HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 22, 1999 Budget & Implementation•
•
TIME:
DATE:
LOCATION:
IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
AGENDA
2:30 p.m.
Monday, February 22, 1999
Riverside County Transportation Commission Office
3560 University Avenue, Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
City of La Quinta City Hall (Video Conference Location)
Session Room
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253
Budget and Implementation Committee Members
Jim Venable / County of Riverside, Chairman
Ron Roberts / City of Temecula, Vice Chair
John Hunt / City of Banning
Gregory S. Pettis / City of Cathedral City
Juan DeLara / City of Coachella
Andrea Puga / City of Corona
John Pena / City of La Quinta
Kevin Pape / City of Lake Elsinore
Frank West / City of Moreno Valley
Don Yokaitis / City of Rancho Mirage
Alex Clifford / City of Riverside
Tom Mullen / County of Riverside
John Tavaglione / County of Riverside
Jim Smedley / City of San Jacinto
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
Annual Budget Development and Oversight
Countywide Strategic Plan
Legislation
Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs
Public Communications and Outreach Programs
Competitive Grant Programs (TEA 21 - CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement, SB 821, SAFE/Freeway
Service Patrol and Other Areas as may be prescribed by the Commission)
Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the
Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Committee.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
http://www.rctc.org
3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
CONFERENCE ROOM A
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1999
2:30 P.M.
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (JANUARY 25, 1999)
4. High Speed Rail Legislation (15 Min)
This item is a placeholder pending further development of a staff recommendation. Staff will
present further information at the Committee meeting.
5. Rail Station Security (10 Min)
That the Commission contract directly for security services at its four rail station
sites.
6. State and Federal Legislative Update (20 Min)
It is recommended the Commission adopt the bill positions, and receive and file the State and
Legislative Updates.
7. Request for Additional Construction Contingency for Construction Contract No. RO-9847 for
Construction and Sound Walls on SR 91 Between Van Buren Boulevard and Mary Street in
the City of Riverside (10 Min)
That the Commission authorize the increase of the project construction contingency by
$40,000 for Construction Contract No. RO-9847 from $113,514 to $153,514. The new not
to exceed value of the contract will be 82,640.000.
8. Quarterly CaII Box Update (5 Min)
That the Commission receive and file.
9. Quarterly Financial Reports (5 Min)
Attached are Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balances (Unaudited) and the Highway and Rail Projects quarterly budget report for the Quarter
ending December 31, 1998.
000001
Budget and Implementation Committee Agenda
February 22,1999
Page 2
10. Revised Budget - Fiscal Year 1998-1999 (10 Min)
Attached is a spreadsheet showing changes to the budget by major line item.
11. Report on Projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues (15 Min)
This is an agreed -upon procedure, as enumerated in the attached report, with respect to the
projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues for the Commission for the years ending
June 30, 1998 through 2009, as presented in Exhibit A.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, March 22, 1999 at the
RCTC offices.
000002
•
MINUTES
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
JANUARY 25, 1999
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order at 3:11 p.m. by Dean
Martin, Chief Financial Officer, at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560
University Avenue, Riverside.
Commissioners Present:
Alex Clifford
Juan De Lara
John Hunt
Tom Mullen
Kevin Pape
Gregory S. Pettis
Andrea Puga
Ron Roberts
Jim Smedley
Jim Venable
Frank West
Don Yokaitis
2. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR.
Commissioners Absent:
John Tavaglione
John Pena
M/S/C (Mullen/Roberts) to elect Commissioner Jim Venable as Chairman of the Budget
and Implementation Committee.
M/S/C (Mullen/Smedley) to elect Commissioner Ron Roberts as Vice Chairman of the
Budget and Implementation Committee.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
There were no comments from the public.
4. 1998 FISCAL AUDIT REPORTS.
The audit results for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998 were presented by Sally Anderson, Cynthia
Morningstar, Julia Cox and Theresia Trevino from the firm Ernst & Young LLP. The following points
were made:
+ The Commission was issued an unqualified opinion and the auditors found no areas requiring
significant judgement.
+ The City of Blythe, which previously showed a cumulative deficiency, was amended so that as
of June 30, 1998 they are in compliance. This issue has been resolved.
+ The cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley are currently amending their five-year capital plan to
add projects previously not included in the plan and will be submitted to the Commission.
+ A going concern was issued for the City of Beaumont and will also be issued for the City of
Perris. Staff was instructed to provide quarterly reports on any entities with ongoing concern
opinions
000003
♦ Alan Kapanicas, Beaumont City Manager, explained that the deficiency shown in the report is
due to a loan to the Redevelopment Agency. No Measure "A" funds were used to supplant
general funds. The City also intends to submit an additional $1,000,000 in eligible expenditures
as an amendment to their five-year Capital Plan.
♦ Commissioner Kevin Pape, City of Lake Elsinore, reported that the financial burden for their city
has been relieved through the sale of the stadium to a private firm.
M/S/C (Mullen/Smedley) that the Commission receive and file the results of the
audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998.
5. FORMATION OF AUDIT COMMITTEE.
M/S/C (Hunt/Puga) to establish an Audit Subcommittee of the Budget and Implementation
Committee consisting of Commissioners Clifford, Hunt, Smedley, Tavaglione and Pettis
with Commissioner Hunt as the Chairman of the Subcommittee.
6. FRIENDS OF JEFFERSON HOUSE
M/S/C (Mullen/ Yokaitis) that the Commission approve the requested increase to the
Friends of Jefferson House maintenance contract.
7. SELECTION OF INVESTMENT ADVISOR
M/S/C (Puga/DeLara) that the Commission select Public Financial Management, Inc. as the
Investment Advisor.
8. INVESTMENT REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1998
M/S/C (Hunt/Mullen) that the Commission receive and file the investment report for the
quarter ending December 31, 1998.
9. MONTHLY COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS.
M/S/C (Hunt/Puga) that the Commission receive and file the Monthly Cost and Schedule
Reports for the period ending December 31, 1998.
10. PROGRESS REPORT ON INTERNAL REVIEW
M/S/C (Smedley/De Lara) that the Commission receive and file the Progress Report
reviewing internal operations.
11. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-9932 TO CONSTRUCT A PEDESTRIAN
OVERCROSSING
Paul Blackwelder reported on problems being experienced by staff regarding to the bids and there was
not a recommendation at this time.
M/S/C (Puga/Pape) that staff bring a recommendation to the Commission at the February
10th meeting on the award of Contract No. RO-9932, for Construction of a Pedestrian
Overcrossing Structure and Security Enhancements at the existing La Sierra and West
Corona Commuter Rail Stations.
00000
12. LOCAL SALES TAX MEASURE RENEWAL OPTIONS
•
•
M/S/C (Mullen/Puga) that the Commission support pursuit of a reduction in current vote
requirement for passage of local transportation sales tax measures from two-thirds to
50%.
Nays: Pape, Smedley
13. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (LTF) PROJECTION
M/S/C (Clifford/Hunt) that the Commission approve the apportionment of Local
Transportation Funds for Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley, and Western Riverside
County.
Nay: Yokaitis
14. DRAFT WORK PLAN FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN
M/S/C (Hunt/ Clifford) that the Commission adopt the draft work plan for completion of the
comprehensive and countywide strategic plan.
15. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Naty Cope
Clerk of t
000005
•
AGENDA ITEM 4
•
0
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Budget & Implementation Committee
FROM:
David Shepherd,
Director of Intergovernmental & Legislative Affairs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Possible High Speed Rail Legislation
This item is a placeholder pending further development of a staff recommendation.
The Southern California Association of Governments may be sponsoring legislation
related to high speed rail planning. Staff is in the process of researching this issue
and will present more information at the Committee meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee discuss and possibly consider action.
000006
•
AGENDA ITEM 5
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Budget & Implementation Committee
FROM:
Claudia Chase, Property Agent
Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Rail Station Security
This item is a placeholder pending further development of staff's recommendation.
Security services at RCTC's four rail stations are currently provided as an add-on to
Metrolink's contract for security guards at the system's outlying lay -over sites and
central maintenance facility (CMF). A single vendor contracts to guard the CMF in
Los Angeles and layover points at Moorpark, Lancaster, San Bernardino and Riverside.
Owners of a few stations in the system, including RCTC, have elected to have
Metrolink contract for additional station guards on an incremental basis. RCTC
reimburses Metrolink for the direct hourly costs of station security. Though a certain
economy of scale is realized, companies which bid on such a contract tend to be
large providers headquartered far from our sites. Consequently, RCTC staff has not
had the ability to interact as closely as we would have liked with the guard company.
Also, some of RCTC's unique needs were outside the parameters of the existing
contract.
Since the Metrolink security contract is being readied for re -bid, RCTC staff and board
members had proposed that Metrolink consider multiple, regional contracts in
procuring security services, thereby allowing local firms to bid on a smaller piece of
the whole. Metrolink's staff analysis indicated that such a solution would not be cost
effective on a system -wide basis, and instead proposed an alternative which was
sanctioned by the Metrolink Board of Directors on February 12.
The proposed alternative is to have RCTC directly contract for not only its own
station security services, but also for the equipment lay -over guards at downtown
Riverside. This would allow for a locally- managed contract, serving all RCTC
station sites, and designed to meet certain unique requirements (such as electronic
surveillance). Such a contract would also avoid the potential conflicts of having two
security firms providing service at the same site (Riverside -Downtown station and lay-
over). RCTC would invoice Metrolink for the direct costs associated with guarding
Metrolink equipment.
000007
Financial Implications for FY 1999/00:
Other than the staff time required for a separate procurement process, no additional
costs are anticipated in the current fiscal year. Station security is already an integral
part of RCTC's rail operating budget, and next year's budget will probably reflect
additional costs for a higher level of service. Staff will be working before the
committee meeting to better define RCTC's projected costs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee recommend the Commission contract directly for security guard
services at its four rail station sites and authorize staff to develop the necessary
procurement documents including an appropriate scope of work.
•
•
•
000008.
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative
Affairs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
State and Federal Legislative Update
STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
The 1999/2000 State Legislative Session commenced January 4th, 1999. San
Bernardino County has two new representatives in the Assembly: John Longville, and
Nell Soto. Both were appointed to the Assembly Transportation Committee. Former
Assemblyman Joe Baca was elected to the Senate and appointed to the prestigious
Senate Rules Committee. In Riverside County, Assemblyman Rod Pacheco was
elected to the leadership post of Assembly Minority Leader.
While policy committee meetings have not yet begun, legislative proposals have been
submitted to Legislative Counsel and some bills have already been introduced. Policy
committee will begin reviewing legislation in March. Staff has analyzed and
recommends the following bill positions:
AB 38 (Carl Washington, D - Los Angeles) - Extends South Coast Air Quality
Management District Authority to collect $ 1 vehicle license fee until 2004. Staff
recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached.
AB 44 (Tom McClintock, R -Simi Valley) - Would require Caltrans and local authorities
to re -designate all existing high occupancy vehicle lanes as mixed flow. Staff
recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis is attached.
AB 74 (Virginia Strom -Martin, D -Eureka) - Would permit a private freight rail operation
to compete for State Intercity Rail funding. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff
analysis is attached.
AB 102 (Scot Wildman, D -Los Angeles, and Wally Hertzberg, D -Los Angeles) - Would
fund the 1989 Priority Soundwall Retrofit list of projects off -the -top of the State
Highway Account. Staff recommends: SEEK AMENDMENT. The staff analysis is
attached.
0000ua
SB 14 (Richard Rainey, R -Walnut Creek) - Would require extensive study prior to
construction of future high occupancy vehicle lanes. Staff recommends: OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED. The staff analysis is attached.
SB 17 (Liz Figueroa, D -Fremont) - Would permit employers to receive a tax credit for
purchasing transit passes for their employers. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The
staff analysis is attached.
SB 63 (Hilda Solis, D-EI Monte) - Would reduce the minimum occupancy for the El
Monte Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff
analysis is attached.
SB 98 (Richard Alarcon, D -Los Angeles) - Extends South Coast Air Quality
Management District Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee until 2004. Staff
recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached.
SB 117 (Kevin Murray, D -Los Angeles) - Would make permanent the Environmental
Enhancement and Mitigation Fund. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis
is attached.
SB 10 (Rainey) which would allocate $300 million from the State Highway Account
(SHA) for local street and road rehabilitation is not being forwarded with a staff
recommendation. In a letter to the California Transportation Commission (CTC), the
County Supervisors Association of California (CSAC) stated that given the effort of
the CTC and others to resolve the need for local road rehabilitation funding, it is no
longer requesting the $300 million allocation in the Rainey bill. Should the current
situation change, staff will forward a recommendation.
Finally, Assemblyman Torlakson has agreed to author legislation affecting a number
of transportation project delivery issues, including the concept of a loan program to
expedite reducing the SHA cash balance. Legislative Counsel is still drafting the bill
language. Once introduced, staff will forward a recommendation.
Federal Update
In Washington, D.C. no major committee or legislative activity, with the exception
of House committee membership announcements (attached) and the release of the
President's budget, has occurred yet. Looking forward, the re -authorization of the
Airport Improvement Program promises to be a contentious issue; areas of
disagreement include the length of the re -authorization and passenger facility
charges.
The President's Fiscal Year (FU) 2000 budget includes $6.1 billion for transit - $291 million
more than the "guarantee" outlined it the Transportation Equity Act of the 21°` Century
(TEA21) and $2.2 billion to support local projects designed to ease traffic congestion.
000010
•
•
Summary
The State Legislature has begun introducing legislation and policy committees will
soon be acting on proposals. Aside from House committee assignments and the
release of the President's FY 2000 Budget, Washington legislative activity has been
limited.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Year
Included in Program Budget
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Financial Impact Not Applicable
Various gains or losses depending on legislative
outcomes
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Budget and Implementation Committee adopt the recommended bill
positions, and receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Updates.
000011.
•
•
•
Date of Analysis: January 28, 1999
Bill Number/Author: AB 38 (Carl Washington, D -Los Angeles)
Introduced December 7, 1998
Subject: Vehicle License Fees for Air Pollution
Status: Assigned To The Assembly Transportation Committee —
No Hearing Date Yet.
Summary:
Existing law provides the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) the
authority to impose a $1 fee on vehicle registrations. The revenues generated from the
fee support a program, administered by the SCAQMD's Technical Advancement Office
(TAO), which encourages participation in projects to increase the proliferation and use of
clean -burning fuels. In August 1999, the SCAQMD's authority to impose this fee will
expire.
AB 38, an urgency measure that is identical to SB 98 (Alarcon), proposes to extend the
SCAQMD's exiting authority to impose the $1 fee until August 1, 2004.
Staff Comments:
The TAO primarily funds projects related to assisting, through research or purchases,
heavy-duty vehicle fleet conversions from diesel fueled to clean fueled engines. Many of
the fleets benefiting from the TAO work reside in Riverside or San Bernardino County.
The work of the TAO and the Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee (MSRC), of
which both the Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino
Associated Governments are members, frequently lead to healthy partnerships in their
efforts to maximize the use of vehicle license fees intended to facilitate cleaner air.
Staff Recommendation:
Seeing the past and potential future receipt of funds for Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties, staff recommends:
SUPPORT.
000012
•
•
•
Date of Analysis: February 4, 1999
Bill Number/Author: AB 44 (Tom McClintock, R -Simi Valley)
Introduced December 7, 1998
Subject: High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
Status: Assigned To The Assembly Transportation Committee —
No Hearing Date Yet.
Summary:
Under existing law, prior to establishing a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, both the
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the local agency in whose jurisdiction the
highway rests, must make competent engineering estimates of the effect of the lanes on
safety, and highway capacity.
AB 44 would require Caltrans and local authorities, with respect to highways under their
respective jurisdictions, to re -designate all existing HOV lanes as mixed -flow lanes and
may not construct or designate any new HOV lanes unless all of the following
requirements have been met:
(1) Caltrans or local authority has conducted the traffic model study (described
below) and analysis required by AB 44.
(2) Caltrans or local authority has obtained the certification of the study and
analysis.
(3) The result of the analysis conducted is that establishing an HOV lane is the
most efficient alternative in accordance with the cost -benefit estimates.
(4) Six months have elapsed from the date the analysis of the study was submitted
to the Governor and the Legislature.
AB 44 would add to the current requirement for competent engineering estimates the
requirement for a traffic model study of not less than six months' duration that compares
the alternatives of establishing HOV lanes, establishing a high -occupancy toll lane (HOT
lane alternative), establishing a mixed -flow lane (mixed -flow lane alternative), or not
establishing additional lanes (no -build alternative).
Per AB 44, the traffic model study required shall cover an analysis segment consisting of
at least the entire affected freeway section, or the corridor of which that freeway is a part,
and shall include, but need not be limited to, all of the following:
(1) A modal choice sub -model showing the fraction of travelers that will choose a
00.0013
HOV mode; such as car pools, vans, or buses, instead of driving alone, dependent
upon, but not limited to, the number of passengers required to qualify a vehicle as
a HOV and the HOV lane timesavings.
(2) Distribution of the total freeway volume between the HOV lane and the
mixed -flow lanes, dependent upon modal choice fraction.
(3) A congestion sub -model showing travel speeds and time, dependent on the
vehicular volume in the various lanes.
(4) Calibration to confirm that the model yields results are consistent with
observed pre -build traffic volumes, speeds, and number of car pools. The
observed total pre -build person trips (over all modes) within the analysis segment,
which shall be referred to as the "person -trips base," shall be held constant and
used as the basis for subsequent benefit calculations.
(5) Iterating the model as necessary to ensure that the travel times are consistent
with those used in estimating the fraction choosing HOV modes.
(6) Total travel time, emissions, and fuel consumption shall be computed by
summing over the same "person -trips base" for each build alternative, and
expressed as change relative to the no -build alternative.
(7) Emissions estimates shall include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Emissions and fuel consumption shall be
computed using methods of the State Air Resources Board and shall be dependent
upon vehicle miles traveled, vehicle trips, and average speeds in the various lanes.
(8) Capital costs, annual operating costs, and annualized capital and operating
cost, shall be estimated for each alternative, incremental to the no -build
alternative. Costs unusual to each alternative, including any special lane width,
buffer lanes, additional shoulders, enforcement zones, merging regions, and
enforcement operation, shall be separately identified and estimated.
(9) Cost -benefit ratios shall be estimated for each alternative and may be
expressed as dollars of total annualized cost per unit of benefit for each of the
various benefit measures.
(10) The study shall provide data sufficient to determine whether the use of
high -occupancy vehicle lanes improve air quality to the extent included in the
state implementation plan filed under the federal Clean Air Act.
(1 1) The study shall compare the number of traffic violations, accidents, injuries,
and fatalities that occur on portions of highways that have HOV lanes to portions
of highways that do not have those lanes.
