979 10,753 12:2% 9,146 10.9% 117.6% 1980 11,951 11.1% 10,114 10.6% 118.2% 1981 13,175 10.2% 11,246 11.2% 117.2% 1982 13,763 4.5% 11;935 6.1% 115.3% 1983 14;556 5.8% 12;618 5.7% 115.4% 1984 15,994 9.9% 13.891 10.1% 115.1% 1985 16,956 6.0% 14,758 6.2% 114.9% 1986 17,668 4.2% 15,442 4.6% 114.4% 1987 18,549 5.0% 16;240 5.2% 114.2% 1988 19,599 5.7% 17;331 6.7% 113.1% 1989 a/ 20,585 5.0% 18,520 6.9% 111.2% 1990 21,638 5.1% 19,477 5.2% 111.1% 1991 21,750 0.5% 19,892 2.1% 109.3% 1992 22,492 3:4% 20,854 4.8% 107.9% 1993 22,635 0.6% 21,346 2.4% 106.0% 1994 bl 23,203 2.5% 22,172 3.9% 104.7% 1995 24,161 4.1% 23:076 4.1% 104.7% 1996 25,312 4.8% 24,175 4.8% 104.7% 1997 26,490 4.7% 25,334 4.8% 104.6% 1998 28,374 7.1% 26,883 6.1% 105.5% 1999 29,828 5.1% 27,939 3.9% 106.8% 2000 32,466 8.8% 29,847 6.8% 108.8% 2001. 32,892 1.3% 30,527 2.3% 107.7% 2002 32;989 0.3% 30,906 1.2% 106.7% 2003 33,749 2.3% 31,632 2.3% 106.7% al Reflects Loma Prieta earthquake. bl Reflects Northridge earthquake. Note: Omits income for government employees overseas. Source: U.S. Department of commerce, bureau ot economic Analysis, http://www.oea.00c.govl Revised from 1969 through 2003: Released April 27, 2004 Updated: May 7, 2004 Filename: bbpercap 52 • E-1: City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2003 and 2004 County Total Population Percent City 1/1/2003 1/1/2004 Change RIVE, 2 IDE 1-,719;00-0 1776 700', 3.4 BANNING 25,600 27,200 6.3 BEAUMONT 13,900 16,350 17.6 BLYTHE 21,300 21,950 3.1 CALIMESA 7,400 7,350 -0.7 CANYON LAKE 10,600 10,650 0.5 CATHEDRAL CITY 47,700 48,600 1.9 COACHELLA 27,000 27,650 2.4 CORONA 138,200 141,800 2.6 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 17,300 17,700 2.3 HEMET 62,700 63,800 1.8 INDIAN WELLS 4,430 4,430 0.0 INDIO 54,900 59,100 7.7 LAKE ELSINORE 33,300 35,350 6.2 LA QUINTA 30,700 32,500 5.9 MORENO VALLEY 151,200 155,100 2.6 MURRIETA 68,200 77,700 13.9 NORCO 25,400 25,500 0.4 PALM DESERT 44,300 44,800 1.1 PALM SPRINGS 44,350 44,250 -0.2 PERRIS 38,500 41,300 7.3 RANCHO MIRAGE 15,100 15,500 2.6 •RIVERSIDE 276,300 277,000 0.3 SAN JACINTO 26,250 26,700 1.7 TEMECULA 75,700 77,500 2.4 BALANCE OF COUNTY 458,600 477,000 4.0 Page 8 53 California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-05 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Riverside County Transportation Commission will be adopting its annual appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2004- 05. In accordance to Section 910 of the California Government Code, Article XIIIB, the Commission shall establish its appropriations limit each fiscal year. Based on calculations, using the California per capita personal income and the population change within Riverside County, the proposed appropriations limit is $224,291,642. Calculations supporting the proposal are available for public viewing for fifteen (15) days following the date of this Notice, from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at its principal place of business located at 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, California 92501. Comments will be accepted on the proposed FY 2004-05 annual appropriations limit goal until August 30, 2004. Questions and inquiries can be forwarded to: RCTC, ATTN: Michele Cisneros, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, California 92501, Tel: (909) 787-7141. Dated at Riverside, California this 10th day of August 2004. By: Naty Kopenhaver Director of Administrative Services • • • 54 AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Selection of Bond Counsel STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the selection of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP to perform the services of bond counsel to the Commission; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 05-19-510 on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On October 9, 2003, staff released a Request for Proposal (RFP) to perform the services of a bond counsel for the Commission. Nine proposals were received at the office of Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates (Fieldman Rolapp), the Commission's financial advisory services firm, on October 22, 2003. The proposals were reviewed after the new Chief Financial Officer joined the Commission in January 2004. The Chief Financial Officer and the financial advisor reviewed the proposals. A recommendation was made to and accepted by the Executive Director to short- list four firms for interviews. Six criteria were used to review the proposals. The criteria were: a. Qualification and experience of the firm; b. Qualification and experience of the individuals; c. Experience in Commercial Paper and Revenue Bonds and dealing with other similar organizations; d. Demonstration of an understanding of the Commission and its needs; e. Fees; and f. Overall content On April 12, 2004, a panel interviewed the four firms and selected Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Orrick) to perform the services of bond counsel in connection with future commercial paper and other long-term debt financings of 55 the Commission. The interview panel consisted of the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director, the Chief Financial Officer, and Dan Wiles of Fieldman Rolapp. Orrick is an international professional services firm providing