Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 18, 2005 Commission/JCS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA • TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Friday, March 18, 2005 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Robin Lowe 1St Vice Chairman: Marion Ashley 2nd Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson RECORDS Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Barbara Hanna / Art Welch, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer / Mary Roche, City of Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Kelly Seyarto / Jack van Haaster, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Anne Mayer, Director, Caltrans District 8, Governor's Appointee Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, p/ease complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. l l- 36.00 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Friday, March 18, 2005 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission 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 (Public Comment Section is for items not listed on the agenda. Comments relating to an item listed on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed.) 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 9, 2005 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 18, 2005 Page 2 6A. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 BUDGET Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Budget. Page 1 6B. FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 TDA AND MEASURE "A" AUDIT RESULTS Page 8 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the preliminary Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure "A" audit results report for the Fiscal Year 2003-2004. 6C. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt the Investment Policy. 6D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Overview Page 31 Page 43 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2004. 6E. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Page 53 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended January 31, 2005. 6F. REQUEST TO INCREASE THE TUMF LOAN AMOUNT ON THE STATE ROUTE 91 /GREEN RIVER INTERCHANGE PROJECT Page 55 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve a 81.141 million increase to the TUMF loan for the SR 91 /Green River Interchange project. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 18, 2005 Page 3 • • • 6G. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT FUNDS REQUEST Page 57 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve an additional $286,119 of TEA funds for the County of Riverside's I-10/Monterey and I-10/Washington Interchange landscaping projects. 6H. EXPANSION OF COMMUTESMART.INFO TRAFFIC MAP Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 60 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-41-541 with Iteris, Inc. to expand the Inland Empire portion of the real time traffic information map hosted on the regional rideshare website, www.CommuteSmart.info, in an amount not to exceed $80,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 61. CITY OF BEAUMONT'S REQUEST TO REPROGRAM FUNDS AND FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT Page 67 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the City of Beaumont's request to reprogram $150,000 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for the purchase of a fixed route vehicle; and, 2) Amend the City of Beaumont's FY 2004-2005 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 18, 2005 Page 4 6J. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO REPROGRAM FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS STATION Page 68 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request to reprogram $218,484 in Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 funds, $134,463 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds, $11,158 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds, and $32,724 in miscellaneous lease revenues for the construction of a Compressed Natural Gas Station; 2) Advance $97,136 of LTF funds pending receipt of FTA's Section 5307 funds; and, 3) Amend RTA's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. 6K. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR FUNDING TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT Page 70 Overview 1) Allocate up to $200,000 in Local Transportation Planning Funds (LTF) to the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) to conduct a Comprehensive Operational Analysis; and, 2) Amend SunLine's FY 2004-05 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). 6L. QUARTERLY GOODS MOVEMENT UPDATE Overview Page 72 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Goods Movement Update. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 18, 2005 Page 5 6M. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 05-51-542 WITH MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FOR THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY RELATED TO THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE Page 81 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-51-542 with March Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for the exchange of property related to the San Jacinto Branch Line (APN 297-160-002 and portions of APNs 294-060-005, 297-110-004, and 297-100-003); and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6N. SURPLUS CORONA DEPOT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 84 1) Declare the property identified as the Corona Depot, (.97 acres) located at 150 Depot Drive in Corona, APN 119-320-039 as surplus; and, 2) Authorize staff to initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period and if no interest is expressed, authorize the Executive Director to offer the parcel for sale. 60. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 87 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 6P. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 106 1) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy positions: SUPPORT — ACA 9 (Bogh) and ACA 11 (Oropeza); and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 18, 2005 Page 6 7. APPROVAL OF EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR UPDATE OF ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) TRADE CORRIDOR RAIL CROSSING GRADE SEPARATION PRIORITY LIST Page 109 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the evaluation criteria for the update of the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List. 8. PRESENTATION: RIVERSIDE COUNTY -ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY UPDATE ON PRELIMINARY SCREENING ALTERNATIVES Page 117 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file a presentation on the Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study Preliminary Screening Alternatives as an information item. 9. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 10. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 11. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 18, 2005 Page 7 • 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 13, 2005, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • • AGENDA ITEM 4 • Minutes • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, February 9, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Robin Lowe at 9:02 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Roger Berg Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy Byrd Mary Craton Juan M. DeLara Ginny Foat Frank Hall Terry Henderson Hank Hohenstein Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Bob Magee Anne Mayer Jeff Miller Shenna Moqeet Gregory S. Pettis Ron Roberts Kelly Seyarto John F. Tavaglione Jeff Stone Barbara Hanna Frank West Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain Ron Meepos Ameal Moore Michael H. Wilson Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 2 At this time, Commissioner Percy Byrd led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Garry Grant, Meadowbrook area resident, expressed his concern regarding Commissioners abstaining from participation in discussion and action on agenda items due to possible conflict of interest which he believes leaves communities unrepresented. Steven DeBaun, Commission Legal Counsel, reviewed the state law requirement regarding conflict of interest as it relates to Commission activities. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Hohenstein/Henderson) to approve of the January 12, 2005 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Byrd, Craton, Foat, Moqeet 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Chairman Lowe noted revisions to the following agenda item: • Agenda Item 6C, "Quarterly Financial Statements" 6. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. M/S/C (Henderson/Hohenstein) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 6A. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-002, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING EMPLOYMENT OF NONVOTING BOARD MEMBERS /MMEDIA TEL Y FOL L O WING END OF SERVICE ON COMMISSION" Adopt Resolution No. 05-002, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing Employment of Nonvoting Board Members Immediately Following End of Service on Commission ". • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 3 • • • 6B. MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Approve an increase of: 1) $589,300 in Measure "A" Coachella Valley Specialized Transit appropriations for transit operations; 2) $3,993,216 in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) appropriations for right -of way acquisition; 3) $85,500 in administration appropriations for furniture, office equipment, and leasehold improvements; and, 4) $20,000 in administration appropriations for additional liability insurance. 6C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the six-month period ended December 31, 2004. 6D. MID -YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS 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; and, 3) Approve the budget adjustments to reflect the revised Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Planning revenues of $210,480 and expenditures of $210,480. 6E. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND AND MEASURE "A" REVENUE PROJECTIONS 1) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund apportionment for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas; and, 2) Approve the projections for Measure "A" and the related allocations. 6F. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2004. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 4 6G. 2005 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) INTRA-COUNTY FORMULA ADJUSTMENT Approve the STIP Intra-County Formula adjustment per the STIP Intra- County Memorandum of Understanding. 6H. CALTRANS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-1259 (RCTC AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-538) FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR THE GREEN RIVER DRIVE INTERCHANGE BRIDGE ON STATE ROUTE 91 Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1259 (RCTC Agreement No. 05-31-538) with the Department of Transportation to perform right-of- way acquisition for the Green River Drive Interchange Bridge on State Route 91. 61. MODEL TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) REGIONAL ARTERIAL FUNDING AGREEMENT 1) Approve a Model TUMF Regional Arterial Funding Agreement between the Commission and local jurisdictions; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute said agreements as they are finalized over time provided that they do not contain any substantive changes to the model agreement terms and conditions. 6J. MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT TAXI DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 1) Approve up to $400,000 in Western Riverside County Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds for continuation of the taxi demonstration program; 2) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. M24-010, Amendment No. 2 to MOU No. M23-010, with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to cover the cost of the taxi services; 3) Approve Agreement No. 05-26-539, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 05-26-506, with Diversified Paratransit, Inc. (DPI) for oversight and administration of the program; • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 5 • • • 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the MOU and agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 5) Direct staff to work with RTA and DPI to develop a draft taxi coordination/transition plan (for submission to RCTC staff by April 11, 2005) to be effective with the start of FY 2005-06. 6K. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS PENDING RECEIPT OF FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 FTA SECTION 5307 FUNDS Allocate $5,830,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) pending receipt of FY 2004-05 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds. 6L. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-45-537 FOR DIGITAL UPGRADE CONTRACT TO COMARCO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES 1) Award Agreement No. 05-45-537 to Comarco Wireless Technologies to upgrade the call box system to digital technology in the amount of $1,302,400; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6M. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 6N. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM FOR THE MEASURE "A" EXTENSION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-001, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF COMMERCIAL PAPER NOTES" Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, presented the Commercial Paper program for interim financing of Measure "A" extension projects. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Shenna Moqeet requested clarification of how the Commercial Paper program relates to cities that do not participate in the TUMF or MSHCP programs. Steven DeBaun responded that the bonds related to the Commercial Paper program are the Commission's obligation. The portion of Measure "A" funds that relate to a city's participation in TUMF or MSHCP is Local Streets and Roads funds. The Commercial Paper program relates to funding of Measure "A" projects. Commissioner Jeff Miller complimented staff on their quick performance to bring the Commercial Paper program forward. At Commissioner Bob Buster's request, Eric Haley explained that the initial use of the Commercial Paper program will fund major purchases of mitigation lands, SR 60, and Coachella Valley projects. Commissioner Buster then asked if the amount of funds that should have been funded by the State is being tracked. Eric Haley confirmed approximately $311 million in funding in the State's behalf and expressed confidence that there will be recognition and repayment of these commitments. At Commissioner Ginny Foat's request, Theresia Trevino explained the interest rates for Commercial Paper compared to fixed rate debt. Chairman Low encouraged the Commissioners to share the presentation handout with their respective councils and city staff. M/S/C (Miller/Buydos) to: 1) Receive and file the overview presentation regarding the commercial paper program for the Measure "A" extension; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 05-001, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Commercial Paper Notes"; 3) Approve the draft Indenture between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, and authorize the Executive Director to execute the final Indenture; • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 7 4) Approve the draft Offering Memorandum for the issuance of $185,000,000 in commercial paper notes and authorize the Executive Director to approve the issuance of the final Offering Memorandum; 5) Approve the draft Commercial Paper Dealer Agreement between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and Lehman Brothers, as CP Dealer, and authorize the Executive Director to execute the final Dealer Agreement; 6) Approve the draft Commercial Paper Dealer Agreement between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and Banc of America Securities LLC , as CP Dealer, and authorize the Executive Director to execute the final Dealer Agreement; 7) Approve the draft Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Issuing and Paying Agent, and authorize the Executive Director to execute the final Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement; and, 8) Approve the draft Reimbursement Agreement by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and Bank of America, N.A. for a direct draw letter of credit relating to $185,000,000 in Commercial Paper Notes and authorize the Executive Director to execute the final Reimbursement Agreement. 8. PRESENTATION — MARCH REUSE AND VAN BUREN INTERCHANGE Phil Rizzo, March JPA Executive Director, provided an overview of the March JPA Objectives and Transportation Plan highlighting the following: • Development of 1200 acre business park • Job creation and job/housing balance • March Inland Port Airport and March Global Port • Estimated collection of $45 million in TUMF revenues • Reconstruction of the Van Buren Interchange • Widening of Van Buren, Cactus, Heacock, and Oleander • Ramp improvements to Cactus/I-215 and Alessandro/I-215 interchanges At Commissioner Buster's request, Michael Morris, March JPA Vice President of Development, explained the importance of the reconstruction of the Van Buren interchange to the business park, airport, and communities and expressed the need to initiate a Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) with the support and assistance of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 8 Commissioner Buster then expressed the importance of securing funding early in the process and that the interchange project should be seen as a priority over congestion relief projects, particularity those leading out of the County as this project provides internal self-sufficiency. Commissioner Roger Berg concurred with the importance of the Van Buren interchange and its economic development benefit to the County. In response to Commissioner Mary Craton's concern regarding flight patterns, Phil Rizzo responded that the flight patterns that will be used are patterns previously established. He noted that new aircrafts are being acquired that will replace older aircrafts that have been the cause of noise concerns. Commissioner John Tavaglione reminded the Commission that while the Van Buren interchange is a priority project, it is part of the Southern California regional system and expansion of freeways needs to continue into neighboring counties. Eric Haley reviewed the funding opportunities for the Van Buren interchange project including economic development funds in the Measure "A" extension. Also, the March JPA is not a formal part of governmental bodies established by law and therefore must seek support from agencies such a RCTC and WRCOG. Commissioner Miller concurred with Commissioner Tavaglione's comments and noted that WRCOG will be reviewing an office fee exemption and requested the March JPA submit a position on the exemption. 9. PRESENTATION — DEMONSTRATION OF COMMUTESMART.INFO WEBSITE Robert Yates, Program Manager, and Brian Cunanan, Staff Analyst, provided a demonstration of the CommuteSmart.info website highlighting the following areas: • Rideshare options • Traffic conditions • Program assistance • Trip planner • Employer services • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 9 • • • Recognizing its limitations for commuters in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, staff has met with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and Iteris, Inc. to discuss how the map and its functionality might be increased to better serve Inland Empire constituents. Commissioner Anne Mayer explained that the Southern California Caltrans districts developed a master plan for infrastructure. However, due to the funding crisis has not been able to move forward with implementation. Commissioner Kelly Seyarto requested staff provide the CommuteSmart.info presentation to the city councils for public outreach. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Commissioner Miller reported on the MIS Policy Committee meeting noting concurrence by Orange County that the location of the alignment in Orange County is at SR 133. Commissioner Bob Magee expressed concern that the City of Lake Elsinore is not represented on the MIS Policy Committee as two of the proposed alignments are in Lake Elsinore. Chair Lowe responded that the appointment issue will be addressed as she believes that the Commissioner should also be the member of the subcommittee related to the affected areas. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owner: Riverside Clark APNs: 413-140-028 and 029, 473-200-002 and 003, 473-200-005 through 008, 473-220-020 and 473-220-024 through 026. There were no announcements from Closed Session. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 10 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:32 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Friday, March 18, 2005, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, t,gV—ce-t—,---C2"-QJ o3Ls Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission • • • • AGENDA ITEM 6A • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Policy Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Budget BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Budget. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The initial step in the budget process is to develop policy goals and objectives for the fiscal year. These goals and objectives are to be consistent with the Commission's overall strategic direction. As a result of the renewal of Measure "A" in November 2002, this year's goals and objectives reflect the continuation of the transition planning efforts related to the current and new Measure "A" and the delivery of promises made to the citizens of the County of Riverside. Using the Commission's guiding principles, staff has updated the attached Goals and Objectives for the Fiscal Year 2005-06 Budget. Attachment: Proposed Goals and Objectives for FY 2005-06 Budget Agenda Item 6A Commission Policy Goals and Objectives The following material outlines those adopted policy goals and objectives as well as financial policies that have served as the framework for the work plan presented in the FY 2005/06 Budget. Mobility The Commission, in cooperation with local, state, and federal agencies, will strive to create a transportation system that promotes efficient mobility both within the county and regionally. Following the reduction of state transportation funding and the deferral of the federal reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), the Commission faces a year of selective strategic opportunities and significant challenges. • Initiate and complete the prioritization of Measure "A" highway projects covering the two expenditure plans from 2005 through 2019. • Direct work on the project level environmental document for the Mid -County Parkway, a new CETAP corridor. • Support the MIS process to examine and analyze route alternatives for the intercounty corridor linking Riverside County to Orange County. • Actively participate in the SR -91 Advisory Committee to facilitate near and long- term improvements to SR -91; enhance intercounty public transit options and foster the development of a new corridor between the two counties. • Work closely with local jurisdictions to implement the FY2005-2009 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program and facilitate the delivery of arterial improvements in Western Riverside County. • Assure the ongoing effectiveness of the SRTP process and work with the County's eight transit operators through the Commission's standing Transit Policy Committee to assure efficiency and effectiveness. • Coordinate regional transit connections among commuter rail, buses, and paratransit services to ensure convenient service for passengers. • Coordinate and provide public access to commuter information to foster the use of alternate modes of transportation such as ridematching services, transit schedules and trip planner, real time traffic information, and vanpool options. Goods Movement The Commission will work with federal, state, and local governments to facilitate the movement of goods and services to, within, and through the county, recognizing the vital role mobility plays in the economic health of the County, the state, and the nation. • Work with county transportation commissions, local jurisdictions, Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA or Metrolink), the Southern California • • • 2 • • • Association of Governments (SCAG), and the private railroad companies toward the implementation of a coordinated regional approach to increase rail and highway capacity for goods movement that includes environmental and community impact mitigation. • Seek funding to implement the Commission's approved, high -priority railroad grade separation priority list to mitigate the impact of increased goods movement demands on the transportation system with special emphasis on obtaining recognition as part of the reauthorization of the federal transportation act. • Promote the use of rail corridors (including the Perris Valley Line within funding constraints) as an alternative to trucks for the movement of freight within the County and the region. • Support the efficient use of March ARB to address regional air freight demand and resulting ground access infrastructure needs. • Advocate inclusion of goods movement policies and projects for Southern California in the reauthorization of the federal transportation act. Congestion Relief and Safety Improvements The Commission will select projects and allocate funds in a manner that will improve safety and reduce congested traffic corridors. • Work with local jurisdictions and Caltrans to develop mitigation measures and strategies to address congested corridors and areas impacted by construction. • Provide innovative commuter rideshare programs to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and coordinate with other regional rideshare service providers to address intercounty commute trips. • Continue to work with state and federal agencies to program and construct projects in the STIP, the Measure "A" program, and other high priority projects. • Work with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to continue providing a motorist aid system which includes a call box program and a freeway service patrol program including temporary services in freeway construction zones. • Advocate streamlining efforts at the state and federal levels to facilitate timely project reviews and approvals. • Maximize the effective application and use of TUMF funds to deliver eligible Commission priority projects. Air Quality The Commission's transportation planning will be designed to achieve clean air standards while fostering economic growth and improving quality of life. • Work with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), sub -regional agencies, and local jurisdictions to develop and implement a regional transportation plan that meets regional air quality goals and conformity guidelines. 