HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 24, 2005 Budget & ImplementationRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA %b45
•
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
DATE: Monday, January 24, 2005
LOCATION: Board Chambers
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 1" Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
RECORDS
***COMMITTEE MEMBERS***
Terry Henderson, Chair / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta
Bob Magee Vice Chair / Robert L. 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 M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella
Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs
Kelly Seyarto / Jack van Haaster, City of Murrieta
Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, 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
Jeff Stone, 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
it -
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
www.rcte.org
AGENDA *
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
10:00 a.m.
Monday, January 24, 2005
BOARD CHAMBERS
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, lst Floor
Riverside, California
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section
549542, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please
contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 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
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 Committee 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
January 24, 2005
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. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 1
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the
second quarter ended December 31, 2004, and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 3
1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the six-
month period ended December 31, 2004, and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. CALTRANS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-1259 (RCTC AGREEMENT
#05-31-538) FOR RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION FOR THE GREEN RIVER
DRIVE INTERCHANGE BRIDGE ON STATE HIGHWAY 91
Pg. 9
Overview
1) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel
review, to execute Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1259 (RCTC
Agreement #05-31-538) with the Department of Transportation
to perform right of way acquisition for the Green River Drive
Interchange Bridge on State Highway 91; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
•
•
•
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee
January 24, 2005
Page 3
8.
9.
MODEL TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) REGIONAL
ARTERIAL FUNDING AGREEMENT
Pg. 16
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve a model TUMF Regional Arterial Funding Agreement
between the Commission and local jurisdictions;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute said agreements as they are developed and finalized
over time provided that they do not contain any substantive
changes to the model's terms and conditions; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 42
1) Approve a $589,300 increase in Measure "A" Coachella Valley
Specialized Transit appropriations for transit operations;
2) Approve a $3,993,216 increase in Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) appropriations for right of way
acquisition;
3) Approve an $85,500 increase in administration appropriations
for furniture, office equipment, and leasehold improvements;
4) Approve a $20,000 increase in administration appropriations for
additional liability insurance; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. MID -YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the Mid -Year Revenue Projections;
Pg. 45
Budget and Implementation Committee
January 24, 2005
Page 4
•
2) Approve the budget adjustments to reflect the revised Measure
"A" revenues of $10,400,000 and expenditures of $5,141,000;
3) Approve the budget adjustments to reflect the revised Local
Transportation Fund (LTF) Planning revenues of $210,480 and
expenditures of $210,480; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. FISCAL YEAR 2005/2006 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND AND MEASURE
"A" REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 50
1) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund
apportionment for the Western Riverside County, Coachella
Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas;
2) Approve the projections for Measure "A" and the related
allocations; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
12. AWARD OF DIGITAL UPGRADE CONTRACT TO COMARCO WIRELESS
TECHNOLOGIES
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 55
1) Enter into an agreement between the Riverside County
Transportation Commission and Comarco Wireless Technologies
to upgrade the call box system to digital technology;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute Agreement No. 05-45-537 on behalf of the
Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
•
•
•
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee
January 24, 2005
Page 5
13. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 58
1) Receive and file the state and federal legislative update, and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
15. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
16. 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.
17. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING
The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be
held at 10:00 A.M., Monday, February 28, 2005, 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, October 25, 2004
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to
order by Chairperson Terry Henderson at 10:00 a.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
Roger Berg
Chris Buydos
Juan DeLara
Terry Henderson
Robin Lowe
Bob Magee
Ameal Moore
Kelly Seyarto
Jim Venable
Art Welch
Members Absent
Robert Crain
Ron Meepos
Gregory Pettis
John F. Tavaglione
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests from the public to speak.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S/C (Lowe/Venable) to approve the September 27, 2004 minutes as
submitted.
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
October 25, 2004
Page 2
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S/C (Lowe/Venable) to approve the Consent Calendar.
6A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the
period ended September 30, 2004; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6B. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT
1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the
month ended September 30, 2004; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6C. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the
quarter ended September 30, 2004; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
John Standiford, Director of Public Information, updated the Committee on
the California Performance Review, highlighting the recommendation to
create the California Department of Infrastructure and its impact on
transportation. He also reported that Congress passed a corporate tax
reform bill that included a provision that will no longer divert funds from the
Federal Highway Trust Fund to pay for ethanol production. Also, in response
to the Committees request, the RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing
Separation Need List was included in the agenda. Funding for grade
crossings is dependent on the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation
Act.
M/S/C (Lowe/Buydos) to:
1) Receive and file the update on State and Federal Legislative
Update as an information item; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
•
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
October 25, 2004
Page 3
•
•
•
8. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-33-519 (AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO
AGREEMENT NO. RO-2128) TO STV INCORPORATED FOR SERVICES
RELATED TO THE NEW START APPLICATION FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY
LINE PROJECT
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the additional scope of
work for the amendment that includes additional studies for the final
environmental assessment, revise and rerun of a new Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) travel demand model, update the New
Start application, coordination with Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)
Railway regarding construction of a storage track, and additional engineering
support to address a non-compliance frontage.
Eric Haley noted that the expenditure to update the SCAG model is central to
receive approval on the application. He also provided a historical background
of the non-compliance frontage. He then addressed the request from BNSF,
noting the need to recognize how rapidly the 1-215 corridor is developing.
The request is positive, especially in terms of economic development.
In response to Chair Henderson's question regarding the SCAG modeling
update, Hideo Sugita indicated that efforts will be coordinated with SCAG
modeling staff. The deficiency in model is trip distribution, which does not
meet FTA's range of continuity.
In response to Commissioner Lowe's question regarding the date of the SCAG
model, Hideo Sugita indicated that the origin -destination data is from
approximately 1991. SCAG is in the process of a region wide origin -
destination survey with an estimated completion in 3-6 months.
Commissioner Lowe then asked if the deficiency in the model would have
affected the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and if Commissioner Ron
Roberts, as President of SCAG, was aware of this issue. Hideo Sugita
indicated that SCAG has not communicated any issues with the RTP and
Commissioner Ron Roberts is aware of the deficiency and has offered his
assistance.
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
October 25, 2004
Page 4
M/S/C (Lowe/Buydos) to:
1) Award Agreement No. 05-33-519 (Amendment No. 9 to
Agreement No. RO-2128) to STV Incorporated for additional
scope of work related to the final environmental assessment,
rerun of SCAG's transit model, update of the New Start
application, and BNSF coordination for the Perris Valley Line
project for an additional base amount of $548,430;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Allocate an additional $500,000 of STA funds and increase the
FY 2004-05 Rail Capital budget to accommodate the allocation;
4) Amend the FY 2004-05 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit
Plan to reflect these changes; and,
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. M-24-006 FOR THE
FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
M/S/C (Lowe/Venable) to:
1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. M-24-006
for the funding reimbursement of State Highway 111
improvements within the City of La Quinta;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute the memorandum of understanding on behalf of the
Commission; and,
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. PROJECT STATUS REPORT OF FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDED PROJECTS
Shirley Medina, Program Manager, updated the Committee on the status of
Federal and State funded projects.
M/S/C (Welch/Lowe) to:
1) Receive and file the Project Status Report of Federal and State
funded projects; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
•
•
•
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
October 25, 2004
Page 5
11. APPROVE THE FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 05-45-520 BETWEEN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE
OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs, provided
a brief overview of the fund transfer agreement with the State of California
Department of Transportation for the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program.
M/S/C (Buydos/Berg) to:
1) Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 05-45-520 between
the State of California Department of Transportation and the
Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Riverside
County Freeway Service Patrol program in the amount of
$1,071,368 in State funding for FY 2004-05;
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.
12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion.
13. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF
Eric Haley noted:
• Focus on the Future: Self -Help Counties Coalition will be held in
La Quinta on November 14th - 16th
• The New York bond trip will be Nov 21St - 23rd to meet with rating and
assurance agencies.
• California Transportation Commissions meetings will be held at the
Riverside County Administrative Center December 8th and 9th
At this time, the Committee reviewed the meeting schedule for November and
December and determined to cancel both meetings due to the holidays.
•
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
October 25, 2004
Page 6
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and
Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:34 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
6,1,,,;,je)u_ Haut ,
Jennifer Harmon
Deputy Clerk of the Board
•
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 6A
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 24, 2005
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 second
quarter ended December 31, 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 second quarter ended December 31, 2004 under
the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the
Commission. The unused capacity at December 31, 2004 is $390,155.
Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of December 31, 2004.
1
•
SINGLE SIGNA AUTHORITY
AS OF DECE R 31, 2004
ORIGINAL RE MAINING
CONTRACT CONTRACT
CONSULTANT DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT A MOUNT
AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2004
David Taussig and
Associates
TU MF program cash flow projection
$500,000.00
37,500 .00
37,500.00
0 .00
Moore lacofano Goltsman,
Inc.
47,345.00
2'.639 .35
AMOUNT USED
AM OUNT REMAINING THROUGH December 31, 2004
fV Donna Polmounter
Michele Cisneros
Prepared by Reviewed by
Note: Shaded area represents new co ntracts listed in the second quarter .
109,845 .00
$390,155 .00
53,501.03
56,343.97
V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2005\02 February\Budget & Impl\Trevino- Attachment.SINSIG05
AGENDA ITEM 6B
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 24, 2005
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 six-month
period ended December 31, 2004, and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During the last six months of the fiscal year, staff has monitored the revenues and
expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements present the
revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the fiscal year. Period closing
accrual adjustments are not included for revenues earned but not billed and
expenditures incurred for goods and services received but not yet invoiced, as such
adjustments are normally made during year end closing activities.
The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the second quarter at
35% 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 at the point of sale. 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 and related disbursement of local streets
and roads allocations. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the Measure
"A" sales tax revenues and related local streets and roads expenditures related to
sales tax collections through October 2004.
On a cash basis, the Measure "A" and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax
revenues are 15% and 13% higher respectively, than the same period six month
period last fiscal year.
3
Federal, state and local government reimbursements and other revenues are on a
reimbursement basis, and the Commission will receive these revenues as the
project activities occur and are invoiced usually quarterly to the respective
agencies.
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues are remitted to the
Commission by Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) the 10th of
each month. During the second quarter, WRCOG remitted approximately
$5,960,000 to the Commission.
The Administration expenditure categories are in line as budgeted. General
administrative expenditures are higher due to a one-time payment in July for the
Commission's general business insurance for FY 2004/05 and the one-time
payment in November for the maintenance contract on the Commission's financial
software.
Intergovernmental distributions are higher than budgeted due to the annual LTF
administrative payments made to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments
(CVAG) and WRCOG during the first two quarters of the fiscal year.
Debt service interest expenditures are made in December and June, while principal
payments are made in June.
The Programs/Projects expenditure categories are in line overall with the
expectations of the budget with the exception of TUMF right of way. In November
2004 the Commission purchased various parcels of property for the Mid -County
Parkway Project approximating $2,993,000. Staff is seeking a budget adjustment
in a separate agenda item.