legal services to meet a variety of business needs, including public finance and tax. Orrick is one of the top bond counsel firms in California and in the United States and has extensive experience in transportation -related financings. Similar bond counsel services have been provided by Orrick to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Bay Area Toll Authority; Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District; and Contra Costa Transportation Authority. It is also currently providing bond counsel services to the County of Riverside. Bond counsel fees typically are contingent on the sale of debt and are included in the cost of financings. Based on information included in the RFP, Orrick proposed a fee of $60,000 for a commercial paper program and $70,000 for capital appreciation bonds, which was comparable to other proposal responses. An agreement with Orrick will be prepared with legal counsel for these bond counsel services in connection with sales tax financings over the next five years. Additionally on July 15, 2004, staff released an RFP to perform underwriting services for the Commission related to the development of financing programs and the marketing and sale of debt issues to fund projects specified in the new Measure "A" sales tax ordinance. Nine proposals were received by the Commission on August 11, 2004. The Chief Financial Officer and the financial advisor will review the proposals and make a recommendation to the Executive Director for firms to be short-listed for interviews to be held on August 25, 2004. Upon completion of the interviews for underwriting services, the panel will make a selection on the proposed underwriting firm(s) for the Commission's future sales tax financings, including the issuance of commercial paper. The staff recommendation for the selection of underwriting services will be presented to the Commission at the September 8, 2004 meeting for approval. Once the Commission's bond counsel and underwriting team are in place, planning will commence related to the issuance of a commercial paper program in December 2004 to provide advance funding opportunities for projects included in the new Measure "A" sales tax that commences in 2009. This short-term financing vehicle was included as one of the Commission's goals and objectives for the FY 2004/05 budget. • 56 • AGENDA ITEM 13 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Extension for the City of Palm Desert STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the City of Palm Desert's request to change the scope of its approved SB 821 sidewalk project; 2) Grant the City of Palm Desert a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2006 to complete the Portola Avenue sidewalk project, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. lo BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • The City of Palm Desert was allocated $50,000 in FY 2003-04 SB 821 funds for the construction of the Portola Avenue sidewalk project. The project consisted of a sidewalk alongside the Portola Avenue low-water crossing of the Whitewater Flood Control Channel. After bids for the project were opened, the city decided to construct a bridge at the same location that would include the sidewalk. The new proposed sidewalk would better meet the needs of handicapped individuals since the bridge would eliminate the slope at the low-water crossing. The city is not requesting any additional funds as a result of the change in scope of the project. The city is requesting approval of the change in scope of its approved SB 821 project and a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2006 to complete the project. Attachment: Letter from the City of Palm Desert 57 August 4, 2004 GITY of PRLffl OESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 i FAX: 760 341-7098 info ® pal m-dcsctt.org 68771 Mr. Jerry Rivera Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 p©ICIVEfil AUG o 5 2004 0-u) nwilli �r x�r Subject: FY 2003-04 SB 821 Application for Portola Pathway Project Dear Jerry, The City of Palm Desert requests that funds awarded for the above named project be extended an additional year so that a better sidewalk may be constructed at the same location. The city previously requested funds to build a sidewalk alongside the Portola Avenue low-water crossing of the Whitewater Flood Control Channel. When bids were opened for the project, the city decided to instead construct a bridge at the same location that would include a sidewalk. The sidewalk now proposed will be better particularly for the handicapped. The evaluation committee previously questioned the city of how the sidewalk would be handicap accessible with the 15% grade leading to the low-water crossing. A bridge at this location will eliminate this slope and provide the handicap accessibility the committee was concerned with. Thank you for your consideration of our request. If you have any questions pertaining to this request please do not hesitate to contact Phil Joy at (760) 776-6489. Sincerely, Michael J. En -ante, P.E. Director of Public Works cc: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager t MY. ON RECOUP ,fla 58 U.26.00 AGENDA ITEM 14 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Calimesa and Lake Elsinore STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Calimesa and Lake Elsinore as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 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 its 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. On April 6, 2004, RCTC staff provided the local agencies with Measure "A" revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the required Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The agencies were asked to submit their Plans by June 16, 2004 for submission to the Budget and Implementation Committee at its June 28, 2004 meeting and to the Commission on July 14, 2004. At its July 14, 2004 meeting, the Commission approved the Plans for all but nine (9) cities: Beaumont, Calimesa, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, Lake Elsinore and Murrieta. Subsequently, we have received the required Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation from the cities of Calimesa and Lake Elsinore. The other seven cities have been informed that no 59 disbursement of Measure "A" funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents have been received and approved by the Commission. Attachments: Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Calimesa and Lake Elsinore • • 60 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPORTATION COMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS P ROGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 Agency: CITY OF CALIMESA Page 2 of 6 Prepared by: Keith R. Haan Phone #: (909) 795-9801 Date: July 6, 2004 • Item No. Project Name / Limits' Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed 144.5 144.5 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 12 .5 12.5 Total 157.0 157.0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005 - 2006 Agency: Page 3 of 6 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: CITY OF CALIMESA Keith R. Haan (909) 795-9801 July 6, 2004 Item No. Project Name / Limits; Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A " Funds ($000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed 150.0 150.0 2 Administrative Charge i Overhead 13 .0 13.0 Total 163.0 163.0 • • Agency: Page 4 of 6 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COU NTY T RA NSPO RTATI ON COMMISSIO N MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2007 CITY OF CALIMESA Keith R. Haan (909) 795-9801 July 6, 2004 • Item Na Project Name / Li mits ; Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed 156.5 156.5 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 13.5 13.5 Total 170.0 170.0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2007 - 2008 Agency: Page 5 of 6 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: CITY OF CALIMESA Keith R. Haan (909) 795-9801 July 6, 2004 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed 163.0 163.0 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 14.0 14.0 Total 177.0 177.0 • rn cn • Agency: Page 6 of 6 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIO N MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008 - 2009 CITY OF CALIMESA Keith R. Haan (909) 795-9801 July 6, 2004 Item No. Project Name / Limits' Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed 169.0 169.0 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 15.0 15.0 Total 184.0 184.0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM MISSION MEASURE A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2004 - 2005 Agency: Page 1 of 5 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: City of Lak e Elsinore Ken Seumaio, Engineering Manager (909) 674-3124 x 244 June 25, 2004 STR-0002 STR-0007 TRF-0003 STR-0011 Transfer to General Fund Annual curb, gutter & sidewalk repair program Annual traffic striping maintenance program Traffic signal installation at Grand and Ortega Highway Interim improvements to Railroad Canyon at 1-15 Transfer of funds Sidewalk, curb, gutter repair Maintenance Signal installation Street Improvement/ Congestion Management 480 $ 100 $ 80 $ 149 $ 1,100 $ 80 80 73 19 441 693 • • • • Agency: Page 2 of 5 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIO N MEASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005 - 2006 City of Lake Elsi nore Ken Seumalo, Engineering Manager (909) 674-3124 x 244 June 25, 2004 STR-0002 STR-0004 STR-0007 TRF-0004 • Transfer to General Fund Annual curb, gutter & sidewalk repair program Pavement management program (PMS) Annual Traffic Striping Maintenace Program Traffic signal installation at Grand & Ontario Transfer of funds Maint enance repair Pavement maintenance Striping maintenance Signal construction 480 $ 100 $ 600 $ 80 $ 173 80 80 600 73 65- 898 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE W LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2007 Agency: Page 3 of 5 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: Transfer of funds 480 $ 80 STR-0002 STR-0004 STR-0007 City of Lake Elsinore Ken Seumalo, Engineering Manager (909) 674-3124 x 244 June 25, 2004 Transfer to General Fund Annual curb, gutter & sidewalk repair program Pavement manaagement pro gram (PMS) Annual Traffic Striping Maintenace Program Curb, gutter & sidewalk repair $ Pavement maintenance Striping maintenance 100 $ 800 $ 80 80 800 $ 73 $ 1,033 • • Agency: Page 4 of 5 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: STR-0002 STR-0004 STR-0007 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2007 - 2008 City of Lake Elsinore Ken Seumalo, Engineerfng Manager (909) 674-3124 x 244 June 25, 2004 Transfer to General Fund Annual curb, gutter & sidewalk repairprogram Pavement manaagement program (PMS) Annual Traffic Striping Maintenace Program Transfer of funds Curb, gutter & sidewalk repair Pavement maintenance Striping maintenance $ 480 $ 100 $ 1,000 $ 80 $ 80 80 1,000 73 1,233 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIO N MEASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008 - 2009 Agency: Page5of5 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: City of Lake Elsinore Ken Seumalo, Engineering Manager (909) 674-3124 x 244 June 25, 2004 STR-0002 STR-0004 STR-0007 Transfe r to General Fund Annual curb, gutter & sidewalk repair program Pavement manaagement program (PMS) Annual Traffic Striping Maintenace Program Transfer of funds Curb, gutter & sidewalk repair Pavement maintenance Striping maintenance $ $ 480 $ 100 $ 1,000 $ 80 $ • 80 80 1,000 73 1,233 • AGENDA ITEM 15 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Direct staff to work with the California Performance Review Commission to influence state government reform efforts that provide greater funding for transportation and overall infrastructure investment, and 2) Forward to the Commission for action. 0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • It took longer than originally expected but the Legislature concluded their negotiations on the 2004 Budget Act. In late July, the Governor approved SB 1113 which is the budget bill and is apparently still working on approval of the trailer bills. 2004 Budget Act — Overview The Governor's approval of SB 1 1 13 enacts a $105 billion state spending plan. The vast majority of this plan calls for $78.7 billion in General Fund expenditures; actual expenditures are nearly $81 million, but are partially offset by use of $2 billion in Prop 57 deficit bonds. The $80.7 billion expenditure level is nearly $3.5 billion over total General Fund revenues, thus continuing the trend of the structural deficit — spending more than is collected. One of the highlighted key features of the 2004 budget described in the Governor's Budget Summary is the use of tribal gaming funds, combined with a small amount of General Fund, characterized as improving the states out -year fiscal forecast through the early repayment of nearly $1.4 billion in transportation loans scheduled for repayment from the General Fund in 2005-06. 71 Transportation Budget Key Budget Act features include: • ➢ The Budget Act now incorporates the funding mechanism of AB 687, the tribal gaming compact ratification bill. This dedicates $1.2 billion in bond proceeds from tribal gaming compacts with five of the largest gaming tribes in the state. In addition, $140 million resulting from higher sales tax revenues on gasoline is combined with $43 million in General Fund resources to round out the nearly $1.4 billion dedicated to early repayment of General Fund loans. ➢ If the funds available from AB 687 materialize the funding package will provide $453 million to the TCRP, $477 million for STIP/SHOPP, $275 million to the Public Transportation Account for capital construction and $192 million to cities and counties for local roads. ➢ SB 1098, a trailer bill, allocates these funds and provides for loan repayments for the suspension of Prop 42. ➢ Proposition 42 is suspended by SB 1099. A total of $1.2 billion was estimated to be available in 2004-05, but this suspension will retain those funds in the General Fund instead. ➢ Based on the action of the Governor in the May Revise and as refined by the Budget Conference Committee, the Budget now has capacity for the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to use GARVEE Bonds in an amount up to $800 million in new issuances. The CTC also has authority beyond this level subject to prior notice, but based on the CTC's recently released staff recommendations related to 2004 STIP it appears that they intend to only exercise approximately $500 million for new allocations through this funding mechanism. ➢ The budget also contains a provision that benefits the General Fund by transferring $108 million from non -restricted State Highway Account sources, such as the sale of surplus property, but only to the extent that future federal funds are not jeopardized. ➢ There were only two transportation related items subject to the Governor's "blue-pencil" - $100,000 was eliminated from the augmentation to the CTC to fund a Legislative Coordinator position. In addition, a funding increase for the High Speed Rail Authority was stricken. 