•
000014
•
•
•
AB 44 would also require Caltrans or local authorities to analyze the results of the
traffic model study to determine the most efficient choice among the HOV lane
alternative, the HOT lane alternative, the mixed -flow lane alternative, and the no -
build alternative in terms of total person -delay, emissions, and cost.
Subsequently, the performance results and comparative analysis conducted for a
HOV lane project would be required to be distributed as follows:
(1) As part of any oral presentations at hearings and part of any visual
presentations in handouts and workshops for the project.
(2) In any literature or visual displays prepared for the public or for public
officials in relation to the project.
(3) In any environmental impact report prepared for the project.
Finally, AB 44 would require Caltrans or the local authority to submit a copy of
the documentation required to the Governor and the Legislature for review within
six months of completion.
Staff Comments:
Both the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino
Associated Governments (SANBAG) have made and have plans for substantial
investment in HOV lane infrastructure. Additionally, both agencies continue to invest in
an extensive outreach program designed to promote ridesharing (via HOV lanes) as an
alternative to driving alone.
Many of the HOV lane criticisms rely on anecdotal information, such as visual
representations showing free -flow lanes gridlocked and HOV lanes essentially empty.
Often forgotten when confronted with these visual representations is the purpose of
freeways, and transportation infrastructure in general, to move people, not vehicles, from
their point of origin to their destinations. With that purpose in mind, consideration of the
following data supports the continuation of HOV lanes in their present status and future
construction of such lanes:
Each freeway lane capacity, at posted speeds approximates 2,200 vehicles per hour with
spacings of 141 feet. Southern California's average vehicle occupancy (AVO) is almost
1.1, thus, a 2+ HOV lane will have twice the person -throughput capacity of a mixed flow
lane if both are operating at maximum vehicle capacity.
The strongest contrast becomes most clear under congested flow conditions. Stop -and -go
traffic, averaging 10 miles per hour (MPH) reduces the per -lane capacity to 1,173
vehicles per hours and spacing to 30 feet. With Southern California's AVO of 1.1, the
person throughput of such a mixed flow lane is only 1,291 vehicles per hour.
000015
However, a 2+ HOV lane operating at 65 MPH, equals or surpasses the person
throughput of the congested mixed flow lane with spacings as great as 570 feet. A 3+
HOV lane could equal this throughput with spacings of 915 feet, or less than 6 vehicles
per lane -mile. Operating at maximum vehicle capacity, a 3+ HOV lane would have a
throughput of 7,7000 vehicles per hour or six times more the person throughput capacity
of the mixed flow lane.
Clearly, HOV lanes offer both higher levels of person throughput and personal safety
(due to greater spacings) that is easily quantifiable.
In response to a request opinion of the impacts of AB 44 from Caltrans Director Medina,
the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
stated that both Interstate Maintenance Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program funds may not "be provided for a project which will result
in the construction of new capacity available to single occupant vehicles unless the
project consists of a high occupancy vehicle facility available to single occupant vehicles
only at other than peak travel times." Further, the FHWA stated that "the State
(California) may not unilaterally decide to end the operation of HOV lanes, even by
paying back the funds it received."
Therefore, many issues remain unresolved before all existing HOV lanes can or should be
redesignated as mixed flow lanes — which AB 44 intends to implement.
Given the negative mobility, safety, financial (Federal funds) impacts that would result,
converting existing HOV lanes to mixed flow is not justifiable.
Staff Recommendation:
OPPOSE.
•
UOOO16
•
•
Date of Analysis: February 4, 1999
Bill Number/Author: AB 74 (Virginia Strom -Martin, D -Eureka)
Introduced December 7, 1998
Subject: State Intercity Rail Funding Eligibility
Status: Assigned To The Assembly Transportation Committee —
No Hearing Date Yet.
Summary:
Existing law specifies what types of projects are eligible for State and Federal
transportation funding. AB 74 would render a specific rail freight operation (North Coast
Railroad Authority) eligible for State Intercity Rail funding. This bill is identical to AB
96 (1998, Strom -Martin) which at the request of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, the San Bernardino Associated Governments, and a number of other
interested parties, was vetoed by then Governor Wilson.
Staff Comments:
Currently, State Intercity Rail funds are allocated through the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) process by the California Transportation Commission
(CTC). Passenger commuter rail systems such as Metrolink rely heavily on these funds
to support their operations. Permitting freight operations to apply for these funds will
unnecessarily cause taxpaying rail passengers to compete with non -passenger service for
funding to support their daily commute.
Metrolink service to both Riverside and San Bernardino County continue to experience
ridership increases. With these increases are additional service need which translate to
the need for additional funding. Having to compete with a private freight operation
located in Northern California is not in the best interest of the Riverside and San
Bernardino County residents.
Further, there a possibility that opening State Intercity Rail funding for private freight
operations in Northern California might be seen as an opportunity for the major railroad
freight operators in Riverside and San Bernardino County Burlington Northern Santa Fe
and Union Pacific and other short line freight carriers within the state to also begin
seeking state capital assistance.
Staff Recommendation:
OPPOSE.
000017
Date of Analysis: January 28, 1999
•
•
Bill Number/Author:
Subject:
Status:
Summary:
AB 102 (Scott Wildman, D -Los Angeles and
Wally Hertzberg, D — Los Angeles)
Introduced December 21, 1998
Funding For Soundwall Retrofit Projects
No Committee Assignment Yet.
In 1989, the Legislature put together the Transportation Blueprint for the 21st Century,
which was funded by a nine cents per gallon tax increase authorized by the passage of
Proposition 111. The Blueprint authorized $150 million for constructing a list of 219
soundwalls. Due to cost escalation resulting from delays in project delivery, an estimated
$200 million of work remains for the 1989 priority list; $134 million of it in Los Angeles
County. None of the remaining soundwalls on the 1989 list are in Riverside or San
Bernardino County.
AB 102 proposes to fund the remaining soundwall project "off -the -top" of the State
Highway Account (SHA). In other words, should AB 102 pass in its current form,
funding the remaining soundwall projects must occur prior to programming SHA funds
for any other program/project.
Impacts on Riverside and San Bernardino County:
Background
Last year, AB 1686 (Wildman) attempted to resolve this issue.. Both RCTC and
SANBAG agreed to a compromise that proposed funding with the projects 50% off -the -
top and a 50% contribution from the regional choice funds. However, late in the
Legislatative Session, the approach of AB 1686 was reconfigured to split the funding for
the soundwalls with a 50% contribution from the regional shares of those counties with
projects and 50% from the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (subject to
the North/South split). Both the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the
San Bernardino Associated Governments successfully advocated for the Governor's veto
of AB 1686. The veto request was based upon the policy that, much like the agreement
for funding the seismic retrofit of the State's bridges, the seismic retrofit of soundwalls
on the State's highways should be a responsibility shared equally by all parts of the State
that includes a local contribution.
In it's current form, AB 102 represents a definite cost to both Riverside and San
Bernardino County. The costs to each county are $673,000 and $9.9 million respectively.
Were the projects to be funded under the scenario to which RCTC and SANBAG agreed
000013
last year (50% off -top, 50% regional share), the costs to each county would be $337,000
and $4.9 million respectively.
Given the significant difference in costs to both Riverside and San Bernardino County,
staff recommends seeking to amend AB 102 to require that the soundwall projects are
funded in a manner that provides the least costly impact to both Riverside and San
Bernardino County.
Stab Recommendation:
SEEK AMENDMENT
000019
Date of Analysis: February 4, 1999
Bill Number/Author: SB 14 (Richard Rainey, R -Walnut Creek)
Introduced December 7, 1998
Subject: High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
Status: Assigned To The Senate Transportation Committee —
No Hearing Date Yet.
Summary:
Under existing law, prior to establishing a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, both the
Caltrans of Transportation (Caltrans) and the local agency in whose jurisdiction the
highway rests, must make competent engineering estimates of the effect of the lanes on
safety, and highway capacity.
If passed into law, SB 14 would require Caltrans to complete a study to create a set of
criteria for measuring the effectiveness of state highway lanes proposed to be designated
or constructed as HOV lanes. The results of the study shall include, but not be limited to,
a projection for the estimated level of use of the HOV lanes during peak traffic hours.
SB 14 would prevent Caltrans from designating or constructing any new HOV lanes until
after completing the required study. Further, the criteria developed under the study shall
be applied to any HOV lane that is designated or constructed on or after SB 14 becomes
law, as follows:
(1) On or before 18 months have elapsed from the date that the lane became
operational, Caltrans shall review the use statistics and patterns to determine
whether the lane is being used in a manner that is consistent with the criteria
developed by the Caltrans.
(2) If the result of the review is that the lane is not being used at or above the
estimated level of use, Caltrans, in consultation with the local transportation
authority, shall propose a strategy to increase the level of use to meet that
estimate.
(3) On or before 12 months have elapsed from the date
implementation, Caltrans shall review the use statistics
(4) If the result of the review conducted is that the lane
above the estimated level of use, Caltrans immediately
convert the lane to mixed -flow use.
of the proposed strategy's
and patterns for the lane.
is not being used at or
shall initiate a process to
Lastly, SB 14 would require Caltrans to review the usage patterns of HOV lanes that
were made operational before January 1, 1999, to determine whether traffic congestion
relief has been achieved as a direct result of the operation of those lanes. If the result of
000020
the review is that traffic congestion relief has not been achieved, Caltrans shall propose
strategies to achieve that relief. The strategies proposed by Caltrans may include
converting any HOV lane to a mixed -flow lane, if Caltrans deems that strategy to be
appropriate for that lane.
Staff Comments:
Both the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino
Associated Governments (SANBAG) have made and have plans for substantial
investment in HOV lane infrastructure. Additionally, both agencies continue to invest in
an extensive outreach program designed to promote ridesharing (via HOV lanes) as an
alternative to driving alone.
Many of the HOV lane criticisms rely on anecdotal information, such as visual
representations showing free -flow lanes gridlocked and HOV lanes essentially empty.
Often forgotten when confronted with these visual representations is the purpose of
freeways, and transportation infrastructure in general, to move people, not vehicles, from
their point of origin to their destinations. With that purpose in mind, consideration of the
following data supports the continuation of HOV lanes in their present status and future
construction of such lanes:
Each freeway lane capacity, at posted speeds approximates 2,200 vehicles per hour with
spacings of 141 feet. Southern California's average vehicle occupancy (AVO) is almost
1.1, thus, a 2+ HOV lane will have twice the person -throughput capacity of a mixed flow
lane if both are operating at maximum vehicle capacity.
The strongest contrast becomes most clear under congested flow conditions. Stop -and -go
traffic, averaging 10 miles per hour (MPH) reduces the per -Jane capacity to 1,173
vehicles per hours and spacing to 30 feet. With Southern California's AVO of 1.1, the
person throughput of such a mixed flow lane is only 1,291 vehicles per hour.
However, a 2+ HOV lane operating at 65 MPH, equals or surpasses the person
throughput of the congested mixed flow lane with spacings as great as 570 feet. A 3+
HOV lane could equal this throughput with spacings of 915 feet, or less than 6 vehicles
per lane -mile. Operating at maximum vehicle capacity, a 3+ HOV lane would have a
throughput of 7,7000 vehicles per hour or six times more the person throughput capacity
of the mixed flow lane.
Clearly, HOV lanes offer both higher levels of person throughput and personal safety
(due to greater spacings) that is easily quantifiable.
In response to a request for its opinion of the impacts of AB 44 (McClintock) from
Caltrans Director Medina, the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has stated that both Interstate Maintenance Program and
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds may not "be
provided for a project which will result in the construction of new capacity available to
•
•
•
00002_
•
•
•
single occupant vehicles unless the project consists of a high occupancy vehicle facility
available to single occupant vehicles only at other than peak travel times."
Many issues remain unresolved before a determination to prevent further HOV lane
construction, as SB 14 intends, should be made. SB 14 applies different standards for
measuring the effectiveness of future and present HOV lanes. The only specified
standard for future study is a projection of level of use during peak traffic hours. The
stated standard for a decision to convert existing HOV lanes to general use is whether
traffic congestion relief has been achieved as a direct result. The bill should be amended
to make the two the same. Either congestion relief as a direct result should be defined in
the study or the test for current lanes should be based upon standards to be determined by
the study. Level of use probably is a better measure of effectiveness than such blurry
data as number of carpools created.
SB 14 states that Caltrans, in consultation with the local transportation authority, shall
propose a strategy to increase the level of use of future HOV lanes. However, at all
other decision points imposed by the bill. Caltrans alone makes the determination. The
bill should be amended to adopt existing law language requiring approval of the County
transportation planning agency in deciding to authorize HOV lanes. If SB 14 were to
pass in its current form, Caltrans could unilaterally repeal existing HOV lanes that were
jointly approved under the provisions of the bill. SB 14 should be amended to require
joint decision making with regard to HOVs.
Stab Recommendation:
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
00002?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Date of Analysis: January 28, 1999
Bill Number/Author: SB 17 (Liz Figueroa, D- Fremont)
Introduced December 7, 1998
Subject: Transit Pass Tax Credits
Status: Assigned to The Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee
No Hearing Date Yet.
Summary:
SB 17 would permit employers who provide their employees a subsidized transit pass to
claim a tax credit for up to 40 percent of the cost of the transit pass. This tax credit
would sunset on December 1, 2004.
SB 17 would also require the California Research Bureau to submit a report to the
Legislature by January 1, 2003 on the cost of the tax credit, number of passes issued and
the total public transit ridership in California for income years 1999 through 2001.
Impacts on Riverside and San Bernardino County:
Both the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino
Associated Governments (SANBAG) jointly contract for rideshare services that include
incentives to both employers and employees that encourage rideshare activities such as
riding public transit. Further, RCTC and SANBAG both contribute substantially to the
contract with Southern California Rideshare to promote and implement a regional
rideshare program. Additionally, both RCTC and SANBAG have made substantial
investments in high occupancy vehicle lane infrastructure. These programs have been
tremendously successful in reducing the number of single occupant vehicles on the road
in the area.
Additional incentives such as would be offered by SB 17 will certainly assist the effort to
reduce the number of vehicles on the road, provide cleaner air and ultimately lead to a
better quality of life for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents.
Staff Recommendation:
SUPPORT.
000023
•
i
•
Date of Analysis: February 5, 1999
Bill Number/Author: SB 63 (Hilda Solis, D -El Monte)
Introduced December 7, 1998
Subject: High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
Status: Assigned To The Senate Transportation Committee —
No Hearing Date Yet.
Summary:
SB 63 would require the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to reduce the current
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) minimum occupancy requirement for the 11 -mile
portion of the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) known as the El Monte Busway from 3
plus to 2 plus. The present requirement of 3 plus has existed since 1976.
Staff Comments:
Requiring Caltrans to convert the El Monte Busway to 2 plus conflicts with the existing
Caltrans District 7 agreement with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (LACMTA). The agreement, is designed to protect express bus route
headways by keeping free flow in the busway. The agreement was necessary because the
facility was built as an exclusive busway in 1973 and made available to 3 plus carpools
later.
Since a federal transit grant was used in constructing the busway, SB 63 also could open
the door to Federal Transit Administration involvement. In response to a request opinion
of the impacts of AB 44 (McClintock) from Caltrans Director Medina, the U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has stated that
both Interstate Maintenance Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program funds may not "be provided for a project which will result in the
construction of new capacity available to single occupant vehicles unless the project
consists of a high occupancy vehicle facility available to single occupant vehicles only at
other than peak travel times." Further, the FHWA stated that "the State (California) may
not unilaterally decide to end the operation of HOV lanes, even by paying back the funds
it received." A similar issue may arise, should SB 63 be passed into law.
While SB 63 exclusively addresses an issue in Los Angeles County, the precedent setting
nature of the legislation merits consideration by others. Disturbing is the fact that SB 63
would nullify a nearly 25 year old operating agreement between Caltrans and LACMTA.
Should the Riverside County Transportation Commission or San Bernardino Associated
Governments ever enter into similar agreements with Caltrans, feeling secure in their
continuation would be essential. Based on the precedent setting nature of SB 63, staff
recommends opposing SB 63.
Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE.
000024
•
•
•
Date of Analysis: January 28, 1999
Bill Number/Author: SB 98 (Richard Alarcon D -Los Angeles)
Introduced December 8, 1998
Subject: Vehicle License Fees for Air Pollution
Status: Assigned To The Senate Transportation Committee —
No Hearing Date Yet.
Summary:
Existing law provides the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) the
authority to impose a $1 fee on vehicle registrations. The revenues generated from the
fee support a program, administered by the SCAQMD's Technical Advancement Office
(TAO), which encourages participation in projects to increase the proliferation and use of
clean -burning fuels. In August 1999, the SCAQMD's authority to impose this fee will
expire.
SB 98, an urgency measure that is identical to AB 38 (Washington), proposes to extend
the SCAQMD's exiting authority to impose the $1 fee until August 1, 2004.
Staff Comments:
The TAO primarily funds projects related to assisting, through research or purchases,
heavy-duty vehicle fleet conversions from diesel fueled to clean fueled engines. Many of
the fleets benefiting from the TAO work reside in Riverside or San Bernardino County.
The work of the TAO and the Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee (MSRC), of
which both the Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino
Associated Governments are members, frequently lead to healthy partnerships in their
efforts to maximize the use of vehicle license fees intended to facilitate cleaner air.
Staff Recommendation:
Seeing the past and potential future receipt of funds for Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties, staff recommends:
SUPPORT.
000025
•
•
•
Date of Analysis: January 28, 1999
Bill Number/Author: SB 117 (Kevin Murray, D -Los Angeles)
Introduced December 18, 1998
Subject:
Status:
Summary:
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program Fund
Assigned To The Senate Transportation Committee —
No Hearing Date Yet.
Part of the 1989 Transportation Blueprint was the addition of the Environmental
Enhancement and Mitigation Demonstration Program Fund (EEM). Beginning in 1991,
existing law mandated an annual allocation to the EEM of $10 million for ten years. The
fund was created to support a grant program for local, state, federal and nonprofit
agencies to apply for and receive grants funding environmental mitigation projects.
Projects awarded grants from the EEM fund must related to environmental mitigation of
modifying existing transportation facilities or the design, construction or expansion of
new transportation facilities.
SB 117 proposes to make permanent the existence of the EEM fund and to remove its
status as a "demonstration program." In addition to making the EEM an annual program
SB 117 maintains the annual $10 million allocation to the fund.
Staff Comments:
The EEM program has been highlighted as part of the CTC's overall strategy in creating
both a regional (local) Transportration Enhancement Activity (TEA) program and a state
level TEA program. The issue was the uncertainty of whether there would be a bill
which would extend the program beyond 2000. SB 117 is the vehicle to effectuate the
necessary extension.
Both Riverside and San Bernardino County are areas of non -attainment of Federal Clean
Air Standards. The EEM program offers an opportunity to receive funding which may
assist the effort to alleviate any potential negative impacts of transportation projects.