Listed below are the capital related projects that have significant variances and
their status:
Highway Engineering/Right of way
• Route 91 Van Buren Interchange ($7,600,000) — The city of Riverside is the
lead agency and has experienced delays related to environmental issues.
The environmental process is expected to be completed by June 2005 with
right of way acquisition commencing in FY 2005/06.
• Route 74 from 1-15 to 7th Street ($2,000,000) — Expenditures related to right
of way acquisitions are offset by reimbursements of condemnation deposits
from Caltrans upon final settlement of purchases. An accounting change for
such reimbursements was made at the beginning of the fiscal year to
properly account for actual right of way costs. Such reimbursements were
previously reported as revenues.
•
•
•
4
•
•
• Project invoices related to work performed during all or a portion of the
second quarter for highway engineering and right of way have not been
received from consultants and other agencies.
Highway Construction
• Route 86 ($188,400) — The traffic signal project has not been awarded by
the County. Contract award and commencement of construction is expected
by June 2005.
• Route 1 1 1 ($1,411,600) — The widening projects in the city of La Quinta
was recently awarded. Additionally, per an agreement with CVAG related to
the completed project in Rancho Mirage, a payment of $1,000,000 will be
made in June 2005.
• 1-15 Galena Interchange ($2,700,000) — The project award has not been
made by the County. County is awaiting final approvals from Caltrans.
Award and construction are expected to commence by June 2005.
Rail Engineering/Right of way
• North Main Corona Station Parking Structure ($1,050,000) — The CEQA
environmental document was recently approved, and the NEPA
environmental document is being prepared for approval by the Federal Transit
Administration. Final design will not start until all appropriate approvals have
been granted and funding is in place. Funding required to complete the
project is currently not available.
• Riverside Downtown Parking Lot ($275,000) — Start of final design was
delayed until the fourth quarter of FY 2004/05 due to the requirements for
preparation and submittal of the engineering/planning application to the city
of Riverside for approval.
• Perris Valley Line ($5,807,000) — The preliminary engineering contract was
awarded in November 2004. Additionally, appraisals are currently being
performed for right of way, and property acquisition is anticipated in the
third quarter of the fiscal year.
Rail Construction
• Riverside Downtown Parking Lot ($1,200,000) — Delays in the final design
due to the requirements for preparation and submittal of the
engineering/planning application to the City has pushed the construction into
the first quarter of FY 2005/06.
TUMF Engineering/Right of way
• Mid -County Parkway Project ($4,030,000) — During the development of the
FY 2004/05 budget, staff was not aware of the specific property needs for
the project. During this fiscal year, opportunities to purchase available
5
property for the project were presented and approved by the Commission.
Staff has requested a mid -year budget adjustment in a separate agenda item.
Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements — December 31, 2004
•
•
6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
•
•
•
DESCRIPTION
QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL
2ND QUARTER
FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/04
REMAINING PERCENT
BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION
Revenues
Sales tax $ 122,479,100 $ 43,082,938 $ (79,396,162) 35%
Federal, state & local govemment reimbursements 21,954,100 5,403,330 (16,550,770) 25%
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 28,000,000 11,218,490 (16,781,510) 40%
Other revenues 4,727,000 1,287,482 (3,439,518) 27%
Interest 3,030,700 1,219,842 (1,810,858) 40%
Total revenues 180,190,900 62,212,082 (117,978,818) 35%
Expenditures
Administration
Salaries & benefits 1,358,400 577,810 780,590 43%
General legal services 108,500 37,261 71,239 34%
Professional services 1,022,500 375,150 647,350 37%
Office lease & utilities 363,000 183,481 179,519 51%
General administrative expenses 880,700 558,224 322,476 63%
Total administration 3,733,100 1,731,926 2,001,173 46%
Programs/projects
Salaries & benefits 1,816,700 826,522 990,178 45%
General legal services 1,050,000 516,595 533,405 49%
Professional services 1,636,620 493,582 1,143,038 30%
General projects 1,997,000 550,078 1,446,922 28%
Highway engineering 2,985,000 236,156 2,748,844 8%
Highway construction 35,104,388 12,777,236 22,327,152 36%
Highway right of way 9,853,000 303,812 9,549,188 3%
Rail engineering 1,880,950 114,217 1,766,733 6%
Rail construction 2,280,000 237,093 2,042,907 10%
Rail right of way 4,857,000 - 4,857,000 0%
TUMF engineering 4,000,000 1,710,415 2,289,585 43%
TUMF construction - 500 (500) 0%
TUMF right of way 30,000 2,993,216 (2,963,216) 9977%
Local streets & roads 42,545,000 15,534,537 27,010,463 37%
Regional arterial 9,000,000 3,913,923 5,086,077 43%
Special studies 1,963,800 81,682 1,882,118 4%
FSPtowing 1,483,600 609,045 874,555 41%
Commuter assistance 2,522,540 923,219 1,599,321 37%
Property management 97,200 29,565 67,635 30%
Motorist assistance 1,464,500 183,729 1,280,771 13%
Rail operations & maintenance 4,736,800 2,177,715 2,559,085 46%
STA distributions 2,848,628 502,418 2,346,210 18%
Specialized transit 5,295,900 2,336,382 2,959,518 44%
Planning & programming services 53,400 24,560 28,840 46%
Total programs/projects 139,502,026 47,076,197 92,425,829 34%
Intergovernmental distribution
Capital outlay
788,400 685,236 103,164 87%
363,000 68,473 294,527 19%
Debt service
Principal 27,200,000 27,200,000
Interest 8,286,000 4,142,765 4,143,235
Total debt service 35,486,000 4,142,765 31,343,235
Total expenditures 179,872,526 53,704,597 126,167,929
Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures
318,374 8,507,485 (8,189,111)
0%
50%
12%
30%
2672%
Other financing sources/uses
Operating transfer in 35,766,300 17,260,246 18,506,054 48%
Operating transfer out (35,766,300) (17,260,246) (18,506,054) 48%
Bond proceeds - 0%
Payment to escrow agent - 0%
Cost of issuance - 0%
Total financing sources/uses - - 0%
Net change in fund balances 318,374 8,507,485 (8,189,111) 2672%
Fund balance July 1, 2004 177,506,700 202,781,114 25,274,414 114%
Fund balance December 31, 2004 $ 177,825,074 $ 211,288,599 $ 33,463,525 119%
V:\USERS\PREPRINT12005102 February\Budget & Impl\Cisneros - 2nd Qtr Financials Attachment
7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
QUARTERLY ACTUALS BY FUND
2ND QUARTER
FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/04
MEASURE"A "
PAL O STATE TRANSPORTATION UNIFO RM WESTERN
GENERAL FSP/ WESTERN VERDE COACHELLA TRANSIT MITIGATI ON FEE COUNTY DEBT C OMBINED
DESCRIPTION FUND SAFE COUNTY VALLEY VALLEY ASSISTANCE TUMF C ONSTRUCTI ON SERVICE TOTAL
Rev enues
Sales tax $ 3,487,319 $ - $ 29,479,972 $ 310,880 $ 9,804,767 $ • $ - $ - $ - $ 43,082,938
Federal, state & local govemment reimbursem ents 102,970 909,739 4,390,621 - - - - - 5,403,330
Transpo rtatio n Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) - - - - - 11,218.490 - 11,218,490
O ther revenues 277,160 3,104 2,010 - 173,361 831,847 - 1,287,482
Intere st 19,442 14,308 348,787 228 13,325 13,168 123,241 9,003 678,340 1,219,842
Total revenues 3,886,891 927,151 34,221,390 311,108 9,991,453 845,015 11,341,731 9,003 678,340 62,212,082
Expenditures
Administration
Salaries & benefits 550,775 27,035 - - - - 577,810
General legal services 35,461 1,800 - - - 37,261
Professional services 357,015 18,135 - - - - - 375,150
Office lease & utilities 174,619 8,862 - - 183,481
General administrative expenses 531,279 26,945 - - 558,224
Total administration 1,649,149 82,777 - - - - - 1,731,926
Programs/projects
Sala rie s & benefits 440,815 49,687 260,855 - 7,575 67,590 - 826,522
General legal services 117,986 1,774 336,694 1,115 - 59,024 - - 516,595
Pro fessional services 141,463 14,986 299,453 - 180 37,500 493,582
General projects - - 495,752 8,453 - 45,873 - 550,078
Highwa y engineering - 236,156 - - - - 236,156
Highway construction - 12,777,236 - - - 12,777,236
Highway right of wa y - 303,812 - - - 303,812
Rail enginee ring - 114,217 - 114,217
Rail construction 237,093 - - 237,093
Rail right of way
TUMF engine ering 1,710,415 - - 1,710,415
-
TUMF construction - - - - 500 - 500
TUM F right of way - - - - 2,993,216 - - 2,993,216
Local streets & roads - 11,791,989 310,880 3,431,668 - - 15,534,537
Regional arte ria l - - - 3,913,923 - - 3,913,923
Special studies 69,712 - 11,970 - - - 81,682
FSP towing 609,045 - 609,045
Commuter assistance - - 923,219 - - 923,219
Property ma na ge ment 29,565 - - - 29.565
M otorist assistance 183,729 - - - - 183,729
Rail ope ra tions & maintenance 2,177,715 - - - - 2,177,715
STA distributions - - - 502,418 - 502,418
Spec ialized transit - 685,254 1,651,128 - - - 2,336,382
Planning & programming services 24,560 - - - - - 24,560
Total programs/projects 3,001,818 859,221 28,473,700 310,880 9,013,862 502,598 4,914,118 - - 47,076,197
Intergovernmental distribution
Capital outlay
Debt service
Principa l
Interest - - - 4,142,765 4,142,765
Total debt servic e 4,142,765 4,142,765
685,236 - - - 685,236
19,124 970 48,379 - - - - - 68,473
Total expenditures 5,355,327 942,968 28,522,079 310,880 9,013,862 502,598 4,914,118 4,142,765 53,704,597
Excess reve nue s over (u nder) expenditures (1,468,436) (15,817) 5,699,311 228 977,591 342.417 6,427,613 9,003 (3,464,425) 8,507,485
Other financing sources/use s
Operating transfer in 254,100 - - - - 17,006,146 17,260,246
Operating transfer out - 254,100 13,056,656 - 3,949,490 - - - 17,260,246
Bond proceeds - -
-
Payment to escrow agent -
Cost of issuance - To ta l financing so urces/uses 13,056,656 3,949,490 - (17,006,146)
Net change in fund balance s (1,468,436) (15,817) (7,357,345) 228 (2,971,899) 342,417 6,427,613 9,003 13,541,721 8,507,485
Fund ba lance July 1, 2004 7,352,174 3,559,966 115,098,845 47,727 7,253,630 2,566,624 34,439,947 2,208,202 30,253,999 202,781,114
Func Dec embe r 31, 2004 $ 5,883,738 $ 3,544,149 $ 107,741,500 $ 47,955 4,281,731 $ 2.909,041 $ 40,867,560 $ 2,217,205 $ 43,795,720
V:\USERS\P 05\02 February \Budget & Impl\Cisneros - 2nd 00 Financials Attachment
•
AGENDA ITEM 7
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 24, 2005
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Programming and Policy
Development
SUBJECT:
Caltrans Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1259 (RCTC Agreement
#05-31-538) for Right of Way Acquisition for the Green River Drive
Interchange Bridge on State Highway 91
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1259 (RCTC Agreement #05-
31-538) with the Department of Transportation to perform right of
way acquisition for the Green River Drive Interchange Bridge on State
Highway 91; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is ready to begin right of way
acquisition for the Green River Drive Interchange on State Highway 91. The 2004
STIP identifies $52,600 of Regional Improvement Program funds (RIP) programmed
for right of way capital. Therefore, a cooperative agreement is required to
authorize Caltrans to proceed with right of way acquisition using the programmed
RIP funds. The acquisition of right of way is expected to be completed in six to
twelve months. Upon completion, construction of the interchange improvement
project will commence.