72 • • • California Performance Review On Friday, August 13, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger attended the first in a series of meetings throughout the state regarding the recently -released California Performance Review (CPR). The August 13 meeting was held at the University of California, Riverside, focused on the issue of infrastructure and was attended by Commissioners Lowe and Hall. The CPR is a comprehensive review of state government and offers a number of sweeping changes in a wide variety of subject areas including infrastructure. The actual report is the product of a team of state employees who volunteered their time and expertise within their subject areas. The section of the report on infrastructure is more than 270 pages long. The CPR report was issued only a few weeks ago and the California Performance Review Commission is currently seeking public input regarding the recommendations. The current series of public hearings on the report is being conducted by a 21 - member Commission which includes business leaders, educators, local government officials and legislators. Two of the legislators (Jim Brulte and Denise Moreno Ducheny) represent portions of Riverside County. The role of the Commission is to facilitate the public input process as part of the report which will eventually lead to the implementation of specific recommendations. Its first recommendation is rather dramatic and would recast the issue of infrastructure investment in California. Currently, 25 separate state departments, agencies and commissions are involved in infrastructure decision -making which includes transportation, water resources, energy and construction of public buildings. The CPR proposal would merge a number of these agencies into the State Department of Infrastructure that would be overseen by an appointed Infrastructure Authority. The Authority would be comprised of nine members appointed by the Governor and would replace a number of other independent state commissions such as the California Transportation Commission. Creating a new department to oversee these responsibilities is a structural change in state government that is similar to a number of other recommendations in the report regarding other functions. However, in addition to the structural changes, the report also recommends a number of policy changes regarding transportation. These changes include the following: • Additional use of design -build and design sequencing to speed delivery and lower construction costs of major highway projects 73 • Adopt performance and warranty specifications to improve the quality of highway construction • Greater use of high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes • Relinquish some state routes to local agencies • Enhance state funding for transportation by upholding Proposition 42 and considering a fee program based on vehicle miles traveled • Seek addition federal funding for transportation • Consolidate infrastructure planning • Improve overall highway maintenance (this includes a variety of suggestions including contracting out maintenance, financing maintenance by privatizing rest areas and consolidating maintenance functions with other state agencies or even neighboring states) • Encourage development of alternative clean fuels including hydrogen • Shift railroad crossing safety away from the PUC and over to Caltrans or its successor agency • Integrate infrastructure and resource planning much like has been done in Riverside County with the RCIP and CETAP At first glance there are a number of welcome recommendations in the report as well as a few that are either troubling or that need additional study. For example, supporting the implementation of Proposition 42 is self-evident. Everyone in California would also applaud additional federal funding for transportation projects. Yet, other recommendations such as relinquishing state highways to local governments only shifts funding burdens to other levels of government. How does this result in an overall savings? The report as a whole is an impressive examination of a variety of state functions and a credit should be given to the many people who worked to produce it. However, the report only represents a first step. The eventual adoption and elimination of the recommendations will require years of work which will include legislative action and amendments to the State Constitution. It will also depend on the input of the public and affected agencies. Commission staff is continuing to analyze the report and its recommendations and will return to the Commission in the next month with a comprehensive response to the CPR Commission. Staff will also work with Commissioners and its legislative representatives in Sacramento to provide input. Legislative Update One bill that is receiving renewed attention is Assembly Constitutional Amendment 24 which would make it much harder for the Governor and Legislature to divert • 74 • • • Proposition 42 funding. On August 15, local Assemblymen John J. Benoit and Robert Dutton authored an opinion column in the Press Enterprise supporting state transportation funding and ACA 24. The Commission has already taken a SUPPORT position on this bill. Attachments: Legislative Matrix Press Enterprise Newspaper Column 75 • AB 496 Correa RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRARTATION COMMISSION POSITIONS ON S E LEGISL ATION UPD ATED AUGUST 2004 OPPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED Creates the Santa Ana Ri ver Conser vancy to direct the management of public lands along the river. This could impact potential transportation projects on Routes 71 and 91. Passed Assembly 52- 24, referred to Senate Natural Resources Committee AB 2372 Correa AB 2489 Longville Protects counties such as Riverside County that ha ve n ot programmed their state funding