Additionally, the program creates the opportunity to receive funding for innovative
transportation projects/facilities that may lead to cleaner air quality or more efficient
planning such as the Community Environmental Transportation Planning process
(CETAP) being initiated in Riverside County.
Staff Recommendation:
SUPPORT.
00002 )
OUI VERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPOR TATI ON COMMI N/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMEI
POSI TIONS ON ATE LEGISLATION
Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Staff's
Recommended
Position
Board Adopted Position/
Date of Adoption
AB 38 (Washingt on)
Extends SC AQMD Authority to
collect $1 vehicle license fee for
air quality programs.
Awaiting hearing
date in the Assembly
Transportation
Committee .
SUPPORT
AB 44 (McClintock)
Would require Caltrans and local
authorities to redesignate all
existing HOV lanes as mixed flow .
Awaiting hearing
date in the Assembly
Transp ortation
Committee .
OPPOSE
AB 74 (Strom -Martin)
Would permit a private rail freight
operation to compete for State
Intercity Rail funding.
Awaiting hearing
date in the Assembly
Transportation
Committee.
OPPOSE
AB 102 (Wildman
and Hertzberg)
Would fund the 1989 Priority
Soundwall Retrofit list off -the -top
of the State Highway Account.
No Committee
Assignment yet.
SEEK AMENDMENT
SB 14 (Rainey)
Would require exten sive study
prior to construction of future
HOV lanes.
Awaiting hearing
date in the Senate
Transportation
Committee.
OPPOSE U NLESS
AMENDED
SB 17 (Figueroa)
Wo uld permit employers to receiv e
a tax credit for purchasing transit
passes for their employers.
Awaiting hearing
date in the Senate
Rev enue and
Tax ation
Committee.
SUPPORT
SB 63 (Solis)
Would reduce the minimum
occupancy for the El Monte
Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus.
Awaiting hearing
date in the Senate
Transportation
Committee.
OPPO SE
SIAlarc on)
Extends SCA(1ML) Authority to
collect $1 vehicle license fee fo r
air quality programs.
Awa hearing
date the Senate
Transportation
Committee.
SUPPORT
ar
S13 117 (Murray)
Makes the State Environmental
Enhancement and Mitigation fund
permanent.
Awaiting hearing
date in the Senate
Transportation
Committee.
SUPPORT
•
•
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GROUND TRANSPORTATION
Don Young, AK
Tom Petri, WI, Vice -Chair
Sherry Boehlert, NY
Herb Bateman, VA
Howard Coble, NC
John Duncan, Jr., TN
Tom Ewing, IL
Wayne Gilchrest, MD
Stephen Horn, CA
Bob Franks, NJ
John Mica, FL
Jack Quinn, NY
Tillie Fowler, FL
Vernon Ehlers, MI
Spencer Bachus, AL
Steve LaTourette, OH
Sue Kelly, NY
Ray La1ood, IL
Richard Baker, LA
Charles Bass, NH
Bob Ney, OH
Jack Metcalf, WA
Ed Pease, IN
Asa Hutchinson, AR
Merrill Cook, UT
John Cooksey, LA
John Thune, SD
Frank LoBiondo, NJ
J.C. Watts, Jr., OK
Jerry Moran, KS
John Doolittle, CA
Lee Terry, NE
Donald Sherwood, PA
Gary Miller, CA
John Sweeney, NY
Jim DeMint, SC
Vacancy
Vacancy
Vacancy
Vacancy
U.S. House of Representatives
106th Congress, First Session
THOMAS E. PETRI, CHAIRMAN
James Oberstar, MN
Nick Rahall, U, WY
Robert Borski, PA
William Lipinski, IL
Robert Wise, Jr., WY
James Traficant, Jr., OH
Peter DeFazio, OR
Bob Clement, TN
Jerry Costello, IL
Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC
Jerrold Nadler, NY
Pat Danner, MO
Robert Menendez, NJ
Corrine Brown, FL
James Barcia, MI
Bob Filner, CA
Eddie Bernice Johnson, TX
Frank Mascara, PA
Gene Taylor, MS
Juanita Millender-McDonald, CA
Elljah Cummings, MD
Earl Blumenauer, OR
Mar Sandlin, TX
Ellen Taurcher, CA
Bill Pascrell, Jr.,' NJ
Leonard Boswell, L4
Jim McGovern, MA
Tim Holden, PA
Nick Lampson, 7X
John Baldacci, ME
Marion Berry, AR
Ronnie Shows, MS
Brian Baird WA
Shelley Berkley, NY
00002a
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD
AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
SR/4D
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, CHAIRMAN
Frank LoBiondo, NJ, Vice -Chair
Don Young, AK
Howard Coble,NC
Bud Shuster, PA (ex officio)
Peter DeFazio, OR
Gene Taylor,MS
Brian Baird, WA
James Oberstar, MN (ex officio)
1
000030
1
•
•
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Don Young, AK
Tom Petri, WI, Vice -Chair
Sherry Boehlert, NY
Herb Bateman, VA
Howard Coble, NC
John Duncan, Jr., TN
Tom Ewing, IL
Wayne Gilchrest, MD
Stephen Horn, CA
Bob Franks, NJ
John Mica, FL
Jack Quinn, NY
Tillie Fowler, FL
Vernon Ehlers, MI
Spencer Bachus, AL
Steve LaTourette, OH
Sue Kelly, NY
Ray LaHood, IL
Richard Baker, LA
Charles Bass, NI -I
Bob Ney, OH
Jack Metcalf, WA
Ed Pease, IN
Asa Hutchinson, AR
Merrill Cook, UT
John Cooksey, LA
John Thune, SD
Frank LoBiondo, NJ
J.C. Watts, Jr., OK
Jerry Moran, KS
John Doolittle, CA
Lee Terry, NE
Donald Sherwood, PA
Gary Miller, CA
John Sweeney, NY
Jim DeMint, SC
Vacancy
Vacancy
Vacancy
Vacancy
41R/34D
BUD SHUSTER, PA, CHAIRMAN
James Oberstar, MN I
Nick Rahal1,11, WV
Robert Borski, PA
William Lipinski, IL
Robert Wise, Jr., WV
James Traficant, Jr., OH
Peter DeFazio, OR
Bob Clement, TN
Jerry Costello, IL
Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC
Jerrold Nadler, NY
Pat Danner, MO
Robert Menendez, NJ
Corrine Brown, FL
James Barcia, MI
Bob Filner, CA
Eddie Bernice Johnson, TX
Frank Mascara, PA
Gene Taylor, MS
Juanita Millender-McDonald, CA
Elijah Cummings, MD
Earl Blumenauer, OR
Max Sandlin, TX
Ellen Tauscher,'CA
Bill Pascrell, Jr., NJ
Leonard Boswell, 1,4
Jim McGovern, MA
Tim Holden, PA
Nick Lampson, TX
John Baldacci, ME
Marion Berry, AR
Ronnie Shows, MS
Brian Baird, WA
Shelley Berkley, NV
000031
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT
20R / 16D !
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, CHAIRMAN
Donald Sherwood, PA, Vice -Chair
Don Young, AK
Herb Bateman, VA
Wayne Gilchrest, MD
Stephen Horn, CA
Bob Franks, NJ
Jack Quinn, NY
Vernon Ehlers, MI
Steve LaTourettc, OH
Sue Kelly, NY
Richard Baker, LA
Bob Ney, OH
Asa Hutchinson, AR
Frank LoBiondo, NJ
John Doolittle, CA
Vacancy
Vacancy
Vacancy
Bud Shuster, PA (ex officio)
000032
Robert porski, PA
Gene Tiylor, MS
Earl Blwnenauer, OR
Brian Baird WA
Bob Clement, TN
Jerry Costello, IL
Robert Menendez, NJ
James Barcia, MI
Frank Mascara, PA
Ellen TTuscher, CA
Bill PasFrell, Jr., NJ
Leonard Boswell, IA
Jim McGovern, MA
Nick Lampson, TX
John Ba1dacci, ME
James pberstar, MN (ex officio)
CLIFF MADISON
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INC.
•
TO: Dave Shepherd
FROM: Cliff Madison
DATE: January 19, 1999
SUBJECT: House Transportation Appropriations
The membership of the House
Subcommittee is as follows:
•
itEPUBLICANS
Frank Wolf, Chair (Va.)
Tom DeLay (Tex.)
Ralph Regula (Ohio)
Hal Rogers (Ky.)
Ron Packard (Calif.)
Sonny Callahan (Ala.)
Todd Tiahrt (Kansas)
Robert Aderholt (Ala.)
Kay Granger (Tex.)
2M -A Maryland Ave., N:E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 543-9395
Facsimile (202) 543-4297
Subcommittee
Transportation Appropriations
DEMOCRATS
Martin Sabo (Minn.)
John Olver (Mass.)
Ed Pastor (Ariz.)
James Clyburn (S. C.)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (Mich.)
Jose Serrano (N.Y.)
000033
T 0 i T O' d
.LAO NOS I atiW .I 1O T T = b T 23 _L 66-6 T tl1'
CLIFF MADISON
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INC,
044910
TO: Paul Blackwelder - Dave Shepherd
FROM: Cliff Madison
DATE: January 30, 1999
SUBJECT: January 1999 Federal Affairs Report
254-A Maryland Ave., N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 543-9395
Facsimile (202) 543-4297
Generally, during January, the Committee's of the 106th
Congress organized, made assignments, and determined the schedule
of events for 1999.
On Wednesday, January 6, I met with Ken
staff of the House Surface Transportation Subc
the impact of the "Livingston amendment" whic_
FY 99 Transportation Appropriations Act, on
projects" which are contained in TEA -21.
On Friday, January 8, I faxed to Mr. She
of the House Transportation and Infrastructu
106th Congress. And I faxed the Republican Me
Appropriations Committee.
douse, and Jim Zoia,
ittee to determine
is contained in the
the "high priority
herd the membership
e Committee for the
rship on the House
On Tuesday, January 12, I faxed the sch dule of recesses of
the House of Representatives to Mr. Shepherd.
On Tuesday, January 19, I faxed membership assignments of the
Subcommittees of the House Appropriations Committee.
On Wednesday, January 20, I
the Senate Aviation Subcommittee
Improvement Program which expires
I faxed a copy of the House
Subcommittee schedule of hearings
attended a hearing conducted by
on the extension of the Airport
on March 30r 1999. In addition,
Transportation Appropriations
and dead -lines to Mr. Shepherd.
On Tuesday, January 26, I attended a; luncheon at which
Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Bud Shuster outlined the priorities of his Committee for 1999.
On Monday, February 1, the President will present his Budget
requests for FY 2000.
000031
Date of Analysis: February 5, 1999
Bill Number/Author: SB 63 (Hilda Solis, D -El Monte)
Introduced December 7, 1998
Subject: High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
Status: Assigned To The Senate Transportation Committee —
No Hearing Date Yet.
Summary:
SB 63 would require the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to reduce the current High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) minimum occupancy requirement for the 11 -mile portion of the San
Bernardino Freeway (I-10) known as the El Monte Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus. The present
requirement of 3 plus has existed since 1976.
Staff Comments:
Requiring Caltrans to convert the El Monte Busway to 2 plus conflicts with the existing Caltrans
District 7 agreement with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(LACMTA). The agreement, is designed to protect express bus route headways by keeping free
flow in the busway. The agreement was necessary because the facility was built as an exclusive
busway in 1973, and made available to 3 plus carpools later.
Since a federal transit grant was used in constructing the busway, SB 63 also could open the door
to Federal Transit Administration involvement. In response to a request opinion of the impacts of
AB 44 (McClintock) from Caltrans Director Medina, the U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has stated that both Interstate Maintenance Program
and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds may not "be provided
for a project which will result in the construction of new capacity available to single occupant
vehicles unless the project consists of a high occupancy vehicle facility available to single
occupant vehicles only at other than peak travel times." Further, the FHWA stated that "the
State (California) may not unilaterally decide to end the operation of HOV lanes, even by paying
back the funds it received." A similar issue may arise, should SB 63 be passed into law.
While SB 63 exclusively addresses an issue in Los Angeles County, the precedent setting nature
of the legislation merits consideration by others. Disturbing is the fact that SB 63 would nullify
a nearly 25 year old operating agreement between Caltrans and LACMTA. Should the Riverside
County Transportation Commission or San Bernardino Associated Governments ever enter into
similar agreements with Caltrans, feeling secure in their continuation would be essential. The
bill should be amended to require consultation with the local transportation agency and an
exhaustive review of the impacts changing the minimum occupancy of the lane in question prior
to mandating such a change. Based on the precedent setting nature of SB 63, staff recommends
an oppose unless amended position on SB 63.
Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED.
•
AGENDA ITEM 7
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer
THROUGH:
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Request for Additional Construction Contingency for Construction
Contract No. RO-9847 for Construction of Sound Walls on SR 91
Between Van Buren Boulevard and Mary Street in the City of
Riverside
In 1994, RCTC designed the Route 91 HOV Median Widening Project, from Magnolia to
Mary St. This project added 1 - 11 ft. HOV lane, with no buffer, in the median of Route
91. Because of the limited median width the project required the re -stripping of the
existing 3 - 12 ft. mixed flow lanes to 3 - 11 ft. mixed flow lanes to make room for the
new HOV lane. Without this reduction in travel lane and buffer width, outside widening
of the freeway would have been required, and the necessary environmental clearance
would have delayed construction of the project. Caltrans agreed to move forward with
the construction of the Route 91 HOV Median Widening Project, with the stipulation that
RCTC restore the travel lane and buffer width in the future to full standards widths when
additional construction was undertaken.
The Measure "A" improvements to State Route 91 between Magnolia and Mary Streets
are as follows:
1. Construction of the HOV lanes using reduced standard lane widths, reduced
standard median, and reduced standard buffer. ( This project is completed)
2. Construction of Phase I Sound Walls to mitigate for the HOV lane installation. (This
project is nearing completion)
3. Construction of Phase II Sound Walls and auxiliary lanes to both mitigate for the
HOV lane project, and to provide operational improvements. (This project is
currently under design and is funded)
4. Widening of lanes to restore the standard 12 foot lane widths and HOV buffer. The
first portion of this effort will be included with the Auxiliary Lane project.
In June of 1998, the Commission awarded a PS&E Design Contract to URS Greiner for
the Route 91 Phase II Sound Wall and Auxiliary lane Project. This Phase II Project will
incorporate into its design the restoration of the travel lanes and HOV buffer width at the
locations of the proposed auxiliary lanes. As part of the project scoping efforts associated
with completing this design, RCTC Staff and Caltrans agreed to a reduced future cross
section that would not require a full standard median and HOV buffer. This agreement
on project scoping will significantly reduce the cost of the future lane restoration project
to put all of the lanes back to 12 foot lane widths.
000035
At the June 1998 meeting, the Commission also awarded Construction Contract No. RO-
9847, to R. Fox Construction, Inc., for construction of the Phase I Sound Walls on Route
91, from Van Buren Blvd. to Mary St., in the City of Riverside, in the amount of
$2,486,486, and a contingency amount of $113,514 (5%) to cover potential change
orders encountered during construction.
One of the Sound Walls, Sound Wall #183A, was positioned at a location that was
consistent with providing only enough room to allow for the proposed auxiliary lane. At
the time this design was performed, Caltrans had not agreed to a reduced cross section
that would allow for the reduced median to remain as a permanent feature. Therefore,
Sound Wall #183A was thought to be a throw -a -wall and was designed at a location that
would minimize the cost of constructing the wall. With the new direction from Caltrans
that the future median did not have to be widened to full standard, the wall could be
moved back and would not have to be torn down to provide for the future lane widening
improvements to restore standard lane width to SR 91.
The portion of the R. Fox bid related to construction of Sound Wall #183A is $430,000.
Staff initiated discussions with R. Fox prior to the start of any construction activities to
relocate Sound Wall #183A to a location that would allow for the restoration of the travel
lane and buffer width. Sound Wall #183A is to be constructed on top of a new retaining
wall. Relocating the wall further back from the existing freeway will require a taller
retaining wall and more excavation and backfill work. Staff gave R. Fox advance approval
to proceed with the Change Order to construct Sound Wall #183A in its relocated position
to prevent delay of the Contractor's construction schedule. It is estimated that the total
cost of the Change Order will be approximately $70,000, based on the increased
quantities of bid items.
The R. Fox Construction Contract No. RO-9847 is approximately 75% complete. This
major Change Order of $70,000 combined with the other change orders for the Phase I
work will completely deplete the construction contingency for the project and leave no
contingency to cover any additional change order's that may arise during the final 25%
of construction. Staff is requesting that the project contingency of $113,514 be increased
by an additional $40,000 to $153,514 (6%). This will assure enough remaining project
contingency to complete construction of the project.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
current project cost $2,486,486+•$113,514 = $2,600,000
additional contingency = $40,000
new revised not to exceed cost = $2,640,000
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Measure "A"
Y
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
NA
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Y
For Additional $40,000
000030
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
•
•
•
That the Budget and Implementation Committee recommend that the Commission
authorize the increase of the project construction contingency by $40,000 for
Construction Contract No. RO-9847 from $113,514 to $153,514. The new not to exceed
value of the contract will be $2,640,000.
000037
•
AGENDA ITEM 8
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Budget & Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Call Box Update
Attached are the operational statistics for the call box system for the quarter ending
December 31, 1998. There were a total of 15,788 calls during the quarter; 9,944
to Inland CHP and 5,844 to Indio CHP dispatch offices. This represents a decrease
of 5,310 calls or 25.1 % in call box activity over the quarter ending September 30,
1998. Although this may seem unusual, the number of calls typically decrease during
the second quarter. In the last three years, the call box calls decreased 20.9%,
18.7%, and 18.4% during the same period.
The average calls per day were 172 for the current quarter versus 229 for the
previous quarter. In comparing the quarter ending December, 1998 to December,
1997 call volumes, there has been a decrease of 2,194 calls (-12.2%) from last year
to this year. Unfortunately, all call box programs throughout the state have been
experiencing a similar decrease in usage which may be attributed to less older
vehicles on the highway due to strict insurance requirements.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
N/A
Source of Funds
N/A
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Year
Included in Program Budget
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the SAFE Board receive and file.
000038
•
•
•
1997
Oct
Nov
Dec
1000
2000
3000
4th QTR '97
4th QTR '98
Active Call Boxes
1,118
1,126
tocflP
4000
Calls to CHP
17,982
15,788
5000
1998
6000
Calls/Box
16.1
14.0
7000
Dec Totals
Oct - Dec Totals
DJ Jo iGDWWns apisaan!N
8661. Japan
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 1
Data Source: LA Cellular
00003;1
Riverside Cellular
. ,. 1997 4th Quarter
Average Call Lengths
Analysis
:: 1998
Average Call Lengths
4th Quarter
3:37
Active Call
Oct Nov Dec
3:43 3:32 3:38
Boxes X 35 minutes per call
4th Quarter
3:51
box*, = Total
Oct Nov Dec
3:54 3:48 3:52
Cellular Time Authorized...