As a reminder, at the May 2004 Commission retreat, the Commission approved the
advancement of the Green River Drive Interchange project from fiscal year 2007/08
(as programmed in the STIP) to fiscal year 2005/06 by loaning up to $13.4 million
of local Transportation Uniform Mitigation Program (TUMF) fees. This loan will be
repaid, with interest, from anticipated Federal Surface Transportation Program
funds.
Attachment: Cooperative Agreement
9
•
•
08-Riv-91-KP 0.0/3.5 (PM 0.0/2.2)
Replace Green River Drive OC
In Riverside County near Corona
from Orange County line 71/91 IC
08303 - EA 456610
District Agreement No. 08-1259
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON , is between
the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation,
referred to herein as "STATE", and the
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to
herein as "COMMISSION"
RECITALS
1. STATE and COMMISSION, pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code and Government
Code Sections 114 and 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for
improvements to State highways within the County of Riverside.
2. STATE is authorized to do all acts necessary, convenient or proper for the construction or
improvement of all highways under its jurisdiction, possession or control.
3. STATE and COMMISSION contemplate the purchase of Right of Way for the replacement
of the Green River Drive Interchange (IC) bridge on State Highway 91 (SH-91) between
the Orange County/Riverside County Line and the 91/71 Interchange in the County of
Riverside, near Corona, referred to herein as "PROJECT".
4. STATE and COMMISSION mutually desire that STATE perform the Right of Way
acquisition of the improvements as set forth in the forgoing Articles 2 and 3 for
PROJECT.
5. COMMISSION is willing to pay 100% of the total actual Right of Way capital costs for
PROJECT estimated to be $52,600, including acquisition, utility relocation, and
condemnation, by direct billing.
6. STATE will provide Right of Way support at no cost to COMMISSION.
10
District Agreement No. 8-1259
7. The parties hereto intend to define herein the terms and conditions under which Right of
Way for PROJECT will be financed.
SECTION I
STATE AGREES
1. To perform all right of way activities including preparation of right of way maps and
legal descriptions. Said right of way activities shall include but not limited to the
following:
a. Make fair market value appraisals and relocation valuation.
b. Acquire property in STATE's name.
c. Provide required relocation assistance payments and service.
d. Open escrow, obtain title reports, and make arrangements to convey title and
close escrow.
e. Complete acquisition through condemnation.
f. Provide all property management services.
g. Administer excess land program.
h. Identify and Locate utilities.
2. To perform all right of way support for acquisition activities of properties as may be
necessary for the construction of PROJECT at no cost to COMMISSION.
3. To provide legal services in connection with eminent domain actions. All eminent
domain proceedings are dependent upon the adoption of a resolution of public use and
necessity by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). STATE shall pursue
such actions according to current STATE procedures under the passage of a
condemnation resolution by the CTC.
4. To certify legal and physical control of right of way acquired in accordance with
applicable State and Federal laws and regulations, prior to advertisement for bids for
construction of PROJECT.
5. To identify and locate all utility facilities within the area of PROJECT as part of the
Right of Way responsibility for PROJECT. All utility facilities not relocated or
removed in advance of construction shall be identified on the PS&E for PROJECT.
6. To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities within the area of
PROJECT and to protect or otherwise provide for such facilities, all m accordance with
STATE's "Policy on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities Within Highway
Rights of Way".
7. If any existing public and/or private utility facilities conflict with the construction of
PROJECT or violate STATE's encroachment policy, STATE shall make all necessary
arrangements with the owners of such facilities for their protection, relocation, or
removal in accordance with STATE's policy and procedure for those facilities located
•
211
District Agreement No. 8-1259
•
•
•
within the limits of work included in the improvement to the State highway and in
accordance with local jurisdiction's policy for those facilities which are or will be
located outside of the limits of the State highway. The total costs to PROJECT of such
protection, relocation, or removal within the present or future State highway right of
way shall be determined in accordance with STATE's policies and procedures.
8. To establish separate PROJECT accounts to accumulate charges for all costs to be paid
by COMMISSION pursuant to this Agreement.
9. To prepare and submit to COMMISSION a request for payment for the capital costs of
right of way to be paid by COMMISSION as required for right of way acquisition as
described in Section II, Article 1 as PROJECT proceeds. A request for payment should
be on a mutually agreed to form.
10. To submit to COMMISSION each month a progress report that describes the work
performed and completed during the reporting period.
11. Upon completion of the right of way activities for PROJECT and all work incidental
thereto, to furnish COMMISSION with a detailed statement of the total actual Right of
Way acquisition Capital costs for PROJECT.
12. To inform COMMISSION of any issues that could have the potential to increase the
actual Right of Way cost for PROJECT beyond the authorized cost.
13. To retain, or cause to be retained for audit by COMMISSION auditors, for a period of
three (3) years from date of processing the final detailed statement of PROJECT, all
records and accounts relating to Right of Way for PROJECT, and make such materials
available if requested by COMMISSION.
SECTION II
COMMISSION AGREES:
1. To pay one hundred percent (100%) of the total actual Right of Way capital costs for
PROJECT, estimated to be $52,600, including acquisition, utility relocation, and
condemnation. If it becomes apparent that the total cost for Right of Way for
PROJECT will exceed the estimated amount programmed for expenditure,
COMMISSION shall work promptly and in cooperation with STATE to determine
necessary additional costs and the source of the additional funds.
2. To deposit into an escrow account, mutually agreeable to STATE, within 10 working
days of receipt of request for payment, the capital cost of right of way to be paid by
COMMISSION as required for right of way activities as described in Section I, Article
1 as PROJECT proceeds.
3
12
District Agreement No. 8-1259
3. To provide STATE with a certificate of funding which shall be attached hereto and
made a part of this Agreement. This certificate shall indicate that funds are available
and budgeted for payment to STATE and shall be executed by the designated
responsible fiscal officer of COMMISSION.
4. To be responsible, at no cost to STATE, for remediation of hazardous waste located
inside and outside of existing State right of way that would impact PROJECT.
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the
appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the allocation of resources by the
California Transportation Commission.
2. Should any portion of PROJECT be financed with Federal funds or STATE funds, all
applicable laws, rules and policies relating to the use of such funds shall apply
notwithstanding other provisions of this Agreement.
3. (a). In the acquisition of right of way pursuant to this Agreement, STATE may
acquire at COMMISSION's expense an entire parcel, or a greater portion of a parcel
than that required for PROJECT, of real property to avoid payment of high severance
damages. Any such acquired excess properties shall be disposed of in accordance with
STATE's standard operating procedures. All net proceeds received from the disposal
of said excess properties shall be transferred to COMMISSION.
(b). Notwithstanding Paragraphs 3 (a) and 3 (b) of this section, the existing SR 91
state-owned right of way will be incorporated as necessary into the projects' right of
way at no cost to COMMISSION. Existing state-owned right of way, which becomes
excess as a result of PROJECT will, subject to California Transportation Commission
(CTC) approval, be exchanged if appropriate for private -owned required property.
(c). Excess existing State-owned property within PROJECT limits not exchanged
and/or incorporated shall be, subject to CTC approval, conveyed or sold by the State
with the transfer or credit of said property to STATE. The disposal of said excess
property will be in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
4. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations
to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of
either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the
construction of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law.
5. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or
liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COMMISSION
under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code
section 895.4, COMMISSION shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State
of California, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every
•
4
13
District Agreement No. 8-1259
•
•
•
name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in
Government Code section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
done by COMMISSION under or in connection with any work, COMMISSION or
jurisdiction delegated to COMMISSION under this Agreement.
6. Neither COMMISSION nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any
damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by
STATE under or in connection with any work, COMMISSION or jurisdiction delegated
to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save
harmless COMMISSION from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and
description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code section
810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or
in connection with any work, COMMISSION or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under
this Agreement.
7 No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in
writing and signed by the parties hereto and no oral understanding or agreement not
incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.
8. This Agreement shall terminate upon the completion of the R/W acquisition for
PROJECT and reimbursement of funds from excess property sales to COMMISSION
or on June 30, 2008, whichever is earlier in time.
SIGNATURES ARE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.
5
14
District Agreement No. 8-1259
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Riverside County Transportation
Department of Transportation COMMISSION
By:
ERIC HALEY
WILL KEMPTON Executive Director
Director
By:
Anne Mayer
District 08 Director
CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS:
By:
District Budget Manager
Approved as to form and procedure:
By:
Attorney
Department of Transportation
Certified as to procedure:
By:
Accounting Administrator, Local Assistance
6
15
AGENDA ITEM 8
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 24, 2005
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Model Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional
Arterial Funding Agreement
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve a model TUMF Regional Arterial Funding Agreement between
the Commission and local jurisdictions;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
said agreements as they are developed and finalized over time
provided that they do not contain any substantive changes to the
model's terms and conditions; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its September 2004, the Commission took action to establish a five-year Traffic
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program for the period FY 2005 to
FY 2009. In response to the Commissions' Regional Arterial Improvements Call
for Projects process, twenty-four local jurisdiction projects totaling $46.7 million
have been approved as eligible to receive funding. TUMF regional funds totaling
$25 million was also set aside for the Mid County Parkway and SR 79 Realignment
projects.
In addition, Staff was directed to develop a Model TUMF Regional Arterial Funding
Agreement between local jurisdictions and the Commission to ensure consistency
in Agreement terms and conditions. To that end, Staff met with representatives
from the Western County members of the Technical Advisory Committee over a
three month period to develop the attached Model Agreement that:
> Delineates eligible and non -eligible work costs to be reimbursed; e.g.
local jurisdictions' administrative overhead costs are not eligible but
staff time directly related to coordination of the approved work is
eligible.
16
➢ Specifies the maximum eligible TUMF funds to be paid for the work
may not exceed the then -current dollar amount as defined by the
TUMF Nexus Study and any subsequent updates.
➢ Restricts TUMF funding from being used for temporary improvements
except those needed for staged construction of the approved work.