shares . Maintains and strengthens current law regarding county shares of state funding . Clarifies state regulations to allow the creation of additional Freeway Service Patrol programs, especially in San Bernardino County Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee Passed Assembly Transportation Committee and referred to Assembly Appropriations Passed Assembly Transportation Committee and referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee SUPPORT SUPPORT AB 2628 Pav ley Would allow hybrid -electric cars to be operated by solo dri vers in HOV Lanes OPPOSE AB 3007 Plesica Eliminates property acquisition and litigation discussions fr om closed meetings under the Brown Act. Referred to Assembly Local Government Committee OPPOSE ACA 7 Dutra Reduces voter threshold for transportation sales tax measures to 55 percent Passed Assembly Elections and Appropriations Committees SUPPORT ACA 9 Levine Allows local jurisdictions to approve special taxes for infrastructure projects with only a majority vote. The bill includes a number of restrictions and specifications on how this could be imposed . Passed Assembly Local Government and Appropriations Committees ACA 11 Levine Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local bond measures for specified infrastructure projects. Passed Assembly Local Government and Appropriations Committees ACA 14 Steinberg Lowers the v oter threshold to 55 percent for local special taxes for either general infrastructure needs or specified housing, open space and neighborhoo d enhancement projects. Passed Assembly Local Government Appropriations Committee ACA 21 Bogh & Spitzer Raises Legislative threshold for the suspension of Propo sition 42 to a 4/5ths vote Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee SUPPORT ACA 24 Dutra Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee SUPPORT Limits loans from the Highway Account to the General Fund to one- year or requires the payment of interest on loans of a longer term . ACA 29 Harman (Coauthor: Benoit) SB 18 Burton Would eliminate the current provision in Proposition 42 that allows the Legislature and the Governor to suspend the funding transfer that is outlined in Proposition 42. Establishes changes to the CEQA project for traditional tribal cultural sites Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee Failed Passage in the Assembly — Reconsideration Granted SUPPORT OPPOSE SB 87 Hollingsworth Would relinquish part of State Route 79 to the City of Temecula . Passed Senate 40-0 Returned to Assembly for Further Action SUPPORT SB 380 M cClintock and M urray SB 541 Torlakson Requires Caltrans to evaluate and establish standards for all existing HOV lanes in accordance with specified criteria . Furthermore Caltrans would be required to conduct a traffic model study comparing the alternatives of establishing an HOV lane, establishing a HOT Lane, adding a mixed flow lane or not doing anything at all when considering new HOV Lanes. Indexes the state gas tax to ensure that it increases with inflation . Passed Senate Transp ortation Committee and is now Senate Appropriations Suspense File . Failed passage in Senate Transportation . Reconsideration has been granted. SB 1055 Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Restores some truck weight fees and allocates the revenue to the State Highway Account Signed by the Governor SUPPORT SB 1210 Torlakson Would enable additional state construction projects to be built with the Design -Sequencing procedure that is being utilized on the 60/91/215 interchange Passed Senate Transportation Committee and Referred to Senate Appropriations Committee SUPPORT SCA 2 Torlakson Would lower the threshold on half -cent sales tax measures to a simple majority but would require that at least 25 percent of the revenues be spent on "smart growth planning." Passed Senate Transportation and Constitutional Amendments Committees . SEEK AMENDMENTS SCA 7 Murray • Would require that all loans made to the General Fund from transportation sources such as the STIP be repaid with interest • Senate Appropriations — Hearing date pending SUPPORT D2 SUNDAY, August 15, 2004 THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE • DAVID CORNWALL PUBLISHER MARIA DEVARENNE EDITOR GALE HAMMONS EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR STATE PUBLISHERS OF THE PRESS SINCE 1878 THE ENTERPRISE SINCE 1885 THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE SINCE 1052 HARRY HAMMOND PRESIDENT 1937-1948 HOWARD 11 HAYS SR. PRESIDENT 1948-1969 HOWARD II1lAYS JR. ARTHUR A. CULVER CO -PUBLISHERS 1965-1983 TRANSPORTATION HOWARD H HAYS JR. PUBLISHER 1983-1988 WILLIAM D. RICH PUBLISHER 1989-1993 MARCIA MCQUERN PUBLISHER 1994-2002 IT RAIDING * nATJ MoNEY 6Y JOHN J. BENOIT AND ROBERT DUTTON asy access to credit can be addicting, and devastating once the bill comes due. That's true for the average person, but it's especially true for the state of Califor- nia. . With little notice, the invoice as arrived for California and it • will be paid by California's drivers and businesses that are clamoring for better transporta- tion. Transportation financing in California has been bankrupted by the state's deficit spending. That was confirmed when the California Transportation Com- mission was forced to halt