'The Amount of time each call box is authorized to use in one month without an additional charge from LA Cellular
1,118 Call boxes 117,390
Call Box Cellular Minutes
Allocated 117,390 minutes
Used to call... CHP 65,188 0 56%
... Maintenance 10,141 0 9%
... Other Numbers 139 0 0%
Total Used 75,468 ® 64%
Minutes
1,126 CaII boxes 118,230
Call Box Cellular Minutes
Allocated 118,230 minutes
Used to call... CHP 60,884 0 51%
.. Maintenance 1.2,016 1 1 0%
...-Other Numbers 441 0 0%
Total Used 73,341 • 62%
Minutes
4.
Remaining 41 ,922 ® 36%
Total Used
Remaining 44,889 • 38%
Total Used
Cellular ..
�6 Time
Used
63% ..
� ..
Maint.
85%
11 %
Cellular
38%,. Time
Used-..:
63%
Maint.
52%
1 0%
Other 0°lo
1997 CHP Close-up (4th QTR)
Call Length Number of calls Percent
Other 0%
1998 CHP Close-up (4th QTR) ;.
CaII Length Number of calls Percent
0 to 1 min 3,313
- `'
18%
0 to 1 min 2,904
1
18%
1 to 3 min 5,998
33%
1 to 3 min 4,826 31%
3 to 5 min 4,070
23%
3 to 5 3,491
g ..,'=
min 22%
5 to 7 min 2,361
=
13%
5 to 7 min 2,141
14%
7 to 9 min 1,165
6%
7 to 9 min 1,167 Ei 7%
over 9 min 1,075 El 6%
over 9 min 1 ,259 8%
Total 17,982 calls 100%
1997 Maintenance Calls (4th QTR)
Total 15,788 calls 100%
1998 Maintenance Calls (4th QTR)
Calls
Calls
Expected* 1 33,540
Actual 41,129
Expected* 1 33,780
Actual 38,777 y ��
Too Many 0 7,589
18%
..... .. .
,.
13%
Too Many ® 4,997
`Call boxes are scheduled to Call Maintenance every 3 days (10 times/month)
8661 -10P DnO HIV
Produced by Tel T n Tek Services
�u0o4
Page: 2
Data Source: LA Cellular
•
•
h Quarter 1997
Call
Highway Boxes
Calls to Avg
CHP Calls/Box
RV -010 396 5,284 13.3
RV -015 201 4,513 22.5
RV -031
RV -033
6 42 7.0
2 11 5.5
4th Quarter 1998
Can
Highway Boxes
Calls to
CHP
Avg
Calls/Box
RV -010 396 4,574 1 1 .6
RV -015 204 4,168 20.4
RV -031 6 36 6.0
RV -033
RV -060 75 1,321 17.6
RV -062 16 267 16.7
RV -071 0 0 0.0
RV -074 30 291 9.7
RV -078
7 21 3.0
RV -079 30 269 9.0
RV -086 11 66 6.0
RV -091 161 3,208 19.9
RV -095 7 10 1.4
RV -1 11
12 131 10.9
RV -177 26 122 4.7
RV -215 98 2,183 22.3
RV -243 14 97 6.9
RV -371
RV -865
12 69 5.8
14 77 5.5
unassigned 0 0 0.0
TOTALS 1,118 17,982 16.1
2 12 6.0
RV -060 75 1,146 15.3
RV -062 20 269 13.5
RV -071 0 0 0.0
RV -074 30 277 9.2
RV -078 7 17 2.4
RV -079 30 223 7.4
RV -086 11 66 6.0
RV -091 161 2,835 17.6
RV -095 7 14 2.0
RV -111 12 91 7.6
RV -177 26 28 1.1
fi
RV -215 94 1,804 19.2
RV -243 14 76 5.4
RV -371 12 66 5.5
RV -865 14 86 6.1
unassigned 5 0 0.0
TOTALS 1,126 15,788 14.01
CD
N
l 7
0
866 1. as Dfl HIV 7
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 3
Data.Source: LA Cellular
6000041
Park N Calls Av er age
From Until Ride to CHP Calls/Da
C 10:00 PM 11:00 PM
8 6
560 564
y
6.1 6.2
11:00 PM 12:00 AM
3' 5
473 467
375:- 377
5.2 5 .1
12:00 AM 1:00 AM
0' 5
4.1 4 .1
1:00 AM 2:00 AM
1
3
260 238
2 .8 2.6
Total calls
2,716
2,430
2:00 AM 3:00 AM
21 4
221` 221
2.4� 2 .4
3:00 AM 4:00 AM
0 1
229 167
2.5 1.8
4:00 AM 5:00 AM
Oj 3
21 1
206 162
392 234
2.3 1 .8
5:00 AM 6:00 AM
4.3 2 .6
Avg calls/day
29.8
26.6
r 6:00 AM 7:00 AM
7:00 AM 8:00 AM
7> 2
625 324
792 524
6.8 3.6J
8.7 5 .7
8:00 AM 9:00 AM
13, 12
784 808
8.6 8.9
9:00 AM 10:00 AM
5 7
823: 728
9,0 8.0
Total calls
7,169
5,657
10:00 AM 11:00 AM
101 5
866 752
9.5 8.2
11:00 AM 12:00 PM
15 8
1,041 722
1,141 866
1,097 933
11:4 7 .9
12.5 9.5
12.0;, 10.2
12:00 PM 1:00 PM
17 16
14 21
1:00 PM 2:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PMI 22 91 1,284 1,024
3:00 PM 4:00 PM
22 19
1,270 1,088
1,287 1,201
1,179 1,129
14.1 11.21
:13.9, 1 1.9
4:00 PM 5:00 PM
37, 34
14.1 13.2
5:00 PM 6:00 PM
6:00 PM 7:00 PM
24 20
20 21
986 ` 1,071
782 881
12. 9 12.4
10. 8 11.7
7:00 PM 8:00 PM
13 14
8. 6 9. 7
8:00 PM 9:00 PM
3 11
692 750
7.6 8.2
9:00 PM 10:00 PM
6. 2
617 557
6. 8 6.1
251 230 17,982 15,788 197.1 173.0
4i Qvi1 '97
Produced by: TeleTran Te k Services
898
772
679
Avg calls/day
78.6
62 .0
Tot al calls
8,097
7,701
Avg calls/day
88.7
84. 4
moor
11 00 1M
13:00 AM
1'00 AM
]'.00 AA1
3:00 A.1
1:00 AM
00 AM
00 AM
7:00 AM
6 00 AM
0 '00 AM
10:00
11 00 AM
1 ]:00 .M
00 IM
7:aa.A,
00.M
00.M
00 .M
A 00 .H
7 00 fM
0 00.M
0 00 .m
4th Quarter '98
6
J
rte-!
J
J
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
Average n umber of calls by hour
Page : 4
Data Source: LA Cellular
•
•
•
•
•
•
350
300
250
200
Goal
50
00
so w Pe ormance
0
Jan 98 Feb 98 Mar 98 Apr 98 May 98 Jun 98
Previous PM Cycle
Preventive Percent of
Previous PM Maintenance System
Cycle Visits Visited
Jan -98 51 5%
Feb -98 136 12%
Mar -98 400 36%
Apr -98 185 16%
May -98 208 19%
Jun -98 95 8%
Total 1,075
Summary
PM visits needed to
be on schedule
187 / Month (17%)
96%
AVG Number of
Active CaII Boxes
1,123
PM visits in the last
6 months
179 / Month (16%)
nnL..O10
"I
tive Maintenance
July 98,- December 98
400
350
300
250
200
Goal
,..
150.
100
so
0
^m S
`
a j
s* x
Performance
}
Jul 98 Aug -98 Sep -98 Ocl-98 Nov 98 Dec 98
Most Recent PM Cycle
Preventive Percent of
Most Recent Maintenance System
PM Cycle Visits Visited
Jul -98 183 16%
Aug -98 202 18%
Sep -98 302 27%
Oct -98 77 7%
Nov -98 279 25%
Dec -98 83 7%
Total 1,126
Summary
PM visits needed to
be on schedule
187 / Month (17%)
100%
AVG Number of
Active Call Boxes
1,123
PM visits in the last
6 months
187 /Month (17%)
010
Q
NO
Preventive Maintenance visits are required every 6 months.
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
0
Q
CD
8661-ia4JanO LOY
000043
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 5
Data Source: GTE
CALSAFE CALL BOX ACTIVITY REPORT
•
Mendocino c`1 Glenn
Santa Cruz
.SRS -_..."�...�.-
,-',.,.r
/
ej j
sl
// t
Ca1SAFE'
CaII Boxes
Calls to CHP
Calls/ Box
Dee 1TD
San Diego
Riverside
1,636
1,126
20^,E
1.td
9 761
5.360
28%
15%
137,742 vY 20: 1
71,962 15%
6 0
4.:
84.2
63.9
MTC
3,134
:ls%
13,998
au o
181,412
;18%
4.5
57.9
Ventura
521
6^F
1 922
5%
25,173
SrM
3 7
48.3
CVRS
1,274
16a
3.479
10%
46,999
10%
27
36.9
Santa Barbara
333
4%
747
2%
8.806
29.,
2.2
26.4
Total
8,024
t nag-
35;267
Iwo,
472,094
mat,
4.4
58,8
Counties developing call box programs
is
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
00004/1
Page: 6
Data Source: Cellular tapes
•
•
•
THIS REPORT COVERS THE INLAND DISPATCH CENTER ONLY
sIIeo )S01 }o }uaaled
A "lost call" occurs when a call box caller hangs up
or "redials" before reaching a CHP operator.
Note: "redialing', or pressing the call button a second
time, disconnects the caller and reconnects them at
the end of the queue (calls are answered by CHP in
the order they are received.)
PERCENT OF;LOST :CALLS THE LAST2 YEARS
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
g'
4
MONTH Percent Lost
Jan -97
3%
Feb -97
3%
Mar -97
3°/0
Apr -97
4%
May -97
4%
Jun -97
5°%0
Jul -97
5°%0
Aug -97
5%
Sep -97
4%
Oct -97
4%
Nov -97
4°0
Dec -97
5%
Jan -98
3%
Feb -98
5%
Mar -98
5%
Apr -98
4%
May -98
4%
Jun -98
4%
Jul -98
5%
Aug -98
8%
Sep -98
7°/0
Oct -98
7%
Nov -98
6%
Dec -98
9%
HOW LONG CALLS LASTED BEFORETHEY WERE "LOST"
The length of time (in minutes) a motorist waited before hanging up or "redialing"
On hold
Oct -98
Nov -98
Dec -98
AVG
1 minute or less
1-2 minutes
15 sec
10%
11%
12%
11 %
30 sec
9%
11%
11%
10%
45 sec
18%
22%
19%
20%
41%
17%
13%;,,
1 min
14%
13%
17%
15%
1.5 min
'- 13%
15%
13%
14%
2 min
a . 9%
a ` fir
' °
,8%
.2 .5 min
'.5%
5%
;' �., "4°
-� ' x' 5%
3 min
4%
4%
5%
4%
3.5 min
2%
2%
2%
2%
4.5 min
4%
3%
4%
4%
5.5 min
2%
2%
2%
2%
3+ minutes
2®3;minutds
6.5 min
2%
1%
1%
1%
+6.5 min
6%
2%
3%
4%
s!s/Cieub IIeo lsol apisaan!E
8661. aaianno int
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 7
Data Scbr iklASD
'ERSIDE DELAYED CALLANALYSIS
THIS REPORT COVERS THE INLAND DISPATCH CENTER ONLY
EXPLANATION OF
A DELAYED CALL
CHP considers a call to be "delayed" if the
call is not answered within 10 seconds.
A call must be answered for it to be
a delayed call, otherwise it is a lost call.
90.0
RCE NTDELAY.ED
80, -
70% -
60%
VERAGEDELAY
90
seconds
60 -
30 -
0'
ro
0
D
<
r m
73
rc)
m
Answered in
Oct -98
Nov -98
Dec -98
z
° 2
o m
MONTH
Jan -97
Percent
Delayed
70%
p; Average
; Delay . ;•
38
Feb -97
71%
36
Mar -97
72%
38
Apr -97
72%
38
May -97
72%
43
Jun -97
74%
49
Jul -97
77%
55
Aug -97
79%
60
Sep -97
76%
50
Oct -97
75%
44
Nov -97
76%
43
Dec -97
78%
51
Jan -98
76%
38
Feb -98
76%
48
Mar -98
77%
47
Apr -98
77%
42
May -98
77%
42
Jun -98
77%
44
Jul -98
79%
54
Aug -98
84%
78
Sep -98
82%
72
Oct -98
83%
66
Nov -98
80%
56
Dec -98
84%
77
DETAILED 4TH QUARTER ANALYSIS
ON TIME
18%
31%
18%
DELAYED
6%
8°/0
< 10 Secs
17%
20%
< 30 Secs
31%
34%
16% 29%
< 60 Secs
18%
17%
19%
< 90 Secs
6%
5%
6%
< 120 Secs
9%
7%
8°/d
20%
> 120 Secs
20%
17%
23%
AVERAGE
18% 31%
18%
s%
8%
20%
1
CD
Q
CD
CD
CD
Q
:1)
C/)
07
•
8661_ JOIaenO Litt
•
•
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 8
Data Source: CHP ACD
•
AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1998
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Financial Reports
Attached are Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balances (Unaudited) and the Highway and rail projects quarterly budget report
for the Quarter Ending December 31, 1998.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Budget and Implementation Committee request the Commission receive and
file.
Attachments
000047
•
•
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES
IN FUND BALANCES -GENERAL, SPECIAL REVENUE, AND CAPITAL
PROJECTS FUNDS
BUDGET VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
FOR SIX MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31,1998
REVENUE
Federal, Local, State, & Other Government
This category covers revenue sources that are on a reimbursement basis(i.e., not billable
until the expenditure is incurred). These reimbursements include state rail bonds set aside
for construction and engineering costs for the southside platform, $3.7 million in federal
funding for improvements at Pedley, La Sierra and West Corona, and the historic Santa Fe
Depot. The improvements to La Sierra and West Corona will now occur in FY2000. .
Total revenue will be adjusted downward to $7.1 million in the Revised Budget for 98/99.
Other
Other revenue includes reimbursement from the Coachella Valley for TUMF participation
in debt service for the 93 bonds which will be billed to CVAG no later than May 99.
SAFE fees are paid by the state two months in arrears. STA revenues, budgeted at $2.4
million, are paid quarterly three months in arrears by the state.
Interest Income
The County of Riverside pays interest quarterly, subsequent to the end of the quarter. The
interest earnings on certain bond reserve funds is paid semi-annually.
EXPENDITURES
Professional Services
The variance is due to audit fees, most of which are paid in the first half of the year when
audit field work occurs at the Commission and its funding recipients. Due to increase in
unexpected audit fees, the mid -year budget will be revised upward.
Highway ROW
It was assumed that $4.1 million would be spent for right of way acquisition. Much of
that will now be moved to fiscal year 2000 and will be split between engineering, right of
way, and construction.
000048
Highway Construction
A number of projects in the Coachella Valley(e.g., Monroe to Rubidoux) will now be
constructed in FY2000. The revised budget has been lowered to reflect these changes.
Otherwise, third quarter should see increased expenditures for construction projects.
Highway/Rail Special Studies
The budget is for CETAP activities which are not expected to commence until mid March.
Regional Arterial
Desert cities are expected to bill very heavily in the second half of the year.
STA Distributions
Claims from Beaumont and Corona have been approved but not allocated as of December
31, 1998. Amount of $835,000 is on reserve for RTA until allocation is needed. Sunline
is claiming less than allocated amount.
General Note: The first quarter of the year is primarily directed toward completing end of the
year activities. Most vendors do not even began to bill us for current year activities until the
month of September. Therefore, first half of the year numbers typically are considerably under
budget. Most of the categories will begin to reflect more accurately in relation to the budget by
third quarter of the fiscal year.
•
•
•
000049
Description
REVENUES
Sates Tax Reven ues Measure A
Othe r Sales Tax Revenu es
Fed State Local & Other Govern
Interest Incom e
Other Rev en ues
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
ADMINISTRATION
Salaries & Benefits
Gen eral Legal Serv ices
Prof Services (Excludes Legal)
Office Lease
Gene ral Admin Expenses
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
Salaries & Benefits
General Legal Services
Prof Services (Exclu des Legal)
General Projects
Highw ay Engineering
Highway Con struction
Highways ROW
Special Stu dies
Rail Engineering
Rail Construction
Rail ROW
SCRRA Capital Contribu tio n
Comm uter Assistance
Region al Arterial
Streets & Roads
Special Transportion\Transit
Project Mainten ance
Project Operations
Project Towing
STA Distributions
TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
Intergov ern Distribution
Capital Outlay
Riverside Coun ty Transportation Co mm ission
BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-2nd Qtr.
For Period Ending: 12/31/98
02/17/99
REMAINING PERCENT
BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION
65,624,999.00
5,644,500.00
10,086,920.00
2,937,875.00
6,394,450.00
34,202,842.26
3,582,417.00
3,576,277.12
1,503,130.74
2,341,035.29
90,688,744.00 45,205,702. 41
657,544.00 316,934.86
97,500.00 37,569.94
483,020.00 452,489.73
220,000.00 98,594.30
677,895.00 352,424.85
2,135,959.00 1,258,013. 68
1,203,565.00
227,500.00
586,400.00
1,833,900.00
2,120,719. 00
8,317,225. 00
4,483,000.00
235,000. 00
238,170.93
8,046,300. 00
85,656.00
1,150,000.00
1,391,920. 00
7,895,150. 00
25,163,695.00
5,915,461. 00
597,294.00
1,106,127.00
679,628. 00
2,746,194. 00
74,022,904. 93
327,295. 00
166,200.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 76,652,358.93
Other Finan cing Sources(Uses)
31,422,156.74
2,062,083.00
6,510,642.88
1,434,744.26
4,053,414.71
52.11
63.46
35. 45
51. 16
36. 61
45,483,041.59 49. 84
340,609.14
59,930.06
30,530.27
121,405.70
325,470.15
48.19
38.53
93.67
44.81
51.98
877,945.32 58.89
512,688.01 690,876.99
118,598.82 108,901.18
65,086.60 521,313.40
585,947.08 1,247,952.92
129,251.81 1,991,467.19
1,719,044. 64 6,598,180.36
44,601.14 4,438,398.86
1,148.61 233,851.39
79,563.66 158,607.27
2,783,915.73 5,262,384.27
9,313.75 76,342 .25
36,984.00 1,113,016.00
552,859. 32 839,060 .68
700,037.58 7,195,112.42
13,184,739.96 11,978,955.04
2,829,407.00 3,086,054 .00
201,416.97 395,877.03
193,012.15 913,114.85
240,366.96 439,261.04
496,858 .00 2,249,336 .00
24,484,841 .79 49,538,063.14
127,295 .00 200,000 .00
15,471.00 150,729.00
25,885,621.47 50,766,737 .46
42 .59
52.13
11 .09
31 .95
6.09
20.66
0.99
0.48
33.40
34.59
10.87
3.21
39 .71
8.86
52.39
47.83
33.72
17 .44
35.36
18.09
33.07
38.89
9.30
33.77
QTRAF
0000
• 1
Description
Operating Transfers In
Operating Tran sfers Out
Debt Service Issuance Costs
Total Other Finan cin g So urces
Uses
Excess(Deficiency)of Revenue s
And Othe r Financing Sou rces
Ov er(Under)Expenditu res And
Other Financing Uses
FUND BALANCE July 1, 1998
FUND BALANCE December 31, 1998
90051•
Riverside County Tra nsportation Commissio n
BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-2nd Otr.