3 • Support outreach and educational programs that promote the benefits of ridesharing and availability of help through www.CommuteSmart.info and 1 -800 - COMMUTE. • Facilitate private/public use of clean fuels technology. • Encourage the continued purchase of clean fuel buses by transit operators and the conversion to clean fuels for other transit vehicles. Economic Development Transportation decisions will consider the economic benefits derived from any improvement, and, where feasible and practical, will pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development. • Support local agencies in the design and construction of interchanges that are in proximity to regional economic centers and developments. • Foster the development of transportation technology research, education, and training efforts of public institutions within the County. • Support local projects, consistent with countywide transportation goals, which enhance business development, local employment, and area tourism. Intermodalism and Accessibility County residents will be served, where economically feasible, through the development of transportation alternatives that consider the needs of a wide range of citizens. • Work with transit providers and local social service agencies to provide specialized transit service to meet a broad spectrum of socio-economic transit needs. • Implement the Commission's commuter rail SRTP and the SCRRA long-range strategic plan for expansion of the commuter rail system benefiting Riverside County constituents with an emphasis on the Perris Valley Line, an extension from Riverside to Perris via Moreno Valley. • Participate in the study of high-speed rail options and support efforts for eventual implementation of a statewide high-speed rail system with emphasis on the pilot project being in Southern California and including the integration of existing rail passenger services. Technological Innovation The Commission will advocate the development and use of advanced technologies for transportation applications that are affordable and practical. • Encourage the development of a regional smart -card to increase the level of convenience for transit users. • Continue development, in partnership with Caltrans and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), of the Inland Empire Transportation Management Center and seek funding for its construction. • • • 4 • • • • Work with public and private interests to apply real time technology to disseminate commuter information that will support the use of alternate modes and improve efficiency of the regional transportation system. Public and Agency Communications The Commission will provide timely, informative, and accurate information to encourage informed public and agency participation in the Commission's decision -making processes. • Promote a close working relationship with news and civic entities to increase interest in and understanding of transportation and related issues. • Enhance the provision of public information through various forms of communication (e.g., website, cable TV, Speakers' Bureau, print media, etc). • Maintain an ongoing effort of informing Riverside County's Congressional and State Legislative delegations regarding County transportation issues. • • • Financial and Administration Policies Operating Budget Policies • The Commission shall budget no more than one percent (1%) of Measure "A" sales tax revenue for administrative salaries and benefits. • Administrative program delivery costs will be budgeted at whatever is reasonable and necessary, but not to exceed four percent (4%) of Measure "A" sales tax revenues (inclusive of the one -percent salary limitation). • Amounts will be budgeted by fiscal year for multi -year projects based on best available estimates with the understanding that, to the extent actuals vary from those estimates and the project is ongoing, adjustments will be made on an ongoing basis. • The fiscal capital budget should be consistent with the strategic plan and deviations appropriately noted, explained, and justified. Revenue Policies • Sales tax revenue projections will be revised semi-annually to ensure use of current and relevant data. Staff may adjust annual amounts to reflect the most current economic trends. • Federal and state matching funds will be used where possible and available to supplement the use of local funding sources. • Exercise fiduciary responsibility regarding TUMF revenues and allocate revenues pursuant to Commission direction and the approved Measure "A" renewal of 2002. Debt Management Policies • The Commission will maintain 2.0x debt ratio coverage on all senior debt. • Debt issuance will be for major capital projects including engineering, construction, and right of way. Operating requirements must be from current ongoing revenues. • Costs of issuance including the standard underwriter's discount will not exceed two percent (2%). • While it is the intent of the Commission to establish a cash debt reserve for long term bond issuance, obtaining surety bonds can be obtained when beneficial to the Commission. • The commercial paper program will provide advance funding for projects included in the expenditure plan of the approved Measure "A" renewal of 2002. Auditing, Accounting, and Financial Reporting Policies • The Commission will issue a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in accordance with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 34 new financial reporting model. • An audit is to be conducted annually on Commission accounting books and records. As long as the Commission has outstanding bonds, an independent accounting firm must conduct the audit. • The Commission is responsible for ensuring that audits of Measure "A" and Transportation Development Act funding recipients are completed and reviewed for compliance and other matters in a timely manner. Capital Planning and Programming Policies • Established priorities will be reviewed annually via a series of workshops and/or policy maker retreat. Reserve Policies • The Commission will maintain a cash reserve at least equal to five percent (5%) of annual revenues (exclusive of reimbursements and matching funds). • The Commission will establish and maintain a transit operator's reserve of 10% for the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley. Additionally, a 10% reserve will be established and maintained for each of the Western Riverside transit operators (public bus and commuter rail). Cash Managementllnvestment Policies • Where possible, the Commission will encourage receipt of funds by wire transfer to its accounts. • Balances in the bank operating account will be maintained at the amount necessary to meet monthly expenditures. • Idle funds will be invested per the Commission's established investment policy emphasizing in order of priority: 1) safety, 2) liquidity, and 3) yield. • Cash disbursements to local jurisdictions and vendors/consultants will be completed in an expeditious and timely manner. Human Resources Management Policies • Commission staffing levels will be consistent with the intent of its enabling legislation, which envisioned a small, but effective staff. • Consultants will be used to augment staff efforts as much as possible to support programs or work loads, which do not appear to be of a permanent nature. Information Technology Policies • Adequate technology infrastructure will be delivered by continuing to upgrade key network equipment in order to maintain performance and connectivity among the software programs and staff and to continue to have additional security measures in place on the network to reduce the impact of virus/worm outbreaks. • • • 7 AGENDA ITEM 6B • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003-2004 TDA and Measure "A" Audit Results BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the preliminary Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure "A" audit results report for the Fiscal Year 2003-2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April 2003, Caporicci & Larson (C&L) was selected to perform the audits of Riverside County's TDA claimants and Measure "A" recipients, except for the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) which elected to select its audit firm. This is the second year that C&L has performed these audits for the Commission. C&L has completed the audits of and issued the audit reports for most of the local governments, non-profit agencies, and transit agencies that received TDA and Measure "A" funds. Professional auditing standards require the auditors to communicate to the audit committee, or an equivalent group, to ensure additional information is provided regarding the scope and results of the audit that may assist in overseeing management's financial reporting and disclosure process related to the TDA claimants and Measure "A" recipients. Such communications related to C&L's responsibilities and approach, summary of results, and preliminary findings were reviewed with the Audit Ad Hoc Committee in an audit results presentation by Caporicci & Larson on February 22, 2005. Following are highlights from C&L's presentation: Agenda Item 6B • Of the $99,118,000 distributed related to Measure "A", State Transit Assistance (STA), and Transportation Development Act (TDA), $58,155,000, or 58.7%, was audited by C&L. This comprised 33 recipients who received funds for transit, local streets and roads, and bicycle and pedestrian project purposes. • $40,963,000, or 41.3%, was not audited. The majority of these disbursements were related to TDA planning and administration funds to agencies, including the Commission, as well as the funds distributed to RTA, which were audited by another firm. • As of February 18, 2005, 29 reports were issued. Fieldwork was substantially completed for four additional recipients; issuance of these final reports was pending resolution of open items and completion of quality review procedures. Fieldwork has not commenced for three recipients due to scheduling and other issues; four reports will be issued for these recipients. • Findings and observations will be discussed. Attached is the summary of transportation and transit fund operations and related audit results for the various types of TDA (Articles 3, 4, and 8) and Measure "A" (specialized transit and local streets and roads) funding. Each schedule provides information for each claimant and recipient regarding the revenues, expenditures/expenses, and change in fund balance/net assets for the year ended June 30, 2004; other financial and compliance information; summary of observations and findings; and other information pertaining to the status or scope of work performed. As a result of the information reviewed at the Audit Ad Hoc Committee meeting, staff has been requested to perform follow-up related to the audits which have not been completed and to the observation regarding Measure "A" fund balance accumulations. When this information is complete, staff will meet again with the Audit Ad Hoc Committee to review the final results. Attachments: 1) Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule 2) Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule 3) Transportation Development Act Article 8 Schedule 4) Measure "A" Specialized Transit Schedule 5) Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Schedule and Comments 6) Presentation to the Audit Committee • Agenda Item 6B 9 • • • Transportatio n Development Act Article 3 Sch edule Year Ended June 30, 2004 (Note 1) (Note 2) Cathedral Moreno Palm County of San Banning City Corona Hemet Indio Valley Murrieta Springs Perris Riverside Riverside Jacinto Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Article 3 $198,433 $ 11,574 $ 459 $ 60,000 $ 32,841 $ 88,000 $ 16,672 $ - $233,655 $ 78,330 Other revenues - - 60,000 - Interest income 171 - - - 1,037 602 (429) 474 Total revenues 198,604 11,574 459 60,000 33,878 88,000 16,672 60,602 233,226 78,804 Total expenditures 400,738 11,574 19,618 217,604 33,878 200,860 16,672 133,258 233,226 78,804 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (202,134) (19,159) (157,604) (112,860) (72,656) Transfers in (out) 198,433 19,159 157,604 - 112,860 70,000 Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers in over (under) expenditures (3,701) - - - (2,656) Prior period adjustment - (33,878) (57,039) (3,273) Fund balances at beginning of year 10,348 - 33,878 490,345 - - 59,466 57,039 3,273 Fund balances at end of year $ 6,647 $ - $ $ - $ - $ 490,345 $ $ - $ 56,810 $ - $ - $ _ Deferred revenues at end of year $ - $ $ $ - $ 1,092 $ - $ - $ $ 9,859 $ Sourc e: 2004 Financial Statements Note 1 Moreno Valley audit fieldwork has been completed; however, report issuance is pending completion of open items and auditors' quality control review procedures. Note 2 County of Riverside audit has not commenced, as FY2002/03 audit report has not been issued. Open items have been resolved and prior report issuance is expected by February 18, 2005. FY 2003/04 audit will be scheduled following release of FY2002/03 report. Summary of Observations (Article 3 allocations are for specific bicycle and pedestrian projects approved by the Commission) 1 City of Banning has been requested to provide a summary of outstanding projects, if any, related to the ending fund balances as of June 30, 2004 and the actual or estimated completion date(s). City of Perris has provided a summary indicating that fund balance relates to developer contribution for a sidewalk proj ect that should be completed by 6/30/05. 2 City of Indio deferred revenue at June 30, 2004 relates primarily to interest income received but not expended on an eligible project. 3 City of Riverside deferred re venue at June 30, 2004 relates primarily to Article 3 allocations received but not expended on an eligible project. Section 99234 10 Transp ortation Development Act Arti cle 4 Schedul e Year Ended June 30, 2004 (Note 1) (Note 2) (Note 3) Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside PVVTA SunLine RTA To tal operating revenues $ 98,527 $ 185,332 $ 3,135,073 $ 5,534,326 Operating expenses: Depreciation and amortization 169,224 330,080 2,279,820 7,244,768 Other operating expenses 833,575 1,955,439 16,342,543 37,073,869 Total operating expenses 1,002,799 2,285,519 18,622,363 44,318,637 Operating loss (904,272) - (2,100,187) (15,487,290) (38,784,311) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Grants: Local Tra nsportation Funds 1,283,394 1,649,558 10,069,681 25,643,806 State Transit Assistance 15,728 5,792 437,940 3,075,533 Federal 88,901 1,548,178 10,244,963 Measure A specialized transit 3,022,381 452,325 Other 2,598,445 36,000 Interest income 6,399 18,703 132,257 Interest expense - (93,733) (512,485) Gain (loss) on sale of property 12,202 (429,405) Other 23,807 Total nonoperating revenue (expense) 1,305,521 - 1,756,453 - 17,601,595 38,666,801 Net increase (decrease) 401,249 - (343,734) 2,114,305 (117,510) Capital grants equity at beginning of year 371,416 - 3,327,568 Net assets/Retained eamings at beginning of year 288,569 220,389 1,199,906 1,333,611 56,603 1,677,866 33,587,530 Net assets at e nd of year (GASB 34) $ 1,061,234 $ 220,389 $ 1,199,906 $ 989,877 $ 56,603 $ 7,119,739 $ 33,470,020 Deferred revenue at end of year: Operating $ 82,577 $ - $ 767,921 $ 4,300,000 Capital 94,825 33,897 2,119,567 2,490,562 Total deferred revenue at end of yea' $ 177,402 $ - $ - $ 33,897 $ - $ 2,887,488 $ 6,790,562 Required fare ratio 10.00% 10.00% 20.00% 10.00% 10,00% 16.11% 17.40% Actual fare ratio 11.80°/ 10. 10% 19.18 % 18 .02% Fare ratio compliance status Met M et Met Met Source: 2004 Financial Statements Note 1 Beaumont audit has not commenced due to scheduling issues. Note 2 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency audit has been completed. Report issuance is pe nding completion of open items and auditors' quality control review procedures. Note 3 RTA elected to select its independent public accounting firm, which met the requirements set forth by the Commission in January 1998. Summary of Findings: 1 SunLine Transit Agency. Two findings were noted. (1) Impairment of amounts due from SunLine Services Group aggregating $869,489 as of June 30, 2004. On July 14, 2004, Com mission approved transfer of certain SSG asse ts benefiting transit operations with a fair value of $1,142,000. (2) Continuation of prior year finding that SunLine Transit Agency obtained a loan for SSG related to a pro gram to provide CNG vehicles to the taxi industry in the Coachella Valley. As of June 30, 2004, TDA and Measure A funds have not been used to make the monthly debt service payments and SSG had not defaulted on the making su ch payments. Section • • 11 • • • • Transp ortation Development Act Article 8 Schedule Year ended June 30, 2004 (Note 1) County of Blythe Riverside Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Article 8 $ Other revenues Interest income 3,327 Total revenues 3,327 Total expenditures 500,105 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures Prior period adjustments Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Source: 2004 Financial Statements (496,778) (6,526) 460,780 $ (42,524) $ Note 1 County of Riverside audit has not commenced, as FY2002/03 audit report has not been issued . Open items have been res olved and prior report issuance is e xpected by February 18, 2005. FY 2003/04 audit will be scheduled following release of FY2002/03 report. Summary of Observations (Article 8 allocations for Western County and Coachella Valley ended in 1993 and 1987, respectively, as available LTF funds are now used to meet transit needs. Article 8 allocations for Palo Verde Valley are subject to an annual unmet needs hearing.) 1 City of Blythe deficit fund balance will be eliminated by transfers from other fund(s). Section 99400 (a) 12 Measure "A" Spe cialized Transit Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2004 (Note 3) (Note 2) (Note 1A) (Note 1A) (Not e 1A) (Note 1B) Inland Partners for Friends of Aids Independent Volunteer Moreno Blindness Care -A -Van Project Living Center Valley Support Exceed DPI Operating revenues: Measure "A" $ 181,500 $ 227,989 $ 29,157 $ 39,707 $ 49,800 N/A Interest income - 310 Other rev enue Total operating revenues 181,500 228,299 Total operating expenses 170,216 228,299 $ 84,557 $ 39,561 $ 32,238 N/A Excess (deficiency) of operating revenues over (under) operating expenses 11,284 Nonoperating revenue: Transfers in (out) Change in net assets 11,284 Prior period adjustment 10,063 Net assets at beginning of year 9,395 3,144 - 32,728 Net assets at end of year $ 30,742 $ 3,144 $ $ 32,728 M atch requirement $ 181,000 $ 178,755 Actual match $ 185,000 $ 444,135 $ 42,677 $ 24,190 N/A M atch requirement compliance status Me t Met Met Met N/A Source: 2004 Financial Statements Note 1A Full -scope audit was not performed due to grant amounts and/or purpose; however, agreed -upon procedures were performed related to the agreement and grant expenditures. Note 1B DPI provided administration services for the taxi demonstration program. Agreed -upon procedures were performed related to the agreement. Note 2 Volunteer Center audit has not commenced due to scheduling issues. Note 3 Fieldwork has been completed; however, report issuance is pending completion of open items and auditors' quality contr ol review procedures. Summary of Observations (Measure "A" specialized transit grants are provided in two-year cycles, most recent cycle ended June 30, 2004) and Findings 1 Care -A -Van has been requested to consider the disposition of the balance of net assets (return to RCTC or request carryover to subsequent cycle) . 2 Exceed received four of six ve hicles which were funded and has been requested to provide a status report on the purchase of the two remaining vehicles. 