all new transportation funding un- til at least December. The im- pact of this on the Inland Em- pire, the fastest -growing region of California, will be calamitous if the Legislature doesn't act. immediately. The economic vitality of Riverside County and the public safety of our citizens are at stake. How did we get to this point? For generations, Riverside and San Bernardino coun- ties' highway improvements, road maintenance and rehabili- tation were financed by fuel taxes paid by the users of our roads and highways. Since 1988, our voters have twice over- whelmingly supported Measure A, Riverside County's half -cent - per -dollar sales tax surcharge, to augment state and federal transportation revenues. In San Bernardino. County, oters approved Measure I in 989 and are considering an extension this November. The combined local, state and feder- al funding has expanded Met- rolink commuter rail services and provided specialized tran- sit services for orr senior citi- ACA 24 will make it much harder for the state to borrow ... and add a level of accountability to the state's budget process. zens. • • But in recent years, the state has failed to protect transporta- tion revenues and has instead "borrowed" road money to cov- er state deficits and provide a sense of balance to•the state budget. While local Measure A funds currently support the ma- jority of new funding lox' trans- portation projects inRiverside County and Measure 1 does the same in San Bernardino Coun-. ty, • our efforts will.'eome up short • if our state and federal partners don't pay their. share. In fact, over the. past: five years, according to the Califor= nia Transportation Commis- sion, the budget crisis has led.to the diversion of $5.5 billion in transportation revenues. In Riv- erside County, we .have lost more than $250 milliori.commit-. ted to more than two dozen real, identiable projects; San Ber- nardino has seen similar cuts. ,. What is.particularlyVexing to us as legislators is our state's failure to honor the will of our voters. In March 2002,76 per- cent of Riverside County's voters and 72 percent of San Bernardino County's voters joined people all over Califor- nia in approving Prop: 42, committing the sales tax lev- ied on gasoline and diesel fuels to fund transportation projects. This is why we, along with a bipartisan group of legislators, are supporting ACA •f 24 and seeking legislative :approval and the governor's support to protect Prop. 42 and provide state matching funding to the Riverside County Transporta- tion Commission, San Bernardi- no Associated Governments and other local jurisdictions. ACA 24 would make it much harder for the state to borrow from transportation funds, would make timely repayment a priority and would add a level of accountability to the state's budgetprolress by ensuring that balancing . the budget means more than adding more items to the credit card bill. oreover, ACA 24 would protect the will of our state's voters,' who have repeatedly invested in better transportation and who ap- proved prop. 42. Congressalso needs to act this year to reauthorize the federal highway . bill with a funding level that .recognizes California's. critical importance in moving goods from our ports to the rest of America. We in the state Legislature must do our part soon to guar- antee that the unconscionable borrowing and hijacking of high- way funds stops and that a $L1 bil- lion annual investment supported by California voters goes where it was intended — to improve our transportation system and ease gl-idlocic . Assemblyman John J. Benoit represents the 64th Assembly District whichin- cludes the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, Idyllwild and parts of Temecula, Hemet, and Lake Elsinore. He serves on the Assembly Transportation, Budget and Insurance committees. • Assemblyman Robert Dutton represents the 63rd Assembly District which in- cludes the cities of Fontana, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Rancho Cuca- monga, Redlands, San Bernardino, Up- land, Highland and Moreno Valley. He serves on the Assembly Heath and Veterans Affairs committees. '• 78 HANDOUT TO AGENDA ITEM N0.17 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT SACRAMENTO —Gambling was the:last thug _Doug".Aadi`and thdughi he had;to.worry about in the cpming weeks Its president of Yeager 'Sk Ini , a Riverside firm that is mong the Largest high. Way builders in' California, Aa- dland'spends his days seeking contracts An ,unexpected collision of "cone c and easinos has linked the f to of fides roads, inter- changes andliind "reds of other transportation projects his • company could bid on with two gambling initiative&; on the Nov 2 ballot Many companies; unions and others .With a` stake in the states beleagguered'tra►ispo{to ., tion program soon will be open- ing their wallets to fight props 68 aid 70. `Nye sbouldn the uivolyed m it ,`Flat ;_being said, the state keeps taking money away from us," Aadland said. On Aug. 5, the California Transportation Commission suspended funding .for almost all new projects until December after officials found that the state has only $500 million of the $2.2 billion it needs for work scheduled in 2004-05. By December, officials will know the outcome of the two initiatives. If either