For Period Ending: 12/31/98
02/17/99
REMAINING PERCENT
BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION
688,715.00
31,067,628.00
0.00
819,873 .00
16,762,845.81
0.00
30,378,913.00 15,942,972.81
(16,342,527.93) 3,377,108.13
95,642,832.55 95,642,832.55
79,300,304.62 99,019,940.68
(131,158 .00)
14,304,782.19
0 .00
119 .04
53 .95
0 .00
14,435,940.19 52.48
(19,719,636.06) (20 .66)
0.00 100.00
(19,719,636.06) 124.86
•
OTRAF
,ther Financing Sources(Uses)
000052
Description
REVENUES
Sa les Tax Revenue s Measure A
Other Sates Tax Revenues
Fed State Local 8 other Gove rn
In tere st Inco me
Othe r Reven ues
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
ADMINISTRATION
Salaries 8 Benefits
Ge neral Legal Services
Prof Services (Exclu des Legal)
Office Lease
Gen era l Adm in Expense s
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
Salarie s 8 Benefits
General Legal Services
Prof Se rvices (Excludes Legal)
Gene ra l Projects
Highway Engin eerin g
Highway Con struction
Highways ROW
Special Studies
Ra il En gine ering
Rail Constru ction
Rail ROW
SCRRA Capita( Con tribution
Commuter Assistan ce
Region al Arterial
Streets i Roads
Special Transpo rtion Uran sit
Project Main ten ance
Proje ct Operation s
Project Towing
STA Distributions
GENERAL
FUND
1,250,000. 00
3,582,417. 00
7,924. 18
107,702.62
174,271.51
5,122,315. 31
297,088. 51
36,408.97
442,271.55
92,678.64
332,926.48
1,201,374. 15
283,863.98
23,001.85
36,779. 92
0.00
0. 00
15.04
0. 00
880. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
36,984.00
119.31
0. 00
0.00
1,431,450. 00
69,347.42
130,622. 54
0.00
0.00
TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS 2,013,064. 06
In te rgovern Distribution 127,295. 00
Capital Ou tlay 14,542.76
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,356,275. 97
FSP/SAFE
0.00
0. 00
171. 10
44,907.08
593,379. 48
638, 457. 66
19,846.35
1,160. 97
10,218. 18
5,915.66
19,498. 37
56,639.53
45,468. 38
74.00
24,325.43
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
848. 19
0.00
0.00
0.00
129,285. 83
62,389.61
240,366. 96
0.00
502,758.40
0.00
928. 24
Riverside County Transportation Com mission
ACTUALS BY FUND 6/30/98
For Perio d Endin g: 12/31/98
02/17/99
WESTERN
COUNTY
EASTERN
COUNTY
STATE
TRANSIT
ASSISTANCE
QTRBF
CVAG
CONSTRUCTION
23,903,285.18 9,049, 557. 08 0. 00 0. 00
0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00
3,567,794.64 0. 00 0. 00 0.00
338,542. 83 136,898.10 41,297. 12 277,504. 91
0. 00 0. 00 1,197,833. 00 0. 00
27,809,622.65 9,186,455.18 1,239,130. 12 277,504.91
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0. 00
183,355.65
92,210. 49
3,981.25
548,228. 26
0.00
(34,582. 65)
40,710. 00
268.61
79,563.66
2,783,915.73
9,313.75
0.00
551,891.82
0.00
9,759,752.76
519,035. 00
2,602. 53
0.00
0. 00
0.00
14,540,246. 86
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
37,718. 82
2,404.79
730, 924. 92
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
(84,892. 11)
3,424,987.20
878,922.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4,990,065.62
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
496,858 .00
496,858 .00
0 .00
0.00
560,326. 17 14,540,246.86 4,990,065 .62 496,858 .00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,508.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
784,929 .69
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
786,437.69
0 .00
0.00
786,437 .69
WESTERN
COUNTY
CONSTRUCTION
0. 00
0. 00
387.20
514,467.65
375,551. 30
890,406. 15
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,312 .48
0.00
0 .00
22,982 .08
933,987.33
283 .54
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
181 .19
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
960,746.62
0 .00
0.00
WESTERN COUNTY
COMMERCIAL COMBINING
PAPER TOTAL
0.00
0.00
0.00
41,810.43
0.00
02/17/99
34,202,842.26
3,582,417.00
3,576,277.12
1,503,130 .74
2,341,035.29
41,810.43 45,205,702 .41
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
316,934.86
37,569 .94
452,489.73
98,594 .30
352,424.85
0.00 1,258,013.68
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
103,864.94
88,700.00
2,099 .60
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
194,664 .54
0 .00
0 .00
512,688.01
118,598.82
65,086.60
585,947.08
129,251 .81
1,719,044 .64
44,601.14
1,148.61
79,563 .66
2,783,915 .73
9,313 .75
36,984.00
552,859 .32
700,037.58
13,184,739.96
2,829,407 .00
201,416.97
193,012 .15
240,366.96
496,858.00
24,484,841.79
127,295.00
15,471 .00
960,746 .62 194,664 .54 25,885,621.47
410
•
•
Riverside C ounty Transportatio n Commission CTRBF 02/17/99
ACTUALS BY FUND 6/30/98
F or Period Ending: 12/31/98
02/17/99
STATE WESTERN WESTERN COUNTY
GENERAL
FUND WESTERN EASTERN TRANSIT CVAG COUNTY COMMERCIAL COMBINING
Description FSP/SAFE COUNTY COUNTY ASSISTANCE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION PAPER TOTAL
Operating Transfers In 0.00 159,075.00 660,798 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00
Operatin g Transfers Out 0. 00 159,075.00 11,325,839.58 3,948,914.04 0.00 45,648.80 1,283,368.39 0.00 819,873.00
Debt Serv ice Is su ance Costs 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 16,762,845 .81
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 .00 0 .00
Total Other Fin ancin g Sources 0. 00 0 .00 10,665,041.58 3,948,914 .04 0.00
Uses
Excess(Deficien cy)of Re venues
And Other Financing Sources
Over(Unde r)Expenditures And
Other Finan cing Uses
FUND BALANCE July 1, 1998
FUND BALANCE December 31, 1998
1,766,039.34
78,131. 49 2,604,334.21
247,475.52 742,272 .12
45 ,648 .80 1,283,368.39 0 .00 15,942,972 .81
(554,581.58) (1,353,708.86) (152,854.11) 3,377,108.13
3,859,266.24 2,459,243.12 20,611,011 .33 12,869,417.21 2,604,573 .32 9,867,747.69 39,716,130 .87 3,655,442 .77 95,642,832.55
5,625,305.58 2,537,374.61 23,215,345.54 13,116,892.73 3,346,845 .44 9,313,166.11 38,362,422 .01 3,502,588.66 99,019,940 .68
RCTC MEA SURE A HIGHWAY/RA IL PROJECTS
QUARTERLY BUDGET REPORT
PERIO D ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1998
CO MMISSION CO NTRACTU RAL % COMMITED EXPEND ITURE FOR EX PENDITU RES/P AYMENT
PROJECT AU THO RIZED CO MMITMENTS AG AINST AU TH. QUARTER ENDING MAD E TO D ATE THRU
D ESCR IP TION ALLOC ATION TO DATE ALLOCATION DECEMBER 31,1998 DECEMBER 31,1998
CIT Y OF CO RONA - (Loan)
CITY OF PERR IS - (L oan)
CITY OF MU RR IETTA - (L oan)
CITY OF SAN JACINTO - (Loan)
CITY OF CAN YON LAK E - (Loan)
CITY OF TE MECULA - (Loan)
CITY OF NO RCO - (Loan)
ROUTE 60
ROUTE 74
ROUTE 79
R OUTE 86
ROU TE 111 PRO JECTS
ROU TE 91
I-215 PROJECTS
INTERCHA NG E IMPROV.PRO GRAM
PROJECT MANA GEMENT SERVIC ES
PR OGR AM PLAN & SVC S.
PARK -N -RID E 6 INCENT.PROG.
C OMMU TER RAIL
$5,212,623
$1,936,419
$17,000,000
$1,324,500
$1,600,000
$5,094,027
$2,139,067
$3,878,992
$12,283,914
$36,448,998
$20,115,078
$15,933,909
$18,767,858
$41,244,832
$10,632,008
$14,901,959
$8,408,890
$12,167,798
$105,190,412
TOTALS $334,281,284
NUMBER OF INVO ICES PRO CESSED FOR QUARTER
NUMBER OF INVOICES PAID FOR QU ARTER
$5,212,623
$1,936,419
$1,377,000
$1,324,500
$1,600,000
$5,094,027
$2,139,067
$3,451,641
$12,283,914
$36,365,998
$18,852,554
$15,933,909
$18,485,807
$40,396,501
$10,586,008
$14,758,959
$8,408,890
$12,167,798
$104,690,412
$315,066,027
997
691
100.0%
100.0%
8.1%
100.0%
100. 0%
100.0%
100.0%
89.0$
100.0%
99.8%
93. 7%
100.0%
98.5%
97 .9%
99.6%
99.0%
100 .0%
100.0%
99 .5%
94.3%
(L oan Pd in full)
$0
$0
$1,834
$0
$444,367
$499,182
$0
$2,241
$239,041
$0
$696,359
$1,127,661
$3,010,685
$1,035,600
$186 ,953
$1,377,000
$127,875
$233,773
$491,807
$206,518
$2,883,714
$7,557,369
$35,906,065
$18,561,828
$8,616,804
$14,332,583
$40,217,340
$10,234,454
$13,661,338
$6,173,877
$9,702,994
$102,639,165
$274,147,057
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 10
•
s
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
Revised Budget for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1999
Attached is a spreadsheet showing changes to the budget by major line item. Along
with the spreadsheet are notes explaining the various changes. Department budgets
were still being reconciled and will be presented at the meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approved the revisions to the Commission's budget
for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999.
O0OO5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
Revised Budget for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1999
AMENDED ITEM NO. 10
Attached is a spreadsheet showing changes to the budget by major line item. Along
with the spreadsheet are notes explaining the various changes. Department budgets
along with brief explanations are also included for review.
The list of Recurring Contracts included in the Revised Budget represents consultants
who have provided annual ongoing services to the Commission. Many of these
contracts have either been renewed after an RFP process, currently have an RFP in
progress, or plans are in place to issue an RFP. As the report indicates most of the
contract amounts have not changed. Those requiring amendment which increase the
contract amount have been highlighted. Those are the only items which require
Commission action. The remaining contracts are listed for information purposes only.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approved the revisions to the Commission's budget for fiscal year ending June
30, 1999.
2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute amendments to the contracts for
financial and investment advisory services in an amount not to exceed the
indicated contract value, subject to review by legal counsel.
LINE ITEM BUDGET
A 1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Budget Comparative By Line Item
FISCAL YEAR 1998/99
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Total Revenues have remained virtually unchanged from the original 1999 Budget. Although
sales tax revenues have been increased by 4.4%(based on strong actual revenues year to date),
nearly an identical amount has been reduced from state and federal reimbursements. Federal
Transit Administration(FTA) revenues expected for construction of rail overcrossings at West
Corona and La Sierra have been eliminated from the budget and will become part of the fiscal
year 2000 budget.
Debt proceeds. The small amount of $350,000 shown as debt proceeds represent the expected
reimbursement from the developer for the Wasson Canyon Road project on Route 74. The
remaining $550,000 of the loan will be received as expenditures occur in fiscal year 2000.
EXPENDITURES
Personnel salary and fringe benefits. The modest increase of 4.3% reflects an increase in
staffing and starting salaries for four positions. New positions approved and filled since the
beginning of the fiscal year include one additional secretary and an administrative assistant. Two
other positions, a staff analyst and a program manager were hired(based on Commission
approval) at higher levels than originally anticipated in the budget.
Services and supplies/Capital Outlay. Administrative costs have been increased $34,065
principally as result of the costs of recruitment to fill new and existing vacant positions. To offset
that cost fixed asset acquisitions have been reduced by $45,000. The net reduction in the
Commission's non personnel overhead amounts to 1.1%.
Professional costs
General legal services. Staff significantly reduced expenditures for legal costs in the original
budget. The reduction primarily related to decreased project right of way litigation and eminent
domain activities for route 79 Lamb Canyon, as well as instituting more departmental
accountability.
Special legal services. This category is budgeted for the Commission's bond counsel. Since the
Commission has no near term planed debt issuances, the role of bond counsel is simply for on call
maintenance.
Financial services. The increase reflects the prominent role the Commission's financial advisors
will play in the development of the Strategic Plan. The contract is budgeted to increase by
$75,000 to cover activities through the end of the fiscal year for completion of Phase I and
development of Phase II.
A 2
Audit services. The original budget anticipated that a number jurisdictions would assume the
expense for their own audits. However, only two agencies elected to control their audits and bear
the expense for those audits.
Other Professional Services. The increase in other professional services reflects the
Commission's authorization of an increase in the Executive Director's single signature authority.
The revised budget anticipates utilizing up to $250,000 by fiscal year end(although the new
aggregate limit is $500,000). A portion of this amount represents a reclass from Projects-
General(Acct. #81000).
Projects
Projects -General. The reduction of $140,000 is simply a reclass of single signature authorization
amounts to Professional Services-Other(Acct. #65500).
Highway & rail engineering. Expense cost reduction on engineering for Pedley security
surveillance system was awarded at significantly under the engineer's estimate.
Highway & rail construction. Monroe to Rubidoux project($1.1 million) in the Coachella
Valley has been moved to FY2000 pending completion of engineering and resolution of right of
way activities. Construction of La Sierra and West Corona overcrossings are expected to begin in
June 1999. Much of the cost of construction($2.5 million) will occur in FY2000. Track
improvements for the San Jacinto Branchline ($500,000) is undergoing engineering assessments
and construction has been moved to FY2000. The City of Palm Desert has 3 projects which
have fallen behind schedule as follows: The Portola ($330,000) and San Pablo($379,000)
projects are now under construction but will now be completed in FY2000. The Monterey
project($942,000) on Route 111 in Palm Desert will be finishing design by June, so the
construction has been moved to FY2000.
Highway & rail right of way. The original budget for Route 74 assumed $4.1 million for right
of way acquisition. Approximately $3.4 million will now be completed in FY2000. A number of
issues came to light subsequent to the original budget adoption such as community concerns,
Caltrans funding commitment. Right of way appraisals are underway and acquisitions will begin
in the next 2-3 months.
Highway & rail special studies. The budget amount has been augmented to cover CETAP
activities.
SCRRA(Metrolink) capital contribution. No changes are anticipated. Historically once
SCRRA adopts its budget, there have been no changes. The Commission's contribution to
SCRRA is based on the established budget. Any difference between the budget and actuals is
reconeiled subsequent to year end.
Commuter assistance. Other than minor changes to program line items, the Commuter
Assistance Program budget has remained nearly unchanged.
Regional transportation. This line item includes the disbursements to the County and cities for
A 3
streets and roads. Due to the increased Measure A revenue estimate, the allocation to local
jurisdictions would automatically increase.
Intergovernmental disbursements. The amount allocated to the Western Riverside Council of
Governments was increased by $70,000.
State Transit Assistance disbursements. The original budget was an estimate of what amount
would be allocated. The actual allocation was completed in August 1998. The budget has been
adjusted to the actual allocation made by the Commission.
Regional arterial. Prior year expenditures came in less than anticipated, so the budget has been
adjusted assuming those amounts will be expended in the current year.
Project maintenance. Call box knockdowns, vandalisms, and miscellaneous repairs experience
to date has been less than anticipated in the budget.
Project operations. Minor increases for radio air time and miscellaneous project supplies.
Project towing. Some minor costs were reclassed to Project Operations and there was a small
downward adjustment in the contract amount for the two operators based on actual negotiated
contracts.
Contingency. Since the total expenditures have minimally declined, the budget contingency has
remained unchanged.