3 Findings reported for DPI related to review of December 2003 reporting resulting in understatement of 10 passengers and overstatement of 28 trips . These findings did not affect amount billed to RCTC. MeasurSpecialized Transit • 13 • • • Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2004 Western County 'Th7roreno Banning Beaumont Calimesa Corona Hemet Lake Elsinore Valley Murrieta Norco (Note 1A) (Note 2) Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure "A" $ 622,218 $ 156,988 $ 3,864,040 $ 1,704,855 $ 893,594 $ 1,407,711 $ 753,559 SB 821 Grant Reimbursement - - Developer contribution - - CM AQ reimbursements 154,801 - State Traffic Congestio n Relief reimbursements - 497,790 - Reimbursements fro m other governmental agenci es 67,064 - - Reimbursements from regional arterial program - _ - Othe r revenues - - 3,500 45,207 - Interest income 7,439 5,677 72,108 39,253 3,762 14,267 35,922 Total revenues 629,657 - 162,665 4,659,303 1,789,315 897,356 - 1,421,978 789,481 Expenditures: Construction and maintenance 924,125 3,258 5,417,891 2,602,671 206,328 397,350 921,009 Engineering and administration - - 151,348 - Regional arterial improvements Debt service: Principal 380,441 - 399,225 213,045 Interest - 137,591 - 23,505 - 64,389 Total expenditures 924,125 3,258 6,087,271 2,602,671 629,058 - 397,350 1,198,443 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (294,468) 159,407 (1,427,968) (813,356) 268,298 1,024,628 (408,962) County loan Transfers in (out) (198,433) - 149,930 (80,000) - (445,543) Exce ss (de ficiency) of revenues and transfers in over (under) expenditures (492,901) - 159,407 (1,278,038) (813,356) 188,298 1,024,628 (854,505) Prior period adjustment - - 1,408 1,201,829 Fund balances at beginning of year 1,036,930 510,801 325,745 7,681,815 3,077,042 309,686 8,893,783 3,310,070 4,222,942 Fund balances at end of year $ 544,029 $ 510,801 $ 485,152 $ 6,403,777 $ 2,263,686 $ 497,984 $ 8,893,783 $ 4,336,106 $ 4,570,266 Measure " A" LSR 14 Measure "A" Local Streets and R oads Schedule Y ear ended June 30, 2004 Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances Reserved for specific projects Reserved for continuing appropriations Reserved for advances Designated for specific/future projects Unreserved, undesignated Total fund balances by component Western County —1715reno Banning Beaumont Calimesa Cor ona Hemet Lake Elsinore Valley Murrieta Norco 544,029 $ 544,029 $ $ - $ 494,714 $ 93,207 $ 60,000 $ - $ - 5,910,566 - - - - - 1,463,414 - - 988, 784 485,152 (1,503) 707,065 437,984 4,336,106 3,581,482 - $ 485,152 $ 6,403,777 $ 2,263,686 $ 497,984 $ - $ 4,336,106 $ 4,570,266 Fund balance by year received: 2004 $ 544,029 $ 162,665 $ 4,659,303 $ 1,789,315 $ 497,984 $ 1,421,978 $ 789,481 2003 - 175,306 1,744,474 474,371 - 1,504,995 1,117,103 2002 - 139,887 - 1,031,971 595,204 2001 7,294 - 377,162 631,450 2000 1998 - 1,437,028 Total fund balances by year received $ 544,029 $ - $ 485,152 $ 6,403,777 $ 2,263,686 $ 497,984 $ - $ 4,336,106 $ 4,570,266 Notes payable to RCTC at end of year $ - $ - $ 2,308,081 $ - $ 173,526 $ - $ 988,784 Amount of Excess MOE at end of ye ar $ 2,247,858 N/A $ 22,458,112 $ 6,139,819 $ 7,116,156 N/A $ 2,797,240 MOE compliance status Met N/A Met Met with use Met N/A Met (Note 3) of excess (Note 3) MOE Source: 2004 Financial Statements MeasurSR • 15 • • • • Measur e "A" Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2004 West ern County 1 Coachella Valley Z,atna7-sr-tTesen77 P erris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula City Coachella Springs Indian Wells Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure "A" $ 965,356 $ 7,822,518 $ 513,491 $ 2,690,003 $1,390,083 $ 370,311 $ 278,032 $ 181,074 SB 821 Grant Reimbursement 70,000 - - Developer contribution 20,000 CMAQ reimbursements State Traffic Congestion Relief reimbursements Reimbursements from other governmental agencies Reimbursements from regional arterial program - Other revenues - 25,000 147,074 - 7,136 Interest income 51,834 554,493 25,093 61,278 46,115 5,649 8,424 5,167 Total revenues 1,107,190 8,402,011 685,658 2,751,281 1,443,334 375,960 286,456 186,241 Expenditures: Construction and maintenance 484,079 6,544,027 828,986 - 1,196,873 370,380 4,416 Engineering and administration - - - Regional arterial improvements Debt service: Principal 164,353 112,416 432,355 Interest 50,900 34,818 133,900 Total expenditures 699,332 6,544,027 976,220 566,255 1,196,873 370,380 4,416 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures 407,858 1,857,984 (290,562) 2,185,026 246,461 5,580 282,040 186,241 County loan 1,000,000 - Transfers in (out) (80,000) (41,570) - (1,820,000) - Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers in o ver (under) expenditures 327,858 1,816,414 709,438 365,026 246,461 5,580 282,040 186,241 Prior period adjustment - (202,892) (6,288) (1,179) Fund balances at beginning of year 2,749,520 35,392,289 1,628,830 4,392,950 2,729,442 804,257 554,645 585,658 Fund balances at end of year $ 3,077,378 $ 37,208,703 $ 2,338,268 $ 4,555,084 $2,969,615 $ 809,837 $ 835,506 $ 771,899 Measure "A" LSR 16 Meas ure " A" Local Streets and R oads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2004 1 Western C ounty J Coachella V alley Z^atrecTraT—1.7s erTl- TOr Perris Riverside San Jacinto Teme cula City Coachella Springs Indian Wells Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances $ - $ 5,449,866 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 282,040 $ Reserved for specific projects - - - Rese rved for continuing appropriations Reserved for advances De signated for specific/future projects 25,295,941 - - - Unreserved, undesignated 3,077,378 6,462,896 2,338,268 4,555,084 2,969,615 809,837 553,466 771,899 Total fund balances by component $ 3,077,378 $ 37,208,703 $ 2,338,268 $ 4,555,084 $2,969,615 $ 809,837 $ 835,506 $ 771,899 Fund balance by year received: 2004 $ 1,107,190 $ 8,402,011 $ 685,658 $ 2,751,281 $1,443,334 $ 375,960 $ 286,456 $ 186,241 2003 1,235,464 9,308,641 599,154 1,803,803 1,526,281 433,877 301,559 227,046 2002 734,724 7,969,961 1,053,456 - - 245,756 187,621 2001 - 8,121,254 - - 1,735 170,991 2000 - 3,406,836 - - 1998 Total fund balances by year received $ 3,077,378 $ 37,208,703 $ 2,338,268 $ 4,555,084 $2,969,615 $ 809,837 $ 835,506 $ 771,899 Notes payable to RCTC at end of year $ 922,666 $ Amount of Excess MOE at end of year M OE compliance status Source: 2004 Financial Statements Measur411.SR - $ 631,751 $ 2,429,710 $ - $ - $ $ 12,498,753 $ 10,953,201 $ 7,456,968 N/A $1,467,322 $1,345,442 $ 320,902 Met Met Met N/A Met Met Met with use (Note 3) of exc ess MOE • 17 • • • • Measure "A" L ocal Stre ets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2004 rP r ve rde r - _ _ _+ Coachella Valley L Valley 1 Ran7Fio L County of Indio Palm Desert Palm Springs Mirage Blythe Riverside (Note 1B) Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure"A" $ 1,135,897 $ 2,260,912 $ 1,508,298 $ 710,022 $ 849,409 SB 821 Grant Reimbursement Developer contribution CMAQ reimbursements State Traffic Congestion Relief reimbursements - - Reimbursements from other governmental agencies 1,091,870 2,629 - Reimbursements from regional arterial program - 315,318 1,685,537 Othe r revenues 300 - Interest income 69,921 60,651 42,913 (6,376) 29,493 Total revenues 1,205,818 3,413,733 1,869,158 2,389,183 878,902 Expenditures: Construction and maintenance 1,268,651 6,668,206 935,188 2,211,941 2,296,426 Engineering and administration _ _ Regional arterial improve ments 268,436 Debt service : Principal 270,054 - - Interest - Totalexpenditures 1,538,705 6,668,206 1,203,624 2,211,941 2,296,426 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (332,887) (3,254,473) 665,534 177,242 (1,417,524) County loan Transfers in (out) Excess (deficie ncy) of revenues and transfers in over (under) expenditures (332,887) (3,254,473) 665,534 177,242 (1,417,524) Prior period adjustment (54,720) - - Fund balances at beginning of year 4,443,288 7,181,669 3,884,214 2,206,240 2,487,921 Fund balances at end of year $ 4,055,681 $ 3,927,196 $ 4,549,748 $ 2,383,482 $ 1,070,397 $ Measure "A" LSR 18 Measure "A" Lo cal Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended Ju ne 30, 2004 rPra rVerd e r____I C oach ella Valley I Valley 1 I Rancho I County of I Indio Palm Desert Palm Springs Mirage Blythe 1 Riverside 1 Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances Reserved for specific projects Reserved fo r continuing appropriations Reserved for advances Designated for specific/future projects Unreserved, undesignated Total fund balances by component Fund balance by year received: $ - $ 860,125 $ 1,181,671 $ 222,689 $ 2,802,428 3,281,439 2,160,793 264,643 - 4,055,681 86,638 - 1,070,397 $ 4,055,681 $ 3,927,196 $ 4,549,748 $ 2,383,482 $ 1,070,397 $ 2004 $ 1,205,818 $ 3,413,733 $ 1,869,158 $ 2,383,482 $ 878,902 2003 1,315,046 513,463 1,809,843 191,495 2002 1,206,966 - 870,747 - 2001 327,851 - - 2000 1998 Total fund balances by year received $ 4,055,681 $ 3,927,196 $ 4,549,748 $ 2,383,482 $ 1,070,397 $ Notes payable to RCTC at end of year $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Amount of Excess MOE at end of year $ 12,897,148 $ 53,228,056 $ 19,411,203 $ 24,365,192 $ 2,825,537 Met Met Met Met Met MOE compliance status So urce : 2004 Financial Statements Measui.SR • 19 • • • • Measure A Local Streets and R oads Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2004 Note 1A Beaumont audit has not commenced due to scheduling issues. Note 1B County of Riverside audit has not commenced, as FY2002/03 audit report has not been issued. Open items ha ve been resolved and prior report issuance is expected by February 18, 2005. FY2003/04 audit will be scheduled following release of FY2002/03 report. Note 2 Moreno Valley audit fieldwork has been completed; however, report issuance is pending completion of open items and auditors' quality control review procedures . Note 3 MOE requirement does not apply as city incorporated after Measure A was approved in November 1988 . Summary of Observations and Findings 1 City of Riverside has provided an explanation regarding the intended use for the accumulation of fund balance in excess of three years of revenues. Approximately $13 million has been spent or encumbered since 6/30/04 and $12.5 million relates to projects in the active planning phase. 2 City of Temecula has been requested to respond to finding regarding transfer of Measure A funds of $750,000 to a city fund to finance a project not included in the City's 5 Year Measure A Capital Improvement Plan. 3 Cathedral City had a finding regarding Measure A expenditures of $225 which were not included in the City's 5 Year Measure A Capital Improvement Plan. Amounts were not significant and correction was not required by RCTC; however, City has indicated that an adjustment has been made to correct this error. 4 City of Norco has a large accumulation of fund balance in excess of three years of revenues. Approximately $1.4 million relates to unexpended bond proceeds from August 1997 Measure A issuance, which cash amounts are held in trust for Norco. A significant reimbursement was made in July 2004 which reduced the cash held in trust to approximately $423,000. Measure " A" LSR Comments 20 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Presentation on. to the Audit Committee February 22, 2005 Presented By: Stephen L. Larson, Senior Partner • Status of Compliance Audits (as of February 18, 2005) - Measure A - TDA Articles 3, 4, & 8 • 2 21 • Responsibilities and Approach • • • Financial and compliance audits of Transportation Funds - Measure A - Local Streets and Roads - Specialized Transportation - TDA Articles 3 and 4 _:• Review of compliance with provisions of Measure A and TDA - Measure A Ordinance 88-1 - TDA Sections 6666 and 6667 - RCTC policies relating to such programs Audit of SunLine Transit Agency's financial statements CAL • • • • • 4 22 • • • •: Distributing funding to recipients within approved policy • Maintaining appropriate mechanisms to monitor recipients' usage of funding • Developing necessary tracking systems to monitor results .• Reviewing recipient submissions • Identifying recipients to be audited 5 • • • 4, Assess accounting principles used, estimates made, and evaluate the overall financial statement presentation made by recipients + Review recipients' internal control policies and procedures 4. Express an opinion on the recipients' program financial statements C&L 4, Obtain reasonable assurance that the recipients' financial statements are in compliance with specific funding program requirements Examine, on a test basis, evidence supporting amounts and disclosures 6 • . • . • • 23 • •®® Phase I - Planning Meeting with RCTC Staff .ff Identification of unique accounting and compliance requirements Identification of recipients to be audited Development of the audit work plan Cal' 7 • •ffi• Phase II - Validation For each recipient: .aa Validate specific account balances related to funding programs under review •.• Evaluate recipient estimates + Analyze internal control procedures over funds received from programs under review Validate compliance - Measure A - TDA Articles 3 and 4 8 • 24 • • Phase III - Reporting + Create compliance report + Review drafts with recipient's management ❖ Finalize reports Issue reports 9 • Summary of Results 10 • 25 • Total Program ($'s in 000's) Total Number Number of of Recipients/ Total Dollars Recepients Total Dollars % of Dollars Funds Distributed Audited Audited Audited Measure A 25 $ 36,781 23 $ 35,890 97.6% Measure A- Special Transit 10 4,132 9 3,776 91.4% STA 7 2,202 5 1,086 49.3% TDA Article 3 11 3,351 8 927 27.7% TDA Article 4 - OPS 8 49,777 6 15,261 30.7% TDA Article 4 - CAP 6 2,875 4 1,215 42.3% TDA Article 8 0 - 0 - N/A Total 67 $ 99,118 55 $ 58,155 58.7% • • Total Program ($'s in 000's) Total Dollars % of Total Recipients Number Distributed Dollars Audited 55 $ 58,155 58.7% Not audited 12 40,963 41.3% Total 67 $ 99,118 100.0% 12 • 26 • • • • • Recipients Not Audited Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside Transit Agency Coachella Valley Association of Governments Riverside County Auditor -Controller Canyon Lakes SCAG • Total Dollars ($ in 000's) $ 8,127 31,828 721 12 170 105 $ 40,963 • 13 • Recipients Assigned Cgt Banning Transportation &Transit Beaumont Transportation & Transit Blindness Support Blythe Calimesa Care -A -Van Transit Systems Cathedral City Coachella Corona Transportation & Transit Desert Hot Springs Diversified Paratransit, Inc. Exceed (Valley Resource Cntr) Friends of Moreno Valley Hemet Indian Wells Indio Inland AIDS Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Palm Desert Palm Springs Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Partnership to Preserve Independent Living Perris Rancho Mirage Riverside City Transportation & Transit Riverside County San Jacinto SunLine Transit Temecula Volunteer Center of Riverside 14 27 • Reports Issued: Indian Wells Exceed (Valley Resource Cntr) Calimesa Coachella Care -a -van Transit Systems Murrieta Desert Hot Springs Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Cathedral City Temecula Corona Transportation Palm Desert Blythe San Jacinto Riverside City (Transportation & Transit) Banning (Transportation & Transit) Diversified Paratransit, Inc. Friends of Moreno Valley Hemet Indio Lake Elsinore Norco Blindness Support Partnership to Preserve Independent Living SunLine Transit Perris • 15 • • • Fieldwork completed, waiting for information from agencies: Palo Verde Transit Agency Inland Aids Corona - Transit 16 • 28 • • • • • Fieldwork begun but not finished: Moreno Valley 17 Fieldwork not started: CL Volunteer Center of Riverside - several reschedules Beaumont - Transportation and Transit - several reschedules Riverside County 18 29 • Measure A 1. Costs expended for projects not approved in the FY 04-08 Plan • Temecula 2. Allocation of costs not in compliance with RCTC policy • Cathedral City 3. Incorrect supporting documents used to support transactions • Exceed 19 Thank You For Allowing Us to Provide Compliance Audit Services 110 20 30 • • AGENDA ITEM 6C • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Annual Investment Policy Review BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt the Investment Policy. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section XIV of the Investment Policy requires an annual investment policy review and specifically states that the "Chief Financial Officer shall annually render to the Board a statement of investment policy, which the Board must consider at a public meeting. Any changes to the policy shall also be considered by the Board at a public meeting." Based on a review of the Investment Policy approved by the Commission on March 10, 2004 and consideration of changes to the California Government Code as of January 1, 2005, staff in consultation with the Investment Advisor hired by the Commission has determined that no technical changes are required. However, some minor format revisions were made. Staff is recommending adoption of the attached Investment Policy. Attachment: Investment Policy Agenda Item 6C 31 • • • ivrtr xadr County ncovip oriel IJ4rt: (c,nlnnkxtun INVESTMENT POLICY I. Introduction The purpose of this document is to identify policies and procedures that enhance opportunities for a prudent and systematic investment program and to organize and formalize investment -related activities. II. Scope It is intended that this Policy cover all funds (except retirement funds) and investment activities under the direction of the Commission. III. Delegation of Authority Pursuant to the Commission's Administrative Code, the Board's management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated for a one-year period to the Executive Director who shall monitor and review all investments for consistency with this investment policy. Subject to review, the Board may renew the delegation of authority pursuant to this section each year. The Executive Director may delegate these duties to his designee ("Chief Financial Officer"). The Commission may delegate its investment decision making and execution authority to an investment advisor. The advisor shall follow this Policy and such other written instructions as are provided. IV. Prudence All persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the Commission are subject to the prudent investor standard. Investments shall be made with care, skill, prudence and diligence under circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the Commission that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the Commission. 32 Authorized individuals acting in accordance with this Policy and written procedures and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion. V. Objective The Commission's primary investment objectives, in priority order, shall be: 1. Safety. Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of the Commission shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure preservation of capital in the portfolio. 2. Liquidity. The investment portfolio of the Commission will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the Commission to meet its cash flow requirements. 3. Return on Investment. The investment portfolio of the Commission shall be designed with the objective of maximizing return on its investments, but only after ensuring safety and liquidity. In order to maximize return on its investments, the Commission seeks an active rather than passive management of portfolio assets. The Commission may from time to time sell securities that it owns in order to better reposition its portfolio assets in accordance with updated cash flow schedules, yield curve optimizations, yield opportunities existing between market sectors, or simply market timing. VI. Investments California Government Code Section 53601 governs the investments permitted for purchase by the Commission. Within the investments permitted by Code, the Commission seeks to further restrict eligible investments to the investments listed in Section VI.1 below. Percentage limitations, where indicated, apply at the time of purchase. Percentage holdings with any one non -governmental issuer are further restricted to a maximum of 10%. Rating requirements where indicated, apply at the time of purchase. In the event a security held by the Commission is subject to a rating change that brings it below the minimum specified rating requirement, • 33 • • the Chief Financial Officer shall notify the Board of the change. The course of action to be followed will then be decided on a case -by -case basis, considering such factors as the reason for the rate drop, prognosis for recovery or further rate drops, and the market price of the security. 1. Eligible Investments A. U.S. Government Issues. United States Treasury notes, bonds, bills, or certificates of indebtedness, or those for which the faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest. B. Federal Agency Securities. Federal agency or United States government -sponsored enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government -sponsored enterprises. C. Repurchase Agreements. Repurchase agreements are to be used solely as short-term investments not to exceed 30 days. The Commission may enter into repurchase agreements with primary government securities dealers rated "A" or better by two nationally recognized rating services. Counterparties should also have (i) a short-term credit rating of at least A -1/P- 1; (ii) minimum assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350 million in capital; (iii) five years of acceptable audited financial results; and (iv) a strong reputation among market participants. The following collateral restrictions will be observed: Only U.S. Treasury securities or Federal Agency securities, as described in V.1 A and B, will be acceptable collateral. All securities underlying repurchase agreements must be delivered to the Commission's custodian bank versus payment or be handled under a properly executed tri-party repurchase agreement. The total market value of all collateral for each repurchase agreement must equal or exceed 102 percent of the total dollar value of the money invested by the Commission for the term of the investment. For any repurchase agreement with a term of more than one day, the value of the underlying securities must be reviewed on an on -going basis according to market conditions. Market value must be calculated each time there is a substitution of collateral. 34 The Commission or its trustee shall have a perfected first security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code in all securities subject to repurchase agreement. The Commission shall have properly executed a PSA agreement with each counterparty with which it enters into repurchase agreements. D. U.S. Corporate Debt. Medium -term notes, defined as all corporate and depository institution securities with a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less, issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States. Eligible investment shall be rated "AA" or better by one or more nationally recognized rating service. Investments in U.S. Corporate Debt are further limited to 30% of surplus funds. E. Commercial Paper. Commercial paper rated in the highest category by one or more nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO). The entity that issues the commercial paper shall meet all of the following conditions in either paragraph (1) or paragraph (2): (1)The entity meets the following criteria: (A) Is organized and operating in the United States as a general corporation. (B) Has total assets in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). (C) Has debt other than commercial paper, if any, that is rated "A" or higher by a NRSRO. (2) The entity meets the following criteria: (A) Is organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company. (B) Has program -wide credit enhancements, including, but not limited to, over collateralization, letters of credit, or surety bond. (C) Has commercial paper that is rated "A-1" or higher, or the equivalent, by a NRSRO. Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 270 days maturity nor represent more than 10 percent of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation. Investments in commercial paper are limited to a maximum of 25% of surplus funds. • 35 • • • F. Banker's Acceptances. Banker's acceptances issued by domestic or foreign banks, which are eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. Purchases of banker's acceptances may not exceed 180 days maturity. Eligible banker's acceptances are restricted to issuing financial institutions with short-term paper rated in the highest category by one or more nationally recognized rating service. Investments in banker's acceptances are further limited to 40% of surplus funds with no more than 30% of surplus invested in the banker's acceptances of any one commercial bank. G. Money Market Mutual Funds. Shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies that are money market funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-1, et seq.) and that invest solely in U.S. treasuries, obligations of the U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements relating to such treasury obligations. The Commission may invest in shares of beneficial interest issued by acompany shall have met either of the following criteria: (1) Attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized rating services. (2) Retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years' experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). The purchase price of shares of beneficial interest purchased pursuant to this subdivision shall not include any commission that the companies may charge. Investments in Money Market Mutual Funds are further limited to 20% of surplus funds. H. Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund ("RCPIF"). The Commission may invest in the Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund. As on -going due diligence, the Chief Financial Officer shall obtain the information listed below: • A description of eligible investment securities and a written statement of investment policy. 36 • A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest distributions, and the treatment of gains and losses in the portfolio. • A description of how often the securities are priced, how the securities are safeguarded, and the audit arrangements. • A description of who may invest in the program, how often they may invest, and what size deposits and withdrawals are allowed. • A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed. • The composition of the investment fund for each reporting period. I. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund ("LAIF"). The Commission may invest in LAIF. As on -going due diligence, the Chief Financial Officer shall obtain the information listed below: • A description of eligible investment securities and a written statement of investment policy. • A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest distributions, and the treatment of gains and losses in the portfolio. • A description of how often the securities are priced, how the securities are safeguarded, and the audit arrangements. • A description of who may invest in the program, how often they may invest, and what size deposits and withdrawals are allowed. • A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed. • The composition of the investment fund for each reporting period. J. Certificates of Deposit. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured or fully collateralized time certificates of deposit in financial institutions located in California. Eligible investments are restricted to those issuing institutions that have been in business at least five years and whose senior debt obligations are rated "AA" or better by one or more nationally recognized rating service. The maximum term for deposits shall be one year. Investments in certificates of deposit are further • 37 • • • limited to 20% of surplus funds. All time deposits must be collateralized in accordance with California Government Code section 53561. The Commission, at its discretion, may waive the collateralization requirements for any portion of the deposit that is covered by federal insurance. 2. Eligible Investments for Bond Proceeds Bond proceeds shall be invested in securities permitted by the applicable bond documents. If the bond documents are silent as to permitted investments, bond proceeds will be invested in securities permitted by this Policy. With respect to maximum maturities, the Policy authorizes investing bond reserve fund proceeds beyond the five years if prudent in the opinion of the Chief Financial Officer. 