➢ Requires that the local jurisdiction repay any TUMF funds it receives
for work performed if, for any reason, they do not complete the work
pursuant to an executed agreement for design, right of way or
construction phases of work. The provision does not apply to the
PA&ED phase of work (project approvals and environmental
document).
➢ Provides for the reimbursement of eligible work costs incurred by a
local jurisdiction prior to the execution of an agreement.
➢ Details the process for reimbursement of eligible work costs incurred
by the local jurisdiction including samples of required documentation
by the jurisdiction and its contractors. Reimbursement shall be made
by the Commission within 30 days of receipt of invoice.
Based on the Model TUMF Agreement and assuming no substantive changes to its
language, Staff recommends that the Commission Chairman be authorized to sign
the Agreements upon finalized by the local jurisdiction and Commission Staff. If
substantive changes are negotiated to the Model Agreement, Staff will present that
individual agreement to the Commission for its review and approval. As a basic
practice, Staff will not forward any TUMF agreement for execution by the
Chairman until the local jurisdiction has taken formal policy action to approve
entering into the agreement.
Attachment: TUMF Model Funding Agreement
•
17
Agreement No. M00-000
•
•
•
AGREEMENT FOR THE FUNDING OF
TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS
WITH THE CITY OF
[NOTE: If using this model agreement for a County project, globally replace the term "City"
with "County".]
1. Parties and Date.
1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this day of , 2004, by and
between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and
[Name of local jurisdiction] ("City"). RCTC and City are
sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "Parties".
2. Recitals.
2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to
California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 1300515.
2.2 On November 5, 2002 the voters of Riverside County approved Measure A
authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2%) retail transactions and use tax to fund
transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the
Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan").
2.3 The Plan requires cities and the County in western Riverside County to participate in
a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program to be eligible to receive Local Streets
and Roads funds generated by Measure A.
2.4 The Plan further requires that the first $400 million in revenues from TUMF be made
available to RCTC to fund equally the Regional Arterial System and development of New
Transportation Corridors identified through the Community and Environmental Transportation
Acceptability Process (CETAP). To receive TUMF funding, CETAP corridors must also be
designated on the Regional System of Highways and Arterials as established in the October 2002
TUMF Nexus Study, amended in March 2004, and as may be amended in the future.
2.5 The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) has been selected to
administer the overall TUMF Program pursuant to applicable state laws including Government Code
Sections 66000 et seq. and has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with RCTC
dated July 10, 2003 regarding the allocation of the $400 million in TUMF Regional Funds to be
made available to RCTC for programming.
V:USERS\PREPRIN"INMW\TUMF 2005 MODEL AGREEMENT\TUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
18
2.6 RCTC issued to the cities and the County a "Call for Projects" to be funded with
TUMF Regional funds, and in response to the Project Nomination Forms, took action on September
8, 2004 to adopt a five year TUMF Regional Arterial Program which identifies the projects and the
maximum funding commitments awarded for specific phases of work. RCTC's TUMF Regional
Arterial Program may be updated from time to time.
2.7 RCTC intends, by this Agreement, to distribute TUMF Regional Funds, subject to the
conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined
herein.
3. Terms.
3.1 Description of Work. This Agreement is intended to distribute TUMF Regional
Funds to the City for [insert general description of work],
("the Work"). The Work, including a timetable and a detailed scope of work, is more fully described
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.15 below, is subject to modification as
requested by the City and approved by RCTC. The Work shall be consistent with one or more of the
defined RCTC Ca11 for Projects phases detailed herein as follows:
1) PA&ED — Project Approvals & Environmental Document
2) PS&E — Plans, Specifications and Estimates
3) R/W — Right of Way Acquisition and Utility Relocation
4) CONS — Construction
The Work phase(s) funded pursuant to this Agreement shall be consistent with the City's Call for
Projects Nomination Form submitted to the RCTC ("the Project") and as approved by the RCTC on
September 8, 2004. The Project is more fully described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. It is
understood and agreed that the City shall expend TUMF Regional Funds only as set forth in this
Agreement and only for the Work. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this
Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC.
3.2 RCTC Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to distribute to the City, on the terms
and conditions set forth herein, a sum not to exceed [Insert dollars in text
form] ($ [Insert dollars in number form]), to be used exclusively for
reimbursing the City for eligible Work expenses as described herein ("Funding Amount"). The City
acknowledges and agrees that the Funding Amount may be less than the actual cost of the Work, and
that RCTC shall not contribute TUMF Regional Funds in excess of the maximum TUMF share for
the phase/project identified in Appendix F of the TUMF Nexus Study.
3.2.1 Eligible Work Costs. The total Work costs ("Total Work Cost") may include
the following items, provided that such items are included in the scope of work attached as Exhibit
"A": (1) City and/or consultant costs associated with direct Work coordination and support; (2)
funds expended in preparation of preliminary engineering studies; (3) funds expended for preparation
of environmental review documentation for the Work; (4) all costs associated with right-of-way
acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation
2
V:USERS\PREPRINT\MW\TUMF\2005 MODEL AGREEMENT\TUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
19
•
•
•
procedures if authorized by the City, and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property
acquisition; (5) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (6) costs incurred in the
preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by City or consultants; (7) City costs associated
with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Work contracts; (8) construction costs, including
change orders to construction contract approved by the City; and (9) construction management, field
inspection and material testing costs.
3.2.2 Ineligible Work Costs. The Total Work Cost shall not include the following
items which shall be borne solely by the City without reimbursement: (1) City administrative costs;
(2) City costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (3) any City fees
attributed to the processing of the Work; and (4) expenses for items of work not included within the
scope of work in Exhibit "A".
3.2.3 Increases in Work Funding. The Funding Amount may, in RCTC's sole
discretion, be augmented with additional TUMF Regional Funds if the TUMF Nexus Study is
amended to increase the maximum eligible TUMF share for the Work. Any such increase in the
Funding Amount must be approved in writing by RCTC's Executive Director. In no case shall the
amount of TUMF Regional Funds allocated to the City exceed the then -current maximum eligible
TUMF share for the Work. No such increased funding shall be expended to pay for any Work
already completed. For purposes of this Agreement, the Work or any portion thereof shall be
deemed complete upon its acceptance by RCTC's Executive Director.
3.2.4 No Funding for Temporary Improvements. Only segments or components of
the Work that are intended to form part of or be integrated into the Work may be funded by TUMF
Regional Funds. No improvement which is temporary in nature, including but not limited to
temporary roads, curbs, or drainage facilities, shall be funded with TUMF Regional Funds except as
needed for staged construction of the Work.
3.3 City's Funding Obligation to Complete the Work. In the event that the TUMF
Regional Funds allocated to the Work represent less than the total cost of the Work, the City shall
provide such additional funds as may be required to complete the Work as described in Exhibit "A".
3.3.1 City's Obligation to Repay TUMF Regional Funds to RCTC. In the event
that: (i) the City, for any reason, determines not to proceed with or complete the Work; or (ii) the
Work is not timely completed, subject to any extension of time granted by RCTC pursuant to Section
3.15; the City agrees that any TUMF Regional Funds that were distributed to the City for the Work
shall be repaid in full to RCTC. The Parties shall enter into good faith negotiations to establish a
reasonable repayment schedule and repayment mechanism which may include, but is not limited to,
withholding of Measure A Local Streets and Roads revenues. The City acknowledges and agrees
that RCTC shall have the right to withhold any Measure A Local Streets and Roads revenues due the
City, in an amount not to exceed the total of the funds distributed to the City, and/or initiate legal
action to compel repayment, if the City fails to repay RCTC within a reasonable time period not to
exceed 180 days from receipt of written notification from RCTC that repayment is required. (Note:
For Phase 1 — PA&ED agreements, delete this Repayment Section.)
3
V_USERSTREPRINI\MW\TUMF\2005 MODEL AGREEMENTITUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
20
3.3.2 City's Local Match Contribution. The City shall provide at least
dollars ($ ) of funding toward the Work, as shown in Exhibit "A"
and as called out in the City's Project Nomination Form submitted to RCTC in response to its Call
for Projects. (Note: Include this Section only if the City identified Local Match funds in its
Project Nomination Form.)
3.4 Work Responsibilities of the City. The City shall be responsible for the following
aspects of the Work, in compliance with state and federal law provided that such items are included
in the Project scope of work attached as Exhibit "A": (i) development and approval of plans,
specifications and engineer's estimate (PS&E), environmental clearance, right of way acquisition,
and obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to commencement of the Work ; (ii) all
aspects of bidding, awarding, and administration of the contracts for the Work; (iii) all construction
management of any construction activities undertaken in connection with the Work, including survey
and material testing; and (iv) development of a budget for the Work prior to award of any contract
for the Work, taking into consideration available funding, including TUMF Regional Funds.
3.5 Teini/Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first
herein above written until: (i) the date RCTC formally accepts the Work as complete, pursuant to
Section 3.2.3; (ii) termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9; or (iii) the City has fully
satisfied its obligations under this Agreement, (Note: If this Agreement is for Phase I work do not
include the following text) "including full repayment of TUMF Regional Funds to RCTC as
provided herein". All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect
following the termination of this Agreement.
3.6 Representatives of the Parties. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee,
shall serve as RCTC's representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all
purposes under this Agreement. The City hereby designates [insert name
and title], or his or her designee, as the City's representative to RCTC. The City's representative
shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall
coordinate all activities of the Work under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and
cooperate fully with RCTC's representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over
or an interest in the Work.
3.7 Expenditure of Funds by City Prior to Execution of Agreement. Nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed to prevent or preclude the City from expending funds on the Work
prior to the execution of the Agreement, or from being reimbursed by RCTC for such expenditures.
However, the City understands and acknowledges that any expenditure of funds on the Work prior to
the execution of the Agreement is made at the City's sole risk, and that some expenditures by the
City may not be eligible for reimbursement under this Agreement.
3.8 Review of Services. The City shall allow RCTC's Representative to inspect or
review the progress of the Work at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of
this Agreement are being met.
4
V:USERS\PREPRINI\MW\TUMF\2005 MODEL AGREEMENIATUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
•
21
3.9 Termination.
3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party,
terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, in response to a material breach hereof by the other
Party, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date
thereof. The written notice shall provide a 30 day period to cure any alleged breach. During the 30
day cure period, the Parties shall discuss, in good faith, the manner in which the breach can be cured.
3.9.2 Effect of Termination. In the event that the City terminates this Agreement,
the City shall, within 180 days, repay to RCTC in full all TUMF Regional Funds provided to the City
under this Agreement. In the event that RCTC terminates this Agreement, RCTC shall, within 90
days, distribute to the City TUMF Regional Funds in an amount equal to the aggregate total of all
unpaid invoices which have been received from the City regarding the Work at the time of the notice
of termination; provided, however, that RCTC shall be entitled to exercise its rights under Section
3.14.2, including but not limited to conducting a review of the invoices and requesting additional
information. This Agreement shall terminate upon receipt by the non -terminating Party of the
amounts due it under this Section 3.9.2.
3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this
Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.