FUND BALANCE
Ending fund balance is anticipated to decline 11.2%, and will be comprised of the following:
Western County Eastern County Non Measure A Other Total
Reserved:
Highways/Rail $20,135,082 $5,378,554
$25,513,636
Special 5,369,491 5,369,491
Streets & Roads 39,455 39,455
Transit 2,994,175 1,073,572 4,067,747
Debt Service 15,915,062 7,912,425 23,827,487
Loans Receivable 14,774,221 14,774,221
Prepaid Rent 1,026,375 1,026,375
Designated:
Motorist Assistance 2,539,148 2,539,148
Contingency 3,718,328 1,670,628 5,388,956
Unreserved
$60,938,559
2, 298, 257 2,298,257
$12,001,062 $5,533,323 $3,371,829 $84,844,773
A 4
Riverside County Transportation Commission
BUDGET COMPARATIVE -BY LINE ITEM
1998-1999 Revised Budget
1995/96 1996/97
Actuals Actuals
Line item
1997/98 1998/99
Actuals Budget
1998199
Revised
Budget
Dollar Percent
Changes Change
SOURCES OF REVENUE:
Operating Revenues:
Sales Tax Revenues
Sales Tax TDA Planning & Admin
Sales Tax TDA Transit Allocation
STA Transit Allocation
SAFE Fees
Reimbursements:
Other Revenue
Investment Income
Total Operating Revenues
Debt Proceeds
Total Sources of Funds
EXPENDITURES:
Personnel Salary & Frin
55,413,939
1,247,000
4,453,800
1,670,743
1,031,117
7,754,264
2,727,645
7,260,013
57, 888,149
1,298,000
3,800,185
1,812,380
1,033,019
5,470,049
2,724,75/
6,030,161
63,496,222
1,197,000
4,124,434
1,982,721
1,060,791
9,539,357
2,546,996
5,004,028
65, 625, 000
1,294,500
4,350,000
2,360,478
1,040,000
10, 086, 920
2,993,972
2,937,875
68, 500, 000 2,875,000 4.4%
1,294,500
4,153,679 (196,321) -4.5%
2,360,478
1,065,000 25,000 2.4%
7,085,420 (3,001,500) -29.8%
3,217,511 223,539 7.5%
3,060,565 122,690 4.2%
81,558,521 80,056,694 88,951,549 90,688,745 90,737,153 48,408 0.1%
80,575,877
61,429,211
350,000 350,000 100.0%
162,134,398 80,056,694 150,380,760 90,688,745 91,087,153 398,408 0.4%
1,444,804
Services and Supplies 613,958
90000 Capital Outlay-Equipme 144,538
Professional Costs:
65100
65200
65300
65400
65500
General Legal Services
Special Legal Services
Financial Services
Audit Services
Other Professional Sery
Total Professional Costs
Projects:
81000 Projects -General
81100 Highway & Rail Enginee
81300 Highway & Rail Constru
81400 Highway & Rail ROW
81500 Highway & Rail Special
81600 SCRRA Capital Contrib
85000 Commuter Assistance
86000 Special Projects
86100 Regional Transportatio
86200 LTF Disbursements
86300 STA Disbursements
86400 Regional Arterial
87000 Project Maintenance
87100 Project Operations
87200 Project Towing
Total Projects Costs
464,326
14,295
104,649
329,456
414,529
1,552,075
734,557
53,677
1,018,544
49,697
74,864
285,404
425,208
1,647,688
777,435
306,660
394,635
20,529
54,834
388,939
531,388
1,861,106
897,895
166,200
325,000
25,000
97,500
290,000
649,920
1,941,600 80,494 4.3%
931,960 34,065 3.8%
98,221 (67,979) -40.9%
325,000
10,000
170,000
385,600
867,920
(15, 000) -60.0%
72,500 74.4%
95,600 33.0%
218,000 33.5%
1,327,255 1,853,717 1,390,325 1,387,420 1,758,520 371,100 26.7%
1,404,223
1,913,874
15,097,514
1,950,209
347,036
1,377,400
999,108
26,459,937
351,215
1,026,000
24,724,468
447,773
657,585
514,558
77, 270, 900
1,011,991
1,651,448
11,570,938
6,182,270
511,729
1,234,386
978,937
27,630,703
305,095
1,269,583
23,113,312
557,317
798,163
545,312
77,361,184
1,859,105
1,747,979
11,513,488
1,579,141
353,542
1,316,099
1,141,427
30,466,257
309,000
1,535,401
21,035,529
1,064,975
756,036
523,458
75,201,437
1,833,900
2,231,969
15,413,525
4,568,656
235,000
1,150,000
1,391,920
31,079,157
327,295
2,746,194
7,895,150
597,294
1,106,127
679,628
71,255,815
1,693,900 (140, 000) -7.6%
2,172,012 (59,957) -2.7%
9,770,550 (5,642,975) -36.6%
1,300,540 (3,268,116) -71.5%
350,000 115,000 48.9%
1,150, 000
1,378,920 (13,000) -0.9%
32,495,176
397,295
2,186,116
10, 068, 505
550,094
1,129, 787
657,800
65,300, 695
1,416,019 4.6%
70,000 21.4%
(560, 078) -20.4%
2,173,355 27.5%
(47, 200) -7.9%
23,660 2.1%
(21, 828) -3.2%
(5,955,120) -8.4%
A 5
iverside County Transpo atron omm►ssion
BUDGET COMPARATIVE -BYLINE ITEM
1998-1999 Revised Budget
1995/96 1996/97
Actuals Actuals
Line item
Expenditures before distributions
and operating transfers
97000 Operating Transfer
Total Expenditures
Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues
Over Expenditures
Contingency
Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues
Over Expenditures After Cont
Fund Balance, July 1
Ending Fund Balance
1997/98
Actuals
1998199
1998/99 Revised
Budget Budget
Dollar Percent
Changes Change
80,801,455
90,226,547
171,028,002
81,555,210
25, 242, 712
106,797,922
79,323,545
75,343,579
154,667,124
75,568,436
30,378,913
105,947,349
70, 030, 996
30,352,217
100,383,213
(5,537,440)
(26,696) -0.1%
(5,564,136) -5.3%
-7.3%
(8,893,604) (26,741,228) (4,286,364) (15,258,604) (9,296,060) 5,962,544 -39.1
(1,502,000) (1,502,000)
(8,893,604) (26,741,228) (4,286,364) (16,760,604) (10,798,060) 5,962,544 -35.6%
136,515,170 126,670,423 99,929,195 81,381,561 95,642,831 14,261,270 17.5%
127,621,566 99,929,195 95,642,831 64,620,957 84,844,771 20,223,814 31.3%
DEPARTMENT BUDGETS
A 6
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ADMINISTRATION
1998-1999 Revised Budget
1998/99
1995/96 1996197 1997/98 1998/99 Revised Dollar Percent
Actuals Actuals Actuals Budget Budget Changes Changes
Personnel Salary & Fringe:
Executive Director 146,327 160,083 423,205 180,876 190,098 9,222 (4) 5.1%
Director-Planning/Programming 9,918 10,654 12,081
* Director--Govemmental/Legislative 111,576 119,860 23,335 80,677 (80,677) (1) -100.0%
Director --Regional lssues/Communic 33,193 35,658 12,873 34,099 102,203 68,104 (2) 199.7%
Clerk of the Commission 110,568 118,777 137,599 141,034 163,427 22,393 (4) 15.9%
Public Information Officer 34,472 (3)
Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Ben 411,582 445,032 609,094 436,686 490,201 53,515 12.3%
OperationslOverhead (73100 thru 73 108,005 210,626 145,769 157,960 158,114 154 0.1%
Professional Costs:
65100 General Legal Services 92,070 95,316 101,834 85,000 79,000 (6,000) (5) -7.1%
65500 Other Professional Service 92,100 122,047 206,187 139,139 226,020 86,881 (6) 62.4%
Total Professional Costs 184,170 217,363 308,021 224,139 305,020 80,881 36.1%
Capital Outlay
90000 Capital Outlay -Equipment 49,218 41,600 130,580 137,700 92,700 (45,000) (7) -32.7%
Total Administration 752,975 914,621 1,193,464 956,485 1,046,035 89,550 9.4%
Notes
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Reclassification between personnel salary and fringe benefits and professional services.
Position is an employee of SANBAG and costs are shared with SANBAG.
Created subsequent to adoption of original budget.
Approved as new position by Commission action of September 9,
1998. Is expected to be filled in April 1999.
Reallocation of Administrative Support Staff.
Reallocated to other Department/Programs
See Note 1
Original budget anticipated office modifications and furniture
purchases to accommodate a larger staff. That has been placed
on hold while various options for housing staff are being explored.
A 7
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING
1998-1999 Revised Budget
1998/99
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 Revised Dollar Percent
Actuals Actuals Actuals Budget Budget Changes Changes
* Personnel Salary & Fringe:
Chief FinancialOfficer 103,659 111,355 136,339 128,251 139,536 11,385 (1) 8.9%
Program Manager I 39,224 42,136 2,223
Accounting Supervisor 58,417 90,109 (90,109) (2)
* Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Ben 142,883 153,491 196,979 218,360 139,636 (78,723) -36.1%
OperationslOverhead 41,664 72,643 60,737 60,933 48,648 (12,285) -20.2%
Professional Costs:
65100 General Legal Services 17,975 5,633 8,770 12,500 10,000 (2,500) (3) -20.0%
65200 Special Legal Services 14,295 49,697 20,529 25,000 10,000 (15,000)(4) -60.0%
65300 Financial Services 104,649 74,864 54,834 97,500 170,000 72,500 (5) 74.4%
65400 Audit Services 302,956 285,404 366,015 220,000 315,600 95,600, (6) 43.5%
65500 Other Professional Services 8,394
Total Professional Costs 439,875 415,598 458,542 355,000 505,600 150,600 42.4%
Total Measure A Project Financing 624,422 641,732 716,258 634,293 693,884 59,592 9.4%
Notes
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Reallocation of Administrative Support Staff.
Position now included in Administrative Support Services.
Reallocated to other departments/ programs.
Bond counsel supports bond deals and debt administrative activities.
No bond deals are pending and the level of support for debt
maintenance is being reduced.
Contract for financial advisory services will be increased (subject
to Commission approval) to support Strategic Plan development
and completion.
Original budget assumed a 20% reduction in funding auditees.
However, nearly all jurisdictions elected to have the Commission
continue conducting and paying for the audits.
A 8
Riverside County Transportation Commission
CAPITAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY
1998-1999 Revised Budget
1998199
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 Revised Dollar Percent
Actuals Actuals Actuals Budget Budget Changes Changes,
Personnel Salary & Fringe:
Deputy Executive Director 128,328 137,858 132,581 160,606 167,5:19 6,993 (1) 4.4%
Program Manager ll 43,187 46,393 52,769 7,863 (44,906) (2) -85.1%
Staff Analyst II 24,688 26,522 21,098 29,345 8,248 39.1
Staff Analyst l 4,110 4,416
Program Management Support 90,670 97,402 17,104 12,879 16,820 3,940 (1) 30.6%
• Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Ben 290,983 312,591 149,685 247,352 221,626 (25,726) -10.4%
OperationslOverhead (73100 thru 73 244,265 147,938 242,948 357,228 288,745 (68,483) -19.2%
Projects:
81000 Projects -General 1,404,223 1,011,991 1,859,407 1,833,900 1,693,900 (140,000) (3) -7.6%
81100 Highway & Rail Engineering 1,913,874 1,651,449 1,747,979 2,231,969 2,172,012 (59,957) (3) -2.7%
81300 Highway & Rail Constructio 15,097,514 11,570,939 11,513,488 15,413,525 9,770,550 (5,642,975) (3) -36.6%
81400 Highway & Rail ROW 1,948,960 6,182,269 1,579,194 4,568,656 1,300,540 (3,268,116) (3) -71.5%
81500 Highway & Rail Special Stu 53,126 174,793 190,123 25,000 25,000 (3) 100.0%
81600 SCRRA Capital Contributio 1,377,400 1,234,386 1,316,099 1,150,000 1,150,000
86100 Regional Transportation 21,310,989 22,240,190 24,382,462 25,163,696 26,579,715 1,416,019 (3) 5.6%
86400 Regional Arterial 24,724,468 23,113,312 21,035,529 7,895,150 10,068,505 2,173,355 (3) 27.5%
Total Projects 67,830,554 67,179,329 63,624,281 58,256,896 52,760,222 (5,496,674) (3) -9.4%
Professional Costs:
65100 General Legal Services 195,041 751,072 183,671 127,500 161,500 34,000 (4) 26.7%
65400 Audit Services 26,500 17,924 50,000 50,000
65500 Other Professional Service 76,222 27,258 18,538 127,500 242,500 115,000 (3) 90.2%
Total Professional Costs 297,763 778,330 220,133 305,000 454,000 149,000 48.9%
Total Measure A Project Developmen 68,663,565 68,418,188 64,237,047 59,166,476 53,724,593 (5,441,883) -9.2%
Salaries shown include allocated support staff
Notes
(1) Support staff now includes Executive and Administrative
Assistants and the Accounting Supervisor.
(2) Program Manager working primarily on STIP and CETAP
activities. Most of budgeted hours have been moved to
Transportation Planning and Programming.
(3) See Notes to line Item budget.
(4) Budget increased based on actuals to date.
Amount reallocated from other program areas.
A 9
Riverside County Transportation Commission
SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION
1998-1999 Revised Budget
1998/99
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 Revised Dollar Percent
Actuals Actuals Actuals Budget Budget Changes Changes
Personnel Salary & Fringe:
Director-Planning/Programming
Director -Regional lssues/Communic 9,291 9,291 (1) 100.0%
Program Manager II(includes 2) 113,093 118,593 141,116 147,515 155,445 7,930 (2) 5.4%
Staff Analyst 11 20,550 22,075 63,817 45,415 (18,402) (3) -28.8%
" Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Ben 138,602 145,995 141,116 211,331 210,151 (1,180) -0.6%
OperationslOverhead 46,851 69,096 64,624 68,515 76,960 8,445 12.3%
Projects:
4,959 5,327
85000 Commuter Assistance 999,108 978,936 1,141,427 1,391,920 1,378,920 (13,000) -0.9%
86100 Regional Transportation 2,722,549 2,703,313 3,567,642 3,052,561 3,052,561
87200 Project Towing
Total Projects 3,721,657 3,682,249 4,709,069 4,444,481 4,431,481 (13,000) -0.3%
Professional Costs:
65100 General Legal Services 40,856 15,820 16,686 16,000 16,000
65400 Audit Services 5,000 20,000 20,000
Total Professional Costs 40,856 15,820 21,686 36,000 36,000
Total Measure A Special Transportat 3,947,966 3,913,160 4,936,495 4,760,327 4,754,592
* Includes allocated support staff
(5,735) -0.1%
Notes
(1) Hours budgeted to cover transition assistance from Marilyn
Williams as commuter assistance program is transferred to Tanya Love.
(2) Reallocation based on increases to Administrative support pool.
(3) Original budget assumed that Staff Analyst would divide
budget hours equally between three program areas - commuter
assistance, specialized transit and rail. It has since been
determined that most of the budgeted hours should be allocated to rail.
A 10
Riverside County Transportation Commission
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING
1998-1999 Revised Budget
1998/99
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 Revised Dollar Percent
Actuals Actuals Actuals Budget Budget Changes Changes
Personnel Salary & Fringe:
Director-Planning/Programming 67,566 72,583 85,740 133,060 143,973 10,913 8.2%
Director--Govemmental/Legislative 12,902
Program Managers 11 86,448 92,866 89,331 175,018 258,961 83,943 48.0%
Staff Analyst II 56,109 60,275 48,444 47,949 66,694 18,745 39.1%
Staff Analyst 1 28,396 30,505
* Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Ben 238,519 256,229 236,417 356,028 469,628 113,600 (1) 31.9%
OperationslOverhead (73100 thru 73 83,329 121,266 124,876 121,865 186,644 64,779 53.2%
Projects:
81500 Highway & Rail Special Stu 38,752 235,000 325,000 90,000 (1) 38.3%
85000 Support Services 2,379
86200 LTFDisbursements 351,215 305,095 309,000 327,295 397,295 70,000 (2) 21.4%
86300 STA Disbursements 1,026,000 1,269,583 1,535,401 2,746,194 2,186,116 (560,078)(3) -20.4%
Total Projects 1,377,215 1,574,678 1,885,532 3,308,489 2,908,411 (400,078) -12.1%
Professional Costs:
65100 General Legal Services 7,866 8,039 5,142 20,000 10,000 (10,000) (4) -50.0%
65500 Other Professional Service 54,707 122,382 142,801 97,500 172,500 75,000 (5) 76.9%
Total Professional Costs 62,573 130,421 147,943 117,500 182,500 65,000 55.3%
Total Transportation Planning and P 1,761,636 2,082,594 2,394,768 3,903,882 3,747,183 (156,699) -4.0%
* Includes allocated support staff
Notes
(1) Increases principally attributable to CETAP activities.
(2) Planning allocation to WRCOG increased based on
Commission action.
(3) Adjusted to reflect actual Commission allocation from the
August 1998 meeting.
(4) Reallocated to other program areas.
(5) Adjusted upward due to set aside for Executive Director's
single signature authority.
A 11
Riverside County Transportation Commission
RAIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
1998-1999 Revised Budget
1998/99
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 Revised Dollar Percent
Actuals Actuals Actuals Budget Budget Changes Changes
Personnel Salary & Fringe:
Director-Planning/Programming
Program Manager 11
Property Agent
Staff Analyst 1l
9,298 9,988 765
37,096 39,851 110,486 113,416 149,393 35,977 (1) 31.7%
12,398 49,343 53,539 4,196 8.5%
31,908 56,769 24,860 (2) 100.0%
* Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Ben 46,394 49,839 123,648 194,667 259,700 65,033 33.4%
OperationslOverhead (73100 thru 73 21,457 23,589 53,449 31,380 109,221 77,841 248.1%
Projects:
86100 Regional Transportation 2,426,400 2,687,200 2,516,101 2,862,900 2,862,900
87000 Project Maintenance 127,514 233,848 689,673 225,750 225,750
87100 Project Operations 262,606 410,681 416,035 667,537 667,537
Total Projects 2,816,520 3,331,729 3,621,809 3,756,187 3,756,187
Professional Costs:
65100 General Legal Services 77,280 117,725 50,633 40,000 30,000 (10,000) (3) -25.0%
65500 Other Professional Service 139,457 82,457 79,383 140,000 90,000 (50,000)(4) -35.7%
Total Professional Costs 216,737 200,182 130,016 180,000 120,000 (60,000) -33.3%
Total Commuter Rail
* Includes allocated support staff
3,101,108 3,605,339 3,928,922 4,162,234 4,245,108
82,874
2.0%
Notes
(1) Rail Program Manager budgeted hours transfer from the Capital Program. More resources being allocated to non -capital
activities.
(2) With growth in various rail programs, new Staff Analyst 11 has considerable number of budgeted hours in this program area.
(3) Reallocated to other program areas. Reduced amount supported by actuals to date.
(4) Original budget includes $50,000 as rail program operating contingency. Amount eliminated in revised budget as any
unplanned operating cost can be covered by Executive Director's single signature authority.
A 12
Riverside County Transportation Commission
MOTORIST ASSISTANCE
19984999 Revised Budget
1998/99
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 Revised Dollar Percent
Actuals Actuals Actuals Budget Budget Changes Change
Personnel Salary & Fringe:
Assistant Director
Program Manager !!
Staff Analyst l
18,596 19,977 24,058 11,222 8,469 (2,753) -24.5%
49,029 52,670 88,321 120,087 71,196 (48,892)(1) -40.7%
14,198 15,252
' Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Ben 81,823 87,899 112,378 131,309 79,665 (51,645) -39.3%
OperationslOverhead (73100 thru 73 30,656 41,599 36,442 44,834 30,299 (14,534) -324%
Projects:
81500 Highway & Rail Special Stu 111,915 336,936 124,666
85000 Support Services 689
87000 Project Maintenance 291,295 298,508 345,680 371,544 324,344 (47,200) (2) -12.7%
87100 Project Operations 384,570 374,016 327,231 363,590 387,250 23,660 (3) 6.5%
87200 Project Towing 514,558 545,312 523,458 679,628 657,800 (21,828) (4) -3.2%
Total Projects 1,302,338 1,554,772 1,321,724 1,414,762 1,369,394 (45,368) -3.2%
Professional Costs:
65100 General Legal Services 19,500 5,078 931 4,000 8,500 4,500 112.5%
65500 Other Professional Service 49,585 49,969 76,085 70,781 61,900 (8,881) -12.5%
Total Professional Costs 69,085 55,047 77,016 74,781 70,400 (4,381) -5.9%
Capital Outlay
90000 Capital Outlay -Equipment 95,319 12,077 176,080 28,500 5,521 (22,979) (5) -80.6%
Total Motorist Assistance
1,579,221
* Salaries shown include allocated support staff
1,751,394
1,723,640
1,694,186
1,555,279
(138,907)
-8.2%
Notes
(1) Program Manager 11 budgeted hours reallocated to Transportation Planning and Programming. Position now
responsible for public operator transit activities.