3. Ineligible Investments As provided in California Government Code Section 53601.6, the Commission shall not invest any funds in inverse floaters, range notes, mortgage derived interest -only strips or in any security that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity. The purchase of any security not listed in Section VI.1 above, but permitted by the California Government Code, is prohibited unless the Board approves the investment either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the Board. VII. Maximum Maturities Maturities of investments will be selected to provide necessary liquidity, minimize interest rate risk, and maximize earnings. Current and expected yield curve analysis will be monitored and the portfolio will be invested accordingly. Because of inherent difficulties in accurately forecasting cash flow requirements, a portion of the portfolio should be continuously invested in readily available funds. Where this Policy does not specify a maximum remaining maturity at the time of the investment, no investment shall be made in any security, other than a security underlying a repurchase or reverse repurchase agreement authorized by this section, that at the time of the investment has a term 38 remaining to maturity in excess of five years, unless the Board has granted express authority to make that investment either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the Board no less than three months prior to the investment. VIII. Performance Standards The Chief Financial Officer shall continually monitor and evaluate the portfolio's performance. A comparison of the portfolio's performance against a performance benchmark shall be included in the Chief Financial Officer's quarterly report. The Chief Financial Officer shall select an appropriate, readily available market index to use as a performance benchmark. IX. Reporting The Chief Financial Officer shall prepare and provide to the Board and the Executive Director, within 30 days following the end of the quarter, a portfolio report, which includes the following information: • Type of investment • Name of issuer Date of maturity Date of purchase • Par value • Original purchase cost • Amortized cost • Accrued interest • CaII date (if applicable) • Current market value of securities • Unrealized market value gain/loss • Coupon rate, if applicable • Yield to maturity • Yield at market • Credit quality, as determined by one or more nationally recognized credit rating services, of each investment • Average duration of portfolio • Listing of all investment transactions during the quarter • A statement that the portfolio complies with the investment policy, or the manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance • 39 • • • • A statement denoting the ability of the Commission to meet its liquidity requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall, or may not be, available X. Investment Procedures The Chief Financial Officer, as the Board's designee, is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Commission's investment policies and establishing written procedures and internal controls for the operation of the investment program. No person may engage in investment transactions except as provided under the terms of this Policy and the written procedures established by the Chief Financial Officer. The written procedures should address: delegation of authority to subordinate staff members, control of collusion, separation of transaction authority from accounting and record keeping, written confirmations of transactions, reconciliation of custody statements, and wire transfer procedures and agreements. An independent analysis by an external auditor shall be conducted annually to review internal control, account activity, and compliance with policies and procedures. XI. Authorized Broker Dealers and Financial Institutions The Chief Financial Officer shall maintain a list of authorized broker/dealers and financial institutions which are approved for investment purposes. It shall be the Commission's policy to purchase securities only from those authorized institutions and firms. Separate lists shall be maintained for broker/dealers and financial institutions approved for repurchase agreements and those approved for the purchase of other securities. If an investment advisor is used, they may use their own list of approved broker/dealers and financial institutions for investment purposes. To be eligible, a firm must meet the following minimum criteria: (i) an institution licensed by the state as a broker -dealer, or from a member of a federally regulated securities exchange, from a national or state -chartered bank, from a federal or state association or from a brokerage firm designated as a primary government dealer by the Federal Reserve bank; and (ii) all broker/dealer firms and individuals must be properly registered with the NASD and/or SEC to transact business in the relevant geographic locations and product sectors. In addition, counterparties for Repurchase Agreements shall be limited to primary government securities dealers rated "A" or better by two nationally recognized rating services. Counterparties shall also have (i) a short-term credit rating of at least A-1 /P-1; (ii) minimum assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350 million in capital; (iii) five years of acceptable audited financial results; and (iv) a strong reputation among market participants. The Chief Financial Officer shall select broker/dealers and other financial institutions on the basis of the firm's expertise and credit worthiness. The Commission shall annually send a copy of the current investment policy to all dealers approved to do business with the Commission. Each broker dealer or financial institution that has been authorized by the Commission shall be required to submit and annually update a Broker/Dealer Questionnaire which includes the firm's most recent financial statements. The Chief Financial Officer shall maintain a file for each firm approved for investment purposes, which includes the most recent Broker/Dealer Questionnaire. XII. Safekeeping and Custody To protect the Commission's assets, all securities owned by the Commission shall be held in safekeeping in the Commission's name by a third party bank trust department, acting as agent for the Commission under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the Commission. All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment (DVP) procedures; the Commission's safekeeping agent will only release payment for a security after the security has been properly delivered. Physical delivery securities shall be avoided whenever possible, as book entry securities are much easier to transfer and account for since actual delivery of a document never takes place. In addition, delivered securities must be properly safeguarded against loss or destruction. The potential for fraud and loss increases with physically delivered securities. XIII. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest The Commission adopts the following policy concerning conflicts of interest: 1. Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. • • 41 • • • 2. Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall disclose any material financial interest in any financial institution that conducts business with the Commission, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the Commission's portfolio. 3. Officers shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of the Commission. XIV. Investment Policy Review The Chief Financial Officer shall annually render to the Board a statement of investment policy, which the Board must consider at a public meeting. Any changes to the policy shall also be considered by the Board at a public meeting. AGENDA ITEM 6D • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. The County's Investment Report for the month ending December 31, 2004 is also attached for review. Attachments: 1) Quarterly Investment Report - Quarter ending December 31, 2004 2) County of Riverside Investment Report - Month ending December 31, 2004 Agenda Item 6D 43 • • • Investment Portfolio Report Period Ending: December 2004 OPERATING FUNDS RATING PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED MOODYSIFITCH/S&P VALUE DATE DATE MARKET PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS) City Nation $ 59,361 A3/BBB+ Cash with I 125,255,363 -MR1/ARAN +1 Local Ager 2,993,662 Not Rated Agency/Treasury Sec urities: FNM A 2,020,500 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 03/29/04 03/29/06 2.05% 2,000,000 2,020,500 20,500 Money M al 77,148 77,148 1.00% 77,148 77,148 Federal Ho 1,985,625 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 11/12/03 11/15/05 2 .29% 1,993,716 1,985,625 (8,091) FNMA Not( 1,928,063 AAA/AAA 1,950,000 03/17/04 03/17/06 2.08% 1,951,066 1,928,063 (23,004) Sub-To ta 134,319,721 $6,027,148 $6,021,930 $6,011,336 $ (10,595) FUNDS HELD IN TRUST Cash with County: Local Tran: 34,532,522-MR1/AAAN+ 1 Sub -Tots 34,532,522 INVESTMENT WITH CITIES (1) Maturity Dat % City of Can 300,000 06/01/09 4.75% Sub-To ta 300,000 COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE Milestone F - AAA/AAA First Ameri 22,132,673 U.S. Treas 15,772,951 AAA/AAA First Ameri 986,689 AAA/AAA Sub-Tota 38,892,313 TOTAL $ 208,044,556 AANAAA (1) Inve stment with citie s is reported as a loan receivable for financial reporting purposes. SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE Banks $ 59,361 Cash with County 159,787,885 LAIF 2,993,662 Mutual Funds: First American Treasury - Trust 23,119,362 Milestone Sub - Total M utual Funds 23,119,362 Federal Agency Notes 6,011,336 U. S. Treasury Notes 15,772,951 Investment Agre ements 300,000 TOTAL 208,044,556 15,772,951 10/01/04 12/30/04 2.28% 15,926,000 15,772,951 (153,049) • • Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on March 10, 2004. The Commission has adequate cash flows for six months of operations. Signed by• Chief Financial Officer December 2004 County Administrative Center Investment Objectives • • • • Safety of Principal Liquidity Public Trust Maximum Rate of Return Portfolio Statistics COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Treasurer's Commentary "A Most Eventful Year" 2004 has proven to be an extremely eventful year. The world has been rocked by one of the biggest natural disasters in modern history from the tsunami that struck Southeast Asia. Domestically, the Southeast United States was hit by four hurricanes back to back causing billions of dollars in losses to residents in the region. On the political front, the presidential election of Bush vs. Kerry had it share of media hype, but, avoided a replay of the turmoil in the 2000 election. On the economic front, the huge event was the Federal Reserve raising the Fed Funds and discount rate five times this year with more rate hikes likely to come in 2005. We saw the dollar drop in value versus other world currencies to a nine-year low. Crude oil approached $55 a barrel as a result of surging global demand causing all of us to feel every cent at the gas pump, and, impacting derivative products throughout the economy. Through all of this turbulence, our financial markets and the economy in general have performed remarkably well, providing further evidence of resiliency in the United States economy. Inflation re mains under control, interest rates are up for the yield investor, but still low enough to spur economic growth. In addition, we have seen many new jobs added with the unemployment rate remaining at moderate levels. At the County Government level, as a result of the mutual fund trading scandals, the County of Riverside deferred compensation committee moved to protect its employee's retirement assets by removing some tainted funds. The unfunded pension liability issue has prompted the County of Riverside to move in front of our governmental agency peers to form a committee evaluating the problem, and to come up with solutions to lessen its budgetary impacts. The result will be the issuance of Pension Obligation Bonds in early 2005. Finally, the Pool has grown to its highest level ever at $3.4 billion with its yield rising from a low of 1.36% to our current rate of 2.22%, with expectations of a continuance of this trend in the coming year. Paul McDonnell Treasurer -Tax Collector EconomII II II ics indicators of '. importance Durable Goods Orders -for December 23rd 1.65% actual vs. 0.6%survey Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -for Decem- ber30th 1.4% actual vs. 1.3% survey Consumer Confidence— Index -for Decem- ber 28th 102.3 actual vs. 94.0 survey Factory Orders -for December 2nd 0.5 % actual vs. 0.2% survey Unemployment Rate- for December 3rd 5.5% actual vs. 5.4% survey At month's end, the Fed Funds rate was at 2.25%, with a balanced bias. The 2 -year T - Note was yielding 3.07% (up 5 bps.) while the 30 -year T -Bond was yielding 4.85% (down .5 bp.) For December, the Pool had an increase of 17 bps. in average monthly yield. The Pool yield should continue to benefit in yield as maturing shorter term securities are reinvested after the FOMC's expected action on February 2nd. Nbnth-End Book Value Nbnth-End Market Value* Paper Gain or (Loss) Fbrcent of Paper Gain or Loss Yield Based Upon Book Value Weighted Average Maturity (Yrs) Mbdrfied Duration December 3,272588,374 3,263,447,433 (9,140,941)1 0.28% 2.28€ 0.57111 .50 2,846,337,967 (8,945,909) $ -0.31 %' 205 064 0.571 November October September August July 2,855,283,876 $ 2,781 217 011 1 $ 2,829,228,108 $ 2,861,002,666 $ 2,697,941,850 $ 2,776641078 $ 2,823,994 551 1 $ 2,857,725,021: $ 2,688,886,776 (4,575,933f $ 115-1,23'3-,-5-56)1 $ --(113;277,64);$ (9,055,074)1; -0.16%1 -0.18% -011%l -034%; 1.95; 1791 169 _ 161' 0.70 069 0.71` 0.79; 0.45- 0.49, 0.49 0.671 •arket values does not include accrued interest THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: Aaa/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V1+ BY FITCH RATINGS 46 Portfolio Characteristics Federal Agency Cash Equivalent & M M F Commercial Paper Negotiable CD's M edium Term Notes Municipal Bonds Certificates of Deposit Local Agency Obligation Total MATURITY dal Paper -- 29.6 Cash Equivalent & M M F T2.41% 1,743,259,599 405,000,000 967,520,746 100,000,000 6,044,187 20,000,000 1,785,000 3263,447,433 Locai Ay xicy Obligation 0.05% Certificates of Der 0.61% Federal Agency 53.42% / CREDIT QUALITY Federal Agency AAA A-1/ P -1 or better N/R Total M arket Value 1,743,259,599 25, 882, 087 1,471, 520, 746 22, 785, 000 3,263,447,433 30 days or Less 30 - 90 Days 90 Days-: 1Year 1- 2 Years 2- 3 Years Over 3 Years Total M arket Value 1,586,690,194.41 508,344, 861.12 212 601,493.50 737,007,668.44 217,018, 215.26 1,785,000.00 3,263,447,433 10% 0% 24 Month Gross Yield Trends — 6.51%- X65% INK, 0.05% 30 days 30 - 90 90 Days - 1 - 2 2 - 3 Over 3 or Less Days 1 Year Years Years Years • Market Data U S. Treasu0Ylu d butve 12/30/04 11/30/04 Diff. 3 M 2.212 2.223 -0.011 6 M 2.577 2.432 0.145 2 Y 3.065 2.997 0.068 5 Y 3.607 3.691 -0.084 10 Y 4.218 4.349 -0.131 30 Y 4.826 5.002 -0.176 Yield Cu i .0:.-12/30f2004 5 4 3 2 0 04 3M0 6M0 2YR 5YR 10YR 30� * Treasurer's Institutional Money Market Index (TIMMI) is compiled and reported by the Riverside County Treasurer's Capital Markets division. It is a composite index derived from the average of three multi -billion dollar AAA rated Prime (funds that invest in a diversified portfolio of U.S. dollar denominated money market instruments includ- ing U.S. Treasuries, government agencies, bankers' acceptances, commercial paper, certificates of deposits, repurchase agreements etc.) portfolios that the Treasurer tracks. Further details available upon request. Page 2 47 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund December 31, 2004 INEnd Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP PAR DESCRIPTION CPD - COMMERCIAL PAPER - DISCOUNT 41O5GAt + 0 90262CN52 50,000,000 UBS FINANCE .10. 7X0M JI 02581RN74 50,000,000 AMERICAN rati9A kkr--g.:001 93114EN89 50,000,000 WALMART STORES '.f0228PND5 ; N 0556C2NE9 50,000,000y� BMW 737HNi;9;:<.r VIO 78009RNL7 50,000,000 ROYAL BANK OF Al+/P1 EXPRESS Al/P1/F1 10)0E414 : 61745ANQ8 50,000,000 17307JNS7 50,000,000 74081JNX9 20,000,000 Al+/P1 US CAP Al +/P1 SCOTTLAND Al /P1 MORGAN STANLEY Al/P1 CITY GRP Al+/P1 HARVARD UNIVERSITY Al+/P1 36959HP27 50,000,000 GE CAPITAL Al+/P1 74271TPA5 50.000.000 PROCTER &GAMBLE CO Al /P1 970,000,000 FFCB - FED FARM CREDIT BANK 3tM'I. 31331QY84 10,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc3Mo 31331TEY3 10,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc ,1 130.=.,,;1 17( 31331Q5B9 20,000,000 FED likkft 31 S3 5,000 000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc6Mo 10,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2YrNc1Yr rte. 5,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK5.5YrNc6Mo 31 28X22 31331TKP5 31 T3C4... - :+ 31331SKN2 x':1331 SKD4 FARM CREDIT BANK2 1/4YrNc3 COUPON 5,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK1.5YrNc 31331 T4F5 5,110,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc6Mo 31331T6W6 4mrokt 31331TXE6 10,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT 13,1fIgiOt liter ` ' 1» 31331SFW8 5,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT 3128X3Z55 5,000,000 FED 3124WWWIACtratai 183,910,000 FHLB-FED HOME LOAN BANK BANK2 5YrNc1 Yr BANK2YrNc6Mo1X FARM CREDIT BANK2YrNc6Mo 3133X3TW3 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN 3133X5RL4 5,000 000 FED HOME LOAN BANK1..25YrNc3Mo 3133X4HR5 5,000 000 FED HOME LOAN BANK18MoNc3Mo 3133X05H8 10,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2 1/4YrNc3M 3133X9B33 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK13MoNc1Mo 3133XA3G0 10 000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 13MoNc3Mo 3133X8TP7 7,315,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK1.25Nc6Mo1X 3133X3ET6 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Yr 3133X3DS9 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3133X6R57 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK1.75YrNc6Mo 313 Al 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc3Mo BANK13MoNc3Mo 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc3Mo 2.31 MATURITY W005 1/5/2005 BOOK VALUE1 PRICE 2.15 1/7/2005 49,904,444 99.81 2.17 1/11/2005 49,879,444 99.76 49,879,444 �,. b05 ^M' 49,1396,1 ' 99,9;;=c/ 1/14/2005 49,907,361 99.81 M. VALUE* 2.30 2.22 2.34 2.30 1/20/2005 "49i ", 39.66 " 49,861,250 9972 1/24/2005 49,870,000 1/26/2005 49,888,194 99.78 99 74 2.17 1/31/2005 19, 926,461 99.63 49,861,250 49,870,000 49,888,194 19,926461mm 2.32 2/2/2005 49,842,111 9968 49,842,111 19 .99:7 49 49.802.250 99.60 49 802,250 '!',2005, 2.26 2/10/2005 1.58 7/8/2005 ` I V20/2005 1.76 9/22/2005 1.90 10/24/2005 20,000,000 99.19 9' t1 reu,.' .925,00¢' 2.00 1/23/2006 5,000,000 98.94 4,946,875 967,520,746 967,520,746 10,000,000 99.44 9,999,400 99.25 9,943,750 9,925,000 (74,400 19,837,500 GAIN/LOSS ,S44#015 " 4,96k7gf 1.80 3/17/2006 00 ;. 312 ,2606,' 2.65 5/19/2006 5,000,000 99.38 O' < > 1 I! ;,' 99-41.1'x. 3.00 6/27/2006 4,996,350 99.81 3.20 8/9/2006 5,110,000 99 94 Illeli VLzo i ,. 2.07 9/29/2006 YLD MATT M Dur.4 2.23 0.05 2.35 0.07 Avg• Life2 0.05 0.07 0.07 2.33 0.09 0.09 MAW 2 27 0.11 0.11 2.25 0.05 1.58 0.52 0.52 1.76 0.72 0.73 (162, 500) 1.90 0.81 0.81 53,125 10,000,000 98 50 9,850,000 150,000 4 `44.90 4,968,750 (31,250) 2.65 1 4,0542M ;.l a '> i,:1 4,990,625 (5,725) 3 05 1 47 1.49 2.00 1.05 ''2087,5 oM1<000 36 1.38 5,106,806 3,194 3.20 1.56 1.61 0,000,000 98 09 9,809,375 (190,625) 2.07 1.71 1.75 >;'•:02 3.25 212/1/2006 5,000,000 99.75 4,987 500 (12,500 3.25 1 87 ten- � ' 1, 3.35 12/29/2006 5,000,000 99.37 4,968,350 183,902,450 1.47 3/1/2005 5,000,000 99.84 iMf ? i 10,0©(i:009"' -,9 1.35 6/30/2005 4,998,438 99.31 -v0 • .. tki0:0401 S,009,0E3 4 1.70 9/16/2005 5,000,000 99.22 2 03 11/18/2005 2.45 12/16/2005 3.00 1/18/2006 242 1/20/2006 7,313,286 10,000,000 99.22 5,000,000 99 47 10,000,000 99.91 2.16 1/27/2006 5,000 000 99.09 WSW. AU_ Ort 2.00 2/13/2006 4,990,550 98.88 182,607,744 4,992,188 4,965,625 4,960,938 9,921,875 4,973,438 9,990,625 7,269,281 4,954,688 4,943,750 31,650) 21f !' (1,294,706) 7,813 (32,813) (39,063) (78,125 26,563 (9,375) 44,004 (45,313) (46,800) 226 2/17/2006 5,000,000 99.16 4,957,813 (42,188) 2.22 1.92 1 95 1.99 1.11 1.47 0.17 0.16 1.37 0 50 0.50 1.70 0.70 0.71 2.03 0.88 0.88 2.45 0.95 0.96 1.04 1.05 2.44 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 2.09 1.10 1.12 2.26 1.12 2.35 2/27/2006 5,000,000 99.19 4,959,375 40,625 2.35 1.14 2.00 4/13/2006 5,000,000 98.66 4,932,813 (67,188) 2.00 1.27 1.28 Page 1of4 48 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund December 31, 2004 PAR DESCRIPTION Month End Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP 3133X5ZF8 31339YR61 3133X5ZG6 3133X3HP1 3133X6BA3 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc6Mo 3133X6RE8 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc1Mo 70' AttiVielANERMINIMilir 3133X22E4 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc3MoStep 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc1Mo 3133X9GH7 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc6Mo 3133X4S93 6,750,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.75YrNc3Mo 449114W VratelOWOMOWC 3133X9X96 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Yr f 3133X8SA1 ' 31339YKH4 3133X4CS8 WINS 3133X4HY0 MAW 3133X8SJ2 3133X5TL2 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Mo 3133X9TNO 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Mo 675,535,000 FHLC - FHLB - MORTG. CERT. ittMOKOOMOVARTA 5,000,000 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc6Mo1X COUPON 2.15 MATURITY RC) 4/26/2006 BOOK VALUE 11/16/7007 PRICE 5,000,000 98.78 000 M. VALUE* 5.000.000 99.81 4,939,063 GAIN/LOSS 4.00 12/28/2007 4,990,625 5 000,000 100.09 5,004,688 675,467,399 670,183,286 (60,938 (15,625) 3.00 1f (9,375) 4,688 (5,284,113) 3.50 4.1M 2.53 YLD MAT1 M Dur.4 2.15 1.30 • Avg. Life2 1.32 2.52 1 57 1.61 3 1.66 1.89 2.75 2.88 0.08 2.99 1.61 Page 2 of 4 49 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund December 31, 2004 re End Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP PAR DESCRIPTION COUPON MATURITY BOOK VALUE t' PRICE M. VALUE* GAIN/LOSS YLD MATT M Dur.4 Avg. Life2 3133X5ZA9 3128X2ZV0 3128X3CD3 3128X3HH9 3128X3SV6 3128X2ZB4 3128X2F42 5,000,000 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.1.75YrNc9M1 6,275,000 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc3Mo 10,000,000 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc3Mo 5,000,000 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc1Yr 5,000,000 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc6Mo 5,000 000 FHLB MORTG. CERT3YrNc1Yr1xSt 5,000,000 FHLB O 3128X2404 5,000,000 FHLB - NSW Mitgiter:. 116,275,000 FHLD - FED HOME LOAN DISCOUNT 00.***PEOZWCAOW ,44145 313385AW6 50,000,000 FED HOME LOAN DISCOUNT 150,000,000 FNMA - FED MORTG ASSOC. MORTG. CERT.3YrNc6MoSte MORTG CERT.3YrNc1YStep . '4 a , 1t 0.0,1.I0 QNA; �jt 3136F3T48 20,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC2 YrNc3MoSt 39 41rAP t .14� 0 ,009 ;NAT. MO 3136F3S23 7,850,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 3136F45N0 31359MUA9 3136F6E 3136F4L ,1161ii 3136F3U 4,38P4893136F6BG3 36F5JT9 3136F6DH9 343IF5L` 3136F6FT1 3136F5MD0 2.5YrNc3M 5,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc6Mo 5,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2YrNc1Yr1x R5 3,000 000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc3Mo :ifs -,03 _ S4 5,000 000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 1.6 Yr6Mo1 N�;2;.y� 10,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2.5YrNc6Mo 53 10,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC3YrNc3MoSte Aitti4AT 5,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc3Mo 5,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 2YrNc6Mo1 5,000 000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc3Mo 10,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOCa rN St t�.3Yr.T.�s.c1 rr 179,125,000 FNMD - FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 4 3135890Y8 35.000.000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 75,000,000 FRMC FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 313397AL5 313397BA8 313397BD2 50,000,000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 7!SC 50,000,000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 50,000,000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 313397BH3 50.000,000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 375,000,000 LAO - LOCAL AGENCY OBLIGATIONS 850,000 US DIST COURTHOUSE CERTS 1,785,000 MMF - MONEY MARKET FUND 1,000,000 - MED TERM NOTES 4 '10,0001,900 GENl=RAL ELECTRIC 2YrN7 82 10,000,000 GE CAPITAL GROUP 20,000,000 2.02 1/27/2006 2.11 3/15/2006 2.50 4/26/2006 3.00 5/26/2006 2.20 8/18/2006 2.00 3/2/2007 2.00 3/8/2007 2.10 4/12/2007 2.13 2.00 2.17 2.25 2.05 2.48 2.25 3.00 3.02 3.00 2'5 2.13 5,000,000 98.94 5,000,000 99.80 5,000,000 99.94 5,000,000 5,000,000 99.81 V- 98.56 5,000 000 98.68 116,273,118 1/21/2005 49,851,250 813,167 149,492,028 '2 4 7/29/2005 rites,:. 1/30/2006 �Ft+"1bi1Qf .. 