3.10 Prevailing Wages. The City and any other person or entity hired to perform services
on the Work are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which
would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined
to be a public work, as defined therein. The City shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage
requirements by any person orentity hired to perform the Work. The City shall defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability,
including without limitation attorneys, fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with
California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq.
3.11 Progress Reports. RCTC may request the City to provide RCTC with progress reports
concerning the status of the Work.
3.12 Indemnification.
3.12.1 City Responsibilities. In addition to the indemnification required under
Section 3.10, the City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants,
and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all
activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to
negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its subcontractors. The City
will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC,
in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or
willful misconduct of the City.
5
V:USERS\PREPRINT\MW \ UMF\2005 MODEL AGREEMENT\TUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
22
3A2.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or
liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design
and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC
or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, incurred by the City, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to
negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC.
3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City shall be responsible for the professional
quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Work.
RCTC's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the City or any other person or
entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights RCTC may
hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of this Agreement. Further, the City
shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC
caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services
provided to complete the Work.
3.13 Insurance. The City shall require, at a minimum, all persons or entities hired to
perform the Work to obtain, and require their subcontractors to obtain, insurance of the types and in
the amounts described below and satisfactory to the City and RCTC. Such insurance shall be
maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Work, whichever
occurs last.
3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial
general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than
$1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply
separately to the Work or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall:
3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, and their respective officials, officers,
employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the
Work and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to
these insured;
3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance
programs covering RCTC and City, and/or their respective officials, officers, employees, agents, and
consultants; and
3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions.
3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability
insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per
occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles.
6
V:USERS\PREPR1NTTMW\TUMR2005 MODEL AGREEMENT\TUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
23
•
•
•
3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with
a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design
or engineering professionals.
3.13.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with
statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each
accident.
3.14 Procedures for Distribution of TUMF Regional Funds to City.
3.14.1 Initial Payment by the City. The City shall be responsible for initial payment
of all the Work costs as they are incurred. Following payment of such Work costs, the City shall
submit invoices to RCTC requesting reimbursement of eligible Work costs. Each invoice shall be
accompanied by detailed contractor invoices, or other demands for payment addressed to the City,
and documents evidencing the City's payment of the invoices or demands for payment. The City
shall submit invoices not more often than monthly and not less often than quarterly.
3.14.2 Review and Reimbursement by RCTC. Upon receipt of an invoice from the
City, RCTC may request additional documentation or explanation of the Work costs for which
reimbursement is sought. Undisputed amounts shall be paid by RCTC to the City within thirty (30)
days. In the event that RCTC disputes the eligibility of the City for reimbursement of all or a portion
of an invoiced amount, the Parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If the
meet and confer process is unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, the City may appeal RCTC's
decision as to the eligibility of one or more invoices to RCTC's Executive Director. The City may
appeal the decision of the Executive Director to the full RCTC Board, the decision of which shall be
final. Additional details concerning the procedure for the City's submittal of invoices to RCTC and
RCTC's consideration and payment of submitted invoices are set forth in Exhibit "C", attached
hereto.
3.14.3 Funding Amount/Adjustment. If a post Work audit or review indicates that
RCTC has provided reimbursement to the City in an amount in excess of the maximum eligible
TUMF share of the Work, as determined by the TUMF Nexus Study, or has provided reimbursement
of ineligible Work costs, the City shall reimburse RCTC for the excess or ineligible payments within
30 days of notification by RCTC.
3.15 Work Amendments. Changes to the characteristics of the Work, including the
deadline for Work completion, and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in
writing by the City and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative, which approval will
not be unreasonably withheld, provided that extensions of time for completion of the Work shall be
approved in the sole discretion of RCTC's Representative. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to require or allow completion of the Work without full compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; "CEQA") and the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4231 et seq.), but the necessity of compliance
with CEQA and NEPA shall not justify, excuse, or permit a delay in completion of the Work.
7
V:USERS\PREPRINIIMW\TUMF\2005 MODEL AGREEMENT\TUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
24
3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee
of the City or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may
be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material
benefit arising therefrom.
3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this
Agreement are limited to those described herein_ RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety
of any Work performed at a job site. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or
its contractors relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City or construction related to
the Work.
3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly
identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Work under this Agreement. They shall
make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees any
and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or
documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party
pursuant to this disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each
party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as
they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such
information shall be retained by the Parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this
Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the
purposes of examination or audit.
3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The Parties represent that they are equal opportunity
employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of reemployment
because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall
include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion,
transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.
3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of
the State of California.
3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising
out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to
have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit.
3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this
Agreement.
3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings
contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or
interpretation of any provision herein.
8
V:USERS\PREPRIN T\MW\7UMF12005 MODEL AGREEMEN'INTUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
25
•
3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of
the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered
or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows:
(Name of local jurisdiction)
(address)
ATTN:
RCTC
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
ATTN: Executive Director
Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit
in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its
applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred
regardless of the method of service.
3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or
exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and
conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and
the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services.
3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the Parties determine that the provisions of
this Agreement should be altered, the Parties may execute a contract amendment to add any
provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract
amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this
Agreement, or their successors or designees.
3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or
understandings.
3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this
Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.
3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the City or any contractor
shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any
personnel performing services on the Work shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and
control of the City or contractor, whichever is applicable. The City or contractor shall pay all wages,
salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on
the Work and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and
obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax
withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance.
9
V:USERSWREPR1NT MW\TUMF\2005 MODEL AGREEMENT\TUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
26
RIVERSIDE COUNTY (Name of local jurisdiction)
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: By:
(Name, Title) (Name, Title)
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: By:
Best, Best & Krieger
Counsel to the Riverside County
Transportation Commission
(Name, Title)
10
V:USERS\FREPRINTVv1W\TIJMF\2005 MODEL AGREEMENDTUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
•
27
•
•
EXHIBIT "A"
WORK DESCRIPTION, SCOPE OF WORK,
TIMETABLE AND CITY FUNDING
11
V:USERSTREPRINI\MI\TUMF\2005 MODEL AGREEMEN7\7UMF Model Agtecinent 01-06-05
EXHIBIT "B"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND MILESTONES
12
V:USERSWREPRINT\M W\TUMF\2005 MODEL AGREEMEN IATUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
•
•
29
EXHIBIT "C"
PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL, CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT OF INVOICES
1 RCTC recommends that the City incorporate Exhibit "C-1" into its contracts with any
subcontractors to establish a standard method for preparation of invoices by contractors to
the City and ultimately to RCTC for reimbursement of City contractor costs.
2. Each month the City shall submit an invoice for eligible Work costs incurred during the
preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to RCTC's Executive Director
with a copy to RCTC's Project Coordinator. Each invoice shall be accompanied by a cover
letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit "C-2".
3. Each invoice shall include documentation from each contractor used by the City for the
Work, listing labor costs, subcontractor costs, and other expenses. Each invoice shall also
include a monthly progress report and spreadsheets showing the hours or amounts expended
by each contractor or consultant for the month and for the entire Work to date. Samples of
acceptable task level documentation and progress reports are attached as Exhibits "C-4" and
"C-5". All documentation from the City's contractors should be accompanied by a cover
letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit "C-3".
4. If the City is seeking reimbursement for direct expenses incurred by City staff for eligible
Work costs, the City shall detail the same level of information for its labor and any expenses
in the same level of detail as required of contractors pursuant to Exhibit "C" and its
attachments.
5. Charges for each task and milestone listed in Exhibit "A" shall be listed separately in the
invoice.
6. Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the City Representative or his or her
designee which reads as follows:
"I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates submitted for reimbursement in this invoice
are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the consultants or contractors listed.
Signed
Title
Date
Invoice No.
13
V:USERS\PREPRINT\MW \TUMF\2005 MODEL AGREEMENT\TUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
30
7. RCTC will pay the City within 30 days after receipt by the Commission of an invoice. If
RCTC disputes any portion of an invoice, payment for that portion will be withheld, without
interest, pending resolution of the dispute, but the uncontested balance will be paid.
8. The final payment under this Agreement will be made only after: (i) the City has obtained a
Release and Certificate of Final Payment from each contractor or consultant used on
theWork; (ii) the City has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment; and (iii) the
City has provided copies of each such Release to RCTC.
14
V:USERS\PREPRINT MW\7UMF\2005 MODEL AGREEMENT\TUMF Model Agreement 01-06-05
31
•
•
•
EXHIBIT C-1
Elements of Compensation
For the satisfactory performance and completion of the Services under this Agreement,
the Commission will pay the Consultant compensation as set forth herein. The total
compensation for this service shall not exceed ( INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR
AMOUNT ) ($ INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT ) without written
approval of the Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation").
1. ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION.
Compensation for the Services will be comprised of the following elements: 1.1 Direct
Labor Costs; 1.2 Fixed Fee; 'and 1.3 Additional Direct Costs.
1.1 DIRECT LABOR COSTS.
Direct Labor costs shall be paid in an amount equal to the product of the Direct
Salary Costs and the Multiplier which are defined as follows:
1.1.1 DIRECT SALARY COSTS
Direct Salary Costs are the base salaries and wages actually paid to the
Consultant's personnel directly engaged in performance of the Services
under the Agreement. (The range of hourly rates paid to the Consultant's
personnel appears in Section 2 below.)
1.1.2 MULTIPLIER
The Multiplier to be applied to the Direct Salary Costs to determine the
Direct Labor Costs is , and is the sum of the
following components:
1.1.2.1 Direct Salary Costs
1.1.2.2 Payroll Additives
The Decimal Ratio of Payroll Additives to Direct Salary Costs. Payroll
Additives include all employee benefits, allowances for vacation, sick
leave, and holidays, and company portion of employee insurance and
social and retirement benefits, all federal and state payroll taxes, premiums
for insurance which are measured by payroll costs, and other contributions
and benefits imposed by applicable laws and regulations.
1.1.2.3 Overhead Costs
32
The Decimal Rratio of Allowable Overhead Costs to the Consultant Firm's
Total Direct Salary Costs. Allowable Overhead Costs include general,
administrative and overhead costs of maintaining and operating
established offices, and consistent with established firm policies, and as
defined in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations, Part 31.2.
Total Multiplier
(sum of 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3)
1.2 FIXED FEE.
1.2.1 The fixed fee is $
1.2.2 A pro -rata share of the Fixed Fee shall be applied to the total Direct Labor Costs
expended for services each month, and shall be included on each monthly invoice.
1.3 ADDITIONAL DIRECT COSTS.
Additional Direct Costs directly identifiable to the performance of the services of this
Agreement shall be reimbursed at the rates below, or at actual invoiced cost.
Rates for identified Additional Direct Costs are as follows:
ITEM REIMBURSEMENT RATE
[ insert charges 1
Per Diem $ /day
Car mileage $ /mile
Travel $ /trip
Computer Charges $ /hour
Photocopies $ /copy
Blueline $ /sheet
LD Telephone $ /call
Fax $ /sheet
Photographs $ /sheet
Travel by air and travel in excess of 100 miles from the Consultant's office nearest to the
Commission's office must have the Commission's prior written approval to be reimbursed
under this Agreement.
•
�3
•
•
2. DIRECT SALARY RATES
Direct Salary Rates, which are the range of hourly rates to be used in determining Direct
Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the following:
2.1 Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable to both straight time and overtime work,
unless payment of a premium for overtime work is required by law, regulation or
craft agreement, or is otherwise specified in this Agreement. In such event, the
premium portion of Direct Salary Costs will not be subject to the Multiplier
defined in Paragraph 1.1.2 above.
2.2 Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in effect for one year following the effective
date of the Agreement. Thereafter, they may be adjusted annually to reflect the
Consultant's adjustments to individual compensation. The Consultant shall notify
the Commission in writing prior to a change in the range of rates included herein,
and prior to each subsequent change.
POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES
[ sample_]
Principal $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Project Manager $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Sr. Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Project Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Assoc. Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Technician $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Drafter/CADD Operator $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Word Processor $ .00 - $ .00/hour
2.3 The above rates are for the Consultant only. All rates for subconsultants to the
Consultant will be in accordance with the Consultant's cost proposal.
3. INVOICING.
•
3.1 Each month the Consultant shall submit an invoice for Services performed during
the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to the Commission's
Executive Director with two (2) copies to the Commission's Project Coordinator.
3.2 Charges shall be billed in accordance with the terms and rates included herein,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Commission's Representative.
3.3 Base Work and Extra Work shall be charged separately, and the charges for each
task and Milestone listed in the Scope of Services, shall be listed separately. The
3
34
charges for each individual assigned by the Consultant under this Agreement shall
be listed separately on an attachment to the invoice.
3.4 A charge of $500 or more for any one item of Additional Direct Costs shall be
accompanied by substantiating documentation satisfactory to the Commission
such as invoices, telephone logs, etc.
3.5 Each copy of each invoice shall be accompanied by a Monthly Progress Report
and spreadsheets showing hours expended by task for each month and total
project to date.
3.6 Each invoice shall indicate payments to DBE subconsultants or supplies by dollar
amount and as a percentage of the total invoice.
3.7 Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the Consultant's
Representative or an officer of the firm which reads as follows:
I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this
invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the
employees listed.
Signed
Title
Date
Invoice No.
4. PAYMENT
4.1 The Commission shall pay the Consultant within four to six weeks after receipt by
the Commission of an original invoice. Should the Commission contest any
portion of an invoice, that portion shall be held for resolution, without interest, but
the uncontested balance shall be paid.
4.2 The final payment for Services under this Agreement will be made only after the
Consultant has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment.
•
35
•
•
•
EXHIBIT C-2
Sample Cover Letter to RCTC
Date
Mr. Eric Haley
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
ATTN: Accounts Payable
Re: Project Title - Invoice #
Enclosed for your review and payment approval is the City's invoice for professional and
technical services that was rendered by our consultants in connection with the TUMF Regional
Arterial Improvements per Agreement No. effective (Month/Day/Year) . The
required support documentation received from each consultant is included as backup to the
invoice.
Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year .
Total Authorized Agreement Amount:
Total Invoiced to Date:
Total Previously Invoiced:
Balance Remaining:
$0,000,000.00
$0,000,000.00
$0,000,000.00
$0,000,000.00
Amount due this Invoice: $0,000,000.00
I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates
worked and paid to the consultants listed.
By: -
cc:
Name
Title
EXHIBIT C-3
Sample Letter from Contractor to City/County
Month/Date/Year
Mr. Eric Haley
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502-2208
Attn: Accounts Payable
Invoice #
For professional and technical services rendered by the County of Riverside Bldg Services in
connection with Right of Way support, Acquisition, Appraisals and title search for projects on
specific State Routes as indicated on the attached. This is per agreement No. XX-XX-XXX
effective Month/Date/Year .
Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to
Total Base Contract Amount:
Authorized Extra Work (if Applicable)
TOTAL AUTHORIZED CONTRACT AMOUNT:
Total Invoice to Date:
Total Previously Billed:
Balance Remaining:
Amount Due this Invoice:
Month/Date/Year
$000,000.00
$000,000.00
$000,000.00
$000,000.00
$000,000.00
$000,000.00
$000,000.00
I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates
worked and paid to the employees listed,
By:
Name
Title
37
•
•
•
EXHIBIT C-4
Sample A - Task Summary and Detail Schedule
SCHEDULE TO SUPPORT INVOICE NO. , DATED (Month/Day/Year)
Project Name: Period Ending: (Month/Day/Year)
LABOR
NAME POSITION RATE HOURS AMOUNT TOTAL
Doe, John Project Mgr 30.00 80 $2,400.00
Smith, John Project Engr 25.00 40 $1,000.00
EXPENSE
Travel 4/13/90
Travel 4/15/90
Wordprocessing
Communications
Communications
SUB -CONSULTANTS
Sub -Total Labor
Overhead @ 1.XXX
Fee @ x% (DL and OH)
PAYEE
J. Doe
J. Smith
In-house (Jan -Mar)
Fed Ex 2/28/90
GTE 4/13/90
AMOUNT
22.90
22.90
XXX.XX
XXX.XX
XXX.XX
Sub -Total Expenses $XXX.XX
(With detailed breakdown on following page in same format as above.)
Sub -Consultant Labor
Sub -Consultant Overhead @ x %
Sub -Consultant Fee @ x %
Sub -Consultant Expenses
Sub -Total of Sub -consultant Costs
Processing Fee @ x %
AMOUNT
XXX.XX
XXX.XX
XXX.XX
XXX.XX
$XXX.XX
$XXX.XX
TOTAL TASK COSTS: $)0000(
38
SCHEDULE TO SUPPORT INVOICE NO.
EXHIBIT C-4
Sample B 1 - Task Summary Schedule
, DAI'ED (Month/Day/Year)
Project Name:
Period Ending: (Month/Day/Year)
•
TASK SUMMARY
Current Period
Cumulative
Original
Contract
Balance
(+1-)
Rate
Hours
Dollars
Hours
Dollars
1 LABOR
NAME POSITION
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Engineer
CADD
Project Engineer
Engineer
SUBTOTAL LABOR
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2 OVERHEAD (1.50)
3 FIXED FEE
ACTUAL % COMPLETE
THIS PERIOD: 1.20%
PREVIOUS TO DATE: 89.60%
SEGMENT TO DATE: 90.80%
II
4 EXPENSES
Mileage/B luelines/Deliveries
Traff Counts
Expenses Subtotal
TOTAL
5SUBCONSULTANTS
Subconsultants Total
TOTAL TASK COSTS
i
Attach individual Task Schedules - See Exhibit C-4, B2
39
•
EXHIBIT C-4
Sample B 2 - Task Detail Schedule
SCHEDULE TO SUPPORT INVOICE NO. , DATED (Month/Day/Year)
Project Name:
Task No.:
Task Description:
Period Ending: (Month/Day/Year)
TASK NO. - DESCRIPTION
Current Period
Cumulative
Original
Balance
Rate
Hours
Dollars
Hours
Dollars
Contract
(+1-)
1 LABOR
NAME POSITION
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Engineer
CADD
Project Engineer
Engineer
SUBTOTAL LABOR
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
OVERHEAD (1.50)
Is
.
3 FIXED FEE
ACTUAL % COMPLETE
THIS PERIOD: 4.00%
PREVIOUS TO DATE: 67.00%
SEGMENT TO DATE: 71.00%
4 EXPENSES
M i l eag eB l u el i nes/De l iv eries
Traff Counts
Expenses Subtotal
TOTAL
5SUBCONSULTANTS
Subconsultants Total
TOTAL COST THIS TASK
40
EXHIBIT C-5
Sample Progress Report
REPORTING PERIOD: Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year
PROGRESS REPORT: #1
A. Activities and Work Completed during Current Work Periods
TASK 01-100% PS&E SUBMITTAL
1. Responded to Segment 1 comments from Department of Transportation
2. Completed and submitted Segment 1 final PS&E
B. Current/Potential Problems Encountered & Corrective Action
Problems
None
C. Work Planned Next Period
Corrective Action
None
TASK 01-100% PS&E SUBMITTAL
1. Completing and to submit Traffic Signal and Electrical Design plans
2. Responding to review comments
•
•
41
•
AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 24, 2005
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Mid -Year Budget Adjustments
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve a $589,300 increase in Measure "A" Coachella Valley
Specialized Transit appropriations for transit operations;
2) Approve a $3,993,216 increase in Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TUMF) appropriations for right of way acquisition;
3) Approve an $85,500 increase in administration appropriations for
furniture, office equipment, and leasehold improvements;
4) Approve a $20,000 increase in administration appropriations for
additional liability insurance; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Staff performed a review of expenditures for the six months ended December 31,
2004 and an estimate of expenditures for the remaining six months of the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2005. As a result of the review, the following mid -year
budget adjustments are proposed.
Adjustment 1
During the development and approval of the FY 2004/05 budget, the Short Range
Transit Plan (SRTP) for Sunline Transit Agency was in the draft stages. At that
time, it was estimated that $2,713,000 in Measure "A" funds was available for the
Coachella Valley Specialized Transit Program. However, the approved SRTP
identified a funding commitment of $3,302,300.
Accordingly, staff is requesting a budget adjustment to increase the Coachella
Valley Specialized Transit Operating budget by $589,300. Sufficient Measure "A"
42
Coachella Valley —Specialized Transit fund balance is available to accommodate
this budget adjustment.
Adjustment 2
On September 8, 2004 the Commission approved the purchase of the QBH
property for the Mid -County Parkway Project (Project). The purchase price of this
property was $2,006,906. Additionally, on October 13, 2004, the Commission
approved the purchase of five parcels for the Project. The five parcels were
purchased from the County of Riverside (County) for $986,310.
During the development of the 2004/2005 budget, staff was not aware of the
specific property needs for the Project. Staff anticipates additional costs for right
of way acquisition relating to the Project. The estimated cost for additional right of
way is $1,000,000.
Staff is requesting a budget adjustment to increase the TUMF right of way
acquisition budget by $3,993,216 for actual and estimated right of way
acquisitions. Sufficient TUMF fund balance is available to accommodate this
budget adjustment.
Adjustment 3
On January 12, 2005 the Executive Committee approved the recruitment of three
new positions: a Deputy Executive Director of Programming and Administration and
two Staff Analysts. In order to accommodate the three new staff positions, the
Commission must add and/or redesign office systems and construct additional
office space. Additionally, an additional computer server is required to
accommodate the increased staff and software programs, as the capacity of
existing servers is substantially utilized.
Staff estimates the cost for the work stations and server at $47,000. The cost to
construct additional office space has been quoted by the County at $38,500.
Adequate General Fund fund balance exists to accommodate this budget
adjustment of $85,500.
Adjustment 4
The Commission recently purchased property for the Project (Adjustment 2) and
anticipates additional right of way for the Project in the near future. As a result,
staff will be working with consultants to perform various studies on the property.
Additionally, staff will be working with consultants to perform studies at the Perris
multimodal facility. Additional liability insurance will be required to cover any
•
43
potential liability as a result of studies being performed by outside consultants on
the various properties owned by the Commission.
Staff is requesting a budget adjustment of $20,000 to cover the additional liability
insurance costs. Adequate General Fund balance exists to accommodate this
budget adjustment.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
N
Year:
FY2004/05
Amount:
$4,688,016
Source of Funds:
Measure "A" Coachella Valley $589,300
TUMF $3,993,216
Measure "A"/LTF Administration $85,500
Measure "A"/LTF Administration $20,000
Budget
Adjustment:
Y
GLA No.:
252-26-86101
210-72-81401 P2302
210-73-81401 P2302
S-12-73130
S-12-90101
S-12-90301
S-12-90501
S-12-73401
$589,300 Measure "A" CV Specialized Transit
$1,971,608 TUMF Regional Arterial
$2,021,608 TUMF CETAP
$2,000 Measure "A"/LTF Administration
$5,000 Measure "A"/LTF Administration
$40,000 Measure "A"/LTF Administration
$38,500 Measure "A"/LTF Administration
$20,000 Measure "A"/LTF Administration
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
\)4feil_ziie.\tii,uzin
Date:
1/24/05
44
•
AGENDA ITEM 10
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 24, 2005
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Mid -Year Revenue Projections
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the Mid -Year Revenue Projections;
2) Approve the budget adjustments to reflect the revised Measure "A"
revenues of $10,400,000 and expenditures of $5,141,000;
3) Approve the budget adjustments to reflect the revised Local
Transportation Fund (LTF) Planning revenues of $210,480 and
expenditures of $210,480; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, staff made projections regarding the
revenue received from Measure "A" and LTF funds for budget and apportionment
purposes, respectively. Staff has tracked these revenues on a monthly basis.
Current trends indicate that Measure "A" and LTF receipts are about 14.6% and
12.7% higher, respectively, for the six months ended December 31, 2004
compared to the same period last year. For FY 2003/2004, Measure "A" and LTF
receipts were about 14.4% and 13.8% higher, respectively, than the prior year.
The Inland Empire's local economy and in particular, Riverside County has
continued to perform better than the rest of the State of California. The local
economy's strength appears to be attributable to continued growth in population,
taxable retail sales and home sales. The local economists are cautious and
continue to project moderate growth in Riverside County. Based on the economic
data and an emphasis on the trends of sales tax receipts for the last six months
and FY 2003/2004, staff is recommending that the Commission increase the
current year revenue projections as follows:
45
FY Revised for Revised for II
2004/2005 Original FY 2004/05 Mid -Year Increase from
Revenue (January 2004) Budget Adjustment Budget
Projections
Measure "A" $109,078,000 $115,000,000 $125,400,000 $10,400,000
LTF 53,744,000 53,744,000 60,760,000 7,016,000
For reference purposes, audited Measure "A" and LTF revenues for FY 2003/2004
were $120,564,890 and $58,421,527, respectively. The FY 2004/2005 mid -year
projections reflect a 4% increase over the FY 2003/2004 actual revenues.
The increase in Measure "A" revenues has a direct effect on the distributions to the
geographic areas and related programs, especially local streets and roads (LSR).
Accordingly, in addition to the revenue budget adjustments, budget adjustments
are required for the local streets and roads aggregating $4,087,000 as well as
regional arterial expenditures of $1,054,000 related to Measure "A."
The LTF audit was completed and financial statements were issued in November
2004. Staff has revised the original projections to include the carryover that is
now available to the local governments and transit agencies. The revised
projections include a budget adjustment to RCTC Planning, for $210,480, which is
entitled to 3% of revenues. The increase for SB821 bicycle and pedestrian
projects, for $245,917, which is entitled to 2% of the available balance, does not
require a budget adjustment as such expenditures are made from the Local
Transportation Fund, which is an unbudgeted fund of the Commission.
Upon Commission approval of this item, staff will provide this updated information
to the necessary local governments and transit agencies.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
N
Year:
FY2004/05
Amount:
$210,480 sales tax
$210,480 planning
Source of Funds:
Local Transportation Fund
Budget Ad ustment:
Y
GLA No.:
106-65-40101 $210,480
106-65-86205 $210,480
LTF Planning sales tax revenues
LTF Planning expenditures
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
lle,v-
Date:
1/24/05
•
•
46
•
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
N
Year:
FY 2004/05
Amount:
$10,400,000 sales tax
$5,141,000 LSR &
regional arterials
Source of Funds:
Measure "A"
Budget Adjustment:
Y
Revenues:
227-71-40100 $3,067,000
Western County LSR sales tax
221-33-40100 1,265,000
Western County Rail sales tax
222-31-40100 2,952,000
Western County Highway sales tax
225-26-40100 192,000
Western County Special Transit sales tax
226-41-40100 192,000
Western County Commuter Assistance sales tax
254-71-40100 921,000
252-26-40100 263,000
Coachella Valley LSR sales tax
253-31-40100 395,000
Coachella Valley Special Transit sales tax
GLA No.:
255-72-40100
233-71-40100
1,054,000
99,000
Coachella Valley Highway sales tax
Coachella Valley Regional Arterial sales tax
$10,400,00
Palo Verde Valley LSR sales tax
0
Appropriations:
Western County LSR
227-71-86104 $3,067,000
Coachella Valley LSR
254-71-86104 921,000
Palo Verde Valley LSR
233-71-86104
255-72-86405
99,000
1,054,000
Coachella Valley Regional Arterials
$5,141,000
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Ue
Date:
1/24/05
Attachment: FY 2004/2005 Mid -Year Revenue Projections for Measure "A" and
LTF
47
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" DISTRIBUTION REVISED PROJECTION (12/29/04)
FY 2004/2005
FY 2004/2005
Revised Projections
MEASURE "A" PROJECTION $125,400,000
LESS: ADMINISTRATION 3,000,000
TOTAL PROJECTION $122,400,000
Budget
Original
9,078,000
.,000,000
5,000,000
3;000,0007
2,000.000', 106,078,000.
Local Streets Commuter Special
CITIES & Roads Highway Rail Assistance Transportation
40.00% 38.50% 16.50% 2.50% 2.50%
WESTERN COUNTY PORTION $ 90,238,000 $ 36,095,000 $ 34,742,000 $ 14,889,000 $ 2,256,000 $ 2,256,000
BANNING $ 648,000
BEAUMONT 345,000
CALIMESA 172,000
CANYON LAKES 223,000
CORONA 4,294,000
HEMET 1,775,000
LAKE ELSINORE 977,000
MORENO VALLEY 3,684,000
MURRIETA 1,540,000
NORCO 824,000
PERRIS 1,042,000
RIVERSIDE 8,144,000
SAN JACINTO 588,000
TEMECULA 2,823,000
RIVERSIDE COUNTY 9,015,000
AREA TOTAL $ 36,094,000 $ 34,742,000 $ 14,889,000 $ 2,256,000 $ 2,256,000
Local Streets Regional Special
Roads Highway Arterial Transportation
35% 15% 40% 10%
EASTERN COUNTY PORTION $ 31,002,000 $ 10,851,000 $ 4,650,000 $ 12,401,000 $ 3,100,000
CATHEDRAL CITY $ 1,520,000
COACHELLA 386,000
DESERT HOT SPRINGS 289,000
INDIAN WELLS 198,000
I N DIO 1,242,000
LA QUINTA
PALM SPRINGS 1,650,000
PALM DESERT 2,354,000
RANCHO MIRAGE 777,000
RIVERSIDE COUNT/ 1,492,000
CVAG 943,000
AREA TOTAL $ 10,851,000 $ 4,650,000 $12,401,000 $ 3,100,000
Local Streets
Roads
100%
PALO VERDE PORTION $ 1,160,000 $ 1,160,000
BLYTHE $ 929,000
RIVERSIDE COUNT) 231,000
AREA TOTAL $ 1,160,000
NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences
V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2005\02 February\Budget & Imp/\Trevino-Attachment.Measure A Rev 2 Proj FY05 1/19/20057:54 AM
48
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
FY 2004/2005 APPORTIONMENT
Budget
FY 2004/2005
Projection
Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $5,490,333
Est. Receipts 60,760,000
TOTAL 66,250,333
Less: Auditor 12,000
Less: RCTC Administration 675,000
Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) 1,822,800
Less: SCAG Planning 106,300
BALANCE 63,634,233
Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) 1,272,685
BALANCE AVAILABLE $62,361,548
Revised Budget Original
Population FY 2004/2005 FY 2004/2005
Population % of Total Apportionment Apportionment Increase
Western 1,322,192 77.52% $48,344,856 $39,003,324 $9,341,532
Coachella Valley 355,287 20.83% 12,990,775 10,480,606 2,510,169
Palo Verde Valley 28,058 1.65% 1,025,918 827,683 198,235
1,705,537 100.00% $62,361,548 $50,311,612 $12,049,936
NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences
Population Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2003
V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2005\02 February\Budget & Imp/\Trevino-Attachment. LTF 2004-2005 Rev 2 Apportionments 1/19/20057:53 AM
49
•
AGENDA ITEM 11
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 24, 2005
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Local Transportation Fund and Measure
"A" Revenue Projections
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund
apportionment for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley,
and Palo Verde Valley areas;
2) Approve the projections for Measure "A" and the related allocations;
and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
The LTF projection consists of revenues generated from a quarter cent of the
statewide sales tax. These LTF funds are principally used to fund transit
requirements within the County. The Transportation Development Act legislation
that created LTF requires the County Auditor Controller to annually estimate the
amount of revenues expected to be generated from the sales tax. That estimate
then becomes the basis for geographic apportionment and for claimant allocation
through the Short Range Transit Plan process, which commences in January for the
next fiscal year.
While the County is the taxing authority and maintains custodial responsibility over
the LTF revenues, the Commission by statute is charged with administration of the
LTF funding process. The practice has therefore been for the Commission staff to
develop the revenue estimate and then submit it to the County Auditor Controller
for concurrence. Once the Commission and the County have agreed on a revenue
amount, staff prepares the statutorily required apportionment. Apportionment is
the process that assigns revenues to the three major geographic areas (as defined
by TDA law) within the County. They are Western Riverside, Coachella Valley, and
Palo Verde Valley. The revenues are divided based on their respective populations.
The apportionment occurs after off -the -top allocations for administration
50
(distributed to the County, Commission and SCAG) and set asides for planning
activities (3%) and bicycle and pedestrian projects (2%).
Attached is the FY 2005/2006 LTF apportionment based on a revenue estimate of
$63,190,000. The County has reviewed the estimate and concurs with it. The
estimate is based on a revised projection for FY 2004/2005 of $60,760,000 plus
an increase of 4%. After the deductions for administration of $822,000 and set -
asides of $3,105,146, the amount available for apportionment is $59,262,854.
The balance available for apportionment is as follows:
Apportionment Area Amount
Western County
Coachella Valley
Palo Verde Valley
Total
$ 46,014,813
12,281,387
966,654
$ 59,262,854
In accordance with the Reserve Policy adopted by the Commission on January 12,
2005, a reserve of 10% for each apportionment area will be established and set
aside for FY 2005/2006 for unforeseen cost increases or other emergency. For the
Western County apportionment area, a portion of the reserve will be allocated to
each of the transit operators. For public bus transit operators, the allocation of the
reserve is based on each operator's proportionate share of FY 2003/2004 LTF
operating allocations. Operators may access reserve funds by amending their Short
Range Transit Plans through the established amendment process.
Measure "A"
The Measure "A" projection consists of revenues generated from the local half -cent
sales tax approved by the voters in November 1988. These Measure "A" funds are
principally used to fund highway, commuter rail, regional arterial, local streets and
roads, commuter assistance and specialized transportation projects needs in the
three geographic areas of Riverside County.
The Measure "A" projection for FY 2005/2006 is $130,416,000. This projection
will become the basis for the preparation of the FY 2005/2006 budget. The
budget process for FY 2005/2006 typically commences in February of each year
following the development of the Measure "A" revenue projections. Additionally,
the amounts for the local streets and roads and regional arterial programs are
usually provided to the local jurisdictions for planning purposes. Upon Commission
approval of this item, staff will provide this information to the appropriate local
jurisdictions.
The attached Measure "A" estimate is based on a revised projection for FY
2004/2005 of $125,400,000 plus an increase of 4%. After the deduction for
•
•
•
51
•
•
•
administration of $3,090,000, the amount available for distribution to the three
geographic areas is $127,326,000, which is allocated as follows:
Geographic Area Amount
Western County
Coachella Valley
Palo Verde Valley
Total
$ 94,797,000
31,529,000
1,000,000
$ 127,326,000
Attachments: Local Transportation Fund FY 2005/2006 Apportionment, Measure
"A" Distribution Projection FY 2005/2006
52
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
FY 2005/2006 APPORTIONMENT
Budget
FY 2005/2006
Projection
Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $0
Est. Receipts 63,190,000
TOTAL 63,190, 000
Less: Auditor 12,000
Less: RCTC Administration 700,000
Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) 1,895,700
Less: SCAG Planning 110,000
BALANCE 60,472,300
Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) 1,209,446
BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES 59,262,854
Less: 10% Transit Reserves 5,926,285
BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT $53,336,569
APPORTIONMENT
Budget
Population FY 2005/2006 Rail Transit
Population % of Total Apportionment 22% 78%
Western 1,379,558 77.65% $41,413,332 $9,110,933 $32,302,399
Coachella Valley 368,205 20.72% 11,053,248
Palo Verde Valley 28,981 1.63% 869,989
1,776,744 100.00% $53,336,569
ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT RESERVES (in accordance with Reserve Policy adopted January 12, 2005)
Western:
Rail $1,012,326
Transit:
RTA $3,078,263
Banning 87,974
Beaumont 94,608
Corona 128,556
Riverside 199,754
Subtotal Transit $3,589,155 3,589,155
Subtotal Western 4,601,481
Coachella Valley 1,228,139
Palo Verde Valley 96,665
Total Reserves $5,926,285
NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences
Population Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2004
V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2005\02 February\Budget & Impl\Trevino-Attachment. LTF 2005-2006 Apportionments 1/19/20059:54 AM
53
MEASURE "A" PROJECTION
LESS: ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL PROJECTION
CITIES
WESTERN COUNTY PORTION
BANNING
BEAUMONT
CALIMESA
CANYON LAKES
CORONA
HEMET
LAKE ELSINORE
MORENO VALLEY
MURRIETA
NORCO
PERRIS
RIVERSIDE
SAN JACINTO
TEMECULA
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AREA TOTAL
EASTERN COUNTY PORTION
CATHEDRAL CITY
COACHELLA
DESERT HOT SPRINGS
INDIAN WELLS
INDIO
LA QUINTA
PALM SPRINGS
PALM DESERT
RANCHO MIRAGE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
CVAG
AREA TOTAL
PALO VERDE PORTION
BLYTHE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AREA TOTAL
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" DISTRIBUTION PROJECTION
FY 2005/2006
FY 2005/2006
Original Projection
$130,416,000
3,090,000
$127,326,000
Local Streets
& Roads
40.00%
$ 94,797,000 $ 37,918,000
$ 680,000
407,000
174,000
227,000
4,539,000
1,820,000
1,018,000
3,857,000
2,055,000
835,000
1,132,000
8,269,000
610,000
2,989,000
9,306,000
Highway
38.50%
$ 36,497,000
Rail
16.50%
$ 15,642,000
Commuter Special
Assistance Transportation
2.50% 2.50%
$ 2,370,000 $ 2,370,000
$ 37,918,000
$ 36,497,000 $ 15,642,000 $ 2,370,000 $ 2,370,000
Local Streets
Roads
35%
$ 31,529,000 $ 11,035,000 $
$ 1,527,000
404,000
313,000
203,000
1,284,000
1,603,000
2,357,000
835,000
1,512,000
997,000
Regional
Highway Arterial
15% 40%
4,729,000 $ 12,612,000
11,035,000 $ 4,729,000 $12,612,000
Local Streets
Roads
100%
$ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
$ 798,000
202,000
$ 1,000,000
NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences
Special
Transportation
10%
$ 3,153,000
3,153,000
•
V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2005\02 February\Budget & Imp/\Trevino-Attachment.Measure A Proj FY06 1/19/20059:55 AM
54
•
AGENDA ITEM 12
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 24, 2005
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs
SUBJECT:
Award of Digital Upgrade Contract to Comarco Wireless
Technologies
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Enter into an agreement between the Riverside County Transportation
Commission and Comarco Wireless Technologies to upgrade the call
box system to digital technology;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
Agreement No. 05-45-537 on behalf of the Commission, and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Riverside County Transportation Commission, through its capacity as the
Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), operates approximately 1,150
call boxes on freeways and highways in Riverside County. The call box system
allows motorists to call for assistance in the event of an accident or mechanical
problem. Each call box is a battery powered solar charged roadside terminal with a
microprocessor and built-in cellular telephone.
On December 13, 2000, the Commission entered into an agreement with Comarco
Wireless Technologies (CWT) to upgrade 930 of the call boxes in the system as
certain components were no longer manufactured or available. CWT replaced the
radio transceivers, controller boards, solar regulators, all worn harnesses, removed
any corrosion, replaced all bulbs, replaced all batteries, and painted all the housings
and back plates. The upgrade expanded the useful life of the call box equipment
for an additional ten years.
At its February 11, 2004 meeting, the Commission approved the Riverside County
SAFE Call Box Program Five -Year Strategic and Financial Plan (Plan). One of the
recommendations included in the Plan was the conversion from analog to digital
cellular service. As noted in the Plan, a recent Federal Communications
Commission ruling will allow analog cellular service providers to phase out their
analog network. Therefore, AT&T Wireless Services, our current cellular provider,
55
has been removing increasingly more analog cell sites from its system, which has
caused individual call box locations to experience dropped calls or no connection,
especially in more rural areas of the county. Other SAFEs throughout the state
have also seen a degradation in call box cellular service and realize that it is
inevitable that all call boxes will have to transition to another form of cellular
service in the near future.
The Commission authorized staff to join SAFE staff from San Bernardino and San
Diego counties to release a tri-county Request for Proposal (RFP) for digital cellular
service in an attempt to generate the best rates possible. The RFP was released on
May 14, 2004, and proposals were due on June 28, 2004. Five proposals were
received, and the three SAFE agencies interviewed all five vendors at the San
Diego offices on July 7, 2004. At the conclusion of the interview process, each of
the SAFEs was to proceed on their own and select the vendor of their choice. On
October 13, 2004, the Commission entered into a five-year agreement with AT&T
Wireless Service, Inc., for digital cellular service for the call box program. It
provides 60 minutes of airtime at $6.35 per box per month (a savings of $1.15 per
box per month).
The next step in the process of converting from analog to digital service is to
upgrade the call box equipment to digital technology. As mentioned previously,
this recommendation was included in the Plan, and funds were included in the FY
04-05 Motorist Assistance Program budget. Commission staff is proposing to
"piggy -back" on an RFP issued by the San Bernardino County SAFE on July 7,
2004, for similar work. San Bernardino received only two (2) proposals, and the
RCTC call box program manager participated in the review and evaluation of the
proposals along with call box program managers from San Bernardino, San Diego
and Los Angeles counties. San Bernardino County awarded the digital upgrade
contract to CWT, our current maintenance provider, at the unit cost of $1,520 per
box.
CWT is offering RCTC a unit cost of $1,184, including tax, for a total cost of
$1,302,400 to upgrade approximately 1,100 call boxes. RCTC is receiving a $300
credit for each digital upgrade kit purchased because RCTC chose to upgrade its
call box system to the latest analog technology in FY 2000-01. In addition, all of
RCTC's call boxes already have the call connect light which flashes to notify the
caller the call has been answered, so RCTC will not incur that extra cost.
It is staff's intention to implement the recommendation to increase spacing
between call boxes to a minimum of 1/2 mile and reduce the number of boxes by
fifty (50) prior to upgrading to digital technology. The digital upgrade would be
conducted over two fiscal years (FY 04-05 and FY 05-06), and there are sufficient
funds in the current year budget to meet the FY 04-05 obligation.
•
•
•
56
•
•
•
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
Y
Year:
2004-05
Amount:
$434,000
Source of Funds:
SAFE DMV Fees
Budget Adjustment:
N
GLA No.:
202-45-73301
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
' e/i,i,/,‘\3tu,v7
Date:
1/24/05
57
AGENDA ITEM 13
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 24, 2005
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) Receive and file the state and federal legislative update, and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On January 14, Commission Chair Robin Lowe had the opportunity to participate in
a briefing with House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Don Young. The
meeting took place in Newport Beach and included presentations from RCTC; the
Orange County Transportation Authority; Los Angeles County Metro; Southern
California Association of Governments; the cities of Ontario, Anaheim and Placentia
and representatives from the private sector.
The briefing provided the Congressman with the opportunity to share his views on
transportation and the upcoming reauthorization of the Federal Transportation bill.
Congressman Young indicated that he hopes to pass a bill out of the House by the
end of March and intends to be Chairman of the Conference Committee that will
reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill. His optimistic viewpoint is that
this can be accomplished by early June.
During the briefing, there was an emphasis on the cooperative working relationship
among transportation agencies throughout the Southern California region. Of
special importance mentioned by many was the impact of goods movement on the
area's transportation system. The need for grade separations in Riverside County
was eloquently pointed out by RCTC Chair Lowe and was duly noted by Chairman
Young and his Chief of Staff.
The meeting proved to be an excellent opportunity to bolster communication
channels with Congressman Young and can be built on in February and March
when a number of Commissioners and staff visit Washington D.C.