(2) Reduced based on actual experience to date for call box knockdowns, vandalisms, and corrective maintenance.
(3) Increased by micsellaneous support costs transferred from Project Towing. Additionally, air time and access
charges increased based on actuals to date.
(4) Towing costs reduced based on actual contract values. Miscellaneous support costs for Freeway Service.
Patrol reclassified as operations.
(5) Costs to purchase radio communications equipment was eliminated as the purchases were accelerated
into FY 98.
A 13
Riverside County Transportation Commission
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
1998-1999 Revised Budget
1998/99
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 Revised Dollar Percent
Actuals Actuals Actuals Budget Budget Changes Changes
Personnel Salary & Fringe:
Executive Director 8,607 9,246 8,239
Chief Financial Officer 12,233 13,140 8,509 16,031 17,455 1,423 8.9%
Property Agent 71,939 77,281 61,624 49,343 53,539 4,196 8.5%
Director-Planning/Programming 1,240 1,332
Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Ben 94,019 100,999 78,372 65,374 70,993 5,619 8.6%
OperationslOverhead 37,731 47,800 48,590 55,180 33,329 (21,851) -39.6%
Projects:
81400 Highway & Rail ROW 1,249
85000 Support Services 120
87000 Project Maintenance 28,964 24,961 29,320
87100 Project Operations 10,409 13,466 9,582 75,000 75,000
Total Projects 40,622 38,427 39,022 75,000 75,000
Professional Costs:
65100 General Legal Services 13,738 19,861 26,968
65500 Other Professional Service 2,457 21,095
Total Professional Costs
Total Property Management
20,000 10,000 (10,000) (1) -50.0%
75,000 75,000
16,195 40,956 26,968 95,000 85,000 (10,000) -10.5%
188,567 228,182 192,952
* Salaries shown include allocated support staff
290,554 264,322 (26,232) -9.0%
Notes
(1) Costs reallocated to other program areas.
SCHEDULE OF
RECURRING CONTRACTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDING
JUNE 30, 1999
A 14
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
SCHEDULE OF RECURRING CONTRACTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
Consultant
Bechtel Corp.
Best,Best, & Krieger
Charles Bell/Boyea Capital Mkts
Smith & Kempton
Ernst & Young
Cliff Madison
Inland Transportation Services'
O'Melveny & Myers
Schiermeyer Consulting
Valley Planning & Research
Tele Trans Tek Services
Cis LeRoy
Public Financial Management
GeoGraphics
Digital Advantage
Type of Service
Project & Consultant Management
General Legal Services
Financial Advisory
Legislative Advocate/Program Support
Audit & Consulting Services
Federal Lobbyist
Commuter Assistance Program Mgmt.
Bond Counsel
Rail Consultant
Planning & Programming
Call Box/Traf. Counter
Programming Services
Investment/Advisory/Mgmt Services
Graphic Design Services
Computer Programing Services
Original Revised
Dollar Percent
98/99 Budget 98/99 Budget Change Change
$1,600,000
325,000
75,000
47,610
325,000
47,610
924,995
25,000
90,000
80,000
47,500
35,000
10,000
329,125
20,000
$1,600,000
325,000
150,000
50,610
325,000
47,610
924,995
10,000
90,000
80,000
47,500
35,000
25,000
329,125
20,000
$0 0.0%
$0 0.0%
$75,000 (1) 100.0%
$3,000 (2) 6.3%
$0 (3) 0.0%
$0 0.0%
$0 (4) 0.0%
($15,000) -60.0%
$0 0.0%
$0 0.0%
$0 0.0%
$0 0.0%
$15,000 (5) 150.0%
$0 0.0%
$0 0.0%
$3,981,840 $4,059,840
$78,000
'Note: Does not include amounts for the SAN BAG program.
(1) The increase is to cover work on the draft of Stratigic Plan through end of Fiscal Year.
(2) To increase retainer fees per Commission action dated December 9, 1998. Actual Contract was extended through September, 1999.
(3) Contract for Fiscal Year 1999 audit services to be paid in Fiscal Year 2000, will be awarded upon completion of an RFP
solicitation currently in progress.
(4) This contract is funded by Measure A and a number of Federal and State funding soucres. An RFP will be issued for
renewal of these services prior to fiscal year end.
(5) Consultant was selected as the Commission Investment Advisior for a period of five years after an RFP process.
2.0%
•
RCTC
REVISED BUDGET
� FISCAL YEAR ENDING
JUNE 30, 1999
0000513
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Budget Comparative By Line Item
FISCAL YEAR 1998/99
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Total Revenues have remained virtually unchanged from the original 1999 Budget. Although
sales tax revenues have been increased by 4.4%(based on strong actual revenues year to date),
nearly an identical amount has been reduced from state and federal reimbursements. Federal
Transit Administration(FTA) revenues expected for construction of rail overcrossings at West
Corona and La Sierra have been eliminated from the budget and will become part of the fiscal
year 2000 budget.
Debt proceeds. The small amount of $350,000 shown as debt proceeds represent the expected
reimbursement from the developer for the Wasson Canyon Road project on Route 74. The
remaining $550,000 of the loan will be received as expenditures occur in fiscal year 2000.
EXPENDITURES
Personnel salary and fringe benefits. The modest increase of 4.3% reflects an increase in
staffing and starting salaries for four positions. New positions approved and filled since the
beginning of the fiscal year include one additional secretary and an administrative assistant. Two
other positions, a staff analyst and a program manager were hired(based on Commission
approval) at higher levels than originally anticipated in the budget.
Services and supplies/Capital Outlay. Administrative costs have been increased $34,065
principally as result of the costs of recruitment to fill new and existing vacant positions. To offset
that cost fixed asset acquisitions have been reduced by $45,000. The net reduction in the
Commission's non personnel overhead amounts to 1.1%.
Professional costs
General legal services. Staff significantly reduced expenditures for legal costs in the original
budget. The reduction primarily related to decreased project right of way litigation and eminent
domain activities for route 79 Lamb Canyon, as well as instituting more departmental
accountability.
Special legal services. This category is budgeted for the Commission's bond counsel. Since the
Commission has no near term planed debt issuances, the role of bond counsel is simply for on call
maintenance.
Financial services. The increase reflects the prominent role the Commission's financial advisors
will play in the development of the Strategic Plan. The contract is budgeted to increase by
$75,000 to cover activities through the end of the fiscal year for completion of Phase I and
development of Phase II.
000057
Audit services. The original budget anticipated that a number jurisdictions would assume the
expense for their own audits. However, only two agencies elected to control their audits and bear
the expense for those audits.
Other Professional Services. The increase in other professional services reflects the
Commission's authorization of an increase in the Executive Director's single signature authority.
The revised budget anticipates utilizing up to $250,000 by fiscal year end(although the new
aggregate limit is $500,000). A portion of this amount represents a reclass from Projects-
General(Acct. #81000).
Projects
Projects --General. The reduction of $140,000 is simply a reclass of single signature authorization
amounts to Professional Services-Other(Acct. #65500).
Highway & rail engineering. Expense cost reduction on engineering for Pedley security
surveillance system was awarded at significantly under the engineer's estimate.
Highway & rail construction. Monroe to Rubidoux project($1.1 million) in the Coachella
Valley has been moved to FY2000 pending completion of engineering and resolution of right of
way activities. Construction of La Sierra and West Corona overcrossings are expected to begin in
June 1999. Much of the cost of construction($2.5 million) will occur in FY2000. Track
improvements for the San Jacinto Branchline ($500,000) is undergoing engineering assessments
and construction has been moved to FY2000. The City of Palm Desert has 3 projects which
have fallen behind schedule as follows: The Portola ($330,000) and San Pablo($379,000)
projects are now under construction but will now be completed in FY2000. The Monterey
project($942,000) on Route 111 in Palm Desert will be finishing design by June, so the
construction has been moved to FY2000.
Highway & rail right of way. The original budget for Route 74 assumed $4.1 million for right
of way acquisition. Approximately $3.4 million will now be completed in FY2000. A number of
issues came to light subsequent to the original budget adoption such as community concerns,
Caltrans funding commitment. Right of way appraisals are underway and acquisitions will begin
in the next 2-3 months.
Highway & rail special studies. The budget amount has been augmented to cover CETAP
activities.
SCRRA(Metrolink) capital contribution. No changes are anticipated. Historically once
SCRRA adopts its budget, there have been no changes. The Commission's contribution to
SCRRA is based on the established budget. Any difference between the budget and actuals is
reconeiled subsequent to year end.
Commuter assistance. Other than minor changes to program line items, the Commuter
Assistance Program budget has remained nearly unchanged.
Regional transportation. This line item includes the disbursements to the County and cities for
00005
streets and roads. Due to the increased Measure A revenue estimate, the allocation to local
jurisdictions would automatically increase.
•
•
•
Intergovernmental disbursements. The amount allocated to the Western Riverside Council of
Governments was increased by $70,000.
State Transit Assistance disbursements. The original budget was an estimate of what amount
would be allocated. The actual allocation was completed in August 1998. The budget has been
adjusted to the actual allocation made by the Commission.
Regional arterial. Prior year expenditures came in less than anticipated, so the budget has been
adjusted assuming those amounts will be expended in the current year.
Project maintenance. Call box knockdowns, vandalisms, and miscellaneous repairs experience
to date has been less than anticipated in the budget.
Project operations. Minor increases for radio air time and miscellaneous project supplies.
Project towing. Some minor costs were reclassed to Project Operations and there was a small
downward adjustment in the contract amount for the two operators based on actual negotiated
contracts.
Contingency. Since the total expenditures have minimally declined, the budget contingency has
remained unchanged.
FUND BALANCE
Ending fund balance is anticipated to decline 11.2%, and will be comprised of the following:
Westem County Eastern County Non Measure A Other Total
Reserved:
Highways/Rail $20,135,082 $5,378,554
$25,513,636
Special 5,369,491 5,369,491
Streets & Roads 39,455 39,455
Transit 2,994,175 1,073,572 4,067,747
Debt Service 15,915,062 7,912,425 23,827,487
Loans Receivable 14,774,221 14,774,221
Prepaid Rent 1,026,375 1,026,375
Designated:
Motorist Assistance 2,539,148 2,539,148
Contingency 3,718,328 1,670,628 5,388,956
Unreserved
2, 298, 257 2,298,257
$60,938,559 $12,001,062 $5,533,323 $3,371,829 $84,844,773
000059
Riverside County Transportation Commission
BUDGET COMPARATIVE -BYLINE ITEM
1998-1999 Revised Budget
Line item
SOURCES OF REVENUE:
1998199
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 Revised Dollar Percerill
Actuals Actuals Actuals Budget Budget Changes Change
Operating Revenues:
Sales Tax Revenues 55,413,939 57,888,149 63,496,222 65,625,000 68,500,000 2,875,000 4.4%
Sales Tax TDA Planning & Admin 1,247,000 1,298,000 1,197,000 1,294,500 1,294,500
Sales Tax TDA Transit Allocation 4,453,800 3,800,185 4,124,434 4,350,000 4,153,679 (196,321) -4.5%
STA Transit Allocation 1,670,743 1,812,380 1,982,721 2,360,478 2,360,478
SAFE Fees 1,031,117 1,033,019 1,060,791 1,040,000 1,065,000 25,000 2.4%
Reimbursements: 7,754,264 5,470,049 9,539,357 10,086,920 7,085,420 (3,001,500) -29.8%
Other Revenue 2,727,645 2,724,751 2,546,996 2,993,972 3,217,511 223,539 7.5%
Investment Income 7,260,013 6,030,161 5,004,028 2,937,875 3,060,565 122,690 4.2%
Total Operating Revenues 81,558,521 80,056,694 88,951,549 90,688,745 90,737,153 48,408 0.1%
Debt Proceeds 14,000,000 61,429,211 350,000 350,000 100.0%
Total Sources of Funds 95,558,521 80,056,694 150,380,760 90,688,745 91,087,153 398,408 0.4%
EXPENDITURES:
Personnel Salary & Frin 1,444,804 1,552,075 1,647,688 1,861,106 1,941,600 80,494 4.3%
Services and Supplies 613,958 734,557 777,435 897,895 931,960 34,065 3.8%
90000 Capital Outlay-Equipme 144,538 53,677 306,660 166,200 98,221 (67,979) -40.9%
Professional Costs:
65100 General Legal Services 464,326 1,018,544 394,635 325,000 325,000
65200 Special Legal Services 14,295 49,697 20,529 25,000 10,000 (15,000) -60.0%
65300 Financial Services 104,649 74,864 54,834 97,500 170,000 72,500 74.4%
65400 Audit Services 329,456 285,404 388,939 290,000 385,600 95,600 33.0%
65500 Other Professional Sery 414,529 425,208 531,388 649,920 867,920 218,000 33.5%
Total Professional Costs
Projects:
81000 Projects -General 1,404,223 1,011,991 1,859,105 1,833,900 1,693,900 (140,000) -7.6%
81100 Highway & Rail Enginee 1,913,874 1,651,448 1,747,979 2,231,969 2,172,012 (59,957) -2.7%
81300 Highway & Rail Constru 15,097,514 11,570,938 11,513,488 15,413,525 9,770,550 (5,642,975) -36.6%
81400 Highway & Rail ROW 1,950,209 6,182,270 1,579,141 4,568,656 1,300,540 (3,268,116) -71.5%
81500 Highway & Rail Special 347,036 511,729 353,542 235,000 350,000 115,000 48.9%
81600 SCRRA Capital Contrib 1,377,400 1,234,386 1,316,099 1,150,000 1,150,000
85000 Commuter Assistance 999,108 978,937 1,141,427 1,391,920 1,378,920 (13,000) -0.9%
86000 Special Projects
86100 Regional Transportatio 26,459,937 27,630,703 30,466,257 31,079,157 32,495,176 1,416,019 4.6%
86200 LTF Disbursements 351,215 305,095 309,000 327,295 397,295 70,000 21.4%
86300 STA Disbursements 1,026,000 1,269,583 1,535,401 2,746,194 2,186,116 (560,078) -20.4%
86400 Regional Arterial 24,724,468 23,113,312 21,035,529 7,895,150 10,068,505 2,173,355 27.5%
87000 Project Maintenance 447,773 557,317 1,064,975 597,294 550,094 (47,200) -7.9%
87100 Project Operations 657,585 798,163 756,036 1,106,127 1,129,787 23,660 2.1%
87200 Project Towing 514,558 545,312 523,458 679,628 657,800 (21,828) -3.2%
Total Projects Costs 77,270.900 77.361.184 75.9M 417 7+ lgg 015 65,300,695 (5,955,120) -5.a,'o•
1,327,255 1,853,717 1,390,325 1,387,420 1,758,520 371,100 26.7%
:3ij
BUDGET COMPARATIVE -BY LINE ITEM
19984999 Revised Budget
1995/96 1996/97
Actuals Actuals
cxpenairures oerore aisrnbutions
and operating transfers
97000 Operating Transfer
Total Expenditures
Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues
Over Expenditures
Contingency
Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues
Over Expenditures After Cont
Fund Balance, July 1
Ending Fund Balance
•
•
80,801,455
24,601,813
105,403,268
81,555,210
25, 242, 712
106,797,922
1997/98 1998/99
Actuals Budget
79,323,545
75,343,579
154,667,124
75,568,436
30,378,913
105,947,349
(9,844,747) (26,741,228) (4,286,364) (15,258,604)
(1,502,000)
(9,844,747) (26,741,228) (4,286,364) (16,760,604)
136,515,170 126,670,423 99,929,195 81,381,561
126,670,423 99,929,195 95,642,831 64,620,957
1998/99
Revised
Budget
70, 030, 996
30,352, 217
100,383,213
Dollar Percent
Changes Change
(5,537,440) -7.3i
(26,696) -0.1°
(5,564,136) -5.3%
(9,296,060) 5,962,544 -39.1
(1,502,000)
(10,798,060) 5,962,544 -35.6%
95, 642, 831 14, 261,270 17.5%
84,844,771 20,223,814 31.3%
000061
•
AGENDA ITEM 11
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
Measure A Sales Tax Projections
In preparation for the Strategic Plan, the Commission authorized staff to contract with
Ernst & Young to update the Measure A sales tax revenue projection through the year
2009. Attached is the completed projection prepared by E & Y. Staff will use this
projection as the basis for Phase I of the Strategic Plan.
The econometrics model developed by Ernst & Young LLP uses personal income and
the unemployment rate for the Riverside -San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA). Ernst & Young, LLP obtained projections on these two variables from Regional
Financial Associates (RFA) a consulting firm specializing in the development of
comprehensive regional economic models for all MSA's in the United States. RFA's
forecasts utilizes a number of factors including demographic, employment, and
financial. The average annual compounded growth rate is 7.65%.
The following additional assumptions were also used in the development of the
Commission's revenue forecast:
• The state does not change mix of items subject to the sales tax from
what has been included historically.
* The relative sales and property tax rates of Riverside and surrounding
counties does not change from historical levels.
* Inflation for the period of the forecast is assumed to be 3.17%.
The State Board of Equalization's administrative fee is assumed to be
1.5% for the life of the Measure.
Forecast results show Measure A revenues to be $1,122 million in nominal dollars
from 1999 thru 2009. The difference is an increase of $17 million from the 1996
projection. To put that in perspective, for the Western County highway/rail program
that would amount to a difference of $6.5 million.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year
Budget
....................
Year
Included in Program
Budget
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment
Required
Financial Impact Not
Applicable
X
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Budget and Implementation Committee recommend the Commission
receive and file
0063
•
•
•
El ERNST &YOUNG LLP
• Suite 200
3403 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 12'0. 92502
Riverside, CA 92501
Independent Accountant's Report
on Applying Agreed -Upon Procedures
• Phone: 90(1'-i, "'00
Fax: 90q -,S- 8184
Report on Projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues
Assuming Nominal Income, Implicit Price Deflator,
and Unemployment Rate
Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
At your request, we have performed certain agreed -upon procedures, as enumerated
below, with respect to the projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues for the
Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) for the years ending June
30, 1998 through 2009, as presented in Exhibit A. These procedures, which were agreed
to by the Commission, were performed solely to assist the Commission in its
transportation planning process. This agreed -upon procedures engagement was
performed in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants (AICPA). The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the
responsibility of the specified users of the report. Consequently, we make no
representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the
purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose.