2/17/2006 ,• 17'/21)06 2/28/2006 '2912906 3/29/2006 2/29/2000 3/30/2006 4/21/2006 7/24/2006 `T/2BAN'O6 9/14/2006 9/29/2006 10/19/2006 4/12/2007 1.41 2/16/2005 2.25 1/11/2005 2.27 1/25/2005 2 25 1/28/2005 2.26 2/1/2005 2.78 6/15/2020 2.00 1/30/2006 map° 20 000,000 9,908;250 7,846,154 9,99,13 5,000,000 99.72 99 66 98.94 98.91 96)91 99.03 5,000,000 99.09 3,200,000 98.75 5,000,000 99.69 10,000,000 98.47 10,000,000 99.13 5 000,000\ 99.66 Pklgdc 4,999,750 99.69 5,000,000 99.59 10,000,000 98.56 179,016,833 34.587,379 98.82 74,202,379 49,909 177,547,258 9,846,875 1 9,912,500 4,982,813 4,946,875 6,205,034 9,922,400 4,989,900 4,996,800 4,990,400 4,928,125 4,933,750 115,396,065 19,931,250 7,764,141 • �f4,X�•�.•�.,fq 149,492,028 2.18 (53,125 (68,084) 2.13 1.19 1.20 (77,600) (10,100) (3,200 (9,600) 4 .<' 71,875 (66,250) 2.56 2.22 (877,053) 2.02 1.06 2.56 1$,125} (68,750) 1.71 0.57 0.58 ,12,50 (82,013) 2.02 1.07 1.08 4,688) 4,951,563 (48,438) 2.17 1.11 1.13 4,954,688 (45,313) 2.25 1.14 1.16 2 962,500 37,500) 2 05 1 23 1.24 4,984,375 (15,625) 2 20 1.23 1 24 153,125) 2.48 1.29 1.30 1.07 1.30 1.32 3.00 1.38 1.40 2.20 0.13 1.63 0.17 2.17 3.01 2.12 2.18 2.28 • 1.60 0.09 (87,500) 2.35 1.53 1.56 (17)88) 3.00 1.66 1.70 4,984 375 (15,375) 3.02 1.70 1.75 4,979 688 20,313) 3.00 1.76 1.80 ,, 9,856250 (143,750) 2.53 2.22 2.28 34.587,379 74,202,379 576 99.82 49,909,576 49 908 569 99.82 49 906,250 99.81 49.865 028 99.73 373,830,840 850 000 100.00 1,785,000 t6ti°tmw ;o9 1,000,000 grOlOASC 10.000.000 98.78 20,000,000 49,908,569 49,906,250 49,865,028 373,830,840 850, 000 1,785,000 1,000,000 (1,469,575) 9,878.000 (122,000) 19,837,900 (162,100) 2.31 1.33 2.25 0.03 0.03 2.27 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 2.27 0.09 0.09 2.18 2.78 12.48 2.78 9.44 2.04 0.08 2.00 1.07 2.12 0.85 0.06 15.47 11.32 0.08 1.08 0.86 Page 3 of 4 50 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund December 31, 2004 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP PAR DESCRIPTION MUNI MUNICIPAL BONDS ( PU7 00t ' CC'6111##%, •' , 76886PAV5 1545.000 RCC GO BONDS 2004B AA-/Aa3 6,045,000 NCD- NEGOTIABLE CD 06 "" .:,000 BANK OFA`... 9497P1YW3 50,000.000 WELLS FARGO A1+/P1/E1 100,000,000 REPO- REPURCHASE AGREEMENT 250,0» ® �' ; MOf GAN STAN -1.c- 154 000 000 MERRILL LYNCH 404,000,000 TCD - TIME DEPOSITS 10,00;;10,000,000 TIME DEPOSITS CITIZENS BNS BNK 20,000,000 Total 3,277,675,000 'Local Agency Obligations have variable rate coupons, spread to the Pool. 'Modified Duration. The percentage price change of a security for a given change in yield. The higher the modified duration of smuriry, the higher its risk. COUPON MATURITY 3.63 8/1/2007 2.31 2/7/2005 BOOK VALUE/ PRICE 1,550,871 99.76 6,097,581 M. VALUE* GAIN/LOSS 1,541,307 (9,564) (53,394) 3.10 6,044,187 50,000.000 100.00 50.000.000 100,000,000 100,000,000 2.15 1/3/2005 154.000.000 100.00 154 000.000 404,000,000 2.50 4/11/2005 404,000,000 00.0;; 10,000,000 100.00 20,000,000 10.000.000 20,000,000 3,272,588,374 3,263,447,433 (9,140,941) 2.41 0.1U 2.35 YLD MAT/ M Dur.4 Avg. Life2 3.49 2.45 2.58 1.84 0.10 0.09 2.15 0.01 0.01 2.15 0.01 2.53 0.28 0.28 2.43 0.15 2.28 0.50 0.57 Page 4 of 4 51 flummery of Authorized Investments The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund was in FULL COMPLIANCE with the Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy. The County's Investment Policy is more restrictive than the California Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by the County's Investment Oversight Committee and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. California Government Code Investment Category Ma+imum Maturity Authorized %Limit Quality S&P/ Maximum Matur- Moody's ity LOCAL AGENCY BONDS U.S. TREASURY` CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY DEBT FEDERAL AGENCIES 5 YEARS 5 YEARS BILLS OF EXCHANGE 270 DAYS COMMERCIAL PAPS CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS REVERSE REPOS CaITRUST SHORT TERM FUND CURED BANK DEPOSITS MORTGAGE PASS - THROUGH SECURITIE 5 YEARS 92 DAYS N/A 5 YEARS N/A NO LIMIT NO LIMIT ec 40% (1) 30% 20% N/A NO LIMIT NO LIMIT N/A 3 YEARS 3 YEARS 180 DAYS 1 YEAR 60 DAYS DAILY LIQUIDITY 1 YEAR 3 YEARS Coun Investment Polic Authorized % Quality S&P/ Limit Moody's 15%/ $150MM 2.5% 30% 25% MAX 10% MAX 2% 0% MAX 1 No more than 30% of this category may be invested with any one commercial bank 2 Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days 3 0r must have an investment advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of $500,000,000. IActual Riverside Portfolio % A/A2/A INVESTMENT GRADE Al/P1/F1 A1/P1/F1 N/A Board Approved LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS 0.19% 1 0.00% 0.00% 3.68% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% Proiected Cash Flow The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. Based upon projected cash receipts and matu- rating investments, there are sufficient Funds to meet future cash flow disbursements over the next 12 months. Monthly Month Receipts Monthly Disbmts Difference Required Mat. Invest Balance Actual Inv. Maturities Avail. To Invest> 1Yr. 01/2005 192.7 Totals 7,737.8 8,473.0 (735.2) 968.3 2,313.8 2,294.7 29.66'2 70.91% 70.32% THIS COMPLL i E E i- REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFO N GOVERNMENT CODE 53646 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 6E • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Committee FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended January 31, 2005. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 14, 2004, the Commission approved the Interfund Loan Policy and adopted Resolution No. 04-009 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans". The Commission requested that interfund loan activity be reported on a monthly basis. The attached report details all interfund loan activity through January 31, 2005. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of January 31, 2005 are $575,000. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report Agenda Item 6E 53 • • • Riverside County Transportati on Commi ssion Interfund Loan Activity Report F or peri od ended January 31, 2005 A mount Maturity Date Commissioned Date of Loan of Loan Date Lending Fund Borrowing Fund Purpose of Loan Appro ved April 2, 2003 $ 300,000 July 1, 2006 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Measure A - WC LSR (227) Advance to make repairs and March 12, 2003 improvements to Railroad Canyon Road March 4, 2004 275,000 July 1, 2009 Measure A - WC Commuter Measure A - WC Highway (222) Additional local match for the SR71 December 10, 2003 Assistance (226) Widening/Animal Crossing Project Total $ 575,000 AGENDA ITEM 6F • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request to Increase the TUMF Loan Amount Route 91/Green River Interchange Project on the State PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve a $1.141 million increase to the TUMF loan for the SR 91/Green River Interchange project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This item has been revised to include information that was received after the Plans and Programs Committee meeting. The change revises the amount of the TUMF increase from $551,000 to $1,141,000 to include the replacement of Traffic Congestion Relief funds. Staff is requesting a $1.141 million increase to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) loan (from $13.4 million to $14.541 million) to replace State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Interregional Improvement Program (IIP), and Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) funds programmed for construction capital costs on the SR 91/Green River Interchange project. At its May 7, 2004 retreat, the Commission approved a $13.4 million TUMF loan to cover delayed HP funds. The loan payback included the commitment of future federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for TUMF projects such as the Mid County Parkway Corridor or the State Route 79 realignment. The SR 91/Green River Interchange project is also funded with RIP and TCR funds that were originally proposed for programming in FY 2005-06. Due to budget constraints, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) moved the $3.889 million of RIP funds and $590,000 of TCR funds to match up with the IIP funds programmed in FY 2007-08. Therefore, it is necessary to include the replacement of RIP and TCR funds along with the IIP funds to keep the project on schedule for construction in FY 2005-06. Agenda Item 6F 55 Recently Caltrans informed us that the construction support costs can remain funded under the IIP program. This lowers the IIP replacement amount to $10.062 million. Adding this to the RIP amount of $3.889 million and the TCR amount of $590,000 the total construction capital that will be replaced by TUMF funds is $14.541 million. Upon approval of this action, a STIP amendment and AB 3090 request will be presented to the CTC in May 2005 identifying the 60/215 East Junction as the AB 3090 replacement project in FY 2007-08. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: N/A Amount: $ 14,541,000 Source of Funds: TUMF Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 210-72/73-12401 Advances Receivable Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ 4` 1,2,vz o- Date: 03/08/05 • • • Agenda Item 6F 56 AGENDA ITEM 6G • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Technical Advisory Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: County of Riverside Transportation Enhancement Funds Request BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve an additional $286,119 of TEA funds for the County of Riverside's I-10/Monterey and I-10/Washington Interchange landscaping projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff received a letter from the County of Riverside regarding the status of a previously approved Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) project, landscaping at the I-10/Monterey and Washington Interchanges. The Commission previously approved $707,571 for this project and bids were opened on December 22, 2004. The low bid was significantly higher than the engineer's estimate due to the recent increase in steel and concrete costs. The County is requesting an additional $286,119 of TEA funds to cover the difference so a contract can be awarded. RCTC's policy concerning cost increases allows agencies an additional ten percent of the approved federal funds. However, local agencies have experienced delays with completing environmental documents, thus resulting in delays in obligating funds. If funds are not obligated in a timely manner, they will be subject to reprogramming by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) at the end of the year. Therefore, in order to prevent the chance of losing funds it is in the Commission's best interest to consider an exception. Agenda Item 6G 57 At its February 14, 2005 meeting, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) approved the County's request given that there are sufficient funds to cover the cost increase without impacting other current TEA projects. Staff concurs with the TAC's recommendation since the County can obligate the funds in a timely manner upon the Commission's approval. This will help reduce the balance subject to reprogramming in the upcoming months. Attachment: Letter from the County of Riverside • Agenda Item 6G 58 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department January 31, 2005 Ms. Shirley Medina, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 S. Lemon St, Third floor Riverside, CA 92501 George A. Johnson, P.E. Director of Transportation • FEB 0 1 2005 70588 r -ti i, IC I Gil RwIii4Si0E COUN1° ANSa:":R,ATi0ii COMMISSION RE: 1-10 /Monterey & Washington Interchanges Landscaping Dear Ms. Medina: Riverside County is the lead agency for the landscaping project at the 1-10 /Monterey & Washington Interchanges. Funding for the project includes federal TEA funds that were approved through a competitive process conducted by the RCTC. Federal TEA funds in the amount of $707,571 were approved for the project. Bids were opened for the project on December 22, 2004 and the low bid was found to be substantially higher than budgeted due to increased costs in steel and concrete. Based upon the low bid we have calculated that the amount of federal funds needed to fully fund the project, including contingencies, is $993,690. Riverside County requests an increase in the amount of federal TEA funds for this project in the amount of $286,119 for a new total amount of $993,690. We are holding award of the construction contract pending a determination of funding availability and attention to this matter would be appreciated. Please feel free to contact Mr. Juan Perez, Deputy Director of Transportation, if there are any questions. Sincerely, Geor A. Johnso Director of Trans•:rtation RKN: cc: Supervisor Roy Wilson Neil Nilchan Roy Null 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 955-6740 P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-3198 K.16.00 59 AGENDA ITEM 6H • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Expansion of CommuteSmart.info Traffic Map PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-41-541 with Iteris, Inc. to expand the Inland Empire portion of the real time traffic information map hosted on the regional rideshare website, www.CommuteSmart.info, in an amount not to exceed $80,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On January 24, 2005, www.CommuteSmart.info was unveiled to the public as the regions' one stop shopping center on the Internet for regional rideshare and commute information. Working in partnership with its sister agencies in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, the Commission contracted for the design and maintenance of the website and is currently hosting it on behalf of the five county partnership. By leveraging the use of existing services and products, the Commission was able to place many different rideshare and commute information services on the website for a relatively low start-up cost. One of these services was the incorporation of a real time traffic information map. This map was originally developed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACoDPW) for a project located in the City of El Segundo. The map was provided to the Commission for incorporation into the CommuteSmart website at no charge by the LACoDPW. The map is interactive for the user and, utilizing data feeds from Caltrans, allows a viewer to obtain estimated travel times as well as identify any trouble areas on the regions' freeways and the route of their choice. Agenda Item 6H 60 While serving a relatively large area of Southern California, the LACoDPW map was limited to the western metropolitan area of the Inland Empire. Recognizing its limitations for commuters in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, staff attended a meeting with the LACoDPW and their contractor, Iteris, Inc., of Anaheim, California, on February 3, 2005 in order to discuss how the map and its functionality might be increased to better serve Inland Empire constituents. On February 9, 2005, staff demonstrated the CommuteSmart.info website during the Commission meeting. At that time, the Commission also noted the limited Inland Empire functionality of the map and requested staff to address the matter. Based on the Commission's direction, staff requested that Iteris, Inc. prepare a proposal to expand the Inland Empire map. The proposal was delivered to staff on February 22, 2005 and is the subject of this recommendation. The proposal contains a scope of work and technical specification which will accomplish the following: 1. Expand the functionality of the map into the south Riverside County areas though the 1-15 corridor past the county line and into the San Diego metropolitan area. 2. Expand the functionality of the map east through the SR 60 and 1-10 corridors to include the pass cities and the Coachella Valley. 3. Expand the functionality of the map northward from the Coachella area, through 29 Palms, Yucca Valley to the 1-15 corridor northward to the California/Nevada state line. 4. Include in the northern expansion, the mountain areas of Big Bear westerly to Wrightwood. Map functionality of the expansion areas will conform to that of the current map when possible. In areas where no congestion and speed data sources are available from Caltrans, the minimum map functionality shall be CHP incident reporting and Changeable Message Sign displays. It should be noted that expansion items 3 and 4 have been requested by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) which contracts with the Commission to provide their County's commuter assistance program. The costs associated with that work will be reimbursed by SANBAG and represent approximately 30% of the total proposed cost from Iteris for the work. • Agenda Item 6H 61 • • • At the time of preparing this agenda item, staff is in the process of finalizing the scope of work and costs with Iteris, Inc. for Agreement No. 05-41-541. Staff will report to the Commission any changes that may be necessary as a result of on -going negotiations. The standard Commission consultant services agreement will be used, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $80,000 Source of Funds: Commuter Assistance Measure "A" Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 226 41 65520 P2107 Commuter Assistance Measure "A" Fiscal Procedures Approved: ,` Date: 02/22/2005 Attachment: Iteris, Inc. Proposal Agenda Item 6H 62 ITERIS. • February 22, 2005 Robert Yates Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Subject: CommuteSmart.info Traffic Map Enhancements Proposal Dear Mr. Yates, Iteris, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to deliver enhancements to the traffic maps included on the www.commutesmart.info website. Through the delivery of these traffic maps, the county transportation commissions are able to empower their constituents with information to make their daily commutes more predictable. The improvements that are proposed in this proposal will further enhance these services. • • This proposal is structured with a baseline enhancement program and two optional tasks. If there are any questions regarding the content of this proposal, don't hesitate to contact me for clarifications. I can be reached at (714) 780-7267 or via email at mnn@iteris.com. Once again I want to thank you for this opportunity to enhance the service that thousands of Southern California commuters have come to enjoy. Sincerely, ea/4Z) Mark Nuaimi Senior Program Manager Iteris, Inc. 63 ITERIS. COMMUTESMART.INFO PROPOSAL • BACKGROUND A number of the local county transportation agencies have created a single clearinghouse of information to assist the local commuters in the Southern California area. Marketed under the Internet site of www.commutesmart.info, agencies like Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) are providing a "one -stop" shop for area commuters interested in rideshare, transit, and traveler information services. • • OPPORTUNITY The www.commutesmart.info website has enjoyed tremendous interest since its introduction. There is additional interest in making enhancements to the traffic maps that are referenced as part of this site. Iteris, Inc. operates and maintains the Internet traffic maps known as CommunityView. These maps provide traffic information for much of the 5 county region. There is expressed interest among the CommuteSmart.info organizations to expand the coverage areas of the Internet traffic maps. Specifically, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has asked Iteris, Inc. for a fixed -price cost proposal to accomplish the following: ❑ Expand the traffic maps north into the high desert of San Bernardino County providing coverage along the I-15 north to state line; ❑ Provide an enhanced view of the San Bernardino mountain communities; ❑ Expand the traffic maps east into the low desert providing coverage into the Coachella Valley area; ❑ Expand the traffic maps south to the Riverside County line just south of Temecula; ❑ (Optional Task 1) Expand the traffic maps south into San Diego County and provide comparable functionality to the current traffic maps; 64 _TERIS'. COMMUTESMART.INFO PROPOSAL • • • PROPOSAL Iteris, Inc. is proud to propose to the Riverside County Transportation Commission the following approach to the enhancement of the www.commutesmart.info traveler information site: ❑ Task 1 -- Map Views Generation -- Iteris, Inc. will generate up to six additional traffic map views to provide the expanded coverage into the high and low deserts and into the Temecula area. These will include: 1. Cajon Pass to north of Victorville (20 hours) 2. Victorville to Barstow (20 hours) 3. Barstow to state line (20 hours) 4. Moreno Valley to Coachella Valley (20 hours) 5. Lake Elsinore to San Diego county line (20 hours) 6. San Bernardino County Mountain communities (40 hours) ❑ Task 2 — Link Association -- Given that much of this area has no traffic congestion information currently collected by Caltrans, the information presented will likely be limited to incident information from the California Highway Patrol and Changeable Message Signs (where deployed) -- travel time information will not be based upon real-time data. However, map segments need to be defined to allow for data addition in the future when available (80 hours); ❑ Task 3 — Deployment Related Activity -- There are certain tasks associated with integrating these enhancements to the current application. They include: ❑ Modifications to current map selector tile to incorporate new expanded views (20 hours); ❑ Integration / test / deployment (16 hours); ❑ Optional Task 1 (San Diego coverage) -- Iteris would expand coverage into the San Diego area and develop up to 2 views of that area. To accomplish this, the following activity would be required: • Map view generation / artwork development (40 hours); • Data collection processing -- Caltrans D11 data access & CHP data collection modification (80 hours); • Map link ID process to support travel time, congestion association with specific segments, and incident association with specific segments (160 hours); ITERIS. COMMUTESMART.INFO PROPOSAL • STAFFING Mr. Mark Nuaimi will serve as the task manager for completion of these enhancements. As such, Mr. Nuaimi will oversee the project activities and quality control activities of the task products. He will be assisted by Sr. Software Engineer Gary Hsu and Software Engineer Nicholas Hartman during this development / deployment process. COST ESTIMATE The total costs for this effort are detailed per task and shown in the table below. The activity required for the deployment will be complete within two months of notice to proceed. • • Task Task Mgr. Hours Sr. Software Engineer Hours Software Engineer Total Hours Cost 1.0 Map Views Generation 4 112 24 140 $21,560 2.0 Link Association 4 40 36 80 $10,880 3.0 Deployment Related Activity 2 26 8 36 $5,430 REQUIRED PROJECT SUBTOTAL 256 $37,70 Optional Task 1 (San Diego Coverage) 10 200 70 220 $41,700 TOTAL PROJECT (ALL OPTIONS) $79,570 PAYMENT TERMS This proposal is offered as a fixed price estimate. Payment will occur once successful deployment of the traffic map enhancements is accomplished. An invoice and status report will be generated to substantiate this milestone. A separate invoice will be developed at the completion of the Optional task 1. A status report will document this milestone. AGENDA ITEM 61 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Beaumont's Request to Reprogram Funds and Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the City of Beaumont's request to reprogram $150,000 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for the purchase of a fixed route vehicle; and, 2) Amend the City of Beaumont's FY 2004-2005 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In FY 2004-05, the City of Beaumont's transit system (Beaumont) was approved to receive $200,000 in STA funding to purchase two 16 passenger Dial -A -Ride (DAR) vehicles. Since that time, Beaumont implemented new transit services resulting in an unexpected increase in passengers on Route 3 serving the Beaumont Commercial area as well as the residential areas of Beaumont and Cherry Valley. (Route 3 ridership increased from an average of 50 to 100 passengers per day). As a result of the increased ridership, Beaumont is requesting approval to amend its FY 2004-2005 SRTP to purchase one DAR vehicle at a cost of $50,000 and reprogram the balance of funds ($150,000) to purchase a 28 passenger fixed route Compressed Natural Gas vehicle. The larger capacity vehicle will accommodate the increased passenger demand on Route 3 but will still be small enough to negotiate Cherry Valley's residential areas. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: N/A Amount: N/A Source of Funds: N/A Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i/f1,1,,,t,.0 Date: 02/22/05 Agenda Item 61 67 • AGENDA ITEM 6J • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency's Request to Reprogram Funds Construction of a Compressed Natural Gas Station for PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request to reprogram $218,484 in Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 funds, $134,463 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds, $11,158 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds, and $32,724 in miscellaneous lease revenues for the construction of a Compressed Natural Gas Station; 2) Advance $97,136 of LTF funds pending receipt of FTA's Section 5307 funds; and, 3) Amend RTA's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October 2003, RTA received board approval to reprogram several funding sources in the amount of $1,534,600 to construct a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueling station at its Third Street facility. This request was approved by the Commission in November 2003. Subsequently, RTA was informed that approximately $102,864 of those funds were not available, resulting in a revised project fund balance of $1,431,196. In September 2004, RTA released an Invitation for Bid (IFB) to prospective vendors. Through that process, construction costs were identified as $1,589,669. Additional project costs of $238,356 were also identified for station design, Agenda Item 6J 68 heat exchangers, and the installation of a gas line resulting in a total project cost of $1,828,025. The following provides a summary of the current costs and available funding: $1,828,025 Total project cost $1,431,196 Funds previously approved $ 396,829 Additional funds required to complete project As summarized below, RTA is requesting approval to reprogram $396,829 from various grants and lease revenues to cover the additional costs of the project: $218,484 Federal Section 5307 Funds $134,463 State Transit Assistance Funds $ 11,158 Local Transportation Funds $ 32,724 RTA's Miscellaneous Lease Revenues $396,829 Total funds requested to be reprogrammed to complete project Funding is available to reprogram from existing grants consisting of facility improvements, the Bus Rapid Transit Study and RTA's lease revenues. Included in RTA's original request of October, 2003, was $100,000 in FTA's Section 5307 funds although only $97,136 was available to allocate. RTA recently applied for the federal funds through its FY 2004-05 grant application but has not yet received the funding. As a result, RTA is requesting that the Commission advance LTF funds pending receipt of the federal funding. If approved, upon receipt of the federal funding, RTA's annual LTF allocation will be reduced by $97,136. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: N/A Amount: N/A Source of Funds: N/A Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: \liti4j,44.41 2.c Date: 02/22/2005 • Agenda Item 6J 69 AGENDA ITEM 6K • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: SunLine Transit Agency's Request for Funding to Conduct a Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate up to $200,000 in Local Transportation Planning Funds (LTF) to the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) to conduct a Comprehensive Operational Analysis; and, 2) Amend SunLine's FY 2004-05 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SunLine is requesting financial assistance to hire a consultant to conduct a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) of its transit services. The Coachella Valley's population continues to increase; however, due to financial constraints, SunLine has made minimal service changes over the past ten years. While some service frequencies have increased, many newly developed areas have not received adequate transit services. At the February 9, 2005 Commission meeting, $210,480 in LTF was identified for RCTC through the mid -year budget adjustment process. Staff is requesting that up to $200,000 of those funds be allocated to SunLine to cover the cost of the COA. If approved, the COA would include a demographic analysis of the service area, growth projections, zoning and other potential service issues that have resulted due to growth in the area. The COA would also review SunLine's operations and recommend potential improvements that would assist management in identifying needs, potential areas for improved cost effectiveness as well as areas in which ridership improvements should occur. Agenda Item 6K 70 If approved, it is anticipated that SunLine will release a Request for Proposal to hire a consultant to conduct the operational analysis and that completion of the study will occur no later than December 31, 2005. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $200,000 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 106-65-86205 — LTF Planning Expenditures Fiscal Procedures Approved: \)- `4 Date: 02/22/2005 • Agenda Item 6K 71 AGENDA ITEM 6L • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Goods Movement Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Goods Movement Update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Southern California is the gateway to much of the world, as goods move through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, the busiest ports in the nation. While the movement of goods is critical for business and the creation of jobs, it has an increasingly severe impact on the quality of life in Southern California as more and more goods are shipped through our local ports. In addition, Eastern Riverside County also serves as a NAFTA corridor and will also face increasing truck traffic. The Goods Movement Update provides the Committee with information on current activities to provide trade congestion relief. Trade congestion relief includes capacity improvements to the rail and highway corridor as well as mitigation of community impacts such as grade separation projects. SCAG and LAEDC Policy Paper During Governor Schwarzenegger's Fall 2004 visit to Japan, he was criticized by government and business leaders for allowing congestion at the San Pedro Bay ports to impede flow of goods from Asia to US markets. On his return, the Governor tasked Business, Transportation, and Housing Secretary Sunne Wright McPeak with developing a strategy on this issue. In late November the Secretary asked SCAG to work with the LA County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC), the region's transportation agencies, goods movement system operators and other stakeholders to develop a policy paper describing the region's needs. RCTC's Executive Director contributed to the paper (see attached). Agenda Item 6L 72 The policy paper and commitment letter outline the following principles and strategies the region has agreed to follow: • Environmental and community impact mitigation must be integral to the goods movement program; • Improvements to the goods movement system should not come at the expense of the other transportation system investments; • Investments in the regional goods movement system should be made to realize regional benefits that have statewide implications; • Funding for these investments must begin now because many key projects will take years to deliver. Without action, congestion will worsen. And; • Without leadership and collective action at the state and national levels, we will not be able to realize these benefits. In addition the SCAG policy paper, public and private transportation leaders developed a summary "commitment" paper which summarizes the principles and outlines deliverables. Included in the deliverables is an initial list of goods movement projects for the region. RCTC staff recommends the Riverside County list include Alameda Corridor East (ACE) grade separations, improvements to the SR 60 and 1-10, and the Van Buren Interchange Project outlined by March JPA at the Commission meeting earlier this month. Attachments: 1) Southern California Goods Movement Program: A Public -Private Partnership 2) SCAG: Southern California Regional Strategy for Goods Movement • • Agenda Item 6L 73 • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GOODS MOVEMENT PROGRAM A Public -Private Partnership OUR COMMITMENT MISSION The mission of the undersigned Principals is to establish this public -private partnership to evaluate and propose an efficient, secure and integrated goods movement system capable of handling the rapidly rising tide of international trade and domestic freight with sensitivity to the mobility needs and environmental interests of the state, region and local communities. GUIDING PRINCIPLES 1. A well -planned, expanded and efficient goods movement system in California is vital to maximizing the economic benefits of projected trade growth, both for the State's economy and the United States as a whole. At least 547,000 jobs in Southern California and $17 billion over 25 years in just state sales and income taxes may all be foregone without sufficient capacity improvements. 2. Environmental, quality of life, and mobility issues associated with the forecasted import/export trade growth will be a primary focus of the planning and approval process. 3. Planning and investment as a result of the work of this partnership must begin immediately because many key projects will take years to deliver. Without action, congestion will worsen. 4. Goods movement investments made as a result of the work of this partnership must not draw from other existing programs like Proposition 42. Similarly, any new revenues that are established to further goods -movement initiatives must not be diverted for other purposes. 5. Leadership and collective action at both the federal, state and regional levels will enable California to capitalize on new economic opportunities and maintain its world leadership in goods movement. 6. Public sector investment must deliver benefit to the federal, state, and regional stakeholders, while private sector investment must deliver private sector benefits. OBJECTIVES 1. Maintain California's preeminence as an import-export gateway. Capturing an adequate share of the expected cargo growth will create good jobs, many of them paying wages commensurate or greater than those in industries losing jobs, such as manufacturing. 2. Optimize the mobility and environmental benefits. A well -planned goods movement system can deliver significant environmental benefits. Mobility and environmental issues such as air quality must be managed both statewide and regionwide to ensure that full benefits that enhance quality of life are actually achieved. 3. Accelerate planning for capacity expansion. Projects that can begin delivering benefits in the near term must be driven to rapid completion, while longer -term planning and projects should be accelerated. Operating efficiency improvements should be implemented as soon as possible to maximize use of existing infrastructure. 4. Develop effective funding mechanisms. The federal, state, and region's goods movement community must work together to develop and tap creative funding mechanisms that allow beneficial infrastructure projects to proceed rapidly. DELIVERABLES The Principals will meet as soon as possible to discuss the following deliverables with the goal of agreement on each in accordance with the mission, guiding principles and objectives outlined above. 1. An Initial List of Types of Goods Movement Projects. The Principals will work together as a system -wide team to seek agreement on a list of the types of goods movement projects for which the public private partnership could develop a funding plan. The list may be revisited periodically to ensure it continues to represent the region's priorities. 2. A Financing and Funding Plan. The Principals will seek agreement to identify potential funding mechanisms for the different types of projects. A full range of traditional and innovative funding and finance concepts will be considered, including, for example, market -neutral public and private fees and tax -credit financing from the public sector and at the Federal level an increment of the Customs Duties collected on waterborne goods. 3. An Environmental and Project Delivery Plan. The Principals should explore and develop a strategy for implementing alternatives for accelerating project • • 75 • • development and delivery, because faster completion of goods movement projects will ultimately save money while improving the environment sooner. 4. A Legislative Plan. The Principals will outline a legislative plan to pursue initiatives necessary to complete and fund the types of projects in accordance with the developed funding plan. To the extent possible, the involved Principals will seek to speak with one voice on goods movement issues at the local, state and federal levels. The Principals recognize that it will be more effective if they reach an agreement on working together toward a single legislative plan. 5. A Goods Movement Economic Development Plan. The Principals agree to outline a range of methodologies to assure that the maximum, appropriate economic development flows from goods movement projects. 6. A Community Stakeholder Outreach and Public Education Plan. The Principals will outline a goods movement -related community stakeholder outreach plan to solicit input, promote and advance the agreed upon proposals. We agree to the mission and guiding principles of the public -private partnership and will work together to further the partnership's objectives and deliverables. Agreed on January 25, 2005 THE PRINCIPALS Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority ACE Construction Authority Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Metrolink OnTrac Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Union Pacific Railroad Ex OFFICIO MEMBERS USDOT/U.S. Maritime Administration Port of Hueneme Port of Los Angeles Port of Long Beach Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Venture County Transportation Commission INITIAL LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS • Academia Representatives-Metrans (USC and CalState Long Beach) • Air Quality Management District • American Association of Port Authorities • Automobile Club of Southern America • Caltrans • California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC) • Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors • Council of Governments/Subregions o Arroyo Verdugo o Gateway Cities o Las Virgenes/Malibu o San Fernando Valley/North Los Angeles County o San Gabriel Valley o Southbay Cities o Westside ■ Elected Officials/Representatives • Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration • Freight Industry Representatives (trucking/railroad/airlines) • Future Ports • Goods Movement Committee of the Mayor's Transportation Taskforce-Los Angeles • Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce • Los Angeles County Department of Public Works • Los Angeles Department of Transportation • Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) • Los Angeles -San Diego Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) • Los Angeles World Airports • Mobility 21 Freight Subcommittee Representative(s) • Pacific Merchant Shipping Association ■ Southern California Association of Governments • UC Irvine Institute of Transportation Studies, Center for Urban Infrastructure • Waterfront Coalition • • • 77 • Southern California Regional Strategy for Goods Movement: A Plan for Action Southern California's trade infrastructure is a global gateway that serves the rest of the nation. In Fall 2004, Southern California experienced a bottleneck in freight movement through the San Pedro Bay ports. Ships waited days to enter the ports with goods for the holiday season bound for stores in California and beyond, and some ships diverted to other West Coast ports. Through a combination of short-term actions, this immediate crisis is being relieved. First, the longshoremen's union has added 3,000 new hires to keep goods moving from the container ships. Second, a new program called PierPass will collect container fees to fund extended gate hours. The addition of five new off-peak shifts will make productive use of more hours of the day. The ports are taking other actions to increase the use of rail to move goods, keeping trucks off the highways during peak traffic hours. Third, $2 billion in near -term construction projects are under way, including rail - highway grade crossing separations and truck climbing lanes, that will keep goods moving through the region once they leave the ports. Negotiations are occurring for the implementation of demonstration projects, such as a shuttle train that will relieve highway congestion related to goods movement. These short-term actions are only the beginning. We will need to be, and will continue to be, vigilant over the next three to six years to make sure that these actions continue to keep the goods moving. In the meantime, the Governor and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation have the opportunity to plan for the future, when the volume of freight transportation through Southern California will double or even triple. Our success is contingent on our ability to address four overarching issues and move ahead immediately: 1. We must address community concerns over air pollution, health impacts, and other impacts of freight movement by ship, truck, and rail. To assure this, only projects that have environmental and community clearance can be brought forward. Acceleration of both the federal and state review processes is needed to facilitate such an effort. Further, it is important that the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the California Air Resources Board take a leadership role in reducing air pollution from the ports and related sources. It is also important that international standards for ship emissions be imposed through U.S. ratification of MARPOL Annex VI. So. Calif. Regional Strategy for Goods Movement - February 2005 Page 1 78 2. Goods movement projects must be funded through a variety of non-traditional means that do not compete with traditional transportation revenues. Other potential sources of funding include user or beneficiary fees, customs fees, tax credit instruments, private activity bonds, and federal loans and loan guarantees. The region has already requested over $1 billion in federal funding for Projects of National and Regional Significance through the reauthorization of TEA -21, but this is only a small portion of the total funding needed for the regional system. 3. Projects must be facilitated through the use of innovative procurement arrangements, such as the design -build method, that compress the project delivery timeline. Changes to state law are needed to make this process more widely applicable. 4. In achieving these ends, the region and state must speak with one voice to the federal government. The Governor's leadership and his initiative to collaborate with the White House, Secretary of Transportation, and Congress on these issues are essential to success. With these tools in place, Southern California can proceed to implement a variety of short- and long-term actions that will respond to the growing demand for goods movement while mitigating community impact. By 2010, the region will need additional freight rail capacity to keep pace with goods movement demand. New intermodal facilities will also be needed to transfer goods between truck and rail. Dedicated truck lanes should be added to several area freeways to increase the speed and safety of goods moving by highway. Again, these projects must be accompanied by mitigation of local impacts — for example, through the separation of at -grade crossings and the widespread adoption of cleaner fuels. The attached map shows needed additions to the Southern California goods movement system. Important as these investments are to the region's quality of life, they have a significant economic benefit for the region and for the state. Logistics jobs are high - paying — more on average than construction or manufacturing. Just by investing in new freight rail capacity and truck lanes, Southern California could add over 450,000 logistics -related jobs and produce over $17.6 billion in additional federal, state, and local tax revenue by 2035. Thus, these investments can help balance the state budget. By supporting and implementing these goods movement actions, we have the opportunity to improve regional air quality and shape a more prosperous future for California. So. Calif. Regional Strategy for Goods Movement - February 2005 Page 2 • 79 • Needed Additions to the Goods Movement System P lamed Improvements ® Freight Rag Capady nn,.:, Grade separations mama Potential Truck Lane Route' OW East-West Corridor ram4tl Tn. Lam..., rcnaa,t Other Highway ImPrwvnenl --..*�- Intermodal Access 1 Port A" Major Airpod d Pod of Entry - Freeway Freghl Rai am Alameda Corridor ' Regenlam L5, role and tape may change dgwndrg on the nark lathe Mo16Cany Gorda Movement Anion Plan. So. Calif. Regional Strategy for Goods Movement - February 2005 Page 3 80 AGENDA ITEM 6M • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Claudia Chase, Property Agent THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement No. 05-51-542 with March Joint Powers Authority for the Exchange of Property related to the San Jacinto Branch Line BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-51-542 with March Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for the exchange of property related to the San Jacinto Branch Line (APN 297-160-002 and portions of APNs 294-060-005, 297-110-004, and 297-100-003); and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 1993, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (ATSF), currently known as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, sold the 38 -mile San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) to the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Between 1992 and 1994, Caltrans relocated less than a mile of the SJBL rail right-of-way for the construction of 1-215; the rail line moved from the east side of 1-215 to the west side in an area near Alessandro Boulevard. The relocation of the SJBL resulted in remnant parcels along the "Old 1-215" rail right-of-way. The Commission property management consultant, Epic Land Solutions, recommended that the remnant parcels be disposed of in three phases. In September of last year, the Commission authorized the disposal of Phase 1, which resulted in the surplus of approximately 14 - 19 acres north of Alessandro Boulevard in the unincorporated area of the County. Agenda Item 6M 81 Caltrans and March JPA Property Transfer Needed While Caltrans, ATSF, and the United States Air Force executed the original agreement for the relocation of the SJBL, March JPA became the successor to the US Air Force property. However, the property was never conveyed to the Commission. As a result, a portion of the current SJBL is located largely on property owned by March JPA, which is the subject of this agenda item. Over the last twelve months, staff has worked with March JPA on a property exchange to trade a portion of the "Old 1-215" (Phase 2) rail right-of-way for the new rail right-of-way on which the rail line is constructed. The new right-of-way is to accommodate two tracks and be protected from unhistorical drainage. The disposition of the balance of the "Old 1-215" rail right-of-way, or Phase 3, anticipates transferring the parcels to Caltrans for future highway projects (i.e., widening of the Cactus Avenue Interchange). Upon the completion of the disposition of Phase 2, staff will bring a draft agreement to the Commission for review and approval of the disposition of Phase 3. Phase 2 Properties for Exchange The APNs to be conveyed to March JPA by RCTC are 297-160-002 and portions of 294-060-005, 297-110-004, and 297-100-003. In return, March JPA will convey to RCTC the new rail right-of-way, which the Branch Line currently occupies. (No APN's exist for the rail right-of-way, however, the legal description and plat map will serve as documentation for the right-of-way). Conveyance of the new rail right-of-way is also critical for the Perris Valley Line Project, as all needed right-of-way must be acquired prior to construction of the project. Attachment: 1-215 Pending Transactions Map • Agenda Item 6M 82 PHASE 2 Legend CALTRANS to March JPA March JPA to ROTC RCTC to March JPA RCTC to CALTRANS CALTRANS to RCTC Potential RCTC Surplus Property Proposed ROW Boundary 1-215 Pending Transactions — = Phase 2 = Phase 2 Eucalyptus Cottonwood Alessandro Blvd Epic Land Solutions, Inc. 0 03 .47 0.14 021 Dial. 470 8' PHASE 2 {"' A�4wwls livt Cactus Ave r opal ai m ma,a awe. as iumsierxe scr F 4mwee«xo-wawvw awataaamt try aa ,a.�.sre+ &ear�mmmM.0 mm,a wwaaawnw • AGENDA ITEM 6N • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Claudia Chase, Property Agent Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Surplus Corona Depot BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Declare the property identified as the Corona Depot, (.97 acres) located at 150 Depot Drive in Corona, APN 119-320-039 as surplus; and, 2) Authorize staff to initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period and if no interest is expressed, authorize the Executive Director to offer the parcel for sale. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 1993, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, currently known as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), sold various parcels of land along the San Bernardino and San Jacinto subdivision corridors to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). Various contracts, leases and licenses with individuals, corporations, political bodies, companies and public utilities authorizing their use or occupancy of Santa Fe property were assigned to RCTC as a result of this transaction. Included in the assignment is the property known as the Corona Depot. The Corona Depot is located in the north -central portion of the City of Corona and at the southern edge of the North Main Street District Specific Plan project area. This is a mixed use commercial and industrial district bisected in a north -south direction by North Main Street. The Corona Depot is situated on the north side of Grand Boulevard, contiguous west of the North Main Street overpass, and adjacent south of the BNSF Railroad and Metrolink commuter rail lines. Agenda Item 6N 84 The subject consists of 42,514 square feet of land and a 5,572 square foot former Atchison, Topeka 8E Santa Fe Railway South Riverside (Corona) Depot building currently leased to the Suko Smith Corporation for use as a bar with a kitchen and appurtenant storage for an annual fee of $19,200. Site improvements include asphalt paved parking areas, light standards, landscaping and fencing. It is further identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 119-320-039. The building improvements, Spanish Colonial Revival architecture style, were originally constructed in 1937. In December 1999, the building was surveyed for historical significance by Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc. The results of this survey indicate the building is historically significant at the local level. It is further noted that it is probably eligible for the State Historic Register and may be eligible for the National Register. However, it is not currently listed on either registers. Staff has identified this property to be of no future use for RCTC and recommends the Commission declare the property as surplus. The action of declaring the property as surplus is required by state statute. If approved by the Commission, an appraisal of the property will be performed during the 60 -day public agency notification period. All offers received will be subject to an analysis of the cost - benefit of continuing to lease the property versus selling the property. Any final recommendation to sell the property will be brought back to the Commission for authorization. Attachment: Assessor's Map • • Agenda Item 6N 85 POR . SO. R/VER SIDE COL. L AND S POR . C/TY OF CORONA 8_ 4/ TR. A. 004-/4/ 1/ 9-32 THIS MAP /5 /OR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY BLAINE 0410. A00/44 A103//0 40 44/0 0 14. 4 4/f0 0. • RIY 0/AP SO OOA ASS ESSOR 'S NA P 8K/19 PG. 32 R /VERS/DE COUNTY CAL/F Q w TS" u' a'. ./ -sr. P.G SHE 8044J:I PA sr /.7 5Ac e. ti... 7 414„ .SB E 10/-33-9v Po, JO /71�6� 51 ,1:.a Z.95 Ac $ '. ® 33.3 '� " / Z. 4 , ,4jrN.40 1 1 .>9. 1.79k' , 3 .14A � E C 1 11/ , / , , , / / / , / , , " P97,40b /r / , , I , , , / / , / 1 / / / , / ! , .// /I // 11/115r4. r3v4. s3' SEX '. H04 -J 3.9✓ P(/ R' 2116. C' 414 .41 86 r4�+ L :4 e.4 4.A.0 4r.a OA rt //A0 0/00 5/03 A JO 400 4321.7 1FSrr n u 40,47 44, Agirr Any An. J41, 77 34,1 4 40,44 41144. 0 u 44.4 4 41 44 40 00 4, u M.B .9.' -BSB. So . Riverside Ca/ony Land s PM /02/78-80 Ports/Mop Na /5404 R M./03/37-39 /6938 P M. /43//3-/4 " 2/454 P M. /V/ 3 - 4 Of 23258 M. 8 293//4-/5 7RNO. " 26598-/ NO V /974 s ocr— dVN Sai OSS3SSV AGENDA ITEM 60 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Sheldon Peterson, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; Riverside Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of January averaged 4,623 which is up 206 (5%) from the month of December. The line has averaged an overall decrease of 22 riders from a year ago January 2004. January on -time performance averaged 82% inbound (-5% from December) and 70% outbound (-17% from December). There were 61 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of January, a 27 point increase from the month of December. Union Pacific continues to be the primary cause of delays; Metrolink staff is working directly with the railroad to try to improve performance. The following were the primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other TOTAL 31 5 4 21 51% 8% 6% 35% Agenda Item 60 87 Inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of January averaged 3,738 an increase of 578 riders or (18%) from the month of December. The line has averaged an increase of 1°/0 from a year ago January 2004. RCTC Staff is working with Metrolink to develop a specific marketing plan to attract new riders to the IEOC and 91 Lines from Riverside. Over the past few months, ridership has dropped and there is sufficient station and rail car capacity to increase ridership on these lines through a directed marketing effort. January on -time performance averaged 91 % inbound (-2% from December) and 88% outbound (-6% from December). There were 26 delays greater than five minutes during the month of January, an increase of 9 from the previous month. The primary causes were: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other TOTAL 5 7 3 11 19% 27% 12% 42% 91 Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of January averaged 1,808, up 157 riders or an increase of 10%, from the month of December. The line has averaged an increase of 10% from a year ago January 2004. January on -time performance averaged 87% inbound (-8% from December) and 94% outbound (-3% from December). There were 17 delays greater than five minutes during the month of January, an increase of 10% from December. The primary causes were: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other 5 4 1 7 29% 24% 6% 41% TOTAL • Agenda Item 60 88 • • Metrolink Glendale Incident — January 26, 2005 At approximately 6:05 a.m. the morning of January 26th, Metrolink Train #100 struck a Jeep Cherokee that was abandoned on the tracks 100 ft south of the Chevy Chase street crossing in Glendale. The vehicle was stuck under the cab car of train #100 and caused it to derail and fall off of the tracks into a parked Union Pacific work train. The force of the collision with the UP train caused train #100 to jack-knife and strike the side of passing train #901 causing it to derail on its side. Emergency crews responded very quickly and put out a diesel fire and rescued survivors. There were 11 confirmed fatalities, including the conductor of train #901, and over 100 injuries to passengers on the trains. After a quick investigation, it was determined that a man had put his car on the track in a suicide attempt and then escaped from the car before the train collided with it. The Glendale Police department handled the criminal investigation before the NTSB arrived. The investigation continued and the scene was released back to Metrolink on Friday January 28th to begin clean up and restoration of the damaged tracks. Train service was cancelled on the Ventura and Antelope Valley lines with limited bus bridge service available from the time of the incident until Monday, January 31St. The tracks were restored over the weekend and regular Metrolink service resumed on Monday. Ridership decreased due to the derailment and service disruption but has rebounded since the incident. In fact, the first Monday that the trains ran on the Ventura Line, there were riders who were involved in the accident returning to work via Metrolink. As follow up, Metrolink has taken the preemptive safety action to restrict access to the middle level seating areas on the lead passenger cars. Metrolink's 2004 On Board Survey Metrolink conducted its On Board Survey of weekday riders from April to June of 2004 and the final report was just released. The overall response rate was 90% with 13,470 surveys completed. The results indicate that 87% of riders use the train for work commute trips, 12% are non -work trips, and 1% are business appointment trips. The survey shows that 85% of riders are employed full time and the average number of days traveled per week is 4.3 days. Systemwide, the automobile availability percentage was 79%. It was higher for the Riverside Line at 85%, the IEOC Line at 84%, and the 91 Line at 81%. In a measure of ridership loyalty, the Riverside Line led the system with the 23% of the riders in the greater than 6 year category, the system average was 17%. The survey showed that systemwide, 66% of the riders use monthly passes, with 25% using 10 -trip tickets, 4% using round trip tickets, and 4% using one-way tickets. Agenda Item 60 89 The income level was categorized by the percentage of riders with annual household incomes over $50,000. The systemwide percentage was 71% over $50,000, the Riverside Line was at 78%, the IEOC at 74%, and the 91 Line at 71%. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Performance Summaries - January 2005 2) Metrolink Commuter Update - February 17, 2005 • • Agenda Item 60 90 • • METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMM ARIES January 2005 �I(III METROLINK • • • 40,000 38,000 — 36,399 36,000 34,000 — 32,000 — 30,000 28,000 — 26,000 — 24,000 — 22,000 — 20, 000 Jan -04 37,399 Feb -04 37,806 Mar -04 METROLINK AVFRAGF EFKDAY PASSEN (FR TRIPS 38,099 38,198 = �i { 37,751 -"NN"'�IN N',�; 37,237 Apr -04 May -04 Jun -04 Jul -04 37,085 Aug -04 =Ma Ho liday AdJUnadJ Avg Sep -04 Oct -04 38,849 \\NN:\, \\\\,, \NNN:,\N ,\,\\\\\\ • Nk,\, 7i„ 37 254 92 9 • 93 • • • • METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) i Feb 04 Mar 04 Apr 04 May 04 Jun 04 Jul 04 Aug 04 Sep 04 Oct 04 N ov 04 Dec 04 Jan 05 E% Arriving Within 5 -Minutes Of Scheduled Time I 94 4. % of Train Delays By Responsibility January 2005 TRK-Contractor 1% SIG -Contractor 6% SCRRA 7% Passenger 2% Includes Weeke nd Se rvice Vandalism 3% Mechanical 6% Other 44% BNSF 13% Improv (SCRR A) 0% 2% • TRK-Contractor 2% SIG -Contractor 8% SCRRA 12% In cludes Weeken d Service UPRR 14% % of Train D elays By Responsibility 12 Month Period Ending January 2005 Passenger 5% Vandalism 4% Othe r 17% Mechanical 10 % Law-Enf 0% OP Agree 2% BNSF 22 % mprov (SCRRA) 4% • 95 • • • • PERFORMANCE CHARTS - BACK-UP 1 ,e, IMETROLINK • Mar 04 Apr 04 May 04 Jun 04 Oct 04 % Change Jan 05 vs Dec 04 % Change Jan 05 vs Jan 04 3,868 3,822 4,143 -16% • METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN M ONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED 5,990 5,885 6,384 5% 10,690 10,630 10,978 11,046 11,213 11,013 10,674 10,456 10,913 4,655 11,221 644 4,575 10,902 10,062 11,237 5% 37,254 4% 4,623 0% 3,713 5,876 5,943 3,468 5,755 3,555 5,973 3,647 6,001 3.649 8% 97 1% 1,640 1,784 1,753 1,774 1,862 36,399 37,399 37,806 38,099 38,198 37,770 37,237 37,086 37,982 38,636 38,849 34,745 10 % 2% • 8% 3% 1% 1% 0% -1 % -1% 0% 2% 2% 2% 7% AVERA GE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY P ASSHOLDERS ON AMTRAK THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW Feb 04 M ar 04 Apr 04 May 04 (7) Jun 04 Jul 04 (8) 1,110 244 275 128 86 1,238 330 309 16% 21% 99 1,117 1,113 1,132 1,123 1,112 1,110 .... .. .... ........ ... .. .. ....... 360 242 186 278 269 247 201 228 225 265 220 230 119 128 133 120 119 128 55 51 48 34 47 37 28 44 48 35 26 26 Aug 04 Sep -04 (9) 1,106 210 199 135 21 Oct -04 (10) 1,222 255 237 137 43 Nov -04 (4) Dec -04 (5) Jan -05 (6) 1,246 1,123 1,115 296 251 190 270 197 199 152 212 268 27 13 24 22 1,236 1,241 1,265 1,243 1,231 415 293 234 312 284 229 6% 272 0% 273 2% 300 -2% 256 1,241 231 224 1,359 298 256 1,398 323 296 1,335 264 221 -17% 4% -20 % -1 % 92% -29% -20 % 33% 1% -10% 48% 19% 0% 10% -18% 4% 99 94 116 104 90 118 48 -30% -28% 93 29% 14% 85 8% -18 % -20% 16 % -25% -1% 83 85 103 49 48 C hange Jan 05 vs Dec 04 -1% -24% 1% 26% 69% % Cha nge Jan 05 vs Jan 04 5% 1% 47% 144% -19% 0% 18% -2 % 41 % (1) Prior to Rail 2 Rail, Amtrak Step-Up/No Step -Up program was only good on Amtrak weekday trains. (2) Rail 2 Rail progr am started September 1, 2002. (3) M issing data has been adjusted by using the lowest ridership count for the respective train, day of week and month. (4) Average of first 3 weeks of month only as black -out In place for the Thanksgiving week. NOTE: Started Code Share trains north of LA 11/17/04, monthly passholders included In Rail 2 Rail counts (5) Average excluding Christmas and New Year's Day holidays. NOTE in 2004 - Coaster #s higher due to derailment on 12/17 (6) Average ex cluding January 1 and M LK holiday. In 2005 no Amtr ak serv ice north of LA a fter 1/9/05 and south of LA 1/12-14. A verage reflects days of serv ice. (7) Average excluding May 31 (8) Average excluding July 5 (9) Av erage e xclu din g Labor Day (10) Ave rage ex cluding Columbus Day • • 98 21% -2% -4% pert s umm-Rail2 111,005 • • • 40,000 38,000 36,000 34,000 32,000. 30,000 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 X 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 Jul Aug METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED INCEPTION TO DATE Sep Oct Fy 04/05 .. .•isldy„v.?Yi4:t4+5::::K:!r ,{ tixl: fl+:Y.•i:(:::. .. ._.no �� Nov De c Jan Feb Mar Apr May FY 02/03 ;FY 01/02 FY 00/01 FY 99/00 'FY 97/98 FY 96/97 Jun 99 4 Avg Daily Riders 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Jan -04 Feb Mar Note : Sept Includes L.A. Coun ty Fair Riders San Bernardin o Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Avg Daily Riders 3500 ` 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Jan -04 Feb Note: Sunday Service Be gan 06/25/00 San Bernardino Line Sunday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct • • 100 • in Avg Daily Riders 3500 7- --- 3000 - 2500- 2000- 1500- 1000 500 • Antelope Valley Line Saturday S ervice Average Daily Passenger Trips Jan -04 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan -05 101 11 METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SU MMARY Percentage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time LATEST 13 MONTHS ,::.:: .. .. Rauh .. u:: : ra ... n ..::Antel C.::.ty::�lall� . . ... : `::San;i3 er11 ; .t7u# .. :: ; .: . _. fn . : n• ::» �Q�t..>: .: .:::I�. rtren < 7 rn : :.:. .:hut .::.:::.. ;::::�t�r�r lrie ; .are ..;:,;:.,; .. :.�#x::::; .:.::. ... 4r�: �e:::Caun ... 1 :.: ..:;:: . �7Ut , : ... .:: ;:.)eland::: in .� >:::::>::><>: ::�'{�.A 5 •> ::::;:: hut.; c� y �1°t ;t3�t Tbt* Jan 04 99% 96% 97% 95 % 96% 96% 100% 99% 98% 91% 90% 97 % , 91% 98% :.:I::>:::;: 90 % 91% 96% 96% ... 96% Feb 04 99% 98% 97% 90% 96 % 96% 98% 100% 93 % 95% 91% 95% 93% 86% 93% 91% 95 % 94% 95% Mar 04 100% 98% 97% 95% 97% 97% 99% 99% 95% 89% 95 % 96% 88 % 86% 97% 95% 96 % 95% 96% .- Apr 04 98% 97% 96% 96% 96% 95 % 100% 99 % 89% 86 % 96% 94% 92 % 86% 89% 90% 95% 94% 95 % M ay 04 99% 97% 98% 98% 99% 98% 100% 100 % 98% 95% 96 % 97 % 95% 93% 96% 98 % 98% 97% 97% Jun 04 100% 98% 97% 95% 93% 93% 100 % 100% 92% 91 % 95% 94% 97% 94% 97 % 99% 96% 95% 96 % JuI04 100% 98% 96% 92% 90% 89% 100% 100 % 96% 95% 94 % 97 % 90% 86% 94% 91% 94% 93 % 94 % Aug 04 99% 99% 98% 93% 91% 90% 97% 99% 93 % 92% 91% 91% 95 % 89% 92% 94% 94% 93% 94% Sep 04 99% 98% 98% 95% 94% 91% 98% 100% 86% 89 % 89 % 91% 91% 87% 93 % 89% 94% 93% 93% Oct04 99% 98% 95% 93% 94% 89% 98% 98% 85% 82% 91 % 94% 90% 93% 90 % 94% 93 % 92% 93% Nov 04 96% 97% 94% 96% 96% 95% 98% 98% 89% 83% 90 % 91% 92% 91% 94% 92 % 94% 94% 94% Dec 04 99% 96% 94% 93% 95% 97% 99% 99% 87% 87% 92 % 96% 93% 94 % 95 % 97% 94% 95% 95% Jan 05 88% 81% 87% 77% 98% 94% 97% 98% 82% 70%_ 85% 87% 91% 88 % 87% 94% 90 % 87% 89 % Pe ak Period Trains Arrivin g Within 5 M inutes of Scheduled Time Jan 05 i Pea k Period Trains ante 79% 71% AV AC4.lte" 90% 67% 98% 90% 6UR Turns, ;<, 96% 99% 80% 70% 86% 84% filaxia: .Q>✓:F�nui 88% 86% 9: 91% 88% No adjustments have been made for re lievable delays. Terminated trains are considere d OT if the y were on -time at po int of termination. Annulled trains a re not included in the on -time calculation. • • 102 701: ..q1?-4*C4ttad 89 % 82% • Ta1:SyS 86% 12 • CAUSES OF METROLINK DEL AYS January 2005 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CAUSE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INL/OC 91 -LA TOTAL % of TOT Signals/Detectors 2 6 2 0 11 0 3 3 27 8% Slow Orders/M OW 8 6 1 1 19 3 0 2 40 12 % Track/Switch 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 5 2% Dispatching 7 9 1 0 5 14 7 4 47 14% Mechanical 3 0 6 0 4 4 3 1 21 6% Freight Train 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 5 2% Amtrak Train 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 8 2% Metrolink MeetTTurn 1 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 13 4% Vandalism 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 3% Passenger(s) 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 6 2% SCRRA Hold Policy 2 2 0 0 4 4 0 1 13 4% Other 28 46 7 4 16 23 7 5 136 41% TOTAL 53 83 32 5 61 54 26 17 331 100% Saturday SNB 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 Saturday AVL 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 S aturday OC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Su nday SNB 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 13 103 0405CAUS FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DEL AYS BY DURATION January 2005 MINUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL TOTAL % of TOT NO DELAY 260 300 640 183 168 274 192 160 2177 75.3 % 1 MIN - 5 MIN 32 81 122 20 21 62 32 12 382 13.2% 6MIN -10 MIN 17 28 9 2 15 16 10 2 99 3.4% 11 MIN - 20 MIN 21 33 12 3 33 23 14 8 147 5 .1 % 21 MIN -30 MIN 8 14 5 0 6 2 0 3 38 1.3% GREATER THAN 30 M IN 7 8 6 0 7 13 2 4 47 1.6% ANNULLED 51 37 0 44 0 3 2 0 137 4 .7% TOTAL TRA INS OPTD 345 464 794 208 250 390 250 189 2890 100% TRAINS DELA YED >0 min 85 164 154 25 82 116 58 29 713 24.7% TRAINS DELAYED > 5 mir 53 83 32 5 61 54 26 17 331 11 .5% • • 104 14 nd ns FRF(1 • • METROLINK COMMUTER UPDATE February 17, 2005 Dear Metrolink Passenger, The events of Wednesday, January 26 in which two Metrolink trains were derailed by the actions of a suicidal individual have left all of us grieving and sorrowful. The Toss of eleven members of the Metrolink rider family has affected us deeply and we extend our heartfelt condolences to their families and friends. We also extend our sincere wishes for a speedy and complete recovery to those who were injured that morning. Last month's devastation was the result of an improbable sequence of events that occurred within seconds in the same location. We have not been able to identify another incident involving two passenger trains that is comparable. An individual attempting to commit suicide by placing their vehicle on the tracks is rare. We would like to thank all of our passengers who are demonstrating their confidence in our safety record by riding our trains. Metrolink locomotives and passenger cars are built to the highest standards. Your safety is our number one priority. Metrolink will be working with local, state and federal agencies to identify any changes that would further ensure your safety. But until more facts are known on this incident and more research is completed, we are making one change as a precautionary measure: Passengers will be prohibited from sitting in any seats in the front mezzanine (middle) level of all lead passenger cars until further notice. Crews will be placing a red strap restricting access to those seats on all trains beginning immediately. Metrolink is committed to providing our passengers the safest possible trip onboard our trains. We believe that this is a prudent change to make in light of the recent events. • AGENDA ITEM 6P • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy positions: SUPPORT — ACA 9 (Bogh) and ACA 11 (Oropeza); and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: III State Update Proposition 42 Bills Introduced • In January, the Commission approved a SUPPORT position on ACA 4 (Plescia), a bill that would eliminate the current provision in Proposition 42 that allows for a suspension with a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature. Two additional bills regarding the suspension loophole in Proposition 42 have recently been introduced including ACA 9 by local Assemblyman Russ Bogh and ACA 11 authored by Assembly Transportation Chair Jenny Oropeza. The Bogh bill would raise the threshold for a suspension and would require a 4/5ths vote of the Legislature instead of the current 2/3rds. The proposal is similar to a bill he introduced last year that did not move out of Committee. The Oropeza bill would still allow for a loan of the money but would require repayment of the loan in the same year that is made with interest. Both bills were introduced only a few weeks ago and have yet to be heard by a policy committee. By law, they must be in print for 30 days before legislative consideration. The issue of Proposition 42 is likely to be debated in the Legislature Agenda Item 6P 106 up until and even after the completion of the state's budget. Additional bills might even be introduced on the subject prior to the issue being resolved and the Governor has suggested that he will support changes beginning in FY 2007. RCTC has been consistent in its support for the full implementation of Proposition 42 as was intended by the voters. While the three bills regarding Proposition 42 address the issue in a different manner, staff believes that the Commission should support all legislative efforts that attempt to protect Proposition 42. The final legislative vehicle to deal with the matter will have to be hammered out in the Capitol and it will be helpful to have RCTC's constant and consistent support clearly recognized. Federal Update A delegation of elected officials and staff from the six -county SCAG region visited Washington, D.C. to lobby for federal funding of transportation improvements in Southern California. The trip was coordinated by SCAG and included RCTC Commissioner Ron Roberts. Meetings were held with a number of Congressional representatives including Jerry Lewis, Ken Calvert, and Mary Bono. Additionally, the delegation met with the staffs of Senators Feinstein and Boxer and staff from the Federal Department of Transportation and the House Transportation and Public Works Committee. After a couple of years delay, there appears to be added momentum for the passage of a multi -year federal transportation act. The House has agreed to the President's price ceiling of $284.3 billion over six years and expects to have a marked up bill with projects approved by early March. The bill number is H.R. 3. A number of Senators are continuing to press for a higher price tag similar to the $318 billion bill approved by the Senate last year. The hope among many is that the House will approve a bill in April and the Senate will pass their version shortly thereafter. There will be differences in the two bills which will require a conference committee in May and if everything proceeds as it should, a final version of the bill could become law by the end of May, which is when the current -short term extension of the federal transportation act expires. In terms of policy, a clear message that is gaining momentum in Congress is the need to address the impact of goods movement on transportation system of Southern California. Congressional representatives from throughout the area now realize that the combined ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles actually come together to form a Port of Southern California. The entire region, and especially Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, are affected by the reality that 40 percent of goods imported into the United States travel through the area. As a result, the House is supporting major investments in what is being termed as "Projects of • Agenda Item 6P 107 National Significance". A major component of that effort should include funding for the Alameda Corridor East. The legislation would define the Alameda Corridor East to include the length of the two major rail lines that travel through Riverside County. Another policy issue that is gaining momentum is the issue of toll roads. H.R. 3 would lift federal restrictions on the tolling of Interstate Highways. Concepts such as High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes and public -private partnerships to build transportation projects would be encouraged. This matches the direction that the state seems to be favoring with the Governor's rumored "Go California" program. While no official details regarding Go California have been released, newspaper stories have indicated that it will favor toll roads to finance added capacity and partnerships with the private sector. Staff will continue to update the Commission as additional details on H.R. 3 and Go California are released. Agenda Item 6P 108 AGENDA ITEM 7 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Technical Advisory Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Evaluation Criteria for Update of Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the evaluation criteria for the update of the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List. . BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • The Alameda Corridor is a 20 -mile freight line that connects the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to intermodal facilities near downtown Los Angeles and generally parallels Alameda Street along most of its route. Throughout the corridor, the rail line is separated from surface street traffic, so the high volume of freight trains will not delay street traffic. After leaving the Alameda Corridor, the majority of trains turn east, destined to intermodal terminals in the Inland Empire or to other parts of the country. This area is known as the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor (Attachment 1). The rail lines of the ACE Trade Corridor pass through the San Gabriel