passes, June gaming compacts be- tween G. Schwarzenegger and five gaming tribes Will evaporate. lfURNIA THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE Fight brewing over road -building. -funds POLITICS: Companies and "No one knows what's• unions will right going to happen. (The propositions that could measures' deeatS) eliminate $1.2 billion. },,„ BY JIM MIUER are the tiling Ig we're' SACRUM ew defending an at this Prop. 68, is backed by card clubs owed to us," he said. `Tye been in this business a long time and this is the most unusual and creative transpor- tation financing plan I've ever seem" One of the two measures, and race tracks. It would re- • paint ' quire. gaming ti ibes.to agree to JOSEPH TAYAGLNIN A:RIYERSIDf give the state 25 percentoftlieir • profits If they refused, Vegas - BUILDER AND REAL ESTATE style gambling would be al- INVESTOR = Towed at various card elul)s and racetracks:_ California_ would lose -:$1.2 ,The measure already:has billion in :bonds ' the tribes drawn well•funded opposition ..agreed to :finance to : •partly from.iriIs s With :•1 asinos who repay transportation accounts are concerned about t losing for money state has taken market share. siwa '2001:- • ' pa -;for 'i i• * J'rop YO .spnt�a6`t`ed,, b r the services. vthiCahente.Bgtidof:( Qiuilla "No pne knows, what's going Indians, would lift ; de.- - 2 1300- to happen_ ('he measures de machine limit on slo(machines feats) really, Bare the only. thing in return 'for tribes paying the we're depending on at' .this .state's 5.11.1 pereenteoipoiation point," saidiilaseph:Tavaglione, tax. a Itiversidei<bnilder and :real Transportation officials said . estate investor who�sits on the theyeiipect to .provide 'the bulk transportation commission. of the money forthe no on An initiative that. dedicated -Prop. '10 campaign. • gasoline sales -tax money to Other likely donors . could toad and pass -transit projects- . include_ unions, who. support was suppa'ed to provide a, . the governor's recent coinpaets consistent source of monej'' for because they make it easier to transportation, but Prop: ..:.organize casino workers. never taken effect becauselow-.:......- But ,dome woiild-lie donors makers suspended it the 'last already:are feeling t1iepinch of three years and used the money a J steep- drop ,-m state trans - to balance the budget, portatlon spend*. "There's a lot of cynicism . In addition, transportation rightiiow," said Jim Bart), exec interests will' be :spending utive director of the Alliance for heavily .• to..,pronioteabout a Jobs, an organization that rep- dozen local transportation, resents heavy construction sales -tax measures such as San contractors and union_ workers. Bernardino County's. Measure "We're telling contractors we I. need to oppose 68 and 70• And "It's not like :ti oyliave a lot of we need to oppose theni<so we inoney;" Earl) said tan get $1 billion back :into Reach ,Hm.Milierat &(916;445-9973 or transportation that is already : jo tli xr@pe.coiii C4,0y �� : D��s .r��'� - MONEY: The lack of funding for highway°and interstate work willlast until December: BY JIM. MILLER AND BRADLEY WEAVER • IW PRESS-ENIERP1118E This month's state decision to put the brakes on transporta Lion funding until at kagt.tttit. cember places various trilalii road projects in limbo. In Riverside County, the ac- tion postpones a $44 million carpool -lane _ project along Highway 60. The reconstruction of the Green River Bridge in Corona also could be delayed.' Staying on track, though,is work to link Interstate 210 with Interstate 215 in San Bernardi- no and the massive overhaul of the crowded Interstate 215/ Highway •60/Highway 91 inter- change. Those projects received mon- ey last year or, in the case of the interchange, borr©wed against future federal' highway con- struction dailars:: "This is the most complete lockdown of highway funding that I've seen in my career," said Eric Haley, executive direc- tor of the Riverside County "This is the most compf � wn of highway funding. that I've seen in career ERIC HALEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY, TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. Transportation Commission. "There..; isn't an immediate in dtcation that this will terminate projects, but it has delayed a • number of projects and who knowshowmuch longer they'll be delayed." The projects and hundreds of others are part of the recently approved State Transportation Improvement Program, known as the STIP. Unlike past plans though, the state has only a fraction of the money needed to pay for the projects. "I really think the STIP is dead," said Norm King, exec- utive director of the San Bernar- dino Associated Governments, the county's transportation planning agent RAMO, p c%tip theslack On the Nov. 2 ballot, there are about a dozen local half -cent transportation sales tax mea- sires, including Measure I in San Bernardino County, which would raise an estimated $6 billion over 30 years for road and construction projects. The measures require two-thirds approval. "We need to take matters into our own hands," said Pete Agui- lar, campaign manager for the pro -Measure I committee. Reach Jim Miller at (916) 445.-9973 or jmiller(a)pe.com Reach Brad Weaver at (951) 368-9591 or bweaver@pe.com iid be asked to