Our procedures were as follows:
1. We assisted the Commission in developing an electronic econometric model for
Riverside County Taxable Sales and for Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues,
which is presented in Exhibit A.
2. We assisted the Commission in identifying key factors related to the projection
methodology and assumptions that the Commission used to prepare the projection
of Sales Tax Revenues based on Regional Financial Associates' variables, as
described in the Notes to Exhibit A.
3. We entered data into the model for the Riverside County Taxable Sales and the
related projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues for the years ending
June 30, 1998 through 2009.
Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
000061
J ERNST & YOUNG LLP
4. We performed mathematical calculations and other clerical functions with respect
to information provided by the Commission and tested the projection for
mathematical accuracy. We found no exceptions as a result of these procedures.
We were not engaged to, and did not, perform an examination, the objective of which
would be the expression of an opinion on the accompanying projection of Measure A
Sales Tax Revenues. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on whether the
prospective Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues are presented in conformity with
AICPA presentation guidelines or on whether the underlying assumptions provide a
reasonable basis for the presentation.
Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention
that would have been reported to you. Furthermore, there will usually be differences
between the projected and actual results, because events and circumstances frequently do
not occur as expected, and those differences may be material. We have no responsibility
to update this report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report.
This report is intended solely for the use of Commission management and the Board of
Commissioners and should not be used by those who have not agreed to the procedures
and taken responsibility for the sufficiency of the procedures for their purposes.
However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited.
September 30, 1998
:•.444.4tt you71.1.1'
•
•
00W.:
2
•
•
Exhibit A
Projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues
Years Ending June 30
Year
Projected Measure A Projected Measure A
Revenue Revenue, Net of SBOE expense
($ in thousands) ($ in thousands)
1998 64,145 63,183
1999 69,219 68,181
2000 74,606 73,487
2001 80,981 79,767
2002 87,700 86,385
2003 94,470 93,053
2004 101,502 99,979
2005 108,996 107,361
2006 117,031 115,275
2007 125,521 123,638
2008 134,479 132,462
2009 144,273 142,109
*The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) charges an administrative fee of 1.5% of Measure A Revenue Collected.
3
000066;
Notes to Exhibit A -
Projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues
Introduction and Overview
A 1/2% Measure A Sales Tax over 20 years for transportation purposes was approved by •
the electors of the County of Riverside in November 1988, and was first collected in July
1989. The first collections were remitted by the state of California to the Riverside
County Transportation Commission (Commission) in September 1989. The projection
presents, to the best of management's knowledge and belief, the expected sales tax
revenues to be derived from the 1/2% sales tax imposed during the projection period for
the years ending June 30, 1998 through 2009. Accordingly, the projection reflects the
judgment of the expected conditions of the management of the Commission as of
September 30, 1998, the date of this projection.
The projected Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues include only the expected sales tax
to be derived during the projection period and do not include any operations of the
Commission. Accordingly, the projected Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues are not
intended to be a projection of financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the
Commission.
The assumptions disclosed herein are those that management believes are significant to
the projection. Some assumptions will not materialize and unanticipated events and
circumstances may occur subsequent to the date of this projection. Therefore, actual
earned sales tax revenues may deviate materially from the projected revenues. Should
amending legislation be enacted during the projection period, projection results may be
materially affected.
The Commission will use this projection information to develop its Short Range
Financial Plan for the transportation sales tax program. The projection of taxable sales
for Riverside County and the related Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues and Measure
A Earned Sales Tax Revenues, net of State Board of Equalization (SBOE) expense,
•
•
•
�0OO
4
•
•
•
available to the Commission for the years ending June 30, 1998 through 2009. is
presented in Table 11:
Table 1
Projected Nominal Taxable Sales and Nominal Measure A Revenue
Years Ending June 30
Projected Nominal Projected Measure A Projected Measure A
Year Taxable Sales Revenue Revenue, Net of SBOE expense % Change
($ in thousands) ($ in thousands) ($ in thousands)
1998 12,829,080. 64,145 63,183 N/A
1999 13,843,799 69,219 68,181 7.9%
2000 14,921,258 74,606 73,487 7.8%
2001 16,196,267 80,981 79,767 8.5%
2002 17,540,062 87,700 86,385 8.3%
2003 18,893,953 94,470 93,053 7.7%
2004 20,300,392 101,502 99,979 7.4%
2005 21,799,123 108,996 107,361 7.4%
2006 23,406,104 117,031 115,275 7.4%
2007 25,104,187 125,521 123,638 7.3%
2008 26,895,895 134,479 132,462 7.1%
2009 28,854,604 144,273 142,109 7.3%
Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues are projected by the Commission based upon an
econometric model which relates annual taxable sales figures to total personal income
and the unemployment rate in Riverside County.' Projections of these variables (total
personal income and the unemployment rate) were obtained from Regional Financial
Associates (RFA), a specialty consulting firm which has developed comprehensive
regional economic models for all counties in the United States. The methodology
employed in the development of the econometric model is described in Appendix 1.
RFA specializes in the collection of regional economic data and in providing regional
economic projections that are consistent with both local conditions and overall growth in
the national economy. As is the common practice, RFA's models are based on inflation
adjusted (real) data. The average annual compounded growth rate of taxable sales in
' The State Board of Equalization(SBOE) reports annual taxable sales on a calendar year basis. To derive
amounts for the year ended June 30, the mean value for two successive year end values was used. For
instance, the mean of December 1995 and December 1996 was used as an estimate of the June 1996
fiscal year value.
The inverse of the unemployment rate was used, since mathematical calculations indicated that it is more
closely correlated to taxable sales than the unemployment rate itself. Mathematical calculations
indicated a slight non -linearity in the taxable sales: unemployment rate relationship.
5
000068
Riverside County and related Measure A revenues, as presented in Table 1, was
calculated to be 7.65 percent over the projection period.
Assumptions
There are several important assumptions which underly the taxable sales projection. In
particular, the accuracy of the projection is directly tied to the accuracy of the RFA
projection for the explanatory variables and annual inflation rates. RFA's projections of.
the model's explanatory variables (total personal income and the unemployment rate) and
price level (implicit price deflator) are described in Table 2.
Table 2
Projection Data for Riverside County
Years Ending December 31
(Source: Regional Financial Associates, September 1998)
Year
Nominal Total Implicit Price Unemployment
Personal lncome Deflator(IPD) Rate
(S in Millions) (1992 Dollars) (%)
1998 32,776 112.8 6.6
1999 35,413 115.1 6.6
2000 38,608 118.2 6.5
2001 42,321 121.7 6.5
2002 46,113 125.5 6.6
2003 49,991 129.4 6.7
2004 53,950 133.6 6.7
2005 58,089 137.9 6.6
2006 62,509 142.5 6.5
2007 67,123 147.3 6.4
2008 72,034 152.3 6.3
2009 77,390 157.4 6.1
RFA's projections are derived from an econometric model which links together the major
components (including demographic, employment, financial, and other factors) of the
Riverside County economy. The model is dynamic in that the results for a particular year
are linked to and partially determined by conditions in prior years. The model is also
simultaneous in the sense that it allows feedback effects among/between related variables.
For instance, the effect of higher interest rates would impact, among other things, banking
industry profits and consumer borrowing (and, of course, spending), thereby slowing
U00069
6
employment growth and lowering economic activity. The impacts over time of such a
change would be captured by the model.
Other assumptions upon which the projection implicitly relies include the following:
• The list of products/items which are subject to sales tax in Riverside County during
the projection period (1998 through 2009) is the same as for the historical period;
• Relative sales and property tax rates in Riverside and neighboring counties remain at
levels observed during the historical period; and
• An administrative fee of 1.5% of sales taxes received by the Commission is allocated
during the projection period for administrative expenses paid to the SBOE.
7
000070
•
Appendix 1
Summary of Econometric Model Development
•
•
000071
Methodology
•
•
The projection methodology employed the standard econometric approach whereby:
• Explanatory variables correlated with taxable sales are identified;
• Correlations between these (explanatory) variables and taxable sales are measured via
statistical methods; and
• Estimated correlations between explanatory variables and taxable sales are used to
project future taxable sales given projections for the explanatory variables.
Estimation of Relationship Between Taxable Sales and Explanatory Variables
In order to develop the model for projecting taxable sales in Riverside County, the
correlations between taxable sales and a number of potential independent (explanatory)
variables were measured. The variables which were considered and rejected included the
working age population and interest rates. A very high percentage of the variation in
taxable sales over time were found to be correlated with changes in total personal income
and the unemployment rate. The following model (Equation 1) yielded the best results
based on data for the years 1980 through 1996:
(1) Real Taxable Sales{in thousands}= -465,641 + 345.98 * Real Total Personal Income{in
millions} + 16,333,357* (1/Unemployment Rate)
Real (inflation -adjusted) taxable sales data for Riverside County were obtained from the
California State Board of Equalization (SBOE). RFA provided the personal income and
the unemployment rate figures. The theoretical justification for including each of these
variables is as follows:
Total personal income includes wages, salaries, and benefits earned from all sources.
The positive correlation between taxable sales and the income level of local
customers is due to the fact that spending rises with the level of income.
• The relationship, from a theoretical point of view, between the unemployment rate
and taxable sales is perhaps less clear. Of course, as the unemployment rate rises,
total personal income would be expected to decline to some extent since
unemployment benefits are likely to be lower than the wages, salaries, and benefits
9
000072
earned by an employed worker. Thus, these explanatory variables are somewhat
correlated with one another'. Ideally, explanatory variables that are not correlated are
preferred; however, given the importance of employment trends on the perceptions of
workers regarding the stability/security of their own employment status, the
unemployment rate was included.
In effect, the unemployment rate serves as an indicator of consumer confidence, with
rising (falling) rates of unemployment leading to sentiments of decreasing
(increasing) job security. Because consumer spending, and hence taxable sales, is
largely driven by consumer confidence, the independent effect of the unemployment
rate on taxable sales was deemed to be important and, therefore, was built into the
model. The finding that the coefficient on the inverse of the unemployment rate in
Equation 1 is positive and statistically significant supports this view.
Statistical analysis showed that inclusion of each of these explanatory variables (total
personal income and the unemployment rate) adds significantly to the accuracy of the
model in projecting taxable sales. Alternative functional forms of Equation 1 were tested,
such as using the logarithms of these variables in order to capture underlying non-
linearities among the variables or allowing the impact of each variable to be spread over
time (i.e., to determine whether changes in the explanatory variables in one period impact
taxable sales in later periods). The results of this testing indicated that the model
described above is strongly supported on statistical grounds and is likely to yield the most
accurate projections of taxable sales levels.
Assessment of the Model's Projection Ability
The goodness of fit of the model can be assessed in a number of ways. One means of
measuring this fit is by examination of a variety of statistical results associated with the
estimated equation. For instance, the squared correlation coefficient (commonly referred
to as the R2 statistic) represents the percentage of the variation in taxable sales that is
explained by the independent variables in the equation. For the years 1980 through 1996,
this R2 statistic reveals that over 99 percent of changes in taxable sales in Riverside
County were correlated with changes in personal income and the unemployment rate.
' This correlation was measured and did not result in any serious consequence.
10
t�00It .` . '
•
•
•
Another measure of the model's goodness of fit is the "t -statistic" associated with each
estimated coefficient. These t -statistics are used to measure the probability that the
estimated coefficients are different than zero, i.e., that a significant relationship exists
between the variable in question and taxable sales. The larger the t -statistic. the higher
the probability that the estimated coefficient is non -zero. For the coefficients in
Equation 1, the calculated t -statistics on total personal income and the unemployment
rate (38.5 and 8.7. respectively) indicate that the results are statistically significant. In
fact. the probability that either coefficient is actually zero is less than one percent.
The model's ability to project real taxable sales is presented in Figure 1 by comparing the
actual taxable sales for Riverside County versus projected (predicted) values:
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
Figure 1: Real Taxable Sales (1997$)
Projected vs. Actual (Years Ended December 31)
$0
CO
Cr)
oor
Actual Real Sales
Projected Real Sales
1 11
N R CO CO 0 N CO CO 0 N V CO CO
O CO M M O c Cn CT O O O O O O
O 0) 0) CO 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) . 0 0 O 0 0
N N (\J ( (
Year
As described in Table 3 below, for the years 1980 through 1996. the model's prediction
error ranged from -3.8 percent to 2.8 percent.
This is sometimes referred to as the coefficient being "statistically significant" --that is. being
significantly different from zero.
11
000071
Table 3
Real Taxable Sales (1997$): Predicted vs. Actual
Years Ended December 31
Actual Real Projected Real Projected Projected
Year Taxable Sales Taxable Sales Less Actual Less Actual
(5 in thousands) (5 in thousands) (%)
1980 6,257,010 6,261,413 4,403 0.1%
1981 6,224,243 6,327,222 102,979 1.6%
1982 5,935,003 5,931,842 -3,161 -0.1%
1983 6,483,647 6,278,946 -204,701 -3.3%
1984 7,454,270 7,356,917 -97,353 -1.3%
1985 7,968,399 7,966,357 -2,042 0.0%
1986 8,541,070 8,785,241 244,171 2.8%
1987 9,303,997 9,535,105 231,108 2.4%
1988 10,012,772 10,078,874 66,102 0.7%
1989 11,124,807 10,717,159 -407,648 -3.8%
1990 11,459,959 11,168,423 -291,536 -2.6%
1991 10,291,977 10,320,280 28,303 0.3%
1992 10,316,270 10,161,330 -154,940 -1.5%
1993 10,097,136 10,205,303 108,167 1.1%
1994 10,440,198 10,510,596 70,398 0.7%
1995 10,722,994 10,903,233 180,239 1.7%
1996 11,352,094 11,477,605 125,511 1.1%
Using Estimated Coefficients to Project Tax Revenue
In order to project real (1997$) taxable sales, the estimated coefficients described above
were applied to projected values of the explanatory variables. In other words, the
coefficients in Equation 1 above have been multiplied by annual projected values for each
of the explanatory variables for the years 1998 through 2009, as provided by RFA. To
determine nominal taxable sales, the real taxable sales figure was multiplied by a factor
that takes into account the rate of inflation.' In order to estimate associated sales tax
revenue (net of SBOE charges), the projected taxable sales figure was multiplied by
0.4925 percent. 6
5 This factor is simply the value of the implicit price deflator for that year divided by the implicit price
deflator value in 1997
6 This multiplier assumes that the Measure A sales tax revenue is 0.5 percent of sales and that the SBOE
retains 1.5 percent of Measure A revenue collected. [0.004925 = 0.005 (1-0.015)]
0000
12
Sensitivity Analysis
•
•
The projection depends on a number of critical assumptions. As a result, the impacts on
projected Measure A revenues of small differences in projected personal income growth
and the inflation rate (versus the RFA forecast shown in Table 2) have been calculated.
Figures 2 and 3, respectively, summarize the impact on projected taxable sales in
Riverside County of the following scenarios:
• Total real personal income growth is one percent higher or lower than what RFA
predicts for 1997-2009.
• Average inflation rate is one percentage point higher or lower than what RFA predicts
for 1997-2009.
The data underlying Figures 2 and 3 are presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively, which
are included in Appendix 2.
13
U0007r3
Figure 2: Projected Measure A Revenue, Net of SBOE Expense —
Total Personal Income Sensitivity (Years Ending June 30)
($ in thousands)
$160,000
$150,000
$140,000
$130,000
$120,000
$110,000
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
0)
0)
m
_ _ . . . . Wdh real income growth 1 percent below
RFA estimate
___.._ With RFA real income grow th estenate
. _ . A._ . With real income growth 1 percent above 1
RFA esti hate 4
I.4
.
•"
c"
• .
CO
0)
0)
CI) 0
0) O
- N
O
O
N
O
0
N
O
O
N
Year
O O O O 0 O
N N N N N N
Figure 3: Projected Measure A Revenue, Net of SBOE Expense —
Inflation Rate Sensitivity (Years Ending June 30)
(5 in thousands)
$170,000
$160,000
$150,000
$140,000
$130,000
$120,000
$110,000
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
0)
0)
Q)
_ ....... With inflation rate one percentage point
below RFA estimate 1
. - With RFA inflation estimate
. . .
ate
IthInIonePercta9oInt: >/
m
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0
0
O
N
O
O
O
O
N
0
0
0
N
Year
Tr CD • OD
0 0
NO N 0 N 0 O
000077
14
Conclusions
•
•
•
Projections of Riverside County taxable sales are not available directly from any known
sources. In order to develop such projections, an econometric model was developed to
estimate the relationship between taxable sales in Riverside County and other variables —
the County's unemployment rate and total personal income — for which independent
projections have been made. Specifically, this model has been used, in conjunction with
forecasts of related variables made by Regional Financial Associates, to project Riverside
County Taxable Sales and Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues for the Riverside
County Transportation Commission.
The model's statistical properties indicate that the estimated relationships between
taxable sales and the explanatory variables have been approximately determined. The
RFA projection is the best available estimate of the variables that were found to be highly
correlated with taxable sales.
As with any (especially long-term) projection, there is the risk that actual results will
differ from the projection, and the differences could be material.
15
(iO(W)7.54
Appendix 2
Summary Tables of Projected Measure A Revenue
Under Different Scenarios
16
(JU(l+! `, `i
•
•
•
Table 4
Projected Nominal Measure A Revenue (Net of SBOE Expense)
Under Different Real Personal Income Growth Rates
Years Ending June 30
($ in thousands)
With Real Income With RFA Income With Real Income
Year Growth Rate 1% Lower than Growth Rate Growth Rate 1% Higher than
RFA Estimate Estimate RFA Estimate
1998 62,415 63,183 63,956
1999 66,813 68,181 69,569
2000 71,420 73,487 75,605
2001 76,879 79,767 82,753
2002 82,549 86,385 90,389
2003 88,148 93,053 98,221
2004 93,882 99,979 106,466
2005 99,937 107,361 115,334
2006 106,375 115,275 124,925
2007 113,102 123,638 135,172
2008 120,120 132,462 146,105
2009 127,758 142,109 158,125
Table 5
Projected Nominal Measure A Revenue (Net of SBOE Expense)
Under Different Inflation Rates
Years Ending June 30
($ in thousands)
With RFA With RFA With RFA
Year
Inflation Rate Inflation Rate Inflation Rate
Minus 1 Percentage Point Estimate Plus 1 Percentage Point
1998 62,240 63,183 64,133
1999 66,504 68,181 69,885
2000 70,978 73,487 76,062
2001 76,293 79,767 83,364
2002 81,822 86,385 91,156
2003 87,284 93,053 99,143
2004 92,873 99,979 107,555
2005 98,763 107,361 116,615
2006 105,017 115,275 126,423
2007 111,547 123,638 136,907
2008 118,352 132,462 148,097
2009 125,742 142,109 160,420
17
000080