Valley, Orange County, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County. At its March 2001 meeting, the Commission approved the evaluation criteria for the Riverside County ACE Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List (Attachment 2). The evaluation criteria are based on seven factors: • Existing Vehicle Delay (1999) — weighted 20% • Future Vehicle Delay (2020) — weighted 20% • Accident Reduction (Safety) — weighted 20% • Distance from other grade separations Agenda Item 7 109 • Local Ranking • Emission Reduction; and • Noise Reduction (Impact on nearby residential areas). From the evaluation of these factors, the rail crossings are separated into five groups to indicate their relative priority for improvement. Those included in Groups #1 and #2 are considered to be the high priority crossings for near -term improvement. Purpose for 2005 Update Since March 2001, projected freight growth and population growth have increased. In addition, Plans and Programs Committee members have expressed a desire to update the data used in the criteria. The weighting of safety and delay provides consistency when comparing the grade separation needs of Riverside County with those of the rest of the Southern California basin (Attachment 3). At its meeting two weeks ago, the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed the proposed evaluation criteria. The TAC expressed a desire for the list to be flexible in relation to the needs of the local jurisdiction and for the evaluation of delay criteria to include in its calculation the delay experienced at intersections within 200-300 feet of the grade crossing or a similar methodology practiced by federal/state agencies for certain crossings such as Van Buren and Jurupa. Staff will report back to the TAC on the methodology for calculation of this delay. In addition, the current and updated list allows for flexibility by including the local jurisdiction ranking as a criteria for evaluation and providing for final consideration at the policy level by the full Commission. The current list reflects this through the Commission's action to upgrade the Streeter Avenue crossing at the request of the City of Riverside. Accordingly, staff and TAC recommend that the evaluation criteria and related weighting remain the same with adjustments for current data: 2001 Approved Evaluation Criteria 2005 Proposed Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight Criteria Weigh t Existing Vehicle Delay (1999) 20% Existing Vehicle Delay (2004) 20% Future Vehicle Delay (2020) 20% Future Vehicle Delay (2030) 20% Accident Reduction (Safety) 20% Accident Reduction (Safety) 20% Distance from other Grade Separations 10% Distance from other Grade Separations 10% Local Ranking 10% Local Ranking 10% Emission Reduction 10% Emission Reduction 10% Noise Reduction 10% Noise Reduction 10% TOTAL 100% TOTAL 100% • Agenda Item 7 110 • • • Attachments: 1) Alameda Corridor East Trade Corridor Map 2) March 2001 RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Priority List 3) 4 County Integrated List Ranking by 2020 Agenda Item 7 111 • Lo s::,.e 4 ngeles LEGEND BURLINGTON NORTHEN SANTA FE RAIL LINES UNION PACIFIC RAILROADS • • 1N]WH3Vllb' 112 ATTACHMENT 2 Kl. 11. ALL I rase Lorriaor braae crossing separation Need List, March 2001 Rail Line Cross Street Jurisdiction Overall Weighted Score* Priority Group BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside 4260 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Iowa Av Riverside 3880 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 48/ Dillon Rd Indio/Coachella 3775 1 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley St Corona 3600 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside County 3600 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 50 Coachella 3500 1 (Completed 1/04) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Av Riverside 3440 1 UP (LA SUB) Streeter Av Riverside 3000 1** BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St Riverside 3180 1 UP (LA SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside 3100 1 UP (LA SUB) Riverside Av Riverside 3060 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside 3320 2** BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Columbia Av Riverside 2940 2 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge St Riverside 2820 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 52 Coachella 2750 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona 2738 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Sunset Av Banning 2675 2 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Riverside County 2650 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Washington St Riverside 2520 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Center St Riverside County 2500 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning 2500 3 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 2480 3 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Kansas Av Riverside 2480 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside 2460 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside 2400 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Riverside 2240 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd Calimesa 2225 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) California Av Beaumont 2200 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona 2113 3 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St Riverside 2000 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Railroad St Corona 1975 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway Riverside County 1950 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 1885 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St Riverside 1880 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St Corona 1850 3 UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riverside 1820 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 1755 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St Banning 1750 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St Riverside 1740 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside 1740 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Cote St Corona 1713 4 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Av Riverside County 1700 4 UP (LA SUB) Clay St Riverside County 1700 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Pennsylvania Av Beaumont 1667 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Av Banning 1625 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Airport Road Riverside County 1450 4 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main St Riverside County 1350 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Gibson St Riverside 1220 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jane St Riverside 1200 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Viele Av Beaumont 1133 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan St Corona 1125 4 UP (LA SUB) Panorama Rd Riverside 1060 4 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Palmyrita Av Riverside 1020 4 UP (LA SUB) Mountain View Av Riverside 1000 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 66 Riverside County 950 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 54 Coachella 825 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Apache Trail Riverside County 800 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Radio Rd Corona 563 5 ** = Per RCTC March 2001 113 2020 Total Daily Veh Hrs of Delay w/ERF (Sorted) ATTACHMENT 3 RANK Agency Cross -Streets 4-t✓ounty ffitegratea City ust Rail Line Total Daily Delay 2020 Economic Refinement Factor Adjusted 2020 Delay 1 SANBAG State/University* San Bernardino Cajon 248 2.28 490 2 SANBAG Rialto Ave. San Bernardino San Bernardino 293 1.65 483 3 SANBAG Milliken Ave. Ontario Alhambra 315 1.40 4 441 4 SANBAG Lenwood (1)* San Bernardino Co. Cajon 286 2.28 431 5 SANBAG Palm Ave* San Bernardino Cajon 249 2.28 388 6 SANBAG Ramona Ave. Montclair L.A. - Alhambra 251 1.32 331 7 SANBAG Grove Ave. Ontario Los Angeles 265 1.24 329 8 RCTC Ave 48/Dillon Rd. Indio/Coachella UP (YUMA MAIN) 193 1.57 303 9 RCTC McKinley St. Corona BNSF (SB SUB) 190 1.56 296 10 SANBAG Glen Helen Pkwy. San Bernardino Co. Cajon 126 2.28 287 11 SANBAG Vista (1)* San Bernardino Co. Cajon 133 2.28 246 12 SANBAG Laurel St. Colton San Bernardino 128 1.65 211 13 RCTC California Ave. Beaumont UP (YUMA MAIN) 127 1.57 200 14 COP Rose/Tustin Placentia San Bernardino 184 1.01 186 15 COP Lakeview Placentia San Bernardino 172 1.01 174 16 SGVCOG Ramona St. San Gabriel Alhambra 92 1.84 170 17 SGVCOG Valley Blvd. Los Angeles Alhambra 91 1.84 167 18 OCTA State College Blvd. Fullerton BNSF (SB SUB) 162 1.01 164 19 SGVCOG Nogales Ave. Industry Alhambra 89 1.84 164 20 SANBAG Monte Vista Ave. Montclair L.A. - Alhambra 123 1.32 162 21 RCTC Iowa Ave. Riverside BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 110 1.47 161 22 SANBAG Vineyard Ave. Ontario Alhambra 114 1.40 160 23 RCTC Hargrave St. Banning UP (YUMA MAIN) 99 1.57 156 24 RCTC 3rd St. Riverside BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 106 1.47 155 25 COP Kraemer Placentia San Bernardino 152 1.01 153 26 OCTA Raymond Ave. Fullerton BNSF (SB SUB) 150 1.01 152 27 OCTA Imperial Highway Anaheim BNSF (SB SUB) 148 1.01 150 28 RCTC Pennsylvania Ave. Beaumont UP (YUMA MAIN) 92 1.57 145 29 RCTC Chicago Ave. Riverside BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 97 1.47 142 30 RCTC Magnolia Ave. Riverside Co. BNSF (SB SUB) 90 1.56 140 31 RCTC Auto Center Drive Corona BNSF (SB SUB) 88 1.56 137 32 SANBAG Valley Blvd. Colton San Bernardino 83 1.65 137 33 RCTC Mary St. Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) 87 1.56 136 34 COP Orangethorpe Placentia BNSF (SB SUB) 119 1.01 120 35 RCTC Spruce St. Riverside BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 82 1.47 120 36 SANBAG Campus Ave. Ontario L.A. - Alhambra 90 1.32 119 37 SANBAG Ranchero Rd. San Bernardino Co. Cutoff 93 1.27 118 38 SGVCOG San Gabriel Blvd. San Gabriel Alhambra 64 1.84 117 39 SANBAG Olive St. Colton San Bernardino 70 1.65 116 40 SGVCOG Temple Ave. Pomona Alhambra 59 1.84 108 41 RCTC Railroad St. Corona BNSF (SB SUB) 69 1.56 107 42 RCTC 7th St. Riverside BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 71 1.47 104 43 RCTC Columbia Ave. Riverside BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 68 1.47 101 44 SANBAG Milliken Ave. Ontario Los Angeles 80 1.24 _ _ 99�_ 45 SGVCOG Fairway Dr. Industry Los Angeles 54 1.83 99 46 SGVCOG Sunset Ave. Industry Alhambra 54 1.84 99____ 47 RCTC Avenue 50 Coachella U UP (YUMA MAIN) 59 1.57 93 48 _ RCTC Tyler St. Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) 59 1.56 93 49 SGVCOG Puente Ave. Industry Alhambra 50 1.84 93 50 SGVCOG Fairway Dr. Industry Alhambra 50 1.84 91 51 SGVCOG Mission Dr. San Gabriel Alhambra 49 1.84 89 52 SGVCOG East End Ave. Pomona L.A. - Alhambra 48 1.84 88 53 SANBAG Hunts Ln.* San Bern./Colton Yuma 20 1.50 89 54 SANBAG Hinkley (1) San Bernardino Co. Cajon 38 2.28 87 55 RCTC Adams St. Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) 53 1.56 83 56 SGVCOG Temple Ave. Industry Alhambra 45 1.84 _.83 57 SGVCOG Del Mar Ave. San Gabriel Alhambra 44 1.84 81 58 GCCOG Valley View Ave. Santa Fe Springs BNSF 72 1.08 78 59 RCTC Smith Ave. Corona BNSF (SB SUB) 50 1.56 78 60 SANBAG San Timoteo Rd. Redlands Y Yuma 52 1.50 78 61 RCTC San Tim. Can. Rd Calimesa UP (YUMA MAIN) 49 1.57 76 62 SGVCOG 7th Ave. Industry Los Angeles 42 1.83 76 63 SGVCOG Nogales Ave. Industry Los Angeles _ _ _ _ 42 1.83 76 64 SGVCOG Baldwin Ave. El Monte Alhambra 40 1.84 73 65 RCTC _ Cridge St. Riverside BN FF UP (RIV) 51 1.39 71 (1) ADT growth from 1999 to 2020 was estimated * Adjusted 2020 Delay per SANBAG Prepared: 3/30/01 2020 Total Daily Veh Hrs of Delay w/ERF (Sorted) RANK Agency Cross -Streets 4-Uounty integrated List City Rail Line 66 SGVCOG Lemon Ave. Industry Alhambra 67 RCTC Kansas Ave_ Riverside BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 68 RCTC Center St. Riverside Co. BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 69 RCTC Avenue 52 Coachella UP (YUMA MAIN) 70 SGVCOG Fullerton Rd. Industry Alhambra 71 RCTC Magnolia Ave_ Riverside UP (LA SUB 72 RCTC Cota St. Corona BNSF (SB SUB 73 RCTC Harrison St. Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) 74 RCTC 22nd St. Banning UP (YUMA MAIN) 75 SANBAG San Antonio Ave. Ontario LA. - Alhambra 76 SGVCOG Reservoir St. 77 SGVCOG Ramona Blvd. 78 SANBAG Archibald Ave. Ontario Los Angeles 79 GCCOG Rosecrans Ave. Santa Fe Springs BNSF 80 OCTA Acacia Ave. Fullerton San Bernardino 81 COP Richfield Placentia San Bernardino 82 RCTC Joy St. Corona BNSF (SB SUB) 83 RCTC Jackson St. Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) 84 RCTC 85 RCTC Washington St. Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) 86 SGVCOG Brea Canyon Rd. Industry Alhambra 87 RCTC Sunset Ave. Banning UP (YUMA MAIN) 88 RCTC Riverside Ave. Riverside UP (LA SUB) 89 SANBAG Vine Ave. Pomona L.A. - Alhambra El Monte Alhambra Buchanan St. Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) r Ontario L.A. - Alhambra 90 SANBAG Alessandro Rd. Redlands Yuma 91 COP Placentia Placentia San Bernardino 92 SGVCOG Montebello Blvd. Montebello Los Angeles 93 SGVCOG San Antonio Ave. Pomona L.A. - Alhambra 94 _ SGVCOG Lower Azusa Ave. Temple City Alhambra 95 RCTC Madison St. Riverside BNSF (SB SUB( 96 RCTC Pierce St_ Riverside BNSF (SB SUB). 97 SANBAG Bon View Ave. Ontario L.A. - Alhambra 98 GCCOG Norwalk Blvd. Santa Fe Springs 99 RCTC Streeter Ave. - Riverside UP (LA SUB) 100 SANBAG _Phelan San Bernardino Co. Cutoff 101 SGVCOG Fullerton Rd. Industry Los Angeles 102 SGVCOG Hamilton Blvd. Pomona L.A. - Alhambra 103 SGVCOG Park Ave. 104 SGVCOG Boca Ave. 105 COP Van Buren Placentia San Bernardino 106 SGVCOG Temple City Blvd. El Monte 107 _ COP Jefferson Placentia San Bernardino 108 COP Kellogg Dr. Pacentia San Bemardino 109 RCTC rClay St. Riverside Co. UP (LA SUB 110 COP Melrose Placentia San Bernardino 111 SGVCOG Brea Canyon Rd. Industry 112 RCTC 113 RCTC Airport Road Riverside Co. UP (YUMA MAIN). 114 SANBAG Sultana Ave. 115 SGVCOG Califomia Ave. Industry Alhambra 116 RCTC Brockton Ave. Riverside UP (LA SUB) 117 GCCOG Passons Blvd. - Pico Rivera BNSF 118 RCTC San Gorgonio Ave. Banning 119 COP Bradford Placentia San Bernardino 120 SGVCOG Pomona Blvd. Pomona Alhambra 121 SGVCOG Walnut Grove Ave. Rosemead Alhambra 122 RCTC 123 SANBAG Beaumont Ave. Loma Linda Yuma 124 RCTC Jane St. Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) 125 RCTC Jefferson St. Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) 126 RCTC Palmyrita Ave. Riverside BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 127 SGVCOG Lemon Ave. Industry Los Angeles 128 SGVCOG Vineland Ave. Industry 129 SGVCOG Arden Dr. El Monte 130 SGVCOG Orange Ave. Industry Alhrj Pomona L.A. - Alhambra Los Angeles Alhambra Alhambra Sheridan St. Los Angeles Corona BNSF (SB SUB) Ontario L.A. - Alhambra UP (YUMA MAIN) Jurupa Rd Riverside Co. UP (LA SUB Alhambra Alhambra 1 Total Economic Daily Refinement Delay 2020 Factor 37 1.84 44 1.47 43 1.47 40 1.57 34 1.84 55 1.14 39 t56 38 t56 36 1.57 43 1.32 31 1.84 29 1.84 42 1.24 46 1.08 49 1.01 48 1.01 31 1.56 32 1.56 30 1.56 30 1.56 25 1.84 30 1.57 40 1.14 35 1.32 31 1.50 44 1.01 24 1.83 24 1.84 24 1.84 28 1.56 28 1.56 32 1.32 37 1.08 35 1.14 31 1.27 22 1.83 22 1.84 22 1.84 21 1.84 38 1.01 20 1.84 36 1.01 36 1.01 32 1.14 37 33 1.01 33 Adjusted 2020 Delay 68 65 64 63 63 62 61 59 57 57 57 53 52 50 50 49 49 49 47 47 47 46 46 46 46 44 44 44 44 43 43 42 40 40 40 40 40 40 39 38 38 37 37 18 1.83 21 20 24 18 27 28 19 28 15 15 22 16 15 15 16 13 13 13 33 1.56 32 1.57._....... _..._- 32 1.32 1.84 1.14 32 32 31 1.08 1.57 1.01 1.84 1.84 30 30 28 28 27 1.14 1.50 1.56 1.56 26 25 24 24 1.47 24 1.83 __..........___24 1.84 24 1.84 ........_....23 (1) ADT growth from 1999 to 2020 was estimated • Adjusted 2020 Delay per SANBAG 2 12 1.84 23 Prepared: 3/30/01 2020 Total Daily Veh Hrs of Delay w/ERF (Sorted) 4 -County Integrated List Total Daily Economic Refinement Adjusted 2020 RANK Agency Cross -Streets City Rail Line Delay 2020 Factor Delay 131 SGVCOG Stimson Ave. Industry L Los Angeles 12 _ 1.83 22 132 SGVCOG Palomares St. Pomona L.A. - Alhambra _ _ 12 1.84 22 133 SGVCOG Cogswell Rd. _.. El Monte Alhambra 12 1.84 21 134 SGVCOG Durfee Ave. Pico Rivera Los Angeles _ 11 1.83 20 135 RCTC Broadway Riverside Co. UP (YUMA MAIN) 12 1.57 19 136 SANBAG Vineyard Ave. Ontario Los Angeles 1.4_ 1.24 18 137 SGVCOG Rose Hills Rd Industry Los Angeles 10 1.83 _ 18 138 SGVCOG San Pablo St. Los Angeles Alhambra 10 t84 18 139 SGVCOG Encinita Ave. Temple City Alhambra 10 _ 1.84 18 140 RCTC Bell rave Ave. Riverside Co. UP LA SUB 15 1.14 17 141 SGVCOG Tyler st. El Monte Alhambra 9 1.84 17_ 142 ROTC Palm Ave. Riverside UP (LA SUB) 14 _ _1.14 16 143 RCTC Main St. Riverside Co. BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 10 _ 1.47 _ _ 15 144 SANBAG Whittier Ave. Loma Linda Yuma 10 _ 1.50 15 145 SGVCOG Cypress Ave. EI Monte Alhambra 8 1.84 15 146 147 SGVCOG SGVCOG Tumbull Canyon S. Vail Ave. Industry Montebello ____ Los Angeles _ ------ii- Los Angeles _ _ _ 8 _ 8 1.83 _ 1.83 ._.__ 15 15 148 RCTC Panorama Rd. __ Riverside U UP (LA SUB) 12 1.14 13 149 RCTC Avenue 66 Riverside Co. UP (YUMA MAIN) M 8 M5 1.57 12 150 SANBAG Indian Trail (1) San Bernardino Co. Cajon 2.28 12 151 SGVCOG Workman Mill Rd. Industry Los Angeles _ 6 1.83 11 _ 152 RCTC Rutile St. Riverside Co. UP (LA SUB) _.. 8 1.14 10.- 153 RCTC Gibson St. Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) 5 1.56 8 154 RCTC Apache Trail Riverisde Co. UP (YUMA MAIN) 5 1.57 8 155 SGVCOG S. Greenwood Ave. Montebello L Los Angeles 4 1.83 7 156 SGVCOG S. Maple Ave. Montebello Los Angeles 4 1.83 7 157 SGVCOG Main St. P Pomona L.A. - Alhambra 4 _ 1.84 7 158 SGVCOG Vineburn Ave. Los Angeles Alhambra 3 1.84 6 159 RCTC Viele Ave. Beaumont UP (YUMA MAIN) 4 1.57 5 __ 160 RCTC Mountain View Ave. Riverside _ UP (LA SUB) 5 1.14 5 161 RCTC Avenue 54 Coachella __ UP (YUMA MAIN) 2 _ 1.57 _ 3 162 RCTC Radio Rd. Corona BNSF (SB SUB)._ 2 __ 1.56 _ _ µ_ _ 3_ _._. 163 SGVCOG Bixby Dr Industry _ Los Angeles 2 183 3 164 SANBAG Johnson Rd. San Bernardino Co. Cutoff 2 1.27 2 165 SGVCOG Mission Mill Rd. Industry _ Los Angeles 0 1.83 1 166 SANBAG E. St. Colton San Bernardino 0 1.65 0 167 SANBAG H. St. Colton San Bernardino 0 1.65 0 116 (1) ADT growth from 1999 to 2020 was estimated ` Adjusted 2020 Delay per SANBAG 3 Prepared: 3130/01 AGENDA ITEM 8 PRESENTATION • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study Update on Preliminary Screening Alternatives STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file a presentation on the Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study Preliminary Screening Alternatives as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Work on the Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) has been progressing very well. The project study team has been evaluating feasible approaches to increasing mobility between the two counties. These approaches include a combination of roadway and public transit improvements. Working with the public through the Stakeholders Committee as well as members of the Project Development Team (which includes public works staff from affected local jurisdictions, federal and state resource agencies, and Caltrans Districts 8 and 12), the project study team has identified four corridors plus improvements to SR 91 that together represent a menu of options that could provide solutions to future demands. In planning for the year 2030 growth, it is projected to require an additional 50% capacity, or an increase in average daily traffic of 220,000 cars. Attachment 1 displays the four conceptual corridors being considered, along with SR 91. Each corridor is being analyzed to consider a wide range of improvement options including bus, commuter rail, and the addition of lanes. A total of 12 build alternatives are currently being studied along with the no build situation. Attachment 2 displays the 13 screening alternatives along with the proposed improvements for each. Tony Rahimian, Project Management Consultant for the MIS, will make a presentation of the various screening alternatives being considered at this point in the study. Agenda Item 8 117 Public Meetings RCTC and OCTA will be holding public meetings in March and April to receive feedback on the conceptual corridors and screening alternatives. Meetings will be held as follows: Riverside County (6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.) Thursday, March 31, Corona Public Library Thursday, April 14, Lake Elsinore Cultural Center Orange County (5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m.) Wednesday, March 30, Heritage Park Regional Library, Irvine Tuesday, April 12, San Juan Capistrano Community Center Wednesday, April 13, Anaheim Hills Community Center • Agenda Item 8 118 OW Corridor SR -91 OM Corridor A - Santa Ana Canyon WM Corridor B - Cajalco Road/I-15 to SR-241/SR-133 Corridor C - Lake Elsinore to SR-241/SR-133 MD Corridor D - SR -74 (1-15 to SR -241) versideCounty nation Commission RIVERSIDE COUNTY - ORANGE COUNTY MIS OCTA CONCEPTUAL CORRIDOR ALIG NMENT STRATEGIES N ot to Scale • • REP RESE NTATIVE SCREENI NG ALTER NATI VES • RIDOR A CORRIDOR B CORRIDOR C CORRIDOR D TRANSIT/TDM TOTAL ADDED C APACITY Highway Strategic Option List Capacity Lanes Capacity Lanes Capacity Lanes Capacity CAPACITY Transit Option List 120,000 20,000 91-T1, A -T1 220,000 91-4, 91-5, 91-12, A-2 80,000 4" 60,000 20,000 91-T1, A -T1, B -T1 240,000 91-1, 91-2, 91-3, 91-5, 91-12, A-4, B-4/5 80,000 4 80,000 20,000 91-T1, A -T1, C -T1 260,000 91-2, 91-4, 91-12, A-4, C-1/2 80,000 4" 60,000 20,000 91-T1, A -T1, D -T1 240,000 91-2, 91-4, 91-12, A-4, D-3/4 6 120,000 20,000 91-T1, A -T1, B -T1 220,000 91-1, 91-4, B-2/3 4" 60,000 4" 60,000 20,000 91-T1,A-T1,B-T1,D-T1 220,000 91-1, 91-2, 91-3, 91-5, B-4/5, D-3/4 120,000 4* 60,000 20,000 91-T1, A -T1, B -T1 240,000 91-10, 91-13, A-2, B-4/5 120,000 4* 60,000 20,000 91-T1, A -T1, C -T1 240,000 91-2, 91-3, 91-13, A-2, C-3/4 80,000 4 80,000 30,000 91-T1,A-T1,B-T1,B-T3 230,000 91-1, 91-2, 91-3, A-4, B-2/3 6 120,000 2" 30,000 20,000 91-T1,A-T1, B -T1, D -T1 210,000 91-3, 91-10, B-2/3, D-5 80,000 4 80,000 20,000 91-T1, A -T1, B -T1 260,000 91-1, 91-4, 91-5, A-6, B-2/3 40,000 4" 60,000 4* 60,000 20,000 91-T1,A-T1,B-T1,D-T1 260,000 91-1, 91-3, 91-5, 91-10, A-7, B-4/5, D-3/4 10,000 91-T3 (A -T2) 50,000 91-3, 91-5 (EB From SR -241 to SR -71) R s ditional number of lanes along each co rrido r, 9entative of meeting the ADT within each corridor and do no t necessarily represent all combinations of options . s that included improvements in both Corridors B and C, or in bo th Corridors C and D. Ime point in Lake Elsinore, they will no t be combined within the same alternative Ime point in Orange County, they will no t be co mbined within the same alternative formulate an alternativ e include: A and B; A and C; A and D; or A, B and D. All alternativ es include SR -91 impr ovements. ndpoints from different corridors wo uld significantly impact the SR -241 or 1-15 facilities RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL March 18, 2005 )4 /17'ff/ )1( Absent 0 0 0 )332 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District I I I County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Ca!trans District 8 7)06ko RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET March 18, 2005 NAME AGENCY CONTACT NUMBER ` �(P Z. P%/ 7m . 1Al yviiv 4A-- z s 77o SVL-zV g --,- f ' e- 6;'. g("2 -e),4-- /Vow/PM"' ies ,�i• 4 F' 9,,. 1•••• /' JJ< _744. L iv,Ov e'-,, 95-7_735-_2./90 �✓ 5, d- Vvsf leko\ 151-617-5' 47 9/W6Jc& co a;77 i i S=ri- , ',z �� e4.49P ie "err I. de) ?s7 -g2‘. 5-7i/ to scv� � •(96/ i� - r a CAOLL s 90? 305 Vo53 L1? CJaJ.,,Q C7-17 686 -V tv4.,, cue ,<-3f /�A a .•-� .L-5iAZA- -� r&r'i 7'Z' .3v-q/d4/ ..77-----_,.‘-eiG '1_____f — /1-1--/c--(27-- a L-- / c tc — .S G , (—i ‘s S - —1 ciS e . ,?. 4-1.,..„ -,..,.:.__c_ 74,0 -,5-6t/ 5'.L. "" 4. ----‘7&.,, A,G.,c_kok:.)c-T .--K, \J c 0 %--1- 9s---c-=--(c20 74 tj SO ti) �\ V Cio or `7^i c u c_ a- 6 re/ Cgied f(-' ti . 4. b ic.4,, L t ) ', -' .'' ,c 7-'( /6 j - tJ-.` . �6 ep ee_-t Q 1 e,` RSt-a01-0. o s�r.•7 li tyl 76a.31?/Si.4- LI3 OO Speakers shall complete the following: PUBLIC COMMENTS: CI SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: A GENDA ITEM NO .: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) to_m___ NAME: SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: CT' Nica . Ci► � i S DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD .11PC )V)(1(C DATE: A iZ,t)P v, K7 y Y"11AK,W -d-t9 i l Nog -A5 A DDRESS: 7 ''7 ST_ Street TEL. NO.: 4, 17 9'3 t 4 y-ex.N% 9 u4 r7 i� ity Zip C ode REPRESENTING: � L. . Name of Group BUSINESS A DDRESS: TEL. NO .: RCTC/n k 10/03 i I V DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BO ARD Speakers shall complete the following: '1 (09 (0 DATE: 3 %/ !S"/C) SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pr PUBLIC COMMENTS: FL \JC vex 6i.- i ti„A (-aria'.-y AGENDA ITEM NO .: (AS LISTED ON THE AGEND A) NAME: ADDRESS: U►to,rn /t'umg ire) SUBJECT OF AGEND A ITEM: '1 f1`i�V 7I' Str eet REPRESENTING/le/(f/j Name of Group BUSINESS ADDRESS: SP RCTC/nk 10/03 TEL . NO.: C1/ _tF iiev City ( Zip Code TEL . NO .: